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 09-0032
For release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
691-5902
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2008
From June 2007 to June 2008, employment declined in more than half of the largest U.S. counties, according
to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Lee County,
Fla., which contains the Cape Coral-Fort Myers area, posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 8.8
percent over the year, compared with a national job decrease of 0.3 percent. Orleans County, La., which includes
the city of New Orleans, experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the
largest counties in the U.S., with a gain of 5.6 percent.
Rock Island County, Ill., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of
2008, with an increase of 10.5 percent coming largely from the manufacturing supersector. The U.S. average
weekly wage rose by 2.6 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 , J une 2 0 0 8
( U.S . a v e ra ge = - 0 .3 pe rc e nt )
C ha rt 2 . T o p ra nk ing la rge c o unt ie s by pe rc e nt gro wt h in
a v e ra ge we e k ly wa ge s , s e c o nd qua rt e r 2 0 0 8
( U.S . a v e ra ge = 2 .6 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.
Williamso n,
Texas
Fo rt B end,
Texas
Tulare, Calif.
M o ntgo mery,
Texas
Ro ck Island, Ill.
Weld, Co lo .
Utah, Utah
Whatco m, Wash.
East B ato n
Ro uge, La.
Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2007 annual average employment) 159 had
over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (-0.3 percent) in June 2008; 157 large
counties experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average weekly
wages was higher than the national average (2.6 percent) in 157 of the largest U.S. counties but was below the
national average in 162 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 9.1 million employer reports
cover 136.6 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation and for
2
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by June 2008 employment, June 2007-08 employment growth,
and June 2007-08 percent growth in employment
Employment in large counties
June 2008 employment
(thousands)
United States
136,631.8
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.
4,229.7
2,533.4
2,392.5
2,073.4
1,741.0
1,502.4
1,498.9
1,336.7
1,201.4
992.7
Growth in employment,
June 2007-08
(thousands)
United States
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
King, Wash.
Dallas, Texas
Bexar, Texas
Tarrant, Texas
Santa Clara, Calif.
Orleans, La.
Travis, Texas
Washington, D.C.
Percent growth in employment,
June 2007-08
-397.0
56.1
24.0
20.0
17.1
15.0
13.3
9.3
9.2
9.0
7.9
United States
Orleans, La.
Williamson, Texas
Fort Bend, Texas
Tulare, Calif.
Montgomery, Texas
Bell, Texas
Cass, N.D.
Brazos, Texas
Denton, Texas
Harris, Texas
-0.3
5.6
4.3
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.8
the 334 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2007. June 2008 employment
and 2008 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. Final data for
all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth quarter of 2007 are available
on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for first quarter 2008 also are available on the
BLS Web site. Updated data for first quarter 2008 and preliminary data for second quarter 2008 will be available
later in January on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In June 2008, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 136.6 million, down by 0.3
percent from June 2007. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.3 percent of
total U.S. employment and 76.8 percent of total wages. These 334 counties had a net job decline of 407,700 over
the year, which exceeds the overall U.S. employment decline by 3 percent, or 11,000 jobs.
Employment declined in 188 counties from June 2007 to June 2008. The largest percentage decline in
employment was in Lee, Fla. (-8.8 percent). Collier, Fla., had the next largest percentage decline (-6.8 percent),
followed by the counties of Sarasota, Fla., and Elkhart, Ind. (-6.5 percent each), and Marion, Fla. (-6.0 percent).
The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Maricopa, Ariz. (-55,100), followed by the counties of
Riverside, Calif. (-29,400), Hillsborough, Fla. (-27,100), Orange, Calif. (-26,100), and Palm Beach, Fla.
(-25,700). Combined employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 163,400, or 41 percent of the
employment decline for the U.S. as a whole.
Employment rose in 125 of the large counties from June 2007 to June 2008. Orleans County, La., had the
largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (5.6 percent). Williamson, Texas, had the next largest
increase, 4.3 percent, followed by the counties of Fort Bend, Texas (4.2 percent), Tulare, Calif. (4.0 percent), and
Montgomery, Texas (3.8 percent). The largest gains in the level of employment from June 2007 to June 2008
were recorded in the counties of Harris, Texas (56,100), New York, N.Y. (24,000), King, Wash. (20,000), Dallas,
Texas (17,100), and Bexar, Texas (15,000). (See table A.)
3
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by second quarter 2008 average weekly wages, second quarter 2007-08
growth in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2007-08 percent growth in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2008
United States
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Fairfax, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Mateo, Calif.
Somerset, N.J.
Growth in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2007-08
$841
$1,569
1,529
1,433
1,376
1,334
1,325
1,317
1,309
1,291
1,277
Percent growth in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2007-08
United States
$21
United States
Rock Island, Ill.
Washington, D.C.
Weld, Colo.
St. Louis City, Mo.
Middlesex, Mass.
Utah, Utah
East Baton Rouge, La.
Montgomery, Texas
Whatcom, Wash.
Jefferson, Colo.
$82
80
72
62
61
60
57
54
53
49
Rock Island, Ill.
Weld, Colo.
Utah, Utah
Whatcom, Wash.
East Baton Rouge, La.
Montgomery, Texas
St. Louis City, Mo.
