For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Friday, October 16, 2009
USDL-09-1241
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
First Quarter 2009
From March 2008 to March 2009, employment declined in 323 of the 334 largest U.S. counties
according to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart County, Ind.,
located about 100 miles east of Chicago, posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 23.4
percent over the year, compared with a national job decrease of 4.2 percent. Nearly 80 percent of the
employment decline in Elkhart occurred in manufacturing, which lost 22,100 jobs over the year.
Arlington County, Va., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among
the largest counties in the U.S., with a gain of 2.6 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage fell by 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009. This is the largest overthe-year decline in U.S. average weekly wages dating back to 1978, when these quarterly data were first
comparable. (See Technical Note.) The financial activities supersector sustained the largest decline in
average weekly wages, with a decrease of 15.9 percent. Total wages for this industry fell by $37.9
billion over the year. New York County, N.Y., had the largest over-the-year decrease in average weekly
wages in the first quarter of 2009, with a loss of 23.4 percent. The area’s substantial over-the-year wage
declines, which were largely attributable to lower bonus payments in financial activities, had a
significant impact on the national average weekly wage trend in the first quarter of 2009. Excluding
New York County, the national average weekly wage decrease is 1.3 percent—a difference of 1.2
percentage points.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in
employment, March 2008-09
(U.S. average = -4.2 percent)
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decline in
average weekly wages, first quarter 2008-09
(U.S. average = -2.5 percent)
5
5
0
0
-5
-10.8
-10
-10.5
-10.4
-10.2
-10.3
-10
-10.0
-9.7
-9.0
Fairfield,
Conn.
Hudson,
N.J.
Suffolk,
Mass.
-15
-15
-20
-5
-20
-23.4
-23.4
-25
-25
Elkhart,
Ind.
Macomb,
Mich.
Marion,
Fla.
Washoe,
Nev.
Horry,
S.C.
New York, Mecklenburg,
N.Y.
N.C.
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by March 2009 employment, March 2008-09 employment
decrease, and March 2008-09 percent decrease in employment
Employment in large counties
March 2009 employment
(thousands)
United States
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Orange, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
128,992.2
3,996.3
2,381.5
2,290.3
2,028.4
1,671.0
1,425.7
1,399.5
1,263.0
1,135.9
963.9
Decrease in employment,
March 2008-09
(thousands)
United States
-5,676.3
Los Angeles, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Cook, Ill.
Orange, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Clark, Nev.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
San Diego, Calif.
Wayne, Mich.
Broward, Fla.
-206.5
-133.9
-108.4
-102.8
-84.9
-83.3
-62.8
-61.6
-59.0
-58.6
Percent decrease in
employment,
March 2008-09
United States
Elkhart, Ind.
Macomb, Mich.
Marion, Fla.
Washoe, Nev.
Horry, S.C.
Seminole, Fla.
Ottawa, Mich.
Catawba, N.C.
Lee, Fla.
Sarasota, Fla.
-4.2
-23.4
-10.8
-10.5
-10.4
-10.2
-9.7
-9.7
-9.7
-9.5
-9.5
Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2008 annual average employment),
154 had over-the-year percentage changes in employment equal to or below the national average (-4.2
percent) in March 2009; 178 large counties experienced changes above the national average. (See chart
3.) The percent change in average weekly wages was equal to or lower than the national average (-2.5
percent) in 76 of the largest U.S. counties but was above the national average in 255 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 129 million full- and part-time workers.
Large County Employment
In March 2009, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129 million, down by
4.2 percent from March 2008. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.5
percent of total U.S. employment and 77.7 percent of total wages. These 334 counties had a net job
decline of 4,160,200 over the year, accounting for 73.3 percent of the overall U.S. employment decrease.
Employment declined in 323 counties from March 2008 to March 2009. The largest percentage decline
in employment was in Elkhart, Ind. (-23.4 percent). Macomb, Mich., had the next largest percentage
decline (-10.8 percent), followed by the counties of Marion, Fla. (-10.5 percent), Washoe, Nev. (-10.4
percent), and Horry, S.C. (-10.2 percent). The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Los
Angeles, Calif. (-206,500), followed by the counties of Maricopa, Ariz. (-133,900), Cook, Ill.
(-108,400), Orange, Calif. (-102,800), and New York, N.Y. (-84,900). (See table A.) Combined
employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 636,500 or 11.2 percent of the
employment decline for the U.S. as a whole.
-2-
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by first quarter 2009 average weekly wages, first quarter
2008-09 decrease in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2008-09 percent decrease in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2009
United States
New York, N.Y.
San Mateo, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Somerset, N.J.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Hudson, N.J.
Morris, N.J.
$882
$2,149
1,786
1,735
1,734
1,558
1,523
1,519
1,472
1,461
1,394
1,394
Decrease in average weekly
wage, first quarter 2008-09
United States
-$23
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Suffolk, Mass.
Hudson, N.J.
Mecklenburg, N.C.
San Francisco, Calif.
Westchester, N.Y.
Hennepin, Minn.
Union, N.J.
Santa Clara, Calif.
-$657
-192
-155
-150
-121
-100
-92
-80
-72
-70
Percent decrease in average
weekly wage, first
quarter 2008-09
United States
New York, N.Y.
Mecklenburg, N.C.
Fairfield, Conn.
Hudson, N.J.
Suffolk, Mass.
Westmoreland, Pa.
Elkhart, Ind.
Trumbull, Ohio
Westchester, N.Y.
Hennepin, Minn.
