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 08-1459
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Friday, October 17, 2008
691-5902
(NOTE: This news release was reissued on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, to correct two items in
the Large County Average Weekly Wages section on page 3. In the second sentence of the first
paragraph, the number of counties with average weekly wages higher than the national average
was corrected from "183" to "92". In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the number of
counties with average weekly wages below the national average was corrected from "137" to
"241". No other changes were made.)
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2008
In March 2008, 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 5.0 percent, compared with national job growth of 0.4 percent. Westmoreland County,
Pa., near Pittsburgh, had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2008, with
an increase of 14.9 percent due to an increase in the professional and business services supersector. The U.S.
average weekly wage rose by 2.4 percent over the same time span.
C ha rt 1. T o p ra nk ing la rge c o unt ie s by pe rc e nt gro wt h in
e m plo ym e nt , M a rc h 2 0 0 8
( U.S . a v e ra ge = 0 .4 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 , f irs t qua rt e r 2 0 0 8
( U.S . a v e ra ge = 2 .4 pe rc e nt )
P e rc e nt
P e rc e nt
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
Orleans, La.
Fo rt B end,
Texas
M o ntgo mery,
Texas
Williamso n,
Texas
Do uglas, Co lo .
Westmo reland,
P a.
Williamso n,
Texas
So merset, N.J. San Luis Obispo , Jefferso n, Texas
Calif.
Of the 334 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2007 annual average employment, 146 had
over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (0.4 percent) in March 2008; 178
large counties experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average
weekly wages was higher than the national average (2.4 percent) in 183 of the largest U.S. counties but was below
the national average in 137 counties. (See chart 4.)
2
The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled under the Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports
submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.1 million employer reports
cover 134.8 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation and for
the 334 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2007. March 2008
employment and 2008 first-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release.
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by March 2008 employment, March 2007-08 employment growth,
and March 2007-08 percent growth in employment
Employment in large counties
March 2008 employment
(thousands)
United States
134,761.1
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.
4,229.6
2,490.4
2,376.0
2,046.5
1,805.2
1,504.9
1,489.7
1,327.6
1,186.2
1,029.9
Growth in employment,
March 2007-08
(thousands)
United States
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
King, Wash.
Dallas, Texas
Bexar, Texas
Tarrant, Texas
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Wake, N.C.
Percent growth in employment,
March 2007-08
481.0
67.2
38.7
31.0
29.1
20.2
17.6
16.8
16.1
15.2
15.2
United States
0.4
Orleans, La.
Fort Bend, Texas
Montgomery, Texas
Williamson, Texas
Douglas, Colo.
Potter, Texas
Cass, N.D.
El Paso, Texas
Yakima, Wash.
Wake, N.C.
5.0
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth quarter of 2007 are
available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew. Preliminary data for first quarter 2008 and final data
for 2007 will be available later in October on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In March 2008, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 134.8 million, up by 0.4
percent from March 2007. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.5 percent of
total U.S. employment and 78.3 percent of total wages. These 334 counties had a net job gain of 198,000 over the
year, accounting for 41.2 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 189 of the large
counties from March 2007 to March 2008. Orleans County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase
in employment (5.0 percent). Fort Bend, Texas, and Montgomery, Texas, tied for the next largest increase, 4.7
percent, followed by the counties of Williamson, Texas (4.6 percent), and Douglas, Colo., and Potter, Texas (4.1
percent each).
Employment declined in 129 counties from March 2007 to March 2008. The largest percentage decline in
employment was in Lee, Fla. (-8.1 percent). Collier, Fla., had the next largest employment decline (-7.4 percent),
followed by the counties of Genesee, Mich. (-6.5 percent), Saginaw, Mich. (-5.2 percent), and Marion, Fla., (-5.1
percent).
The largest gains in the level of employment from March 2007 to March 2008 were recorded in the counties
of Harris, Texas (67,200), New York, N.Y. (38,700), King, Wash. (31,000), Dallas, Texas (29,100), and Bexar,
Texas (20,200). (See table A.) The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Maricopa, Ariz. (-25,100),
3
followed by the counties of Hillsborough, Fla. (-23,700), Wayne, Mich. (-23,000), Oakland, Mich. (-19,500), and
Lee, Fla. (-19,400).
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by first quarter 2008 average weekly wages, first quarter 2007-08
growth in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2007-08 percent growth in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2008
United States
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Somerset, N.J.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Hudson, N.J.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
San Mateo, Calif.
Growth in average weekly
wage, first quarter 2007-08
$905
$2,805
1,905
1,765
1,708
1,639
1,631
1,528
1,488
1,473
1,457
United States
Somerset, N.J.
Westmoreland, Pa.
Williamson, Texas
Hudson, N.J.
Mercer, N.J.
New London, Conn.
Jefferson, Texas
Washington, D.C.
Hennepin, Minn.
McLean, Ill.
Hillsborough, N.H.
Washington, Ore.
Percent growth in average
weekly wage, first
quarter 2007-08
$21
$146
98
89
87
66
64
63
62
59
58
58
58
United States
Westmoreland, Pa.
Williamson, Texas
Somerset, N.J.
San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Jefferson, Texas
New London, Conn.
Adams, Colo.
Pima, Ariz.
Clayton, Ga.
McLean, Ill.