Cumberland, N.C.
Oklahoma, Okla.
Jefferson, Colo.
Washington, D.C.
2.6
10.5
10.4
9.4
8.3
7.8
7.3
6.9
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.9
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2008 was $841. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 109 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 $1,569. Santa Clara, Calif., was second
with an average weekly wage of $1,529, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,433), Arlington, Va. ($1,376), and
San Francisco, Calif. ($1,334). (See table B.)
There were 224 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter of
2008. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($535), followed by the counties
of Hidalgo, Texas ($538), Horry, S.C. ($539), Webb, Texas ($562), and Yakima, Wash. ($580). (See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 2.6 percent. Among the largest counties, Rock
Island, Ill., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 10.5 percent from the second
quarter of 2007. Weld, Colo., was second with growth of 10.4 percent, followed by the counties of Utah, Utah
(9.4 percent), Whatcom, Wash. (8.3 percent), and East Baton Rouge, La. (7.8 percent).
Twenty-six large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Clayton, Ga., had the
largest decrease (-43.7 percent), followed by the counties of Boone, Ky. (-10.0 percent), Ventura, Calif., and
Trumbull, Ohio (-4.8 percent each), and Queens, N.Y. (-4.3 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Four of the 10 largest counties (based on 2007 annual average employment levels) experienced over-the-year
percent increases in employment in June 2008. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in employment
(2.8 percent) among the 10 largest counties. Within Harris County, the largest gains in employment were in
natural resources and mining (6.0 percent) and construction (4.9 percent). King, Wash., had the next largest
increase in employment, 1.7 percent, followed by Dallas, Texas (1.2 percent). Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the
4
largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 3.1 percent decrease. Within Maricopa, nine
industry groups experienced employment declines, with construction experiencing the largest decline, -18.8
percent. Miami-Dade, Fla., had the next largest decline in employment, -2.1 percent, followed by Orange, Calif.
(-1.7 percent). (See table 2.)
Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. San Diego,
Calif., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 4.2 percent. Within San
Diego County, average weekly wages increased the most in the information industry (22.9 percent), followed by
government (6.4 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain of 3.9 percent, followed by
Miami-Dade, Fla. (3.1 percent). The smallest wage gain occurred in Orange, Calif. (0.2 percent), followed by
Cook, Ill. (1.9 percent). The only wage decline among the 10 largest counties occurred in Dallas, Texas (-0.2
percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows June 2008 employment and the 2008 second 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 June 2008 ranged from approximately 4.23 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 44,600 in Laramie
County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,569), while the
lowest average weekly wage was in Minnehaha, S.D. ($682).
For More Information
For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note or
visit the QCEW Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW data also may be
obtained by calling (202) 691-6567.
Several BLS regional offices are issuing QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. For links to these
releases, see http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.
The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2008 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday,
April 8, 2009.
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 2007 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 2008 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from the 2007 Employment
and Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at
http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn07.htm. These tables present
final 2007 annual averages. The tables will also be included on
the CD which accompanies the hardcopy version of the Annual
Bulletin. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2007 is expected to be available for sale as a chartbook by the end of the
first quarter of 2009 from the United States Government Printing
Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone (866) 512-1800, outside Washington,
D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number is (202)
512-1800. The fax number is (202) 512-2104.
News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are
available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics and Labor Turnover (Business Employment 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,
second quarter 2008 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2007-08 5
United States 6 ...................
9,107.3
136,631.8
-0.3
–
$841
2.6
–
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
8.2
102.2
21.2
5.6
362.3
183.4
177.0
139.3
76.4
86.2
151.1
1,741.0
364.8
96.3
-0.8
2.5
1.4
-1.2
-0.1
-0.6
1.5
-3.1
-1.9
0.0
200
14
34
232
141
191
33
302
277
126
840
892
706
734
776
724
914
845
748
786
1.9
3.4
3.4
5.5
0.9
4.3
2.5
2.1
2.0
5.4
218
88
88
16
273
41
166
203
212
17
Pulaski, AR ........................
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Butte, CA ...........................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
14.9
5.8
53.5
7.9
29.7
30.1
18.1
421.0
11.9
12.7
251.4
93.2
688.9
76.4
344.9
366.3
288.3
4,229.7
111.3
185.9
-0.1
-1.0
-0.8
-1.2
-1.5
-0.4
0.5
-0.2
0.9
0.9
141
215
200
232
253
172
88
153
60
60
765
698
1,094
645
1,057
687
748
946
1,067
751
3.2
1.6
1.0
4.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
2.6
1.5
1.6
109
242
270
43
109
94
94
158
248
242
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 ..................
