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 08-0455
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
691-5902
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: THIRD QUARTER 2007
In September 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 8.6 percent, compared with national job growth of 0.9 percent. Clayton
County, Ga., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2007, with an
increase of 23.9 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 4.3 percent over the same time span.
Chart 1. Top ranking large counties in percent grow th in
employment, September 2007
(U.S. av erage = 0.9 percent)
C har t 2 . T o p r anking lar g e co unt ies b y p er cent g r o wt h i n
aver ag e weekl y wag es, t hi r d q uar t er 2 0 0 7
( U .S. aver ag e = 4 .3 p er cent )
P e rc e nt
P e r c e nt
20
30
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
Orleans, La.
Fo rt B end,
Texas
Williamso n,
Tenn.
Wake, N.C.
Utah, Utah
Clayt on, Ga.
Muscogee, Ga.
Sant a Clar a,
Rock Island, Ill.
Davidson, Tenn.
Calif .
Of the 328 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2006 annual average employment, 130 had
over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (0.9 percent) in September 2007; 179
large counties experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average
weekly wages was higher than the national average (4.3 percent) in 101 of the largest U.S. counties, but was
below the national average in 207 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 number of employer reports
surpassed the 9.0 million mark this quarter; the number of employer reports crossed the 8.0 million mark in third
quarter 2001. The employer reports in third quarter 2007 cover 136.2 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. September 2007 employment and 2007 third-quarter average
2
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by September 2007 employment, September 2006-07 employment
growth, and September 2006-07 percent growth in employment
Employment in large counties
September 2007 employment
(thousands)
United States
136,246.9
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Orange, Calif.
Dallas, Texas
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
4,191.6
2,541.5
2,350.3
2,028.0
1,825.1
1,503.8
1,487.3
1,325.9
1,182.8
1,012.4
Growth in employment,
September 2006-07
(thousands)
United States
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Dallas, Texas
King, Wash.
Wake, N.C.
Mecklenburg, N.C.
Tarrant, Texas
Salt Lake, Utah
Bexar, Texas
San Francisco, Calif.
Percent growth in employment,
September 2006-07
1,216.7
74.7
46.8
32.7
26.6
22.3
21.8
19.8
19.5
18.1
18.0
United States
0.9
Orleans, La.
Fort Bend, Texas
Williamson, Tenn.
Wake, N.C.
Utah, Utah
Hidalgo, Texas
Snohomish, Wash.
Mecklenburg, N.C.
Charleston, S.C.
Harris, Texas
Arlington, Va.
8.6
7.1
5.8
5.2
5.0
4.5
4.4
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
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 and second quarter 2007 also are available on the BLS Web
site. Updated data for first and second quarter 2007 and preliminary data for third quarter 2007 will be available
later in April on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In September 2007, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 136.2 million, up by 0.9
percent from September 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 742,807 over
the year, accounting for 61.1 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 217 of the
large counties from September 2006 to September 2007. Orleans County, La., had the largest over-the-year
percentage increase in employment (8.6 percent). Fort Bend, Texas, had the next largest increase, 7.1 percent,
followed by the counties of Williamson, Tenn. (5.8 percent), Wake, N.C. (5.2 percent), and Utah, Utah (5.0
percent). The large employment gains in Orleans County 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 86 counties from September 2006 to September 2007. The largest percentage decline
in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-5.7 percent). Collier, Fla., had the next largest employment
decline (-5.4 percent), followed by the counties of Sarasota, Fla. (-4.3 percent), Manatee, Fla. (-4.2 percent), and
Atlantic, N.J. (-3.8 percent).
The largest gains in the level of employment from September 2006 to September 2007 were recorded in the
counties of Harris, Texas (74,700), New York, N.Y. (46,800), Dallas, Texas (32,700), King, Wash. (26,600), and
Wake, N.C. (22,300). (See table A.) The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Orange, Calif.
(-19,100), followed by the counties of Wayne, Mich. (-18,000), Oakland, Mich. (-9,600), Pinellas, Fla. (-9,500),
and Macomb, Mich. (-9,400).
3
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by third quarter 2007 average weekly wages, third quarter 2006-07
growth in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2006-07 percent growth in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
third quarter 2007
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
San Mateo, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Somerset, N.J.
Growth in average weekly
wage, third quarter 2006-07
$818
$1,585
1,544
1,376
1,364
1,322
1,299
1,298
1,286
1,243
1,210
United States
Clayton, Ga.
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Suffolk, Mass.
Rock Island, Ill.
King, Wash.
Muscogee, Ga.
Davidson, Tenn.
Washington, D.C.
Percent growth in average
weekly wage, third
quarter 2006-07
$34
$177
167
123
100
93
87
84
75
72
69
United States
Clayton, Ga.
Muscogee, Ga.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Rock Island, Ill.
Davidson, Tenn.
Weld, Colo.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Kitsap, Wash.