2.4
14.9
10.8
9.0
8.3
7.9
7.3
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2008 was $905. Average weekly wages were higher
than the national average in 92 of the largest 334 U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., held the top position among the
highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,805. Fairfield, Conn., was second with an average
weekly wage of $1,905, followed by Somerset, N.J. ($1,765), Suffolk, Mass. ($1,708), and San Francisco, Calif.
($1,639). (See table B.)
There were 241 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of 2008.
The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($523), followed by the counties of
Hidalgo, Texas ($532), Horry, S.C. ($534), Webb, Texas ($554), and Yakima, Wash. ($587). (See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 2.4 percent. Among the largest counties,
Westmoreland, Pa., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 14.9 percent from the
first quarter of 2007. Williamson, Texas, was second with growth of 10.8 percent, followed by the counties of
Somerset, N.J. (9.0 percent), San Luis Obispo, Calif. (8.3 percent), and Jefferson, Texas (7.9 percent).
Thirty-four large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Trumbull, Ohio, had
the largest decrease (-17.2 percent), followed by the counties of Saginaw, Mich. (-4.4 percent), Rockingham, N.H.
(-3.9 percent), Fairfield, Conn. (-3.8 percent), and Mecklenburg, N.C. (-3.4 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Five of the 10 largest counties (based on 2007 annual average employment levels) experienced over-the-year
percent increases in employment in March 2008. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in
employment (3.4 percent) among the 10 largest counties. Within Harris County, the largest gains in employment
4
were in natural resources and mining (5.5 percent) and construction (5.4 percent). King, Wash., had the next
largest increase in employment, 2.7 percent, followed by Dallas, Texas (2.0 percent). Maricopa, Ariz.,
experienced the largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 1.4 percent decrease. Within
Maricopa, six industry groups experienced employment declines, with construction experiencing the largest
decline, -14.2 percent. Orange, Calif., had the next largest decline in employment, -1.1 percent, followed by
Miami-Dade, Fla. (-1.0 percent). (See table 2.)
Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. King, Wash., had
the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 4.2 percent. Within King County,
average weekly wages increased the most in the information industry (12.8 percent), followed by the other
services industry (7.7 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain of 3.8 percent, followed by
Cook, Ill. (2.7 percent). The smallest wage gain occurred in Orange, Calif. (1.2 percent), followed by Maricopa,
Ariz. (1.3 percent). The only wage decline among the 10 largest counties occurred in New York, N.Y. (-1.0
percent).
Within New York County, two industry groups experienced over-the-year wage declines in the first quarter of
2008--manufacturing (-4.1percent) and financial activities (3.7 percent.) Financial activities employs ten times
more workers than manufacturing in New York County and had the county's highest average weekly wages. The
declines for the first quarter of 2008 follow over-the-year average weekly wage gains of 14.6 percent in
manufacturing and 24.2 percent in financial activities in the first quarter of 2007.
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows March 2008 employment and the 2008 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest county
in each state, which is based on 2007 annual average employment levels. (This table includes one county—
Laramie, Wyo.—that had an employment level below 75,000 in 2007.) The employment levels in the counties in
table 3 in March 2008 ranged from approximately 4.23 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 43,100 in
Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($2,805),
while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($695).
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 second quarter 2008 is scheduled to be released on Tuesday,
January 13, 2009.
County Changes for the 2008 County Employment and Wages News Releases: Six Counties
Added
Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2007 are included in this
release. For 2008 data, six counties have been added to the publication tables: Shelby, Ala., Boone,
Ky., St. Tammany, La., Yellowstone, Mont., Warren, Ohio, and Potter, Texas.
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 2008 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 335 counties
presented in this release were derived using 2007 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2008 data, six counties have
been added to the publication tables: Shelby, Ala., Boone, Ky., St.
Tammany, La., Yellowstone, Mont., Warren, Ohio, and Potter,
Texas. These counties will be included in all 2008 quarterly releases. The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each year
based on the annual average employment from the preceding year.
Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures
QCEW
BED
CES
Source
• Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 9.1 million establishments
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative records submitted by
7.1 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/
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 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 9.1 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 2007, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in
135.4 million jobs. The estimated 130.3 million workers in these
jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.2
percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers
received $6.018 trillion in pay, representing 94.6 percent of the
wage and salary component of personal income and 43.6 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 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 2007 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. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008,
adjusted data will also 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 contains 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 includes 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 have been published exclusively in electronic formats as
PDFs. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2006 is available
in a 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 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,112.7
134,761.1
0.4
–
$905
2.4
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Shelby, AL .........................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
19.0
8.9
10.1
6.8
5.0
4.5
8.1
101.7
21.2
5.6
359.3
181.4
176.0
138.9
75.8
86.0
144.4
1,805.2
373.5
95.7
-1.3
3.4
0.5
-0.4
2.5
-0.5
0.6
-1.4
-1.5
-0.9
277
11
139
226
23
230
120
282
283
257
914
919
710
723
878
718
916
867
778
880
4.0
3.3
2.7
1.4
0.9
2.9
4.7
1.3
6.7
4.9
62
112
158
233
260
140
38
239
8
30
Pulaski, AR ........................