101.2
10.9
46.2
53.5
48.2
98.3
51.3
17.7
9.7
24.0
1,502.4
139.0
622.5
634.9
655.4
1,336.7
576.9
231.4
107.6
344.6
-1.7
-2.1
-4.5
-1.8
-2.6
-0.4
( 7)
-1.3
-1.9
0.5
267
282
316
273
295
172
–
241
277
88
954
815
719
944
740
926
1,334
739
713
1,291
0.2
-0.1
2.0
3.5
1.8
4.2
1.1
2.6
1.7
0.5
294
302
212
79
228
43
268
158
237
285
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
59.7
9.0
10.0
18.6
14.6
9.4
23.5
5.8
9.3
194.9
917.6
104.3
127.8
194.6
179.8
160.9
320.0
103.1
158.7
0.3
1.0
-0.8
-2.1
-1.7
-0.9
4.0
-1.5
-1.2
2.1
105
53
200
282
267
209
4
253
232
19
800
1,529
756
853
826
718
591
867
812
770
2.3
1.6
0.8
4.5
2.5
2.9
2.2
-4.8
4.9
2.7
186
242
275
31
166
129
194
324
24
145
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
19.6
13.0
25.9
9.6
17.7
18.8
10.4
6.1
33.0
25.6
286.6
164.8
453.9
96.2
249.1
215.8
134.3
84.7
428.2
515.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
2.7
-1.0
0.6
0.1
1.2
0.6
0.5
88
23
53
11
215
78
114
41
78
88
961
976
1,019
906
773
873
725
763
1,325
1,013
0.3
0.4
2.9
( 7)
2.8
5.9
0.7
10.4
0.8
-2.1
291
289
129
–
137
10
278
2
275
320
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2007-08 5
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
7.0
18.3
32.6
6.8
15.1
66.3
12.7
27.4
8.2
371.0
133.5
281.5
691.4
120.9
201.8
742.2
118.7
462.5
125.1
-0.5
1.7
-1.1
1.2
( 7)
-3.4
-3.3
-6.8
-2.4
-4.1
182
28
225
41
–
305
304
327
293
311
$897
879
965
1,433
696
806
796
783
806
674
2.2
3.3
( 7)
5.9
( 7)
4.0
2.3
( 7)
1.8
3.1
194
94
–
10
–
54
186
–
228
117
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
20.2
8.3
9.4
8.7
88.2
6.2
37.4
51.6
611.6
80.6
204.2
142.2
113.1
100.5
992.7
78.8
681.8
529.5
-4.2
-5.1
-8.8
-1.6
0.8
-6.0
-2.1
-4.5
-1.8
-4.6
315
322
328
259
67
324
282
316
273
319
802
623
730
715
674
624
838
702
767
836
2.4
3.8
2.4
3.3
-1.9
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.4
2.8
175
66
175
94
319
94
117
129
175
137
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
10.3
31.9
12.9
15.5
15.2
14.2
4.6
7.6
4.4
20.7
94.9
423.3
197.4
145.0
174.8
158.0
85.5
136.1
113.0
318.9
-3.1
-3.7
-3.5
-6.5
-3.6
-5.5
0.5
-2.2
-2.1
-0.3
302
310
307
325
308
323
88
290
282
160
648
734
661
728
745
636
646
723
764
876
3.3
3.4
2.3
1.3
1.6
2.7
1.3
4.0
-43.7
1.5
94
88
186
259
242
145
259
54
327
248
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
16.8
39.1
23.5
4.8
4.8
24.6
15.2
4.1
139.3
35.9
298.8
741.3
319.1
96.6
100.9
450.5
212.8
92.6
2,533.4
601.4
-0.5
-0.4
-2.4
-1.2
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0.0
-0.8
-1.0
182
172
293
232
182
215
253
126
200
215
892
1,079
840
671
711
790
748
715
999
982
-0.2
-0.4
1.0
4.8
3.9
4.2
0.1
5.0
1.9
2.5
303
305
270
27
58
43
295
22
218
166
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
12.8
21.1
8.5
3.7
5.9
4.8
3.5
5.4
5.2
13.7
212.3
343.8
106.2
86.7
96.3
106.1
80.6
97.7
130.8
199.9
-2.1
-0.1
0.2
0.5
-0.5
0.1
-0.1
1.0
-0.6
1.2
282
141
110
88
182
114
141
53
191
41
756
1,046
732
806
698
786
861
689
842
761
1.9
0.5
1.9
3.1
5.8
2.5
10.5
4.1
5.4
2.7
218
285
218
117
12
166
1
49
17
145
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2007-08 5
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
7.7
10.3
24.2
6.1
3.3
4.8
6.3
137.9
182.1
119.8
115.1
195.8
580.9
123.7
75.7
107.4
127.4
-1.0
-0.6
-6.5
2.1
-0.8
-0.2
-1.4
-1.7
-0.3
0.9
215
191
325
19
200
153
246
267
160
60
$711
706
702
797
744
844
714
721
698
792
2.6
1.6
-1.7
-0.7
4.9
2.1
2.6
3.4
2.9
2.6
158
242
318
310
24
203
158
88
129
158
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Boone, KY ..........................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
14.8
5.2
20.4
12.2
4.9
3.2
3.6
9.4
22.9
7.3
279.5
90.9
321.5
264.6
97.9
82.2
75.1
179.2
435.0
125.5
0.8
0.2
0.8
1.8
1.7
2.2
1.3
( 7)
-1.6
0.0
67
110
67
25
28
17
37
–
259
126
822
670
884
786
715
808
754
772
822
715
1.4
2.3
1.3
1.3
-0.8
2.0
-10.0
2.5
1.7
2.7
253
186
259
259
313
212
326
166
237
145
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
St. Tammany, LA ...............