Butler, Ohio
4.3
23.9
12.1
11.8
11.5
9.1
8.7
8.7
8.3
8.3
8.1
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2007 was $818. Average weekly wages were higher
than the national average in 112 of the largest 328 U.S. counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among
the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,585. New York County, N.Y., was second
with an average weekly wage of $1,544, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,376), Arlington, Va. ($1,364), and
San Mateo, Calif. ($1,322). (See table B.)
There were 215 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the third quarter of
2007. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($518), followed by the counties
of Hidalgo, Texas ($529), Horry, S.C. ($536), Webb, Texas ($548), and Yakima, Wash. ($568). (See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.3 percent. Among the largest counties, Clayton
County, Ga., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 23.9 percent from the third
quarter of 2006. Muscogee, Ga., was second with growth of 12.1 percent, followed by the counties of Santa Clara,
Calif. (11.8 percent), Rock Island, Ill. (11.5 percent), and Davidson, Tenn. (9.1 percent).
Ten large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Among the five largest
decreases in wages, Trumbull, Ohio, had the greatest decline (-10.6 percent), followed by the counties of
Vanderburgh, Ind. (-6.1 percent), Genesee, Mich. (-4.0 percent), Saginaw, Mich. (-3.1 percent), and Montgomery,
Ohio (-3.0 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Seven of the 10 largest counties (based on 2006 annual average employment levels) experienced over-theyear percent increases in employment in September 2007. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in
employment among the 10 largest counties with a 3.8 percent increase. Within Harris County, the largest gains in
employment were in construction (5.5 percent) and education and health services (5.4 percent). King, Wash., had
the next largest increase in employment, 2.3 percent, followed by Dallas, Texas (2.2 percent). September
employment levels remained stable over the year in both San Diego, Calif., and Cook, Ill. (0.0 percent each).
4
Orange, Calif., experienced a 1.3 percent decrease in employment over the year. Within Orange County, five
industry groups experienced employment declines, with financial activities experiencing the largest decline, -9.8
percent. (See table 2.)
Each of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. New York, N.Y.,
had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 8.7 percent. Within New York
County, average weekly wages increased the most in the financial activities industry (16.3 percent), followed by
the natural resources and mining industry (11.8 percent). Because natural resources and mining is a small industry
in New York County, its over-the-year average weekly wage growth had little impact on the county’s overall
average weekly wage growth. King, Wash., was second in wage growth with a gain of 8.0 percent, followed by
Harris, Texas (6.7 percent). The smallest wage gain among the 10 largest counties occurred in Orange, Calif. (2.6
percent), followed by Cook, Ill. (3.3 percent), and Los Angeles, Calif. (3.4 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows September 2007 employment and the 2007 third 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 September 2007 ranged from approximately 4.19 million in Los
Angeles County, Calif., to 43,900 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties
was in New York, N.Y. ($1,544), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($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 fourth quarter 2007 is scheduled to be released on Thursday,
July 24, 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 9.0 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.
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.
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.
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,
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 submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers
on behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies which still report directly to the individual SWA. 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 9.0 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.
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 4-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 is 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,
third quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,012.8
136,246.9
0.9
–
$818
4.3
–
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
99.3
21.0
5.5
14.7
363.6
178.8
173.6
138.6
86.8
149.2
1,825.1
373.9
96.0
250.9
( 7)
3.4
1.5
0.0
1.8
0.2
0.2
( 7)
1.1
0.6
–
14
84
218
73
200
200
–
112
157
837
896
697
692
701
894
822
731
713
751
( 7)
3.7
0.6
3.3
3.7
5.5
3.8
( 7)
3.6
4.3
–
149
298
193
149
48
140
–
168
102
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Butte, CA ...........................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
5.7
49.8
7.7
28.2
29.3
17.5
401.9
11.5
12.3
95.3
93.0
690.8
77.2
345.5
373.9
291.6
4,191.6
109.1
182.0
1,503.8
-0.2
-0.5
-1.1
-1.0
1.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
-1.3
234
257
282
278
112
200
181
157
168
289
663
1,080
641
1,003
643
720
925
1,021
738
924
3.3
2.1
6.3
2.8
3.7
7.0
3.4
4.5
6.2
2.6
193
261
27
223
149
15
188
92
32
236
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 .............
10.6
43.8
51.8
46.6
92.7
44.8
17.4
9.2
23.0
13.7
138.9
629.5
640.7
661.5
1,325.9
563.4
231.2
107.0
343.1
189.2
-0.2
-1.4
-0.3
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.7
1.4
1.2
2.0
234
291
239
218
218
17
146
93
106
57
810
702
905
724
887
1,286
715
689
1,322
780
4.1
3.7
3.5
3.3
4.4
3.4
4.1
3.0
3.6
( 7)
117
149
177
193
98
188
117
211
168
–
Santa Clara, CA .................