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Butte, CA ...........................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
14.8
5.7
51.8
8.0
29.5
30.7
18.4
425.0
12.0
12.7
250.4
91.7
686.6
75.6
341.6
339.8
267.5
4,229.6
109.0
160.6
0.9
-1.3
-0.6
0.2
-0.8
-0.9
0.1
0.4
0.7
2.3
93
277
237
168
249
257
180
147
107
27
791
690
1,146
640
1,109
689
758
992
1,073
800
4.8
4.9
1.0
1.7
-0.5
3.3
3.6
2.1
3.4
1.7
35
30
253
224
304
112
89
204
103
224
Orange, CA ........................
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 ..................
100.1
11.0
46.5
54.3
49.2
97.8
47.2
18.1
9.5
24.1
1,504.9
137.7
624.8
632.7
656.3
1,327.6
564.5
218.5
105.8
343.9
-1.1
-2.3
-2.9
-1.2
-2.3
0.0
2.9
-2.1
0.3
1.3
264
302
311
272
302
190
16
296
154
70
1,019
829
751
962
741
945
1,639
731
741
1,457
1.2
-0.1
1.9
3.6
2.2
1.9
-0.4
3.2
8.3
0.6
243
295
217
89
199
217
300
122
4
271
Santa Barbara, CA .............
Santa Clara, CA .................
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
14.3
60.0
9.1
10.2
18.7
14.9
9.5
23.0
5.9
9.3
186.7
912.0
92.7
124.8
192.9
171.2
144.1
318.9
100.8
154.4
0.6
1.9
-1.2
-2.4
0.7
-0.8
1.9
-1.1
0.5
3.1
120
48
272
305
107
249
48
264
139
14
821
1,631
819
837
817
713
608
924
806
813
0.9
3.1
-2.3
1.2
1.7
2.6
3.4
-0.6
-0.5
6.8
260
129
320
243
224
163
103
307
304
7
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
19.5
12.9
25.7
9.5
17.6
18.7
10.4
6.1
32.9
25.5
281.6
161.8
445.9
91.9
244.2
209.7
128.1
82.8
418.1
503.7
1.9
2.1
1.6
4.1
0.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.2
1.2
48
39
60
5
190
77
65
56
77
77
1,081
1,068
1,166
952
788
899
755
718
1,905
1,188
2.3
3.5
4.2
6.3
3.7
1.8
2.0
4.7
-3.8
0.3
192
97
56
11
80
221
212
38
325
283
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
22.7
6.9
18.4
32.5
6.9
15.2
66.6
12.8
27.3
8.1
366.2
128.4
279.9
680.8
122.6
204.8
757.1
134.6
466.7
128.3
0.6
0.3
-0.2
1.1
( 7)
-2.3
-1.9
-7.4
-1.8
-2.5
120
154
212
84
–
302
292
330
290
307
$924
939
1,130
1,488
725
777
815
750
888
675
1.2
7.3
-0.2
4.3
( 7)
1.2
-0.4
-1.4
2.8
2.6
243
6
297
52
–
243
300
315
151
163
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
38.0
7.4
20.3
8.3
9.5
8.8
88.2
6.2
37.5
51.6
633.8
86.5
219.3
145.0
115.4
104.2
1,029.9
80.1
701.4
552.2
-3.6
-3.3
-8.1
-2.4
0.0
-5.1
-1.0
-3.5
-0.4
-3.3
321
317
331
305
190
327
262
320
226
317
843
595
718
717
664
609
871
681
796
851
4.2
2.6
2.1
2.9
0.2
1.8
1.5
3.2
3.1
0.4
56
163
204
140
286
221
231
122
129
279
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
10.2
32.1
13.0
15.6
15.4
14.3
4.6
7.6
4.4
20.8
104.3
433.4
210.0
157.6
178.6
168.2
83.8
136.8
113.6
318.5
-0.3
-3.3
-1.8
-4.8
-2.0
-4.1
-0.6
-1.3
0.6
-0.3
219
317
290
326
294
324
237
277
120
219
594
742
664
717
745
616
693
736
810
969
1.0
3.6
2.8
0.6
2.1
2.2
3.1
( 7)
6.7
-2.6
253
89
151
271
204
199
129
–
8
323
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
16.9
39.4
23.7
4.9
4.8
24.6
15.3
4.1
138.2
35.9
300.2
749.3
321.7
96.3
101.5
452.8
209.2
91.4
2,490.4
590.6
-0.1
0.6
-1.1
-0.7
0.2
0.0
-0.5
0.5
-0.5
-0.1
203
120
264
243
168
190
230
139
230
203
962
1,268
876
708
727
800
746
705
1,147
1,058
0.2
0.1
0.0
3.4
4.0
3.6
-2.4
4.0
2.7
1.3
286
290
292
103
62
89
321
62
158
239
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
12.7
21.0
8.4
3.7
6.0
4.8
3.5
5.4
5.2
13.5
205.7
326.0
100.1
85.2
95.9
104.3
79.3
95.9
128.3
192.7
-1.2
0.2
-0.1
0.2
0.9
1.4
0.6
0.2
0.1
2.3
272
168
203
168
93
65
120
168
180
27
763
1,134
729
918
704
840
863
673
849
757
3.0
0.4
1.7
6.7
3.5
3.2
2.0
3.1
4.9
3.1
136
279
224
8
97
122
212
129
30
129
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Tippecanoe, IN ..................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
6.9
9.1
5.0
7.6
10.3
24.2
6.1
3.3
4.8
6.3
135.5
178.2
120.2
109.4
192.7
575.0
122.1
75.3
106.5
124.1
-0.2
-2.8
-3.6
1.7
-0.1
0.3
-0.9
-1.6
-0.9
2.3
212
308
321
56
203
154
257
287
257
27
$751
726
703
897
752
953
740
765
728
834
2.9
1.4
0.1
3.7
2.6
2.5
6.2
4.4
3.7
2.3
140
233
290
80
163
177
13
48
80
192
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Boone, KY ..........................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
14.8
5.2
20.2
12.0
4.8
3.2
3.6
9.4
22.7
7.3
271.7
88.0
316.7
259.2
94.6
80.2
74.4
174.3
426.6
126.0
1.6
0.7
1.5
1.3
0.3
0.5
2.2
-0.4
0.3
0.8
60
107
63
70
154
139
37
226
154
101
905
698
938
836
736
805
751
767
849
693
2.3
4.3
2.9
-1.1
2.8
2.0
2.2
0.8
0.7
2.4
192
52
140
312
151
212
199
263
267
184
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
St. Tammany, LA ...............