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
4.9
14.1
13.8
8.7
10.3
7.1
12.2
14.6
21.7
6.0
88.6
259.7
201.9
136.4
173.2
75.6
176.9
237.5
379.7
95.7
-0.1
1.8
1.1
0.6
5.6
-0.7
0.6
0.0
-0.5
-0.9
141
25
48
78
1
197
78
126
182
209
721
790
772
811
920
685
756
891
859
806
4.9
7.8
2.5
4.5
4.2
3.6
1.9
3.0
2.9
2.9
24
5
166
31
43
72
218
126
129
129
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
33.1
15.7
14.0
9.2
15.5
20.9
14.3
47.5
84.9
151.3
462.8
317.7
341.3
101.4
221.4
305.6
202.2
834.5
-2.0
0.1
-0.8
0.3
-1.0
-1.6
-1.4
0.0
-0.5
0.8
280
114
200
105
215
259
246
126
182
67
762
973
1,110
926
1,004
725
773
902
766
1,240
0.0
1.9
1.6
3.9
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.4
5.2
300
218
242
58
126
166
175
145
175
19
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
23.3
13.8
21.7
20.6
7.8
6.8
5.5
14.2
17.6
39.0
329.6
180.7
596.6
324.9
138.3
162.6
115.6
335.2
308.3
682.7
-0.5
-1.0
0.9
-1.2
-4.7
-1.0
-2.1
-2.1
-4.5
-3.6
182
215
60
232
320
215
282
282
316
308
1,013
829
1,309
869
728
822
776
767
881
991
2.7
3.1
2.2
3.3
0.1
3.5
4.4
2.4
2.4
4.5
145
117
194
94
295
79
35
175
175
31
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2007-08 5
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
8.1
32.0
7.9
10.7
42.8
3.6
15.4
5.9
109.7
84.2
187.5
735.3
115.4
177.6
851.5
91.4
335.3
99.4
-2.2
-4.8
-1.5
-2.8
-1.9
-1.8
-0.4
-0.9
0.0
-0.2
290
321
253
297
277
273
172
209
126
153
$703
693
902
952
840
847
1,069
863
920
709
1.2
2.2
-2.3
2.1
1.1
3.5
0.7
3.5
1.3
0.4
265
194
321
203
268
79
278
79
259
289
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
82.9
87.6
127.5
83.4
89.5
155.4
374.0
125.6
615.1
233.9
0.0
0.6
0.2
-0.1
-3.0
-1.2
0.7
-1.4
-0.7
0.0
126
78
110
141
301
232
71
246
197
126
658
656
733
663
794
662
863
702
907
958
3.9
0.6
2.9
3.1
-0.8
5.1
3.9
0.6
2.6
6.9
58
281
129
117
313
20
58
281
158
7
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
5.8
15.8
8.0
50.4
14.6
12.3
11.0
7.2
35.2
11.7
78.3
324.6
159.2
918.9
210.7
198.6
141.4
152.1
455.7
205.3
0.6
1.3
0.4
-1.2
-4.1
0.0
-1.6
-0.2
-0.9
-1.5
78
37
102
232
311
126
259
153
209
253
688
788
670
796
788
928
814
754
1,030
905
1.8
2.7
2.6
3.0
2.1
0.5
-3.8
1.8
0.9
3.5
228
145
158
126
203
285
322
228
273
79
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
13.3
21.8
6.4
14.3
11.5
22.5
21.2
18.5
12.7
12.9
212.5
363.4
105.6
237.5
233.0
405.0
269.2
291.5
160.2
180.6
-0.4
-0.6
-0.9
-0.3
0.7
-2.0
-0.1
-2.1
-0.1
-0.3
172
191
209
160
71
280
141
282
141
160
875
1,060
778
1,133
1,092
1,049
891
1,182
712
888
0.0
0.3
2.2
2.8
3.4
3.3
1.8
-0.7
1.9
1.4
300
291
194
137
88
94
228
310
218
253
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
10.5
15.3
17.5
10.0
15.9
4.5
8.4
23.6
45.9
18.1
177.4
237.9
334.5
230.1
227.4
97.4
117.8
466.1
482.5
386.5
-0.8
-0.6
-0.5
0.1
0.9
0.1
-1.4
1.2
1.1
-0.1
200
191
182
114
60
114
246
41
48
141
1,277
1,074
748
881
820
688
880
747
728
823
-0.4
2.1
3.3
2.7
2.6
3.5
4.4
3.2
2.1
2.2
305
203
94
145
158
79
35
109
203
194
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2007-08 5
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
52.5
118.6
5.3
12.8
10.0
43.3
8.8
9.8
5.4
50.6
615.4
2,392.5
113.1
256.1
134.0
508.3
94.5
118.9
79.4
642.6
-0.3
1.0
0.1
-0.3
0.0
1.4
-0.2
0.1
0.1
-0.2
160
53
114
160
126
34
153
114
114
153
$962
1,569
678
786
752
840
755
932
719
922
0.6
2.0
2.4
3.3
3.6
-4.3
3.6
4.1
1.8
3.6
281
212
175
94
72
323
72
49
228
72
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
36.5
8.1
4.7
6.3
7.0
9.3
14.9
33.1
7.5
28.7
430.8
116.5
85.8
120.2
186.5
187.8
279.2
569.1
103.8
453.6
-0.3
-0.1
-3.4
0.5
1.3
0.9
-0.7
1.1
-1.7
1.4
160
141
305
88
37
60
197
48
267
34
1,140
658