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
56.9
8.7
9.8
18.0
14.3
9.0
21.9
5.6
9.5
20.1
902.3
103.6
129.3
196.4
179.2
153.6
317.2
104.2
155.7
284.0
1.7
1.0
0.1
0.8
-1.1
0.6
-0.5
( 7)
0.5
2.7
76
122
211
137
282
157
257
–
168
35
1,585
750
788
814
696
585
840
759
768
960
11.8
-1.3
3.4
3.8
3.1
3.7
2.4
0.1
3.4
0.4
3
310
188
140
204
149
248
305
188
303
Boulder, CO .......................
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
13.0
26.0
9.6
18.0
19.2
10.4
6.1
32.8
25.4
22.6
161.1
448.4
91.7
249.4
212.5
133.6
84.6
423.7
504.9
367.7
2.3
2.7
2.9
1.5
1.3
3.0
3.1
1.4
0.8
0.2
47
35
32
84
100
23
20
93
137
200
989
995
832
762
841
753
727
1,298
1,002
883
4.0
0.9
5.9
4.0
3.7
3.9
8.7
8.3
6.3
5.5
125
293
36
125
149
134
6
8
27
48
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 .................
6.9
18.8
32.1
6.6
14.8
65.0
12.5
26.2
8.0
36.9
131.0
282.3
679.0
128.8
201.6
747.5
124.0
465.1
130.8
639.0
0.8
-0.4
0.6
1.7
-2.5
-0.4
-5.4
0.4
-0.1
0.0
137
248
157
76
303
248
314
181
230
218
$855
955
1,376
689
771
774
748
833
649
778
5.6
0.0
5.3
1.6
4.8
2.8
3.5
6.7
3.5
2.5
45
306
60
279
79
223
177
18
177
240
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
7.2
19.6
8.2
9.0
8.4
86.4
6.2
36.3
50.2
9.9
82.9
215.4
146.3
121.7
101.5
1,012.4
81.9
686.4
547.0
99.2
0.3
-3.7
-0.2
-4.2
-2.3
0.4
-2.8
1.0
0.1
-0.9
194
310
234
312
301
181
306
122
211
275
595
703
724
653
594
826
675
756
807
584
1.0
2.0
4.3
2.7
1.7
4.3
5.0
3.8
6.3
-0.5
292
267
102
228
274
102
67
140
27
308
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
31.5
12.6
15.1
15.1
14.0
4.7
7.5
4.4
20.5
16.3
434.4
202.2
151.6
177.8
165.1
83.3
137.6
114.9
319.3
296.6
-2.1
-1.3
-4.3
-0.6
-1.4
0.5
2.7
1.3
0.8
-0.4
299
289
313
263
291
168
35
100
137
248
709
655
701
708
594
658
705
919
874
875
4.3
1.2
3.7
1.7
2.4
2.5
4.1
23.9
0.5
2.6
102
288
149
274
248
240
117
1
302
236
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
40.0
23.6
4.8
4.9
24.6
15.2
4.1
138.0
35.6
12.6
762.2
327.2
97.1
101.9
451.0
213.9
92.4
2,541.5
600.0
212.7
1.2
1.9
-1.1
-0.4
-0.4
1.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
-0.5
106
67
282
248
248
112
146
218
218
257
1,058
869
696
709
786
749
705
961
980
742
2.9
6.8
12.1
4.1
5.8
2.9
4.8
3.3
5.8
2.8
216
17
2
117
40
216
79
193
40
223
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
20.8
8.4
3.6
6.0
4.7
3.5
5.4
5.2
13.3
6.9
338.7
104.8
86.2
96.3
104.7
79.1
96.8
130.3
194.4
138.3
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.7
0.0
3.0
1.6
112
112
137
181
122
84
146
218
23
81
972
713
782
663
774
844
673
818
728
712
2.9
2.3
1.8
1.5
3.3
11.5
4.8
4.3
1.4
2.3
216
254
272
283
193
4
79
102
284
254
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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
7.5
10.2
24.1
6.0
3.2
4.8
6.3
14.7
184.4
126.0
111.5
195.1
584.8
125.5
77.0
107.3
123.7
274.6
-0.5
-0.9
( 7)
-0.3
1.2
0.0
0.4
-1.5
2.1
2.0
257
275
–
239
106
218
181
296
56
57
$692
681
802
734
830
684
707
678
791
804
1.6
2.1
( 7)
4.9
2.1
2.7
1.7
-6.1
6.5
2.9
279
261
–
71
261
228
274
315
23
216
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
5.2
20.2
12.1
4.8
3.2
9.1
22.2
7.3
4.8
13.9
89.4
319.2
258.5
95.1
81.8
174.9
437.5
126.6
86.0
264.4
0.4
2.4
2.4
1.6