-2.5
-23.4
-10.3
-10.0
-9.7
-9.0
-8.9
-8.7
-7.1
-7.0
-6.7
Employment rose in eight of the large counties from March 2008 to March 2009. None of the large
counties grew by more than three percent over the year. Arlington, Va., had the largest over-the-year
percentage increase in employment (2.6 percent) among the largest counties in the U.S. Montgomery,
Texas, had the next largest increase (1.5 percent), followed by the counties of Fort Bend, Texas (1.2
percent), Bronx, N.Y. (1.1 percent), and Anchorage, Alaska, and East Baton Rouge, La. (0.3 percent
each). The largest gains in the level of employment from March 2008 to March 2009 were recorded in
the counties of Arlington, Va. (3,900), Bronx, N.Y. (2,400), Montgomery, Texas (1,900), Fort Bend,
Texas (1,500), and East Baton Rouge, La. (900).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation fell 2.5 percent over the year in the first quarter of 2009. This is
the largest over-the-year decline in U.S. average weekly wages dating back to 1978. During that time
span, over-the-year declines in average weekly wages occurred in only two other quarters: first quarter
1993 (-0.9 percent) and fourth quarter 1994 (-1.1 percent). The average weekly wages in those two
quarters declined because employment growth outpaced total wage growth; in the first quarter of 2009,
both employment and wages decreased.
Among the 334 largest counties, 202 had over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages this quarter.
The largest wage losses occurred in New York, N.Y., with a decline of 23.4 percent from the first
quarter of 2008. Mecklenburg, N.C., had the second largest decline (-10.3 percent), followed by the
counties of Fairfield, Conn. (-10.0 percent), Hudson, N.J. (-9.7 percent), and Suffolk, Mass. (-9.0
percent). (See table B.)
Of the 334 largest counties, 120 experienced growth in average weekly wages. San Mateo, Calif., led the
nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 23.7 percent from the first quarter of
-3-
2008. Benton, Ark., was second with a gain of 16.7 percent, followed by the counties of Solano, Calif.
(16.0 percent), Pulaski, Ark. (10.7 percent), and Peoria, Ill. (6.2 percent).
The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2009 was $882. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 103 of the 334 largest U.S. counties. Three of the five counties with
the highest average weekly wages in the nation were also among the five counties with the largest overthe-year losses in average weekly wages. Despite suffering the largest average weekly wage losses in the
nation, New York, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average
weekly wage of $2,149. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,786,
followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,735), Somerset, N.J. ($1,734), and Suffolk, Mass. ($1,558). There were
230 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of 2009. The
lowest average weekly wage was reported in Horry, S.C. ($525), followed by the counties of Cameron,
Texas ($527), Hidalgo, Texas ($538), Webb, Texas ($552), and Lake, Fla. ($576). (See table 1.)
Average weekly wages are affected not only by changes in total wages but also by employment changes
in high- and low-paying industries. (See Technical Note.) The 2.5-percent over-the-year decrease in
average weekly wages for the nation was partially due to large employment declines in high-paying
industries such as manufacturing. (See table 2.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties (based on 2008 annual average employment levels) experienced over-theyear percent declines in employment in March 2009. Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the largest decline in
employment among the 10 largest counties with a 7.4 percent decrease. Within Maricopa, every private
industry group except education and health services experienced employment declines, with
construction experiencing the largest decline (-30.7 percent). (See table 2.) Orange, Calif., had the next
largest decline in employment, -6.8 percent, followed by Miami-Dade, Fla. (-6.1 percent). Harris, Texas,
experienced the smallest decline in employment (-1.1 percent) among the 10 largest counties. Dallas,
Texas (-3.3 percent), and New York, N.Y. (-3.6 percent), had the second and third smallest employment
losses, respectively.
Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages. The
nation-leading 23.4-percent wage decrease in New York, N.Y., was fueled by significant wage losses in
the finance industry (-35.2 percent). New York’s average weekly wage loss was followed by Cook, Ill.
(-5.4 percent), and Dallas, Texas (-3.3 percent). San Diego, Calif., had the smallest decrease in wages
(-1.1 percent), followed by Miami-Dade, Fla. (-1.2 percent). The only wage increase occurred in King,
Wash. (0.2 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows March 2009 employment and the 2009 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest
county in each state, which is based on 2008 annual average employment levels. The employment levels
in the counties in table 3 in March 2009 ranged from approximately four million in Los Angeles County,
Calif., to 42,900 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in
New York, N.Y. ($2,149), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($697).
-4-
For More Information
The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 334 U.S. counties
with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2008. March 2009 employment and 2009
first-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release.
For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical
Note. Data for the first quarter of 2009 and final data for 2008 will be available later at
http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW data 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 2009 is scheduled to be released
on Wednesday, January 13, 2010.
County Changes for the 2009 County Employment and Wages News Releases
Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2008 are included in this release and
will be included in future 2009 releases. For 2009 data, two counties have been added to the
publication tables: Johnson, Iowa, and Gregg, Texas. Two counties, Boone, Ky., and St. Tammany,
La., will be excluded from 2009 releases.
-5-
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 2009 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 2008 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2009 data, two counties have
been added to the publication tables: Johnson, Iowa, and Gregg,
Texas. These counties will be included in all 2009 quarterly releases. Two counties, Boone, Ky., and St. Tammany, La., which were
published in the 2008 releases, will be excluded from this and
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 in first quarter 2009
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative records submitted by
7.0 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
• Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal database and directly summarizes gross job gains and losses
• Uses UI file as a sampling frame and
annually realigns (benchmarks) sample
estimates to first quarter UI levels
Use of UI file
• Directly summarizes and publishes
each new quarter of UI data
Principal
products
• Provides a quarterly and annual
• Provides quarterly employer dynamics • Provides current monthly estimates of
universe count of establishments,
data on establishment openings, closemployment, hours, and earnings at the
employment, and wages at the counings, expansions, and contractions at
MSA, state, and national level by industy, MSA, state, and national levels by
the national level by NAICS supersectry
detailed industry
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:
— Principal national economic indicator
— Business cycle analysis
— Official time series for employment
— Analysis of employer dynamics
change measures
underlying economic expansions
and contractions
— Input into other major economic indicators
— Analysis of employment expansion
and contraction by size of firm
Program Web
sites
• www.bls.gov/cew/
• www.bls.gov/bdm/
• www.bls.gov/ces/
future 2009 releases because their 2008 annual average employment
levels were less than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are selected
and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from
the preceding year.