663
679
1,085
761
746
945
686
839
2.2
2.5
2.8
6.1
2.4
-1.4
1.5
1.4
3.3
2.7
194
166
137
8
175
317
248
253
94
145
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
5.9
7.4
38.0
30.1
24.2
6.8
6.3
10.8
6.5
13.0
101.2
147.7
743.4
684.1
522.6
102.7
101.1
215.9
104.0
264.0
3.5
0.5
-1.6
-0.9
-0.2
-1.1
-1.3
-2.3
-1.7
-2.9
7
88
259
209
153
225
241
292
267
300
699
745
871
817
893
697
689
723
609
761
4.2
3.6
3.3
1.4
3.2
0.1
0.6
0.3
2.4
0.5
43
72
94
253
109
295
281
291
175
285
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Warren, OH ........................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
9.1
15.1
4.7
4.2
23.9
19.4
12.7
6.6
10.8
9.4
161.9
275.4
76.6
80.1
425.0
351.2
152.1
83.0
151.3
144.1
-1.5
-0.3
-4.1
-1.4
0.7
1.1
0.1
-2.8
-1.3
-0.3
253
160
311
246
71
48
114
297
241
160
661
769
697
695
777
766
780
648
668
677
3.1
1.9
-4.8
1.2
6.0
3.2
2.0
2.5
3.2
3.7
117
218
324
265
9
109
212
166
109
70
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
27.8
16.0
35.4
9.3
20.4
4.8
15.2
6.1
7.4
13.8
452.3
251.3
697.6
170.3
268.6
81.7
247.4
127.0
186.6
211.7
0.7
-0.8
0.0
-0.4
-0.6
0.9
1.2
-0.5
-0.1
0.3
71
200
126
172
191
60
41
182
141
105
862
942
898
771
845
735
1,108
787
815
890
2.4
3.5
3.1
3.6
4.4
5.0
2.8
1.4
1.0
3.2
175
79
117
72
35
22
137
253
270
109
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2007-08 5
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
7.4
5.9
12.4
8.8
7.9
27.7
6.5
30.8
5.3
9.5
129.9
101.7
233.4
181.9
143.9
496.5
100.7
634.2
82.0
139.0
-0.8
-1.1
0.5
0.3
-1.1
0.6
-0.4
0.1
1.2
-0.3
200
225
88
105
225
78
172
114
41
160
$677
652
713
844
654
1,027
741
991
737
693
4.2
3.5
2.3
3.7
2.0
1.3
2.3
4.4
2.8
5.8
43
79
186
70
212
259
186
35
137
12
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
9.2
5.7
18.1
12.4
12.6
8.4
5.7
9.4
6.1
6.4
178.5
80.4
283.0
216.1
242.6
125.5
98.9
215.4
120.4
118.2
0.6
-4.1
-2.6
0.7
0.5
-1.8
0.7
-1.1
-1.2
1.9
78
311
295
71
88
273
71
225
232
24
743
735
825
716
737
539
634
735
736
682
1.8
1.7
3.3
2.7
2.1
-0.9
1.9
2.9
4.0
0.7
228
237
94
145
203
315
218
129
54
278
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
18.7
8.7
11.2
4.4
20.1
6.0
4.6
32.4
4.6
3.8
437.0
195.3
229.8
99.2
501.0
89.6
103.4
735.1
86.6
81.9
-1.4
0.5
0.7
0.0
-1.7
1.1
3.6
2.1
0.0
3.0
246
88
71
126
267
48
6
19
126
8
850
720
711
745
850
891
659
735
829
634
3.5
0.8
0.1
-0.7
1.8
-0.4
4.1
-0.5
3.6
4.6
79
275
295
310
228
305
49
308
72
29
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
6.5
17.0
68.1
10.5
13.4
8.3
5.2
97.0
10.6
5.9
124.9
296.9
1,498.9
170.7
269.8
130.2
97.6
2,073.4
218.0
126.0
1.3
( 7)
1.2
3.0
2.1
4.2
( 7)
2.8
2.2
0.5
37
–
41
8
19
3
–
10
17
88
535
977
1,010
720
603
894
798
1,070
538
821
5.1
( 7)
-0.2
1.4
1.5
3.1
( 7)
3.9
3.9
5.7
20
–
303
253
248
117
–
58
58
14
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
6.8
4.9
8.2
8.1
3.8
5.3
37.3
28.7
4.8
7.1
124.0
103.9
126.0
156.2
76.8
94.9
774.5
582.0
88.9
123.7
2.3
( 7)
3.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
1.8
1.6
0.5
4.3
16
–
5
11
13
14
25
31
88
2
639
666
794
723
744
724
841
925
562
801
3.4
4.6
7.3
3.1
( 7)
3.9
-1.2
2.1
1.8
1.9
88
29
6
117
–
58
316
203
228
218
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2007-08 5
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
7.2
38.3
13.0
5.7
6.0
7.7
7.6
33.7
9.5
8.9
105.7
592.0
176.2
95.3
95.0
156.8
122.0
592.4
181.0
135.0
-1.0
0.6
-1.3
-0.4
-1.2
1.0
-1.6
0.1
-1.1
1.6
215
78
241
172
232
53
259
114
225
31
$688
779
696
656
835
1,376
759
1,317
870
1,049
2.7
0.1
9.4
5.6
4.1
1.5
3.8
3.8
-0.5
3.3
145
295
3
15
49
248
66
66
308
94
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 .........................
