For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, April 1, 2010
USDL-10-0393
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Third Quarter 2009
From September 2008 to September 2009, employment declined in 329 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 14.5
percent over the year, compared with a national job decrease of 5.3 percent. Two-thirds of the
employment decline in Elkhart occurred in manufacturing, which lost 10,868 jobs over the year (-21.6
percent). Yakima County, Wash., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in
employment among the largest counties in the U.S., with a gain of 1.7 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage fell over the year by 0.1 percent in the third quarter of 2009. This is the
first time there has been an over-the-year average weekly wage decline for three consecutive quarters,
and this decline is one of only five declines dating back to 1978, when these quarterly data were first
comparable. (See Technical Note.) Employment and wage losses in the relatively high paid financial
activities and manufacturing supersectors contributed significantly to the over-the-year decline in the
U.S. average weekly wages for third quarter 2009. Average weekly wages fell 2.3 percent in financial
activities and 0.2 percent in manufacturing. Among the large counties in the U.S., Rutherford, Tenn.,
had the largest over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2009, with a loss
of 13.2 percent. Within Rutherford, manufacturing had the largest over-the-year decline in average
weekly wages with a loss of 27.9 percent. Bell, Texas, experienced the largest growth in average weekly
wages with a gain of 6.6 percent.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in
employment, September 2008-09
(U.S. average = -5.3 percent)
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11
-13
-15
-11.0
-10.6
-10.4
-10.3
-14.5
Elkhart,
Ind.
Trumbull,
Ohio
Clark,
Nev.
Catawba, N.C.
Macomb,
Mich.
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decline in
average weekly wages, third quarter 2008-09
(U.S. average = -0.1 percent)
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11
-13
-15
-5.8
-5.5
-5.2
Olmsted,
Minn.
Santa Cruz,
Calif.
Lake,
Ind.
-8.3
-13.2
Rutherford,
Tenn.
Trumbull,
Ohio
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by September 2009 employment, September 2008-09 employment
decrease, and September 2008-09 percent decrease in employment
Employment in large counties
September 2009 employment
(thousands)
United States
128,088.7
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.
3,858.5
2,364.2
2,240.3
1,979.6
1,605.7
1,405.1
1,340.7
1,229.1
1,122.7
935.1
Decrease in employment,
September 2008-09
(thousands)
United States
-7,109.1
Los Angeles, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Cook, Ill.
Orange, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Clark, Nev.
San Diego, Calif.
Dallas, Texas
Santa Clara, Calif.
King, Wash.
-278.0
-155.0
-140.1
-126.4
-125.1
-95.4
-88.3
-76.9
-76.3
-72.9
Percent decrease in employment,
September 2008-09
United States
Elkhart, Ind.
Trumbull, Ohio
Clark, Nev.
Catawba, N.C.
Macomb, Mich.
Collier, Fla.
Oakland, Mich.
Washoe, Nev.
Marion, Fla.
Winnebago, Ill.
-5.3
-14.5
-11.0
-10.6
-10.4
-10.3
-10.0
-9.8
-9.6
-9.5
-9.3
Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2008 annual average employment),
147 had over-the-year percentage declines in employment greater than or equal to the national average
(-5.3 percent) in September 2009; 182 large counties experienced smaller declines than the national
average, while 2 counties experienced employment gains. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average
weekly wages was equal to or lower than the national average (-0.1 percent) in 131 of the largest U.S.
counties and was above the national average in 198 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 128.1 million full- and part-time workers.
Large County Employment
In September 2009, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 128.1 million,
down by 5.3 percent from September 2008. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees
accounted for 71.1 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.6 percent of total wages. These 334
counties had a net job decline of 5,262,400 over the year, accounting for 74.0 percent of the overall U.S.
employment decrease.
Employment declined in 329 counties from September 2008 to September 2009. The largest percentage
decline in employment was in Elkhart, Ind. (-14.5 percent). Trumbull, Ohio, had the next largest
percentage decline (-11.0 percent), followed by the counties of Clark, Nev. (-10.6 percent), Catawba,
N.C. (-10.4 percent), and Macomb, Mich. (-10.3 percent). The largest decline in employment levels
occurred in Los Angeles, Calif. (-278,000), followed by the counties of Maricopa, Ariz. (-155,000),
Cook, Ill. (-140,100), Orange, Calif. (-126,400), and New York, N.Y. (-125,100). (See table A.)