The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ
from data released by the individual states. These potential differences result from the states' continuing receipt of UI data over time
and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine
their data release timetables.
Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment
measures
The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these measures—
QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a
somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and
publication product.
Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in
somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is
important to understand program differences and the intended uses
of the program products. (See table.) Additional information on
each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown
in the table.
Coverage
Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws
are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the
SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the
Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly
reports 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. QCEW
employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries
of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2008. These reports are based on place
of employment rather than place of residence.
UI and UCFE coverage is broad and has been basically comparable from state to state since 1978, when the 1976 amendments to
the Federal Unemployment Tax Act became effective, expanding
coverage to include most State and local government employees. In
2008, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 134.8 million
jobs. The estimated 129.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.5 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received
$6.142 trillion in pay, representing 93.8 percent of the wage and
salary component of personal income and 42.5 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 2008 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 un-
known industry categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008,
adjusted data account for administrative changes caused by multiunit employers who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity.
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change
measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news
release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending
points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted
data.
County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information
Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by
the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform 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 are included on the CD which
accompanies the hardcopy version of the Annual Bulletin. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2007 is available for sale as
a chartbook 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,
first quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,113.9
128,992.2
-4.2
–
$882
-2.5
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Shelby, AL .........................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
18.6
8.9
10.0
6.5
5.0
4.4
8.1
104.0
21.2
5.6
341.2
178.7
168.9
131.4
72.1
83.4
144.8
1,671.0
356.5
91.4
-5.1
-1.8
-4.1
-5.2
-5.1
-3.7
0.3
-7.4
-5.1
-4.6
242
38
174
249
242
137
5
304
242
211
890
930
713
726
867
731
928
854
746
1,029
-2.5
1.3
0.4
0.4
-1.0
2.0
1.3
-1.3
-3.7
16.7
256
49
96
96
183
30
49
200
290
2
Pulaski, AR ........................
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Butte, CA ...........................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
15.0
5.8
54.4
8.1
30.5
31.0
18.4
431.2
11.9
12.9
244.7
88.8
647.7
71.2
324.8
327.1
258.0
3,996.3
103.2
151.1
-2.3
-3.3
-6.1
-5.4
-5.0
-4.3
-3.8
-4.9
-5.3
-6.1
62
111
276
259
235
189
148
229
255
276
877
684
1,109
654
1,088
688
767
967
1,051
789
10.7
-1.0
-3.1
2.5
-1.6
-0.3
1.1
-2.4
-1.9
-0.9
4
183
275
21
229
137
59
252
240
178
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 ..................
102.3
11.0
48.8
55.1
51.0
99.6
52.5
18.2
9.9
24.2
1,399.5
127.5
575.6
605.3
619.9
1,263.0
551.7
207.8
100.9
326.4
-6.8
-7.7
-8.3
-4.5
-6.4
-4.7
-3.5
-5.0
-4.8
-4.8
294
308
318
205
284
216
122
235
221
221
992
844
743
970
735
934
1,523
723
753
1,786
-2.7
1.1
-0.7
0.6
-0.7
-1.1
-6.2
-0.8
1.1
23.7
260
59
160
86
160
187
319
173
59
1
Santa Barbara, CA .............
Santa Clara, CA .................
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
14.4
61.4
9.1
10.3
18.9
15.2
9.7
24.0
6.1
9.1
177.6
863.3
88.7
121.1
178.0
160.5
136.9
304.7
96.9
149.7
-4.7
-5.3
-4.2
-4.4
-7.3
-6.3
-4.7
-5.7
-3.8
-4.6
216
255
179
200
301
283
216
267
148
211
826
1,519
818
1,016
807
717
603
912
808
798
0.9
-4.4
0.2
16.0
-1.3
0.7
-0.7
-1.7
0.2
-1.4
73
301
109
3
200
83
160
234
109
206
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
19.3
12.9
25.6
9.5
17.3
18.3
10.2
6.0
33.0
25.6
270.7
153.5
424.1
88.9
234.2
203.7
124.9
80.5
401.5
488.4
-4.2
-3.7
-4.3
-3.8
-4.1
-3.1
-2.6
-2.7
-4.0
-3.1
179
137
189
148
174
103
75
79
169
103
1,074
1,016
1,139
990
797
894
762
723
1,735
1,142
-0.2
-4.0
-2.7
3.9
1.1
-1.2
0.8
1.0
-10.0
-3.9
134
296
260
8
59
196
77
68
329
294
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 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 .....................
22.6
7.0
18.2
33.3
6.8
14.9
64.1
12.2
27.3
8.2
350.6
125.9
268.1
679.2
116.6
192.1
699.1
122.6
444.0
120.0
-4.4
-2.4
-5.2
-0.1
-5.0
-6.9
-7.7
-8.6
-5.2
-7.4
200
69
249
10
235
298
308
320
249
304
$911
941
1,114
1,461
740
788
812
722
848
678
-1.1
0.0
-0.8
-1.9
2.4
1.7
-0.7
-3.9
-4.3
0.6
187
121
173
240
24
35
160
294
299
86
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
38.0
7.5
19.5
8.3
9.5
8.4
84.7
6.1
36.0
50.2
585.9
82.7
201.9
139.1
114.8
94.2
963.9
77.1
653.8
510.7
-7.5
-6.8
-9.5
-4.2
-6.0
-10.5
-6.1
-4.0
-7.7
-7.8
306
294
323
179
274
330
276
169
308
311
859
576
694
726
646
608
858
693
785
844
1.8
-2.9
-3.3
1.7
-1.8
0.2
-1.2
1.6
-1.5
-1.5
32
268
278
35
237
109
196
37
217
217
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
10.2
31.6
12.8
15.1
14.5
14.1
4.7
7.8
4.5
21.0
96.8
402.3
197.8
140.5
161.6
155.3
80.8
129.7
108.4
302.6
-7.3
-6.7
-6.5
-9.5
-9.7
-7.8
-4.3
-5.9
-4.8
-5.4
301
291
286
323
325
311
189
268
221
259
603
740
652
718
735
606
691
734
772
951
1.5
-0.4
-1.2
0.0
-0.9
-1.6
0.3
1.8
-4.9
-1.2
41
143
196
121
178
229
102
32
307
196
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
18.0
39.6
24.1
4.8
4.8
24.8
14.8
4.2
141.1
36.2
282.7
711.1
300.0
92.5
99.6
438.9
194.0
88.3
2,381.5
556.2
-5.1
-5.0
-6.8
-4.5
-2.8
-3.4
-7.3
-3.5
-4.4
-5.5
242
235
294
205
87
117
301
122
200
264
939
1,212
853
693
728
801
749
729
1,084
1,028
-1.1
-3.7
-2.3
-1.7
0.3
0.4
0.7
3.1
-5.4
-3.4
187
290
250
234
102
96
83
12
311
281
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
12.8
21.2
8.5
3.7
5.9
4.8
3.5
5.5
5.3
14.1
192.7
311.0
94.3
84.3
91.9
100.5
75.5
94.2
126.3
187.2
-7.2
-5.0
-5.9
-1.4
-4.3
-4.3
-4.8
-2.3
-1.9
-3.7
300
235
268
29
189
189
221
62
44
137
755
1,120
705
893
714
895
888
696
863
749
-0.7
-1.4
-3.3
-2.7
1.4
6.2
2.9
3.6
1.6
-1.1
160
206
278
260
46
5
15
10
37
187
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Tippecanoe, IN ..................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Johnson, IA ........................