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
4.8
14.1
13.8
8.6
10.2
7.1
12.4
14.6
21.7
6.0
86.2
265.1
199.5
135.3
171.6
74.8
169.6
232.5
374.7
94.1
-1.1
1.4
0.3
2.0
5.0
-1.2
0.7
0.6
0.0
-0.5
264
65
154
42
1
272
107
120
190
230
749
814
797
817
1,005
689
824
928
901
863
5.8
4.9
3.8
3.9
2.7
4.7
5.0
3.2
2.5
3.6
19
30
73
70
158
38
28
122
177
89
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
5.7
8.7
33.0
15.8
14.1
9.1
15.5
20.8
14.2
47.5
82.2
147.9
455.7
314.5
340.7
82.7
214.8
296.3
196.9
814.4
-1.9
0.6
-0.4
0.4
-0.8
-0.5
-0.8
1.2
0.2
1.3
292
120
226
147
249
230
249
77
168
70
826
1,025
1,238
913
1,033
748
770
922
824
1,285
2.6
2.0
2.1
2.8
4.1
3.5
4.9
0.4
3.1
3.0
163
212
204
151
60
97
30
279
129
136
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
22.8
13.8
21.7
20.7
7.8
6.8
5.5
14.2
17.7
39.0
320.0
173.7
587.3
318.3
134.7
159.8
114.1
330.2
302.0
668.6
0.8
0.3
1.5
0.2
-6.5
-1.0
-2.2
-1.1
-3.2
-2.8
101
154
63
168
329
262
299
264
313
308
1,066
798
1,708
875
750
819
773
770
879
1,021
2.6
2.4
3.4
3.6
-0.9
2.8
4.0
1.0
-1.3
1.2
163
184
103
89
310
151
62
253
314
243
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
5.7
4.3
8.0
32.1
7.9
10.7
42.9
3.6
15.5
6.0
105.8
81.8
187.5
724.6
112.4
172.8
837.2
89.3
327.4
95.8
-2.2
-5.2
-2.8
-3.1
-1.1
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.1
1.3
299
328
308
312
264
180
147
93
180
70
$715
717
947
1,013
796
870
1,188
910
1,006
691
0.3
-4.4
-2.0
1.7
2.7
3.4
5.2
-2.5
2.3
2.5
283
327
318
224
158
103
24
322
192
177
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
4.6
4.6
6.4
4.6
5.1
8.2
18.7
8.2
32.8
8.5
81.2
86.9
127.3
82.8
89.1
155.4
370.0
120.8
600.2
232.3
0.7
1.9
-0.1
0.4
-0.7
-0.6
0.6
-2.1
-1.1
0.7
107
48
203
147
243
237
120
296
264
107
683
667
755
655
809
638
894
741
953
1,033
4.4
1.1
0.8
3.8
0.6
1.8
3.0
0.7
5.4
1.9
48
252
263
73
271
221
136
267
22
217
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
5.7
15.7
8.0
50.2
14.6
12.3
10.9
7.1
35.1
11.6
77.1
317.4
155.9
917.5
209.5
195.0
134.4
142.2
447.7
202.4
2.0
2.0
1.2
-0.6
-3.2
0.0
-0.7
-0.1
0.1
0.0
42
42
77
237
313
190
243
203
180
190
695
814
683
854
796
982
839
790
1,150
921
3.4
2.6
2.1
5.3
3.8
6.3
-3.9
3.3
4.0
2.4
103
163
204
23
73
11
326
112
62
184
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
13.2
21.6
6.3
14.1
11.4
22.3
21.1
18.4
12.6
12.7
207.4
362.0
103.0
236.6
229.3
403.8
254.9
284.3
146.2
177.5
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.7
2.0
-0.3
0.1
-1.5
0.2
-0.3
190
180
120
107
42
219
180
283
168
219
882
1,190
784
1,528
1,206
1,167
935
1,388
725
894
0.8
0.5
4.7
6.0
5.8
2.9
3.3
2.1
1.4
0.8
263
276
38
15
19
140
112
204
233
263
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
10.4
15.3
17.6
9.9
15.9
4.5
8.4
23.6
45.6
18.0
172.8
234.4
331.4
225.8
224.6
95.0
115.2
453.4
478.3
376.4
0.5
1.0
-0.2
-0.1
2.2
0.6
-0.8
0.3
2.1
-0.3
139
88
212
203
37
120
249
154
39
219
1,765
1,231
758
858
803
695
906
762
730
863
9.0
0.7
3.7
2.0
2.3
3.4
3.7
0.0
-1.2
3.2
3
267
80
212
192
103
80
292
313
122
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
52.5
118.5
5.3
12.8
10.0
43.2
8.7
9.8
5.4
50.5
601.3
2,376.0
109.5
248.6
130.2
499.9
93.1
115.6
74.9
618.0
0.6
1.7
0.4
0.5
0.8
2.3
0.1
1.9
-0.2
1.0
120
56
147
139
101
27
180
48
212
88
$958
2,805
676
804
723
852
745
949
743
892
-2.1
-1.0
0.9
2.4
1.4
3.1
2.1
3.4
3.8
0.2
319
311
260
184
233
129
204
103
73
286