1.8
0.7
1.2
1.1
0.4
1.9
181
44
44
81
73
146
106
112
181
67
680
830
737
690
779
734
791
678
696
742
4.5
2.0
1.2
2.2
0.9
2.8
2.1
1.3
5.0
5.4
92
267
288
259
293
223
261
287
67
55
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
13.8
8.5
10.2
12.3
14.4
21.7
6.0
5.7
8.5
32.7
197.0
135.5
166.2
174.7
233.5
377.0
95.6
84.3
147.7
460.9
1.2
3.1
8.6
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.9
-0.3
106
20
1
131
168
157
146
194
131
239
754
778
887
738
875
836
796
811
945
1,090
3.7
5.7
1.1
3.8
3.7
4.0
5.6
6.7
3.7
5.1
149
44
290
140
149
125
45
18
149
64
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
15.6
14.1
9.2
15.6
20.8
14.2
47.5
22.2
13.8
21.8
317.6
346.3
98.0
221.2
301.5
200.5
818.3
326.0
179.1
587.0
1.2
0.5
0.3
-0.6
0.2
-0.6
1.4
1.1
-0.3
2.0
106
168
194
263
200
263
93
112
239
57
901
937
690
724
881
760
1,176
960
760
1,299
3.9
3.1
3.4
4.5
4.3
3.5
5.9
1.6
2.6
7.7
134
204
188
92
102
177
36
279
236
13
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
20.8
7.9
6.8
5.5
14.2
17.8
39.1
5.7
4.3
8.0
322.3
142.5
161.6
115.7
340.9
315.2
692.0
112.3
86.5
191.6
0.2
-3.2
-0.7
-1.1
-0.8
-2.9
-1.4
-2.6
-2.9
-1.9
200
309
271
282
273
307
291
304
307
298
833
736
781
737
735
877
958
711
697
954
5.3
-4.0
-1.1
3.5
1.1
4.8
3.1
1.9
-3.1
4.5
60
314
309
177
290
79
204
271
313
92
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ..........................
32.2
8.2
11.1
44.3
3.7
16.1
6.2
4.7
4.5
6.4
747.7
116.7
177.2
849.5
91.7
337.0
98.4
82.8
87.4
127.8
-2.4
0.6
1.9
0.8
1.4
0.9
2.0
3.0
2.0
-0.3
302
157
67
137
93
131
57
23
57
239
$930
769
772
1,043
904
896
667
657
643
717
3.1
2.9
2.1
5.4
3.2
5.5
4.2
4.0
2.7
3.0
204
216
261
55
199
48
110
125
228
211
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
33.3
8.5
15.7
8.0
48.8
83.3
91.2
158.8
371.0
124.7
611.9
234.2
318.8
158.0
920.2
0.7
3.0
3.0
1.3
0.9
0.5
-1.0
1.0
( 7)
-0.3
146
23
23
100
131
168
278
122
–
239
633
779
637
826
694
873
887
782
666
796
2.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
2.4
6.3
1.4
6.5
2.5
5.9
248
177
168
168
248
27
284
23
240
36
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
14.4
12.5
11.1
7.1
34.9
11.5
13.3
21.5
6.3
14.0
220.6
197.9
140.7
148.5
454.2
203.9
210.1
357.4
104.2
237.7
-0.4
0.4
0.0
-3.8
0.3
-0.2
-1.0
-0.9
0.1
0.6
248
181
218
311
194
234
278
275
211
157
776
899
783
719
1,009
871
833
1,022
746
1,110
3.7
4.4
2.5
4.1
3.9
3.1
4.0
3.2
5.1
4.2
149
98
240
117
134
204
125
199
64
110
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.3
22.1
21.1
18.3
12.6
12.7
10.3
15.3
17.6
10.0
223.9
411.0
257.5
286.1
153.6
176.6
174.1
234.8
335.2
227.4
0.7
1.1
-0.7
-1.1
0.2
-1.1
-0.6
( 7)
0.5
0.2
146
112
271
282
200
282
263
–
168
200
1,027
996
874
1,142
679
853
1,210
1,056
732
830
5.5
-0.1
4.9
0.4
2.0
2.4
5.8
( 7)
3.1
4.3
48
307
71
303
267
248
40
–
204
102
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
8.4
23.5
45.2
18.0
52.5
118.0
5.3
12.8
221.9
95.8
116.8
457.5
469.0
379.3
603.4
2,350.3
109.9
254.6
0.7
1.6
-1.4
0.5
1.5
-0.3
0.1
2.0
-0.2
1.4
146
81
291
168
84
239
211
57
234
93
813
662
841
715
718
805
914
1,544
652
756
2.5
2.5
2.9
3.0
4.1
3.1
5.2
8.7
4.0
2.7
240
240
216
211
117
204
63
6
125
228
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ................