7.0
9.1
5.0
7.9
10.4
24.2
6.1
3.3
4.8
3.5
126.1
169.4
92.0
108.1
184.2
547.1
115.1
73.7
102.9
74.9
-6.7
-5.1
-23.4
-3.1
-4.6
-4.2
-6.2
-2.7
-3.6
0.2
291
242
332
103
211
179
281
79
126
7
$743
717
642
837
756
932
715
764
709
769
-1.1
-1.5
-8.7
-6.5
0.4
-2.5
-3.2
0.0
-2.7
1.3
187
217
325
321
96
256
277
121
260
49
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
6.3
14.9
5.3
20.6
12.3
4.9
3.2
9.3
22.0
7.4
123.9
265.9
84.7
302.4
251.6
93.1
78.4
168.0
407.6
122.4
-0.2
-2.0
-3.9
-3.6
-2.8
-1.5
-1.4
-4.5
-4.3
-2.4
12
48
161
126
87
32
29
205
189
69
825
892
695
906
789
748
771
776
841
699
-1.1
-1.3
-0.1
-3.5
-5.4
1.9
-4.2
1.4
-0.9
0.6
187
200
130
284
311
31
298
46
178
86
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
4.9
14.4
13.9
8.9
10.5
12.2
14.5
21.4
6.0
5.6
86.0
263.0
195.3
133.8
168.9
163.7
225.0
363.1
91.3
79.9
-1.4
0.3
-2.1
-0.7
-0.6
-3.4
-3.5
-3.8
-3.3
-2.5
29
5
51
15
14
117
122
148
111
74
758
829
799
827
959
794
929
887
886
810
2.2
1.5
0.4
1.3
-4.7
-3.5
-0.3
-1.4
2.7
-1.5
26
41
96
49
304
284
137
206
18
217
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
8.8
32.7
15.8
13.9
9.0
15.3
20.7
14.6
47.3
23.2
142.2
444.0
305.1
326.8
78.5
204.9
286.3
191.4
791.7
308.5
-3.7
-2.0
-3.0
-3.6
-5.2
-5.0
-3.5
-2.8
-3.0
-3.1
137
48
99
126
249
235
122
87
99
103
1,038
1,234
921
1,011
742
747
895
794
1,276
1,020
0.9
-0.6
1.1
-2.0
-0.7
-2.9
-3.0
-3.6
-0.5
-4.0
73
153
59
243
160
268
270
287
149
296
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
13.6
21.7
20.6
7.7
6.7
5.5
14.2
17.5
38.8
5.7
167.5
574.8
306.8
127.1
151.5
108.3
302.4
270.5
618.3
95.9
-3.4
-2.4
-3.7
-5.9
-5.4
-5.9
-8.1
-10.8
-7.8
-9.7
117
69
137
268
259
268
315
331
311
325
787
1,558
858
715
812
784
780
849
973
695
-1.4
-9.0
-1.8
-4.4
-0.6
1.8
0.8
-3.0
-4.8
-2.1
206
327
237
301
153
32
77
270
306
246
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
4.3
8.1
31.8
7.5
10.3
41.2
3.4
14.9
5.8
4.4
77.6
181.7
671.7
106.2
166.4
800.8
87.3
315.9
91.7
76.0
-6.4
-3.4
-8.1
-5.3
-3.6
-4.4
-1.9
-3.8
-4.3
-5.4
284
117
315
255
126
200
44
148
189
259
$698
932
936
796
860
1,108
933
1,011
710
697
-2.8
-1.3
( 7)
-0.1
-1.1
-6.7
2.6
0.7
2.6
1.6
264
200
–
130
187
322
19
83
19
37
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Yellowstone, MT ................