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
36.6
8.1
4.6
6.3
7.0
9.3
14.9
32.8
7.5
28.6
418.5
115.8
86.8
119.1
184.9
186.3
281.0
571.2
104.5
452.1
0.6
1.1
-2.1
0.5
1.0
0.6
0.2
2.1
0.0
3.5
120
84
296
139
88
120
168
39
190
10
1,311
657
662
657
1,237
827
770
1,181
704
877
-0.2
3.3
1.5
4.6
2.6
5.1
1.0
-3.4
3.7
1.2
297
112
231
42
163
26
253
324
80
243
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
5.8
7.4
37.8
29.9
24.1
6.8
6.3
10.8
6.4
12.9
98.1
146.9
725.6
674.4
511.0
98.8
95.9
212.7
100.5
259.2
3.8
0.6
-1.7
-0.1
0.0
-0.6
-4.2
-2.0
-1.5
-3.2
7
120
288
203
190
237
325
294
283
313
715
778
907
906
961
731
721
771
618
804
5.6
3.9
-0.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.7
-0.5
1.0
-1.5
21
70
300
243
243
253
224
304
253
316
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Warren, OH ........................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
9.1
15.0
4.7
4.2
23.8
19.4
13.0
6.8
11.0
9.6
160.1
270.8
75.5
76.0
424.9
348.8
150.8
81.8
149.6
138.2
-0.2
0.6
-3.2
-0.7
1.3
1.1
0.9
-1.7
0.1
0.7
212
120
313
243
70
84
93
288
180
107
679
814
709
747
788
823
789
620
657
675
1.3
2.9
-17.2
( 7)
5.2
4.0
2.6
0.6
2.5
2.7
239
140
328
–
24
62
163
271
177
158
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
28.3
16.4
35.4
9.2
20.3
4.8
15.2
6.0
7.4
13.8
449.5
249.1
677.2
167.9
262.0
78.8
241.7
125.1
180.0
209.1
1.7
-0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.8
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.6
56
212
154
168
139
101
42
154
180
120
885
1,020
952
770
849
750
1,118
794
842
959
2.4
6.0
0.5
2.4
2.3
6.1
0.3
2.3
1.4
3.7
184
15
276
184
192
14
283
192
233
80
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
7.3
5.8
12.4
8.7
7.9
27.6
6.5
30.4
5.3
9.5
125.4
100.4
227.3
176.4
140.2
486.3
99.2
630.8
78.1
133.6
-1.1
-0.9
0.7
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.8
-0.3
1.2
-0.5
264
257
107
168
190
88
101
219
77
230
$683
645
729
872
674
1,189
772
1,064
762
757
2.4
2.4
2.8
0.7
-0.7
1.0
3.9
2.6
3.5
14.9
184
184
151
267
308
253
70
163
97
1
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
9.1
5.7
18.1
12.1
12.5
8.3
5.6
9.4
6.1
6.3
176.3
78.0
279.3
209.4
240.6
113.9
97.3
215.6
119.9
114.6
0.6
-3.6
-2.2
0.7
0.9
-1.3
0.9
0.0
0.7
2.5
120
321
299
107
93
277
93
190
107
23
759
773
896
733
733
534
639
771
783
736
3.3
1.2
4.2
4.3
2.9
-0.4
2.9
2.9
3.2
4.5
112
243
56
52
140
300
140
140
122
46
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
18.8
8.7
11.2
4.3
20.2
6.1
4.6
32.2
4.6
3.8
438.8
195.0
230.5
100.4
502.6
87.0
102.3
729.6
87.4
84.2
0.4
1.2
2.3
1.4
-0.2
2.3
2.6
2.9
1.8
( 7)
147
77
27
65
212
27
20
16
55
–
898
742
711
741
883
939
674
788
867
637
4.1
2.2
0.6
-1.9
5.1
2.8
5.0
2.9
3.7
( 7)
60
199
271
317
26
151
28
140
80
–
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
6.5
16.8
67.8
10.4
13.4
8.2
5.2
96.6
10.6
5.9
125.2
293.3
1,489.7
168.2
273.6
127.8
96.9
2,046.5
221.2
124.9
1.1
( 7)
2.0
2.7
3.7
4.7
3.1
3.4
3.4
-0.8
84
–
42
18
8
2
14
11
11
249
523
1,059
1,119
744
599
968
840
1,172
532
856
4.6
( 7)
2.6
3.3
0.0
4.0
4.6
3.8
3.5
7.9
42
–
163
112
292
62
42
73
97
5
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
6.8
4.9
8.1
8.1
3.8
5.2
37.1
28.6
4.8
7.1
122.9
103.3
125.1
155.0
76.4
94.1
770.1
577.5
88.6
121.2
2.5
1.3
4.7
2.6
4.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
1.4
4.6
23
70
2
20
5
27
27
26
65
4
626
694
797
754
739
711
885
974
554
912
3.6
4.4