7.1
6.1
5.8
4.0
5.8
7.5
11.6
12.1
76.6
6.6
106.8
101.2
99.8
99.8
145.8
159.1
180.1
134.2
1,201.4
84.4
-0.3
0.6
-1.6
-1.3
0.0
0.0
-0.4
0.4
1.7
-0.4
160
78
259
241
126
126
172
102
28
172
766
1,205
668
757
837
957
662
770
1,056
779
4.1
3.9
2.3
4.4
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.8
3.2
49
58
186
35
203
194
194
137
137
109
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
20.4
17.8
15.2
6.9
6.8
7.8
6.1
6.8
14.2
21.4
276.5
257.2
213.4
101.6
84.1
105.7
108.9
151.1
308.2
502.8
-0.3
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.4
-2.8
-1.1
-1.0
0.3
-0.1
160
110
88
53
102
297
225
215
105
141
779
875
691
771
688
580
752
725
807
853
4.7
1.7
3.3
3.8
8.3
4.5
4.3
2.7
4.0
4.4
28
237
94
66
4
31
41
145
54
35
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
5.1
4.2
13.4
3.8
13.4
106.6
77.2
237.4
92.7
284.2
0.1
-1.4
-1.6
1.0
-2.3
114
246
259
53
( 8)
711
757
831
769
571
2.3
1.2
1.7
2.7
4.2
186
265
237
145
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.3 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
9,107.3
8,815.2
125.6
889.7
360.7
1,925.1
145.7
868.4
1,516.8
844.4
735.4
1,180.4
292.1
136,631.8
114,859.8
1,994.2
7,388.5
13,565.7
26,212.9
3,029.2
8,041.1
17,924.3
17,877.9
13,987.8
4,558.5
21,772.0
-0.3
-0.6
1.6
-5.8
-2.8
-0.7
-1.0
-2.2
-0.6
2.8
0.6
0.7
1.2
$841
828
903
902
1,009
718
1,282
1,207
1,045
787
351
543
911
2.6
2.2
8.0
4.6
1.5
0.4
2.2
0.1
4.6
3.6
2.6
3.0
4.2
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 ...................................................
421.0
417.0
0.5
13.9
14.7
53.9
8.7
24.2
42.4
27.9
26.8
188.6
4.0
4,229.7
3,613.1
11.4
148.0
438.4
799.9
220.3
237.1
589.7
483.1
408.9
254.6
616.6
-0.2
-0.6
-7.7
-7.9
-3.4
-0.7
5.0
-5.1
( 6)
2.7
1.0
0.1
2.5
946
922
1,321
992
1,025
776
1,551
1,402
1,126
863
522
446
1,091
2.6
2.9
16.2
5.4
3.5
0.3
1.6
-0.8
7.5
3.7
3.6
4.2
0.9
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 ...................................................
139.3
137.9
0.1
12.3
7.0
27.5
2.5
15.8
28.7
13.8
11.6
14.4
1.4
2,533.4
2,220.2
1.2
93.9
230.0
468.8
57.4
210.1
437.8
373.4
246.0
98.2
313.2
-0.8
-0.9
-10.7
-5.5
-3.3
-1.4
0.0
-3.3
-1.2
2.2
1.3
1.2
-0.6
999
989
911
1,236
1,000
790
1,450
1,682
1,241
846
436
720
1,067
1.9
1.6
-7.5
5.1
1.9
0.5
1.6
3.8
0.8
2.2
3.8
3.4
3.9
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 ...................................................
118.6
118.3
0.0
2.4
3.0
21.7
4.4
18.9
25.0
8.7
11.5
17.8
0.3
2,392.5
1,940.6
0.2
37.3
36.0
249.2
136.1
379.0
498.4
288.1
219.6
89.3
451.9
1.0
1.2
0.0
4.2
-5.3
-0.2
0.6
-0.7
1.6
1.5
3.3
1.9
0.3
1,569
1,691
3,487
1,525
1,286
1,166
1,997
3,047
1,832
1,027
744
951
1,052
2.0
2.1
45.4
6.1
1.5
2.2
5.2
-0.1
4.3
4.1
2.3
6.6
1.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
97.0
96.5
1.5
6.7
4.7
22.3
1.4
10.6
19.4
10.3
7.5
11.5
0.5
2,073.4
1,821.8
83.6
160.5
187.4
431.2
32.5
119.6
342.4
218.8
183.7
60.5
251.6
2.8
2.7
6.0
4.9
3.1
2.5
-1.1
-0.8
1.9
3.8
2.6
2.5
3.1
$1,070
1,089
3,077
1,048
1,299
930
1,248
1,303
1,223
867
380
622
935
3.9
3.8
( 6)
7.0
2.4
1.6
-1.0
4.6
4.6
2.8
0.5
4.4
4.6
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
102.2
101.6
0.5
11.0
3.6
22.7
1.7
13.0
22.7
10.0
7.3
7.3
0.7
1,741.0
1,558.3
9.4
138.8
126.9
368.7
30.9
144.2
298.7
208.5
180.5
50.9
182.7
-3.1
-3.4
-3.8
-18.8
-4.8
-1.3
-0.2
-4.5
-4.9
5.9
-0.1
-1.4
0.0
845
826
761
875
1,146
779
1,013
1,041
862
893
395
577
988
2.1
1.6
8.4
4.0
2.4
-3.0
0.2
-0.9
6.7
3.8
0.5
3.2
4.4
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 ...................................................