4.6
6.3
4.5
4.9
8.1
18.4
8.2
32.2
8.5
5.8
83.3
126.2
80.5
86.5
150.1
357.0
118.3
578.1
222.0
75.1
-4.2
-0.7
-2.6
-3.6
-3.6
-3.7
-3.3
-3.9
-5.3
-2.7
179
15
75
126
126
137
111
161
255
79
676
759
661
785
644
897
714
960
1,024
697
1.3
0.9
1.1
-3.4
0.8
0.3
-4.3
0.6
-1.3
0.1
49
73
59
281
77
102
299
86
200
114
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
15.7
8.1
50.4
14.6
12.2
10.7
7.0
34.3
11.4
13.0
310.5
153.6
834.2
187.8
187.9
128.9
134.0
428.5
195.7
197.1
-2.1
-2.4
-9.1
-10.4
-3.6
-4.3
-6.2
-3.9
-3.9
-4.8
51
69
321
329
126
189
281
161
161
221
855
681
814
785
927
823
745
1,109
915
877
4.9
-0.4
-4.7
-1.4
-5.5
-2.1
-5.6
-3.1
-1.5
0.1
6
143
304
206
314
246
315
275
217
114
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
21.2
6.3
14.0
11.1
21.9
20.7
18.0
12.3
12.5
10.3
346.5
100.4
232.5
224.9
380.5
243.5
272.7
140.8
167.8
167.8
-3.8
-3.1
-2.9
-2.6
-5.9
-4.3
-3.7
-3.8
-5.9
-3.2
148
103
97
75
268
189
137
148
268
109
1,153
776
1,394
1,157
1,135
918
1,394
721
909
1,734
-3.8
-1.1
-9.7
-5.3
-1.5
-1.5
-1.6
-0.8
1.2
-2.0
292
187
328
310
217
217
229
173
58
243
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
14.9
17.8
10.0
16.3
4.5
8.3
23.7
47.4
18.1
52.5
218.5
317.7
222.4
228.7
92.3
112.2
444.3
474.9
369.9
582.9
-5.5
-4.2
-1.8
1.1
-3.0
-2.7
-2.1
-0.7
-1.8
-2.6
264
179
38
4
99
79
51
15
38
75
1,116
770
881
803
692
900
759
725
828
962
-6.1
1.6
2.1
-0.6
-0.6
-0.7
-0.7
-1.0
-3.8
0.1
317
37
27
153
153
160
160
183
292
114
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
119.1
5.3
12.8
10.0
44.0
8.8
9.9
5.4
50.5
36.4
2,290.3
107.1
243.0
127.0
489.5
91.2
111.7
73.2
597.4
401.9
-3.6
-2.2
-2.8
-2.8
-2.7
-2.3
-2.8
-2.2
-3.6
-3.8
126
57
87
87
79
62
87
57
126
148
$2,149
678
800
726
828
733
927
724
922
1,224
-23.4
0.1
0.0
0.3
-2.8
-1.5
-0.7
-1.8
2.8
-7.0
331
114
121
102
264
217
160
237
16
323
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
8.2
4.6
6.4
7.2
9.3
14.9
33.5
7.6
29.3
5.8
110.5
78.6
118.6
181.9
179.4
263.7
543.6
97.2
432.4
97.0
-4.1
-9.7
-0.4
-1.0
-3.7
-6.0
-4.6
-6.8
-4.0
-1.1
174
325
13
22
137
274
211
294
169
23
655
625
659
1,224
805
757
1,058
706
880
717
-0.3
-5.4
0.3
-2.8
-3.0
-1.7
-10.3
0.6
0.2
0.1
137
311
102
264
270
234
330
86
109
114
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
7.4
37.6
29.9
23.9
6.7
6.3
10.8
6.4
12.8
9.0
137.3
693.4
651.7
491.6
94.6
92.5
198.6
95.8
244.1
151.2
-6.1
-4.5
-3.1
-3.8
-4.1
-5.2
-6.5
-4.3
-5.6
-5.4
276
205
103
148
174
249
286
189
266
259
769
892
897
949
720
716
772
622
777
677
-0.5
-1.5
-0.8
-1.4
-1.4
-0.3
0.0
0.8
-3.0
0.4
149
217
173
206
206
137
121
77
270
96
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Warren, OH ........................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
15.0
4.7
4.3
23.7
19.5
12.7
6.5
10.9
9.3
27.9
257.0
69.3
72.2
415.2
337.5
140.2
75.3
135.8
131.2
425.8
-5.1
-8.4
-4.3
-1.9
-3.3
-7.1
-7.9
-9.3
-5.1
-4.9
242
319
189
44
111
299
314
322
242
229
811
659
730
790
802
779
628
655
689
873
-0.2
-7.1
-1.6
-0.1
-2.0
-1.3
1.1
-0.3
2.1
-1.4
134
324
229
130
243
200
59
137
27
206
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
16.0
35.2
9.1
19.8
4.8
15.2
6.0
7.4
13.6
7.4
233.2
664.9
160.9
249.5
77.3
235.7
121.0
176.6
203.2
121.5
-6.5
-1.8
-4.2
-4.8
-1.9
-2.3
-3.7
-2.2
-2.8
-3.3
286
38
179
221
44
62
137
57
87
111
1,006
953
764
845
736
1,114
797
848
941
688
-1.4
0.5
-0.7
-0.7
-0.7
-0.4
1.1
0.6
-2.4
0.6
206
94
160
160
160
143
59
86
252
86
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
5.9
12.4
8.8
7.9
27.5
6.5
31.1
5.4
9.4
9.1
98.9
217.7
169.4
137.0
467.1
96.7
624.5
77.5
130.3
169.6
-2.8
-4.2
-3.8
-1.8
-3.7
-3.2
-1.1
-1.3
-2.7
-4.1
87
179
148
38
137
109
23
26
79
174
$646
720
858
668
1,162
769
1,050
783
689
756
0.0
-1.5
-1.4
-0.9
-2.4
-0.1
-1.4
2.5
-8.9
-0.3
121
217
206
178
252
130
206
21
326
137
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
5.6
17.8
12.0
12.5
8.1
5.6
9.3
6.1
6.4
18.5
73.2
265.6
201.7
226.2
104.0
94.6
207.9
112.4
113.1
420.5
-6.6
-4.9
-4.7
-6.1
-10.2
-3.9
-4.2
-8.2
-0.7
-3.8
290
229
216
276
328
161
179
317
15
148
758
865
739
731
525
629
782
749
720
876
-2.1
-3.5
0.8
-0.7
-0.9
-1.6
1.0
-3.6
-1.9
-1.1
246
284
77
160
178
229
68
287
240