3.2
6.0
( 7)
3.3
2.5
3.6
1.3
10.8
89
48
122
15
–
112
177
89
239
2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
7.2
38.2
13.0
5.7
5.9
7.6
7.5
33.2
9.4
8.7
101.7
587.6
173.1
95.0
93.5
153.1
120.1
585.0
179.6
130.2
-0.6
1.9
-0.3
1.6
-0.5
1.0
-0.8
0.8
0.4
1.9
237
48
219
60
230
88
249
101
147
48
$671
811
651
617
896
1,473
790
1,376
998
1,105
2.1
3.0
4.3
2.5
6.0
1.7
3.3
0.4
-0.8
2.5
204
136
52
177
15
224
112
279
309
177
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
7.0
6.1
5.7
4.0
5.8
7.4
11.6
12.0
76.8
6.6
102.6
99.8
99.3
99.5
143.6
157.8
172.7
132.0
1,186.2
83.8
0.2
0.3
-1.3
-0.1
-0.7
0.7
-0.7
0.6
2.7
0.3
168
154
277
203
243
107
243
120
18
154
761
1,180
672
794
826
1,114
683
770
1,125
744
2.6
4.0
1.4
4.6
-0.2
4.4
3.8
3.5
4.2
2.6
163
62
233
42
297
48
73
97
56
163
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
20.4
17.8
15.0
6.8
6.9
7.7
6.1
6.7
14.0
21.0
273.9
254.2
209.4
100.9
83.0
97.7
106.5
146.8
299.3
494.8
0.7
2.3
1.3
2.6
2.3
3.6
-1.2
0.0
0.3
0.9
107
27
70
20
27
9
272
190
154
93
804
895
701
769
683
587
765
787
859
893
4.8
0.2
3.4
3.8
4.8
3.3
3.7
4.5
1.9
2.2
35
286
103
73
35
112
80
46
217
199
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
5.1
4.2
13.3
3.8
13.5
101.8
74.1
230.6
89.2
284.1
0.3
-1.5
-0.8
0.9
-2.4
154
283
249
93
( 8)
737
784
867
823
593
2.6
2.9
0.5
-0.1
3.1
163
140
276
295
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.5 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 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 ...................................................
9,112.7
8,820.9
125.3
890.0
361.3
1,923.2
144.9
872.4
1,504.2
838.9
731.2
1,194.1
291.8
134,761.1
112,728.2
1,731.8
7,020.0
13,529.8
26,031.1
3,013.5
8,005.6
17,691.9
17,845.8
13,112.5
4,444.1
22,032.9
0.4
0.2
2.7
-4.1
-2.3
0.2
-0.1
-1.7
0.5
3.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
$905
913
1,020
898
1,079
745
1,469
1,898
1,131
767
360
547
868
2.4
2.4
10.5
4.8
1.9
1.9
2.3
0.2
4.2
3.6
2.9
3.4
2.7
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
425.0
421.0
0.5
14.0
14.8
54.2
8.5
24.4
42.4
27.9
26.7
192.2
4.0
4,229.6
3,617.0
11.4
149.6
440.0
803.6
214.6
240.6
597.5
492.5
397.9
250.0
612.6
0.4
-0.1
-5.0
-5.5
-3.4
0.0
2.2
-4.3
-1.5
2.9
1.2
1.3
3.2
992
975
1,745
975
1,084
792
1,723
1,807
1,165
848
528
441
1,088
2.1
2.1
13.8
2.6
5.0
1.1
0.5
0.3
4.3
3.4
3.5
4.8
1.5
Cook, IL ..............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
138.2
136.8
0.1
12.1
7.0
27.4
2.5
15.7
28.5
13.7
11.5
14.2
1.4
2,490.4
2,178.2
1.0
84.3
229.4
465.9
57.5
209.6
431.2
373.1
226.6
95.6
312.2
-0.5
-0.5
-10.7
-4.9
-3.0
-1.1
0.4
-2.4
-0.1
1.9
1.2
0.6
-0.5
1,147
1,167
919
1,315
1,062
838
1,820
2,905
1,403
833
412
721
1,006
2.7
2.9
-6.5
9.2
1.8
2.7
0.2
4.5
3.2
3.3
1.2
2.9
1.3
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 ...................................................
118.5
118.3
0.0
2.3
3.0
21.7
4.4
18.7
24.7
8.7
11.3
17.6
0.3
2,376.0
1,923.2
0.2
36.2
36.0
246.4
134.1
377.6
489.3
293.1
213.9
87.8
452.8
1.7
1.9
-4.5
8.9
-6.3
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.9
1.5
3.7
1.8
0.8
2,805
3,229
2,375
1,596
1,499
1,211
2,698
9,840
2,343
989
766
1,105
1,004
-1.0
-1.4
23.3
8.6
-4.1
0.8
5.0
-3.7
3.8
3.9
2.7
7.6
1.7
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 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 ...................................................