Combined employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 824,600 or 11.6 percent of the
employment decline for the U.S. as a whole.
-2-
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by third quarter 2009 average weekly wages, third quarter 2008-09
decrease in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2008-09 percent decrease in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
third quarter 2009
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
Fairfax, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
Somerset, N.J.
Decrease in average weekly
wage, third quarter 2008-09
$840
$1,506
1,500
1,450
1,413
1,321
1,309
1,306
1,306
1,268
1,244
United States
Percent decrease in average
weekly wage, third
quarter 2008-09
-$1
Rutherford, Tenn.
San Mateo, Calif.
Trumbull, Ohio
Hennepin, Minn.
Olmsted, Minn.
New York, N.Y.
Santa Cruz, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Lake, Ind.
-$111
-67
-59
-56
-55
-53
-44
-43
-43
-40
United States
Rutherford, Tenn.
Trumbull, Ohio
Olmsted, Minn.
Santa Cruz, Calif.
Lake, Ind.
Hennepin, Minn.
San Mateo, Calif.
Lorain, Ohio
Williamson, Tenn.
New York, N.Y.
-0.1
-13.2
-8.3
-5.8
-5.5
-5.2
-5.1
-4.9
-4.1
-4.1
-3.4
Employment rose in two of the large counties from September 2008 to September 2009. Yakima, Wash.,
had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (1.7 percent) among the largest
counties in the U.S. Bronx, N.Y., had the other employment increase (0.2 percent).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation fell 0.1 percent over the year in the third quarter of 2009. This is
the third consecutive over-the-year decline in average weekly wages and one of only five declines dating
back to 1978. Among the 334 largest counties, 131 had over-the-year decreases in average weekly
wages in the third quarter. The largest wage loss occurred in Rutherford, Tenn., with a decline of 13.2
percent from the third quarter of 2008. Trumbull, Ohio, had the second largest decline (-8.3 percent),
followed by the counties of Olmsted, Minn. (-5.8 percent), Santa Cruz, Calif. (-5.5 percent), and Lake,
Ind. (-5.2 percent). (See table B.)
Of the 334 largest counties, 189 experienced growth in average weekly wages. Bell, Texas, led the
nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 6.6 percent from the third quarter of 2008.
Within Bell County, large wage gains occurred in federal government where average weekly wages
grew 18.1 percent over the year. Harford, Md., had the second largest overall increase (6.2 percent),
followed by the counties of Cumberland, N.C. (6.1 percent), Madison, Ala. (5.8 percent), and Arlington,
Va. (4.8 percent).
The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2009 was $840. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 112 of the 334 largest U.S. counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top
position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,506. New York,
N.Y., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,500, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,450),
Arlington, Va. ($1,413), and Fairfax, Va. ($1,321). There were 222 counties with an average weekly
wage below the national average in the third quarter of 2009. The lowest average weekly wage was
-3-
reported in Horry, S.C. ($534), followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($553), Hidalgo, Texas
($564), Webb, Texas ($574), and Yakima, Wash. ($584). (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 0.1-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 September 2009. Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the largest
decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with an 8.8 percent decrease. Within Maricopa,
every private industry group except education and health services experienced an employment decline,
with construction experiencing the largest decline (-32.2 percent). (See table 2.) Orange, Calif., had the
next largest decline in employment, 8.6 percent, followed by San Diego, Calif., and Los Angeles, Calif.
(-6.7 percent each). Harris, Texas, experienced the smallest decline in employment (-3.4 percent) among
the 10 largest counties. Dallas, Texas (-5.2 percent), and New York, N.Y. (-5.3 percent), had the second
and third smallest employment losses respectively.
Eight of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages. New
York, N.Y., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties with
a decrease of 3.4 percent. Within New York County, financial activities sustained the largest total wage
loss (-$2.3 billion) over the year. Average weekly wages for this supersector fell by 7.3 percent. New
York’s average weekly wage loss was followed by Cook, Ill. (-1.4 percent), and Dallas, Texas (-1.1
percent). King, Wash., and Maricopa, Ariz., had the only wage increases among the 10 largest counties,
with increases of 1.4 percent and 0.4 percent respectively.
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows September 2009 employment and the 2009 third 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 September 2009 ranged from 3.9 million in Los Angeles
County, Calif., to 43,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties
was in New York, N.Y. ($1,500), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont.