187
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
8.6
11.1
4.3
19.8
6.1
4.6
32.7
4.7
3.9
6.4
180.0
217.6
93.4
478.5
84.8
102.7
717.8
85.4
86.6
122.5
-6.5
-4.8
-7.6
-4.8
-2.8
0.0
-1.5
-2.8
( 7)
-2.3
286
221
307
221
87
9
32
87
–
62
754
715
737
861
949
680
774
821
644
527
1.3
0.1
-0.5
-3.4
0.0
1.5
-1.5
-5.1
( 7)
0.8
49
114
149
281
121
41
217
309
–
77
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Gregg, TX ..........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
17.3
67.9
10.7
13.6
8.5
5.2
4.0
97.9
10.6
5.9
283.2
1,425.7
166.6
266.8
129.9
90.5
72.9
2,028.4
218.9
124.0
( 7)
-3.3
-1.6
-2.1
1.2
-6.7
-2.9
-1.1
-1.7
-0.8
–
111
34
51
3
291
97
23
35
19
1,030
1,085
763
603
956
864
736
1,143
538
863
( 7)
-3.3
0.1
0.3
-0.6
3.1
-0.4
-2.6
1.3
1.1
–
278
114
102
153
12
143
258
49
59
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
6.8
4.8
8.3
8.0
3.8
5.3
37.3
29.3
4.8
7.3
123.1
101.0
126.9
154.1
75.3
92.3
752.4
563.2
86.4
119.7
-0.1
-1.3
1.5
-1.3
0.2
-1.8
-2.2
-2.2
-2.3
-1.7
10
26
2
26
7
38
57
57
62
35
633
696
794
734
714
720
862
950
552
857
1.3
0.6
-1.0
-2.8
-0.4
1.3
-2.3
-2.6
-0.4
-6.2
49
86
183
264
143
49
250
258
143
319
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 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
37.4
12.8
5.6
6.0
7.8
7.6
34.2
9.7
9.2
97.5
561.4
164.5
90.7
91.3
157.3
115.0
568.5
173.4
128.2
-4.5
-4.2
-5.0
-4.9
-2.4
2.6
-4.0
-2.1
-3.7
-1.7
205
179
235
229
69
1
169
51
137
35
$682
820
659
625
869
1,472
784
1,389
947
1,053
0.9
1.0
1.5
1.0
-3.0
0.0
-0.8
0.3
-5.0
-4.6
73
68
41
68
270
121
173
102
308
303
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 .........................
7.4
6.2
5.8
4.0
5.9
7.4
11.6
12.0
75.4
6.4
100.0
98.0
94.7
96.0
140.0
152.5
163.9
126.4
1,135.9
81.6
-3.0
-0.9
-4.6
-3.6
-2.1
-3.9
-4.7
-4.0
-3.9
-2.7
99
20
211
126
51
161
216
169
161
79
773
1,200
701
790
851
1,035
687
772
1,127
771
1.4
1.5
4.2
-0.5
3.0
-6.1
1.0
0.5
0.2
3.8
46
41
7
149
14
317
68
94
109
9
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
20.2
17.5
15.0
6.8
6.7
7.9
6.0
6.6
13.8
20.7
264.6
241.2
199.8
98.2
79.5
94.2
106.0
142.5
292.1
471.9
-3.6
-5.2
-4.4
-2.3
-3.9
-3.8
-0.9
-3.4
-2.7
-4.5
126
249
200
62
161
148
20
117
79
205
797
893
724
786
702
600
785
775
840
882
-0.6
-0.2
3.3
2.1
2.8
2.4
2.5
-1.5
-2.1
-0.6
153
134
11
27
16
24
21
217
246
153
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
5.0
4.1
12.9
3.7
12.6
100.0
70.7
220.5
86.6
275.5
-3.8
-4.9
-4.9
-2.0
-2.7
148
229
229
48
( 8)
717
756
866
777
593
-2.4
-3.6
0.0
-5.7
0.2
252
287
121
316
( 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 2009 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 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 ...................................................
9,113.9
8,819.8
126.3
860.9
356.4
1,912.2
148.0
853.1
1,533.8
861.3
739.1
1,234.6
294.2
128,992.2
106,866.1
1,670.1
5,937.8
12,096.6
24,597.3
2,858.8
7,651.3
16,534.8
18,245.7
12,715.3
4,357.1
22,126.1
-4.2
-5.1
-3.8
-15.4
-10.6
-5.5
-5.0
-4.4
-6.4
2.2
-3.1
-2.1
0.5
$882
882
993
906
1,062
733
1,439
1,596
1,129
776
351
543
884
-2.5
-3.3
-2.3
0.9
-1.3
-1.6
-2.0
-15.9
-0.2
1.2
-2.2
-0.5
1.6
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 ...................................................
431.2
427.3
0.5
14.0
14.4
54.0
8.9
24.0
43.3
28.6
27.5
202.9
3.9
3,996.3
3,395.0
10.7
123.3
401.4
744.8
197.3
223.4
541.8
499.8
384.1
258.5
601.3
-4.9
-5.7
-6.2
-17.4
-9.3
-7.2
-7.3
-6.8
-8.3
1.1
-3.9
3.0
-0.3
967
945
1,479
973
1,063
776
1,755
1,577
1,149
865
519
424
1,090
-2.4
-3.0
-15.8
0.3
-1.8
-1.5
1.8
-12.1
-2.1
2.4
-2.4
-3.9
-0.2
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 ...................................................
141.1
139.8
0.1
12.3
6.9
27.5
2.6
15.6
29.1
14.1
11.9
14.7
1.4
2,381.5
2,069.2
0.9
71.9
206.7
438.8
53.5
197.7
398.3
385.9
216.4
94.8
312.3
-4.4
-5.0
-3.7
-14.4
-9.5
-6.5
( 6)
-5.0
-8.0
3.1
-3.6
-1.4
0.0
1,084
1,093
792
1,317
1,013
797
1,644
2,397
1,403
839
404
729
1,022
-5.4
-6.3
-12.8
0.5
-4.1
-4.3
-8.7
-17.4
-0.6
1.0
-2.9
1.1
1.6
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 ...................................................