96.6
96.1
1.5
6.7
4.7
22.2
1.4
10.6
19.3
10.2
7.5
11.4
0.5
2,046.5
1,791.5
80.0
157.0
184.1
426.9
32.6
120.3
337.7
216.5
176.8
58.5
255.0
3.4
3.5
5.5
5.4
2.7
3.3
0.0
0.9
3.6
4.6
3.0
1.7
2.9
$1,172
1,212
3,698
1,042
1,524
1,068
1,363
1,701
1,293
839
384
632
893
3.8
3.9
13.5
3.6
2.8
1.6
-4.0
1.3
4.0
3.1
2.7
5.3
2.1
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 ...................................................
101.7
101.0
0.5
11.0
3.6
22.4
1.7
13.0
22.6
9.9
7.3
7.2
0.7
1,805.2
1,580.7
8.7
144.5
127.3
372.2
30.9
145.0
306.8
206.5
187.1
50.5
224.5
-1.4
-1.9
-4.2
-14.2
-4.6
-0.1
3.5
-4.4
-1.9
4.6
0.6
1.0
2.8
867
865
991
884
1,252
805
1,164
1,238
870
879
405
577
880
1.3
1.1
22.5
2.4
5.0
-1.2
0.9
-0.8
1.6
3.4
0.0
4.2
3.0
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 ...................................................
100.1
98.7
0.2
7.0
5.3
17.5
1.4
11.0
19.0
9.9
7.1
15.3
1.4
1,504.9
1,347.3
6.5
94.5
174.2
276.2
29.7
115.7
273.9
146.8
175.1
47.9
157.6
-1.1
-1.4
0.7
-8.2
-2.2
-0.4
-2.7
-13.6
-1.7
4.2
3.5
1.7
1.5
1,019
1,001
563
1,080
1,188
918
1,544
1,722
1,124
863
397
560
1,170
1.2
0.9
-0.2
0.7
3.0
-1.2
10.9
( 6)
3.7
3.0
0.3
0.4
3.0
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 ...................................................
67.8
67.3
0.6
4.4
3.1
15.1
1.7
8.8
14.7
6.6
5.3
6.5
0.5
1,489.7
1,322.2
8.0
84.0
135.4
304.5
49.6
144.1
279.0
148.6
128.8
38.9
167.4
2.0
1.9
13.6
3.7
-3.3
1.4
0.3
( 6)
3.8
3.6
2.6
1.7
2.6
1,119
1,145
3,497
953
1,320
1,003
1,694
1,869
1,236
891
509
625
913
2.6
2.5
20.2
1.6
1.0
2.8
5.2
2.2
3.3
3.7
-2.9
3.1
3.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 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 ...................................................
97.8
96.5
0.8
7.1
3.2
14.4
1.3
9.7
16.1
8.1
6.9
24.3
1.3
1,327.6
1,098.1
11.3
78.0
103.1
216.1
38.2
76.4
217.2
135.2
160.4
55.9
229.5
0.0
-0.5
0.7
-12.3
-0.2
-1.7
1.9
-6.5
-0.2
4.1
2.0
1.4
2.7
$945
936
534
985
1,316
772
1,910
1,329
1,170
840
422
482
986
1.9
1.7
4.3
3.4
5.5
3.8
-4.8
-2.4
3.5
3.1
1.7
0.6
2.2
King, WA ............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
76.8
76.3
0.4
6.9
2.5
15.1
1.8
7.1
13.7
6.5
6.2
16.2
0.5
1,186.2
1,030.4
3.1
71.3
112.5
220.2
77.8
76.1
189.6
124.4
110.0
45.4
155.8
2.7
2.9
0.4
4.9
1.4
2.1
5.2
0.3
3.3
4.2
3.6
0.6
1.5
1,125
1,142
1,621
1,086
1,443
958
2,144
1,651
1,306
837
447
599
1,010
4.2
4.3
-0.5
6.7
4.9
1.9
12.8
-1.8
3.7
5.5
-1.1
7.7
3.0
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 ...................................................
88.2
87.8
0.5
6.5
2.7
23.5
1.6
10.6
17.9
9.4
5.9
7.6
0.4
1,029.9
876.6
10.8
50.9
46.0
253.7
20.1
70.5
135.6
141.7
107.0
37.2
153.3
-1.0
-1.2
-6.5
-11.4
-6.3
-0.2
-3.6
-3.0
-4.1
3.9
0.1
2.5
0.2
871
837
465
812
774
777
1,354
1,483
992
796
506
526
1,062
1.5
1.2
-1.5
1.0
2.1
1.0
-3.2
4.0
0.7
3.2
1.8
1.3
2.5
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 2008 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
United States 6 .........................
9,112.7
134,761.1
0.4
$905
2.4
Jefferson, AL ............................
Anchorage Borough, AK ...........
Maricopa, AZ ............................
Pulaski, AR ...............................
Los Angeles, CA .......................
Denver, CO ..............................
Hartford, CT ..............................
New Castle, DE ........................
Washington, DC .......................
Miami-Dade, FL ........................