101.2
99.8
0.2
7.0
5.3
17.4
1.3
10.9
18.9
9.9
7.1
16.5
1.4
1,502.4
1,343.7
5.6
91.1
173.5
273.6
29.8
114.6
269.3
147.4
180.9
50.3
158.7
-1.7
-2.1
-6.9
-13.0
-3.0
-1.7
0.1
-10.5
-3.4
4.6
2.8
3.2
1.4
954
937
570
1,076
1,121
900
1,358
1,347
1,059
861
415
550
1,099
0.2
-0.2
-6.3
3.9
-2.1
1.7
3.1
-5.7
4.0
4.0
1.2
-0.4
3.5
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 ...................................................
68.1
67.6
0.6
4.4
3.1
15.2
1.7
8.8
14.8
6.6
5.3
6.5
0.5
1,498.9
1,332.6
8.3
86.0
134.1
304.7
49.1
145.7
282.4
148.3
132.8
40.1
166.3
1.2
1.0
16.6
2.7
-4.0
0.3
-0.9
1.1
2.7
2.8
1.2
-0.9
2.4
1,010
1,016
3,143
924
1,149
943
1,394
1,318
1,121
963
463
627
962
-0.2
-0.7
8.6
-1.2
-3.4
-2.7
2.4
-0.9
0.0
-1.1
5.9
4.0
4.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
98.3
97.0
0.8
7.0
3.2
14.2
1.3
9.6
16.1
8.1
6.8
25.1
1.3
1,336.7
1,107.0
11.6
78.2
103.0
215.3
38.8
76.5
217.0
134.1
166.7
58.7
229.7
-0.4
-0.8
0.6
-13.0
0.2
-2.4
2.9
-5.9
-0.8
3.6
1.1
1.9
1.6
$926
898
556
971
1,207
737
2,311
1,085
1,112
847
405
474
1,059
4.2
3.6
2.2
5.1
2.0
0.8
22.9
-2.5
3.2
5.1
4.4
-0.4
6.4
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 ...................................................
76.6
76.1
0.4
6.8
2.4
15.0
1.8
7.0
13.6
6.5
6.1
16.6
0.5
1,201.4
1,043.7
3.1
72.1
112.2
220.7
79.4
75.2
193.4
126.1
115.1
46.3
157.7
1.7
1.7
-3.9
-0.9
0.2
0.7
4.8
-1.2
2.8
4.6
1.4
2.0
2.0
1,056
1,059
1,320
1,071
1,330
912
1,903
1,291
1,237
849
434
618
1,034
2.8
2.5
8.2
6.9
-4.0
1.0
3.9
1.3
5.1
4.7
1.6
8.2
4.3
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
87.9
0.5
6.6
2.6
23.4
1.5
10.5
18.0
9.3
5.9
7.6
0.4
992.7
859.4
8.3
47.3
44.5
251.9
19.9
69.7
132.9
141.8
103.2
36.4
133.3
-2.1
-2.4
-10.8
-16.4
-8.5
-1.4
-4.0
-4.1
-3.9
3.5
-0.8
0.0
-0.5
838
804
479
838
738
757
1,381
1,149
988
811
475
531
1,039
3.1
2.2
-4.0
1.0
1.8
1.9
17.4
0.0
3.9
1.6
3.3
0.8
6.7
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, second quarter 2008 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2007-08 5
United States 6 .........................
9,107.3
136,631.8
-0.3
$841
2.6
Jefferson, AL ............................
Anchorage Borough, AK ...........
Maricopa, AZ ............................
Pulaski, AR ...............................
Los Angeles, CA .......................
Denver, CO ..............................
Hartford, CT ..............................
New Castle, DE ........................
Washington, DC .......................
Miami-Dade, FL ........................