119.1
118.8
0.0
2.4
2.9
21.7
4.5
19.0
25.4
8.8
11.9
18.2
0.3
2,290.3
1,837.8
0.2
34.0
30.4
230.7
129.0
355.9
463.7
293.9
208.9
86.9
452.6
-3.6
-4.4
1.3
-7.2
-15.3
-6.6
-4.7
-6.2
-5.6
0.7
-3.0
-1.3
0.0
2,149
2,425
1,967
1,479
1,365
1,136
2,449
6,379
2,095
998
725
999
1,017
-23.4
-24.9
-16.9
-6.4
-8.3
-5.4
-7.9
-35.2
-10.2
0.8
-5.0
-9.0
1.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 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 ...................................................
97.9
97.4
1.5
6.7
4.6
22.3
1.4
10.5
19.6
10.4
7.7
11.9
0.5
2,028.4
1,766.7
82.8
149.0
182.5
418.9
31.3
116.2
321.4
224.3
179.8
59.1
261.7
-1.1
-1.5
( 6)
-6.5
-2.0
-1.5
-3.4
-3.9
-4.5
3.9
1.2
0.3
2.2
$1,143
1,175
3,483
1,051
1,411
1,029
1,314
1,511
1,321
851
374
628
926
-2.6
-3.1
-5.5
0.0
-7.0
-3.1
-3.2
-12.7
2.1
1.3
-2.3
-0.8
3.7
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
104.0
103.3
0.5
10.8
3.5
23.2
1.7
12.8
23.0
10.3
7.5
7.3
0.7
1,671.0
1,444.9
8.5
100.5
111.9
344.5
29.0
137.5
270.4
214.8
178.1
47.8
226.1
-7.4
-8.6
-1.0
-30.7
-11.2
-7.7
-5.0
-4.9
-11.5
3.6
-5.2
-6.5
0.5
854
852
855
877
1,227
801
1,166
1,145
896
875
398
567
868
-1.3
-1.3
-14.2
-0.9
-2.1
-0.7
0.0
-7.5
3.1
0.0
-1.7
-1.2
-1.3
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 ...................................................
67.9
67.3
0.6
4.3
3.1
15.0
1.7
8.7
14.8
6.7
5.4
6.7
0.5
1,425.7
1,257.6
8.3
76.3
123.7
287.9
46.7
140.3
255.0
154.6
126.3
37.7
168.0
-3.3
-3.8
( 6)
-9.8
-8.2
( 6)
-6.5
( 6)
-6.4
4.5
( 6)
-3.0
0.7
1,085
1,103
3,066
942
1,267
964
1,823
1,632
1,219
920
499
624
950
-3.3
-3.9
-13.0
-0.8
-3.8
-4.1
( 6)
-13.3
-2.5
3.1
-1.4
0.8
3.6
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 ...................................................
102.3
100.9
0.2
6.9
5.3
17.3
1.4
10.7
19.4
10.2
7.2
19.2
1.4
1,399.5
1,244.8
5.1
78.3
159.9
253.7
28.2
106.7
244.0
150.7
167.0
47.7
154.7
-6.8
-7.4
-16.0
-18.1
-8.8
-8.5
-4.8
( 6)
-10.4
1.7
-4.7
-3.0
-1.8
992
967
561
1,072
1,148
916
1,567
1,502
1,121
873
382
513
1,188
-2.7
-3.6
-3.4
-1.0
-3.1
-0.1
0.8
-12.0
-2.4
1.6
-3.3
-4.6
1.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 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 ...................................................
99.6
98.3
0.7
7.0
3.1
14.4
1.3
9.4
16.5
8.3
7.0
27.6
1.3
1,263.0
1,035.8
9.7
64.1
99.3
197.1
37.8
71.4
201.2
142.2
152.2
57.4
227.2
-4.7
-5.5
-13.8
-18.1
( 6)
-7.9
-1.2
-6.0
-6.9
3.2
-5.6
0.2
-0.4
$934
916
540
975
1,309
744
1,604
1,257
1,208
851
393
466
1,017
-1.1
-1.9
0.7
-0.3
0.2
( 6)
-16.1
-5.6
2.7
1.7
-6.9
-2.1
2.7
King, WA ............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
75.4
74.9
0.4
6.4
2.4
14.7
1.8
6.8
13.6
6.6
6.1
16.3
0.5
1,135.9
979.2
2.8
57.1
104.2
206.7
80.7
69.7
176.9
130.4
105.0
45.8
156.6
-3.9
-4.6
-9.6
-18.7
-7.2
-5.7
4.0
-6.7
-6.8
5.1
-4.2
0.6
0.8
1,127
1,136
1,553
1,130
1,366
967
2,125
1,579
1,311
857
422
634
1,074
0.2
-0.5
-1.2
4.1
-5.5
1.5
-0.9
-5.0
0.2
2.4
-5.8
5.8
6.0
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
84.7
84.4
0.5
6.1
2.6
23.0
1.5
9.8
17.7
9.4
5.9
7.5
0.4
963.9
813.6
10.0
37.7
38.4
238.8
18.5
63.7
124.5
144.1
102.0
35.3
150.3
-6.1
-6.9
-8.8
-25.4
-16.7
-6.0
-7.1
-9.0
-8.7
1.8
-4.2
-5.5
-1.7
858
818
403
861
783
765
1,308
1,353
992
801
471
529
1,074
-1.2
-1.8
-12.6
6.6
0.3
-0.6
-3.5
-9.7
0.1
1.0
-1.5
-0.4
0.8
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 5
United States 6 .........................
9,113.9
128,992.2
-4.2
$882
-2.5
Jefferson, AL ............................
Anchorage Borough, AK ...........
Maricopa, AZ ............................
Pulaski, AR ...............................
Los Angeles, CA .......................
Denver, CO ..............................
Hartford, CT ..............................
New Castle, DE ........................
Washington, DC .......................
Miami-Dade, FL ........................