10.0
42.9
8.7
9.8
5.4
50.3
36.5
8.0
4.6
6.2
131.3
503.3
92.9
115.9
76.6
626.9
420.5
117.6
89.1
118.1
0.7
2.6
0.8
2.0
0.6
0.9
1.4
2.9
0.7
1.1
146
39
137
57
157
131
93
32
146
112
$686
814
748
870
694
891
1,068
648
633
650
1.6
4.1
4.8
3.8
4.0
4.7
3.8
3.7
3.6
7.4
279
117
79
140
125
86
140
149
168
14
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
6.9
9.2
14.7
32.2
7.5
28.0
5.8
7.3
37.6
29.5
185.5
185.6
282.9
572.6
107.0
453.5
98.5
148.7
747.6
690.2
3.7
0.5
2.2
4.0
3.5
5.2
2.4
1.8
-0.8
1.3
12
168
51
8
13
4
44
73
273
100
1,105
756
722
923
675
808
688
751
832
831
6.5
0.9
2.1
0.8
5.5
3.5
6.2
8.1
3.6
3.2
23
293
261
296
48
177
32
10
168
199
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
24.0
6.7
6.3
10.6
6.3
12.8
9.0
14.9
4.7
23.5
522.0
100.9
99.6
223.4
105.6
268.7
162.8
274.2
78.8
424.8
0.4
0.2
-2.7
-1.0
0.5
-2.1
-0.3
-0.1
-5.7
1.0
181
200
305
278
168
299
239
230
315
122
890
669
701
732
600
754
643
740
690
748
2.2
3.7
4.5
1.7
2.7
-3.0
1.7
3.5
-10.6
5.6
259
149
92
274
228
312
274
177
316
45
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
19.4
12.7
6.7
11.1
9.4
27.4
16.1
35.4
9.1
20.2
348.2
151.0
86.2
151.8
143.9
451.1
251.8
686.2
168.6
265.3
2.3
1.7
0.3
0.8
1.3
2.5
0.4
0.6
-0.5
0.2
47
76
194
137
100
42
181
157
257
200
743
763
627
660
661
840
967
864
764
787
5.4
3.2
4.7
3.9
3.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
6.7
2.7
55
199
86
134
193
92
86
71
18
228
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
7.3
5.8
12.3
8.6
7.9
80.3
241.5
126.8
182.1
211.1
128.8
101.8
230.2
178.5
142.8
2.2
2.3
0.1
-0.4
1.1
0.1
-0.4
0.4
0.0
0.1
51
47
211
248
112
211
248
181
218
211
806
1,015
762
804
844
657
629
702
837
653
( 7)
( 7)
3.7
5.0
2.6
4.0
2.4
2.0
7.0
4.8
–
–
149
67
236
125
248
267
15
79
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ....................
27.3
6.5
30.3
5.3
9.5
9.1
5.7
18.2
12.0
12.4
486.8
100.5
630.8
79.5
137.7
178.4
82.0
288.3
212.7
238.2
0.5
1.0
-0.3
0.4
-0.6
1.4
-0.6
-1.5
3.8
1.9
168
122
239
181
263
93
263
296
9
67
$995
717
976
722
656
728
725
779
703
707
3.5
2.3
5.1
0.7
0.6
4.7
4.2
-2.4
4.8
3.5
177
254
64
297
298
86
110
311
79
177
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
8.3
5.6
9.2
6.0
6.3
18.5
8.7
11.1
4.2
20.1
119.3
96.5
216.7
119.9
115.5
449.0
194.8
229.7
100.1
511.0
1.0
2.2
1.5
2.0
2.7
( 7)
-0.1
1.0
0.5
0.2
122
51
84
57
35
–
230
122
168
200
536
640
724
710
695
860
711
695
719
850
3.7
4.6
2.7
2.3
4.4
9.1
3.8
3.7
1.4
4.4
149
91
228
254
98
5
140
149
284
98
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
5.8
4.5
31.9
4.5
3.7
6.5
16.2
67.7
10.2
13.2
86.8
98.6
721.4
85.8
85.3
122.6
283.8
1,487.3
166.1
269.8
5.8
3.0
2.6
3.2
( 7)
0.6
3.2
2.2
3.0
2.0
3
23
39
18
–
157
18
51
23
57
858
644
715
793
629
518
981
1,002
716
593
0.6
4.9
3.5
6.3
( 7)
5.5
5.5
4.2
2.9
4.0
298
71
177
27
–
48
48
110
216
125
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
95.1
10.4
5.8
6.7
4.9
7.8
8.1
5.2
124.6
96.2
2,028.0
211.8
124.5
122.8
105.0
122.1
151.6
92.6
7.1
( 7)
3.8
4.5
1.9
1.0
1.7
( 7)
1.5
0.9
2
–
9
6
67
122
76
–
84
131
854
776
1,015
529
787
616
656
740
709
715
4.3
( 7)
6.7
2.5
0.6
3.0
3.8
3.6
6.0
3.6
102
–
18
240
298
211
140
168
34
168
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
36.4
28.0
4.7
6.7
7.1
38.6
12.9
5.7
5.9
7.5
769.0
572.6
88.3
119.1
104.2
591.0
177.6
95.0
95.8
154.5
2.6
3.1
2.8
( 7)
2.5
3.4
5.0
3.4
-0.4
3.8
39
20
34
–
42
14
5
14
248
9
830
911
548
781
666
771
646
615
812
1,364
2.3
2.7
4.2
( 7)
4.9
5.8
4.9
3.7
4.2
3.6
254
228
110
–
71
40
71
149
110
168
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 .............