19.0
8.1
101.7
14.8
425.0
25.7
25.5
18.4
32.5
88.2
359.3
144.4
1,805.2
250.4
4,229.6
445.9
503.7
279.9
680.8
1,029.9
-1.3
0.6
-1.4
0.9
0.4
1.6
1.2
-0.2
1.1
-1.0
914
916
867
791
992
1,166
1,188
1,130
1,488
871
4.0
4.7
1.3
4.8
2.1
4.2
0.3
-0.2
4.3
1.5
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
39.4
24.6
15.3
138.2
24.2
14.8
20.2
22.7
14.1
12.4
749.3
452.8
209.2
2,490.4
575.0
271.7
316.7
426.6
265.1
169.6
0.6
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
0.3
1.6
1.5
0.3
1.4
0.7
1,268
800
746
1,147
953
905
938
849
814
824
0.1
3.6
-2.4
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.9
0.7
4.9
5.0
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
33.0
47.5
32.1
42.9
6.4
32.8
5.7
15.7
50.2
12.3
455.7
814.4
724.6
837.2
127.3
600.2
77.1
317.4
917.5
195.0
-0.4
1.3
-3.1
0.4
-0.1
-1.1
2.0
2.0
-0.6
0.0
1,238
1,285
1,013
1,188
755
953
695
814
854
982
2.1
3.0
1.7
5.2
0.8
5.4
3.4
2.6
5.3
6.3
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
35.1
17.6
118.5
32.8
5.8
37.8
23.8
28.3
35.4
18.1
447.7
331.4
2,376.0
571.2
98.1
725.6
424.9
449.5
677.2
279.3
0.1
-0.2
1.7
2.1
3.8
-1.7
1.3
1.7
0.3
-2.2
1,150
758
2,805
1,181
715
907
788
885
952
896
4.0
3.7
-1.0
-3.4
5.6
-0.4
5.2
2.4
0.5
4.2
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
12.5
6.3
20.2
96.6
38.2
5.9
33.2
76.8
6.1
21.0
240.6
114.6
502.6
2,046.5
587.6
93.5
585.0
1,186.2
106.5
494.8
0.9
2.5
-0.2
3.4
1.9
-0.5
0.8
2.7
-1.2
0.9
733
736
883
1,172
811
896
1,376
1,125
765
893
2.9
4.5
5.1
3.8
3.0
6.0
0.4
4.2
3.7
2.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08 5
Laramie, WY .............................
3.2
43.1
2.6
$704
4.5
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
13.5
1.8
284.1
24.1
-2.4
3.1
593
637
3.1
-2.5
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2008 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08
United States 4 ...................
9,112.7
134,761.1
0.4
$905
2.4
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
121.7
21.1
162.7
85.2
1,345.1
178.2
113.2
29.0
32.5
631.0
1,947.0
303.0
2,639.7
1,178.4
15,561.5
2,300.0
1,683.9
418.4
680.8
7,918.6
-0.2
1.0
-1.3
-0.1
0.1
1.7
1.2
0.5
1.1
-2.2
740
866
820
667
1,008
920
1,254
987
1,488
777
3.2
4.2
2.4
4.1
2.1
3.6
-0.6
0.1
4.3
1.8
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
276.4
39.0
57.6
365.0
160.1
94.2
86.0
112.9
121.7
50.8
4,060.9
628.1
645.3
5,796.1
2,858.7
1,469.8
1,363.2
1,794.0
1,887.3
584.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
-0.7
0.9
1.0
0.1
1.3
0.5
847
773
635
980
757
710
737
714
765
701
1.3
3.5
0.3
2.6
2.4
3.6
2.4
2.4
4.8
3.5
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
164.8
212.7
259.1
173.5
71.0
175.2
42.9
59.1
76.7
48.9
2,530.3
3,203.1
4,058.8
2,644.8
1,138.2
2,708.0
432.4
912.2
1,266.3
621.2
0.0
0.9
-1.8
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.9
1.4
-1.2
0.3
963
1,143
857
908
634
768
625
687
839
863
2.8
3.3
0.9
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.3
3.2
4.7
3.4
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
276.3
54.5
582.3
258.4
25.4
294.4
100.4
133.8
341.5
35.9
3,939.9
823.8
8,555.0
4,069.1
343.3
5,189.1
1,560.0
1,713.1
5,608.8
464.8
0.5
0.6
1.3
0.9
2.6
-1.0
1.6
0.3
0.5
-1.5
1,133
717
1,399
788
652
798
707
776
869
851
3.3
4.7
0.1
1.3
6.2
1.0
4.7
2.9
2.4
2.3
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
117.4
30.3
143.4
558.7
86.7
24.8
229.2
218.9
48.8
159.7
1,888.3
389.4
2,746.4
10,420.8
1,220.2
300.8
3,653.5
2,928.6
700.3
2,734.3
0.1
2.0
0.6
2.8
1.4
-0.3
0.2
2.1
0.3
0.2
695
632
761
903
718
735
918
899
679
760
2.8
5.2
3.3
3.6
3.2
4.4
2.0
3.7
4.0
2.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2008
(thousands)
March
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2007-08
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2007-08
Wyoming ............................
24.8
277.2
2.9
$779
6.7
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
57.1
3.5
1,004.5
46.5
-1.6
1.1
489
708
2.7
3.4
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,
March 2007-08 (U.S. average = 0.4 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
0.5% to 5.0%
-8.1% to 0.4%
NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees
in 2007 but are included because they are the largest county in their
state or territory: Laramie, Wyo., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2008
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, first quarter 2007-08 (U.S. average = 2.4 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
2.5% to 14.9%
-17.2% to 2.4%
NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees
in 2007 but are included because they are the largest county in their
state or territory: Laramie, Wyo., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2008