18.6
8.1
104.0
15.0
431.2
25.6
25.6
18.2
33.3
84.7
341.2
144.8
1,671.0
244.7
3,996.3
424.1
488.4
268.1
679.2
963.9
-5.1
0.3
-7.4
-2.3
-4.9
-4.3
-3.1
-5.2
-0.1
-6.1
890
928
854
877
967
1,139
1,142
1,114
1,461
858
-2.5
1.3
-1.3
10.7
-2.4
-2.7
-3.9
-0.8
-1.9
-1.2
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
39.6
24.8
14.8
141.1
24.2
14.9
20.6
22.0
14.4
12.2
711.1
438.9
194.0
2,381.5
547.1
265.9
302.4
407.6
263.0
163.7
-5.0
-3.4
-7.3
-4.4
-4.2
-2.0
-3.6
-4.3
0.3
-3.4
1,212
801
749
1,084
932
892
906
841
829
794
-3.7
0.4
0.7
-5.4
-2.5
-1.3
-3.5
-0.9
1.5
-3.5
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.7
47.3
31.8
41.2
6.3
32.2
5.8
15.7
50.4
12.2
444.0
791.7
671.7
800.8
126.2
578.1
75.1
310.5
834.2
187.9
-2.0
-3.0
-8.1
-4.4
-0.7
-3.9
-2.7
-2.1
-9.1
-3.6
1,234
1,276
936
1,108
759
960
697
855
814
927
-0.6
-0.5
( 7)
-6.7
0.9
0.6
0.1
4.9
-4.7
-5.5
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
34.3
17.8
119.1
33.5
5.8
37.6
23.7
27.9
35.2
17.8
428.5
317.7
2,290.3
543.6
97.0
693.4
415.2
425.8
664.9
265.6
-3.9
-4.2
-3.6
-4.6
-1.1
-4.5
-1.9
-4.9
-1.8
-4.9
1,109
770
2,149
1,058
717
892
790
873
953
865
-3.1
1.6
-23.4
-10.3
0.1
-1.5
-0.1
-1.4
0.5
-3.5
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
12.5
6.4
19.8
97.9
37.4
6.0
34.2
75.4
6.0
20.7
226.2
113.1
478.5
2,028.4
561.4
91.3
568.5
1,135.9
106.0
471.9
-6.1
-0.7
-4.8
-1.1
-4.2
-2.4
-2.1
-3.9
-0.9
-4.5
731
720
861
1,143
820
869
1,389
1,127
785
882
-0.7
-1.9
-3.4
-2.6
1.0
-3.0
0.3
0.2
2.5
-0.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09 5
Laramie, WY .............................
3.2
42.9
-1.4
$714
1.7
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
12.6
1.9
275.5
23.3
-2.7
-3.5
593
629
0.2
-1.1
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,
first quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09
United States 4 ...................
9,113.9
128,992.2
-4.2
$882
-2.5
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
119.2
21.3
164.6
86.4
1,369.6
176.6
113.0
29.3
33.3
612.2
1,844.6
303.5
2,459.7
1,144.5
14,742.5
2,211.0
1,620.1
399.9
679.2
7,352.2
-5.2
0.1
-6.9
-2.9
-5.0
-3.9
-3.8
-5.1
-0.1
-7.0
736
887
807
695
994
913
1,189
975
1,461
771
-0.4
2.5
-1.3
4.2
-1.2
-0.8
-5.6
-0.8
-1.9
-0.8
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
274.4
39.2
56.7
372.2
161.3
94.6
87.3
109.1
124.2
51.0
3,835.9
599.1
603.4
5,552.0
2,701.1
1,432.5
1,326.2
1,710.0
1,867.4
563.1
-5.4
-4.9
-6.3
-4.2
-5.6
-2.5
-2.6
-4.6
-1.1
-3.7
831
775
638
951
739
709
719
712
772
688
-1.4
0.4
0.3
-3.0
-2.4
-0.1
-2.3
-0.3
0.8
-1.9
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
164.5
213.0
253.8
168.6
71.0
173.7
42.9
59.6
76.6
48.8
2,452.8
3,102.8
3,765.9
2,538.5
1,087.9
2,618.3
413.9
894.8
1,150.8
601.2
-3.1
-3.3
-7.2
-4.0
-4.5
-3.4
-4.2
-2.0
-9.1
-3.2
964
1,101
825
882
633
771
628
699
810
837
0.1
-3.7
-3.7
-2.9
-0.2
0.1
0.5
1.7
-3.5
-3.0
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
271.3
54.9
588.1
260.6
25.6
293.6
100.5
130.7
342.4
35.5
3,775.1
794.1
8,332.4
3,852.4
341.8
4,937.1
1,517.0
1,602.8
5,449.4
441.8
-4.0
-3.5
-2.6
-5.2
-0.4
-4.9
-2.0
-6.3
-2.9
-4.9
1,100
723
1,207
766
666
790
709
772
862
831
-2.8
0.7
-13.8
-2.8
2.0
-1.0
-0.3
-0.6
-0.7
-2.4
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
115.3
30.6
142.7
564.9
85.3
24.8
232.6
216.4
48.4
156.8
1,779.4
382.9
2,586.1
10,237.9
1,162.2
291.7
3,541.6
2,810.6
690.2
2,619.0
-5.9
-1.7
-5.7
-1.8
-4.6
-3.2
-3.0
-3.8
-1.4
-4.3
692
630
751
886
726
719
920
906
704
747
-0.4
-0.3
-1.3
-1.9
1.1
-2.0
0.1
0.8
4.0
-1.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2009
(thousands)
March
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2008-09
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2008-09
Wyoming ............................
25.1
272.1
-2.0
$778
-0.1
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
53.4
3.6
967.1
44.6
-4.1
-4.3
496
685
1.4
-3.1
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
March 2008-09 (U.S. average = -4.2 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
-4.1% or higher
-4.2% or lower
NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in
2008 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 2009
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, first quarter 2008-09 (U.S. average = -2.5 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
-2.4% or higher
-2.5% or lower
NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in
2008 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 2009