7.5
32.9
9.2
8.3
6.9
6.1
5.6
4.0
5.8
7.4
121.3
584.9
180.3
129.0
103.9
99.8
100.2
99.2
143.0
158.2
1.3
0.7
3.0
1.5
-0.6
-1.4
0.5
1.5
0.8
( 7)
100
146
23
84
263
291
168
84
137
–
$748
1,243
833
1,011
755
1,130
662
753
822
945
3.7
5.3
2.5
4.7
6.0
6.4
3.8
5.9
7.9
( 7)
149
60
240
86
34
26
140
36
12
–
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
11.6
11.9
76.3
6.6
20.4
17.7
15.1
6.8
6.9
7.9
177.8
134.0
1,182.8
83.9
278.0
255.0
210.6
99.8
82.7
108.1
0.6
1.5
2.3
-0.1
2.0
4.4
1.9
3.0
2.2
-0.5
157
84
47
230
57
7
67
23
51
257
650
749
1,129
770
755
842
681
782
659
568
4.2
3.7
8.0
8.3
5.4
5.0
4.9
6.7
3.9
5.4
110
149
11
8
55
67
71
18
134
55
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.1
6.7
14.1
21.2
5.0
4.2
13.3
3.8
13.6
108.8
150.4
306.2
497.8
104.8
76.4
236.4
90.4
289.0
0.3
0.0
( 7)
0.0
1.7
-1.1
-0.6
0.4
-2.7
194
218
–
218
76
282
263
181
( 8)
704
719
783
802
712
738
814
765
538
4.1
1.8
( 7)
2.8
4.9
3.2
3.0
3.9
3.5
117
272
–
223
71
199
211
134
( 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,
third quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
9,012.8
8,721.6
124.7
895.5
361.4
1,916.9
144.3
871.8
1,484.6
825.8
726.7
1,162.9
291.2
136,246.9
114,790.8
1,931.5
7,774.4
13,845.4
26,299.2
3,033.1
8,123.2
18,017.6
17,506.6
13,562.6
4,433.8
21,456.1
0.9
0.9
1.7
-1.0
-2.2
1.2
0.0
-0.7
1.7
2.9
1.9
1.2
1.0
$818
810
820
876
987
707
1,274
1,200
998
775
348
531
859
4.3
4.5
7.8
5.7
4.3
3.2
4.6
5.9
6.4
3.6
4.2
4.1
3.2
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 ...................................................
401.9
397.9
0.5
14.3
15.2
55.3
8.8
25.2
43.4
28.2
27.1
179.8
4.0
4,191.6
3,626.2
12.7
160.4
444.7
811.9
216.3
243.7
608.9
480.4
401.1
246.0
565.4
0.4
0.1
5.0
-0.9
( 6)
-0.1
8.5
-2.6
-0.3
1.8
1.8
0.0
2.3
925
901
1,095
945
961
765
1,520
1,483
1,051
851
518
439
1,080
3.4
3.1
-8.3
5.4
( 6)
2.0
-0.3
( 6)
6.3
( 6)
2.8
5.8
( 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 ...................................................
138.0
136.6
0.1
12.1
7.1
27.6
2.5
15.8
28.2
13.6
11.6
13.8
1.4
2,541.5
2,232.8
1.3
98.2
237.2
472.2
58.4
215.4
441.6
369.2
240.0
95.0
308.7
0.0
0.2
-7.7
-1.6
-1.9
-0.9
0.6
-1.5
0.9
1.6
2.2
0.7
-0.9
961
958
1,063
1,207
981
776
1,402
1,547
1,179
843
430
691
985
3.3
3.6
3.5
5.5
3.0
-0.5
9.1
7.8
3.1
3.7
4.6
3.0
2.3
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 ...................................................
118.0
117.7
0.0
2.3
3.1
22.1
4.4
18.7
24.6
8.6
11.2
17.4
0.3
2,350.3
1,906.7
0.1
35.8
37.5
248.2
135.6
380.0
482.2
283.3
208.5
87.2
443.5
2.0
2.3
-1.9
6.9
-4.7
1.7
1.0
2.0
2.3
2.0
3.3
1.5
0.7
1,544
1,667
1,749
1,461
1,158
1,124
1,916
3,047
1,769
1,011
728
889
1,014
8.7
9.6
11.8
5.3
3.0
4.3
4.5
16.3
8.6
4.8
6.1
3.7
1.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
95.1
94.5
1.5
6.6
4.6
21.7
1.3
10.5
18.9
10.0
7.3
11.0
0.5
2,028.0
1,783.4
78.4
151.5
182.2
424.7
32.8
120.7
341.2
214.7
176.2
58.4
244.6
3.8
4.3
( 6)
5.5
3.5
3.9
2.6
2.0
4.9
5.4
3.2
3.9
0.6
$1,015
1,027
2,580
968
1,290
901
1,258
1,256
1,156
824
366
595
922
6.7
7.1
( 6)
6.1
7.7
6.0
9.1
7.3
7.5
1.7
2.2
7.6
3.1
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 ...................................................