19.0
8.2
102.2
14.9
421.0
25.9
25.6
18.3
32.6
88.2
362.3
151.1
1,741.0
251.4
4,229.7
453.9
515.0
281.5
691.4
992.7
-0.8
1.5
-3.1
-0.1
-0.2
1.0
0.5
-1.1
1.2
-2.1
840
914
845
765
946
1,019
1,013
965
1,433
838
1.9
2.5
2.1
3.2
2.6
2.9
-2.1
( 7)
5.9
3.1
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
39.1
24.6
15.2
139.3
24.2
14.8
20.4
22.9
14.1
12.2
741.3
450.5
212.8
2,533.4
580.9
279.5
321.5
435.0
259.7
176.9
-0.4
-1.0
-1.5
-0.8
-0.2
0.8
0.8
-1.6
1.8
0.6
1,079
790
748
999
844
822
884
822
790
756
-0.4
4.2
0.1
1.9
2.1
1.4
1.3
1.7
7.8
1.9
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
33.1
47.5
32.0
42.8
6.4
32.8
5.8
15.8
50.4
12.3
462.8
834.5
735.3
851.5
127.5
615.1
78.3
324.6
918.9
198.6
-0.8
0.8
-2.8
-0.4
0.2
-0.7
0.6
1.3
-1.2
0.0
1,110
1,240
952
1,069
733
907
688
788
796
928
1.6
5.2
2.1
0.7
2.9
2.6
1.8
2.7
3.0
0.5
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
35.2
17.5
118.6
33.1
5.9
38.0
23.9
27.8
35.4
18.1
455.7
334.5
2,392.5
569.1
101.2
743.4
425.0
452.3
697.6
283.0
-0.9
-0.5
1.0
1.1
3.5
-1.6
0.7
0.7
0.0
-2.6
1,030
748
1,569
945
699
871
777
862
898
825
0.9
3.3
2.0
1.4
4.2
3.3
6.0
2.4
3.1
3.3
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
12.6
6.4
20.1
97.0
38.3
6.0
33.7
76.6
6.1
21.4
242.6
118.2
501.0
2,073.4
592.0
95.0
592.4
1,201.4
108.9
502.8
0.5
1.9
-1.7
2.8
0.6
-1.2
0.1
1.7
-1.1
-0.1
737
682
850
1,070
779
835
1,317
1,056
752
853
2.1
0.7
1.8
3.9
0.1
4.1
3.8
2.8
4.3
4.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2007-08 5
Laramie, WY .............................
3.2
44.6
2.0
$706
3.1
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
13.4
1.8
284.2
23.8
-2.3
1.5
571
661
4.2
3.1
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2008 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2007-08
United States 4 ...................
9,107.3
136,631.8
-0.3
$841
2.6
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
121.7
21.3
163.2
85.6
1,322.4
179.3
113.4
29.1
32.6
627.5
1,955.4
330.6
2,543.9
1,183.5
15,760.3
2,346.3
1,722.3
427.3
691.4
7,620.1
-0.5
1.4
-2.6
-0.2
-0.5
0.8
0.5
-0.9
1.2
-3.4
720
860
806
661
955
858
1,036
862
1,433
762
3.3
3.1
2.4
3.4
2.2
3.1
0.3
-0.8
5.9
2.6
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
276.6
39.1
57.5
367.1
160.4
93.9
86.6
113.5
122.1
50.8
4,059.7
623.9
671.9
5,930.0
2,906.5
1,521.2
1,389.1
1,818.9
1,900.3
620.3
-0.6
-1.3
-0.9
-0.4
-0.9
0.1
1.2
-0.5
1.2
0.1
787
764
636
893
715
683
720
718
750
676
-0.6
3.9
1.6
2.3
1.9
2.9
2.4
2.6
5.5
2.7
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
165.6
213.4
258.4
173.6
71.0
175.2
43.1
59.5
76.9
49.3
2,577.7
3,310.4
4,163.3
2,733.9
1,139.1
2,761.6
450.3
936.1
1,271.8
641.9
-0.3
0.1
-2.2
-0.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.5
-1.9
-0.4
920
1,044
825
849
635
752
629
676
797
835
2.8
3.6
2.4
1.8
4.4
3.4
2.9
3.4
2.7
1.5
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
278.7
54.4
583.5
258.9
25.6
294.6
101.0
131.3
343.2
35.9
4,054.4
837.2
8,758.2
4,083.6
356.4
5,315.0
1,556.0
1,747.4
5,743.3
481.6
-0.4
0.6
0.6
-0.1
2.5
-1.3
1.0
-0.8
0.1
-2.2
1,004
715
1,040
735
654
757
701
764
827
796
1.6
4.2
2.3
2.4
5.8
2.3
5.3
3.0
3.1
2.8
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
118.3
30.5
143.2
561.4
86.9
25.0
231.1
219.3
48.9
160.9
1,907.5
409.0
2,752.7
10,510.3
1,234.3
305.6
3,720.4
3,000.9
715.3
2,836.8
-0.6
1.2
-0.4
2.2
0.1
-0.9
-0.3
0.3
0.0
-0.5
681
606
745
849
716
718
885
862
695
730
2.4
2.9
1.9
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.4
5.1
3.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2008 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2008
(thousands)
June
2008
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2007-08
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2007-08
Wyoming ............................
25.0
296.7
2.7
$780
5.4
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
56.9
3.5
997.8
45.9
-2.0
-2.2
475
703
3.5
-0.6
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
June 2007-08 (U.S. average = -0.3 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
-0.2% to 5.6%
-8.8% to -0.3%
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
January 2009
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, second quarter 2007-08 (U.S. average = 2.6 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
2.7% to 10.5%
-43.7% to 2.6%
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
January 2009