99.3
98.6
0.5
10.6
3.6
21.6
1.6
12.7
21.8
9.7
7.2
7.2
0.7
1,825.1
1,605.3
8.5
165.8
132.2
374.9
30.4
148.6
316.8
198.9
177.6
50.1
219.9
0.2
-0.1
2.9
-7.6
-3.7
2.0
-0.7
-2.4
0.3
4.4
1.4
2.2
2.8
822
811
723
834
1,116
777
1,030
1,024
825
879
387
570
908
3.8
4.1
6.0
3.9
3.2
3.5
0.4
0.0
9.1
5.5
5.7
5.2
1.2
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
95.3
93.9
0.2
7.1
5.4
17.8
1.4
11.4
19.3
9.9
7.1
14.4
1.4
1,503.8
1,359.9
5.2
105.0
175.8
281.0
30.0
123.7
273.7
142.7
175.1
47.7
143.8
-1.3
-1.7
5.9
-5.5
( 6)
1.2
-1.8
-9.8
-3.1
3.2
2.3
-1.2
3.4
924
922
623
1,025
1,101
868
1,262
1,377
1,003
870
410
569
941
2.6
2.8
0.2
4.1
( 6)
3.8
3.8
-0.1
( 6)
3.1
5.9
4.2
0.2
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 ...................................................
67.7
67.2
0.6
4.4
3.1
15.0
1.7
8.8
14.6
6.6
5.2
6.5
0.5
1,487.3
1,323.2
7.3
84.6
142.2
306.9
48.1
144.5
274.8
146.2
127.6
39.3
164.1
2.2
2.2
( 6)
4.3
-1.9
2.0
( 6)
1.6
4.3
5.0
1.7
3.0
2.7
1,002
1,012
2,962
901
1,174
960
1,385
1,366
1,109
895
434
609
919
4.2
4.2
( 6)
3.1
7.5
6.0
( 6)
6.4
4.6
2.4
-1.8
3.7
2.9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
92.7
91.4
0.8
7.3
3.2
14.6
1.3
9.9
16.5
8.1
6.9
22.9
1.3
1,325.9
1,108.6
11.9
87.1
102.3
221.4
38.0
79.7
218.0
129.0
164.8
56.4
217.2
0.0
-0.2
-1.4
-8.2
( 6)
0.3
2.1
-4.6
0.1
( 6)
2.5
1.1
0.9
$887
869
556
947
1,175
736
1,707
1,106
1,082
834
408
485
987
4.4
4.3
6.7
6.0
5.8
5.9
9.8
5.3
3.3
2.5
2.5
1.0
4.4
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 ...................................................
76.3
75.7
0.4
6.8
2.5
14.7
1.8
7.0
13.0
6.3
6.1
17.2
0.5
1,182.8
1,032.4
3.2
74.7
112.8
219.9
76.3
75.5
190.4
120.3
113.7
45.5
150.5
2.3
2.8
8.6
9.4
2.0
1.9
4.1
-1.6
3.9
2.1
2.9
1.1
-1.0
1,129
1,145
1,153
1,032
1,252
891
3,114
1,287
1,326
840
443
572
1,019
8.0
8.6
-6.9
8.3
4.7
2.8
10.5
3.3
19.6
5.3
4.7
7.5
3.6
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 ...................................................
86.4
86.0
0.5
6.4
2.6
23.4
1.5
10.5
17.6
9.0
5.8
7.6
0.3
1,012.4
860.4
8.2
53.2
46.4
251.7
20.4
71.7
133.0
138.0
100.8
35.4
152.0
0.4
0.2
-3.7
-1.3
-4.7
0.5
-0.7
-0.1
-3.4
3.8
2.2
1.8
1.2
826
796
489
825
741
752
1,205
1,155
974
811
448
514
1,005
4.3
4.9
-0.8
3.9
5.6
6.7
6.6
6.0
3.4
6.6
-0.4
5.3
1.7
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, third quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2006-07 5
United States 6 .........................
9,012.8
136,246.9
0.9
$818
4.3
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
99.3
14.7
401.9
26.0
25.4
18.8
32.1
86.4
363.6
149.2
1,825.1
250.9
4,191.6
448.4
504.9
282.3
679.0
1,012.4
( 7)
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
2.7
0.8
-0.4
0.6
0.4
837
894
822
751
925
995
1,002
955
1,376
826
( 7)
5.5
3.8
4.3
3.4
0.9
6.3
0.0
5.3
4.3
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
40.0
24.6
15.2
138.0
24.1
14.7
20.2
22.2
13.9
12.3
762.2
451.0
213.9
2,541.5
584.8
274.6
319.2
437.5
264.4
174.7
1.2
-0.4
1.1
0.0
1.2
2.0
2.4
1.2
1.9
0.9
1,058
786
749
961
830
804
830
791
742
738
2.9
5.8
2.9
3.3
2.1
2.9
2.0
2.1
5.4
3.8
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.7
47.5
32.2
44.3
6.4
33.3
5.7
15.7
48.8
12.5
460.9
818.3
747.7
849.5
127.8
611.9
77.6
318.8
920.2
197.9
-0.3
1.4
-2.4
0.8
-0.3
0.5
3.3
1.0
-0.3
0.4
1,090
1,176
930
1,043
717
873
672
782
796
899
5.1
5.9
3.1
5.4
3.0
6.3
5.5
6.5
5.9
4.4
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
34.9
17.6
118.0
32.2
5.8
37.6
23.5
27.4
35.4
18.2
454.2
335.2
2,350.3
572.6
98.5
747.6
424.8
451.1
686.2
288.3
0.3
0.5
2.0
4.0
2.4
-0.8
1.0
2.5
0.6
-1.5
1,009
732
1,544
923
688
832
748
840
864
779
3.9
3.1
8.7
0.8
6.2
3.6
5.6
4.5
4.9
-2.4
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
12.4
6.3
20.1
95.1
38.6
5.9
32.9
76.3
6.1
21.2
238.2
115.5
511.0
2,028.0
591.0
95.8
584.9
1,182.8
108.8
497.8
1.9
2.7
0.2
3.8
3.4
-0.4
0.7
2.3
0.3
0.0
707
695
850
1,015
771
812
1,243
1,129
704
802
3.5
4.4
4.4
6.7
5.8
4.2
5.3
8.0
4.1
2.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2006-07 5
Laramie, WY .............................
3.2
43.9
3.4
$691
-9.1
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
13.6
1.8
289.0
23.2
-2.7
1.3
538
636
3.5
-0.3
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,
third quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2006-07
United States 4 ...................
9,012.8
136,246.9
0.9
$818
4.3
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
119.9
21.2
160.6
83.4
1,314.1
180.9
112.9
29.1
32.1
606.8
1,959.0
327.3
2,644.9
1,184.5
15,755.0
2,314.3
1,696.9
425.2
679.0
7,879.9
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.7
2.4
1.0
0.1
0.6
-0.9
707
840
783
629
932
844
1,021
860
1,376
741
3.7
5.4
4.1
4.1
4.5
3.2
6.6
1.2
5.3
4.1
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
272.4
38.7
57.0
361.6
159.2
93.9
85.8
110.5
120.9
50.4
4,089.4
624.4
675.5
5,917.6
2,937.4
1,494.5
1,368.7
1,814.3
1,880.8
615.3
1.2
0.3
2.2
0.6
0.5
0.9
1.7
1.0
2.7
0.7
782
760
634
866
702
668
680
676
716
660
4.1
5.4
3.4
4.0
2.2
4.2
2.7
3.0
4.5
3.9
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
164.0
211.6
257.6
177.6
70.2
175.7
42.8
59.0
75.2
49.5
2,563.7
3,261.0
4,218.2
2,713.3
1,142.2
2,746.7
446.1
922.7
1,286.4
637.2
0.7
1.0
-1.4
0.9
0.6
0.8
2.7
1.7
-0.1
0.3
892
1,002
808
822
607
719
608
666
792
799
4.1
5.5
2.4
4.6
3.8
4.2
4.6
5.4
5.5
3.2
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
275.1
53.9
580.3
254.3
25.2
290.8
99.6
131.2
339.7
36.2
3,985.2
830.4
8,585.3
4,104.1
347.4
5,331.9
1,548.2
1,751.7
5,673.4
486.1
0.1
0.8
1.3
2.4
1.5
-0.2
1.8
1.2
0.5
-1.0
965
682
1,009
719
621
745
666
750
802
759
3.7
4.1
6.1
3.5
5.8
2.8
5.5
4.2
4.4
-0.1
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
116.6
30.3
141.3
551.3
87.1
25.0
229.3
218.7
48.9
159.0
1,904.7
397.5
2,774.4
10,304.9
1,231.6
305.2
3,686.6
2,976.5
713.8
2,802.3
1.7
2.0
0.5
2.9
3.6
-0.2
1.0
2.1
0.3
-0.1
664
598
728
825
696
699
857
878
623
705
3.6
4.7
4.3
5.0
5.5
4.0
5.0
6.7
4.0
2.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2007
(thousands)
September
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2006-07
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2006-07
Wyoming ............................
24.6
284.3
3.6
$734
4.1
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
57.1
3.5
1,008.0
45.0
-1.1
0.7
453
682
2.5
-0.3
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.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
September 2006-07 (U.S. average = 0.9 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
1.0% to 8.6%
-5.7% to 0.9%
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
April 2008
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, third quarter 2006-07 (U.S. average = 4.3 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
4.4% to 23.9%
-10.6% to 4.3%
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
April 2008