($691).
-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. September 2009 employment and
2009 third 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 third quarter of 2009 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 fourth quarter 2009 is scheduled to be released
on Wednesday, July 7, 2010.
-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 of 2009
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative records submitted by
6.8 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 2008 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 2009 version of this news release.
Tables and additional content from the 2008 Employment and
Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at
http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn08.htm. These tables present final
2008 annual averages. The tables are included on the CD which
accompanies the hardcopy version of the Annual Bulletin. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2008 will be 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,
third quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,066.0
128,088.7
-5.3
–
$840
-0.1
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Shelby, AL .........................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
18.3
8.8
9.8
6.4
4.9
4.3
8.1
98.8
20.3
5.5
333.2
178.2
163.7
129.6
70.2
82.1
150.4
1,605.7
349.0
91.2
-7.0
-2.8
-6.8
-6.1
-7.4
-6.2
-1.2
-8.8
-6.1
-4.2
267
39
263
226
287
235
10
318
226
108
861
967
744
743
792
730
942
838
753
755
-0.5
5.8
4.2
2.2
-1.7
0.1
2.1
0.4
0.9
-1.0
230
4
9
55
290
177
60
159
118
260
Pulaski, AR ........................
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Butte, CA ...........................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
15.0
5.6
52.9
7.9
29.5
30.3
17.9
422.5
11.6
12.6
241.7
89.1
628.5
72.0
316.7
345.8
275.4
3,858.5
100.2
177.4
-4.2
-3.4
-8.3
-6.2
-6.7
-7.4
-6.2
-6.7
-8.3
-4.1
108
68
308
235
256
287
235
256
308
100
789
687
1,101
668
1,027
672
730
942
1,021
740
2.6
1.0
-1.4
1.4
-0.8
2.1
-1.9
-0.8
-0.6
-1.2
33
113
280
96
248
60
295
248
237
273
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 ..................
99.8
10.7
47.1
53.5
49.5
96.5
51.5
17.6
9.5
23.5
1,340.7
123.2
549.0
590.8
594.0
1,229.1
544.0
209.5
98.0
318.0
-8.6
-9.1
-8.7
-5.5
-7.9
-6.7
-5.3
-7.3
-6.5
-7.3
314
321
317
194
302
256
185
281
253
281
948
832
711
943
748
918
1,309
745
722
1,306
-0.7
0.8
-0.4
-0.9
1.1
-0.4
-3.2
0.1
1.0
-4.9
244
124
219
252
109
219
315
177
113
323
Santa Barbara, CA .............
Santa Clara, CA .................
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
14.2
60.1
9.0
10.0
18.5
14.9
9.5
23.4
5.9
9.2
179.4
835.1
97.6
120.5
177.1
166.0
149.1
292.4
99.1
149.8
-5.9
-8.4
-4.0
-5.2
-8.2
-6.3
-6.3
-7.4
-4.8
-5.8
219
312
94
176
304
240
240
287
148
211
796
1,506
754
855
821
737
604
865
838
788
1.5
-1.6
-5.5
0.1
-0.4
2.2
0.8
-0.2
1.0
-0.1
89
285
326
177
219
55
124
207
113
199
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
19.4
13.0
25.6
9.6
17.3
18.4
10.3
6.0
32.9
25.5
271.1
152.4
419.3
89.7
233.4
203.3
127.3
78.6
398.9
484.1
-4.3
-4.7
-7.0
-5.4
-4.8
-4.5
-4.9
-7.0
-4.8
-4.7
116
140
267
189
148
128
162
267
148
140
990
976
1,040
904
798
880
772
716
1,268
1,020
-1.2
-3.1
0.0
4.4
2.4
0.8
0.3
-1.6
-3.3
0.8
273
312
190
8
45
124
163
285
318
124
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 .....................
22.5
7.0
18.0
34.4
6.6
14.6
62.7
11.8
26.7
7.9
347.5
126.6
263.6
682.6
115.7
187.2
673.9
104.6
430.1
118.9
-4.5
-4.4
-5.8
-1.1
-5.5
-5.6
-7.3
-10.0
-6.0
-5.0
128
121
211
9
194
200
281
326
224
166
$912
870
985
1,450
744
808
797
739
810
684
0.1
0.8
0.6
4.2
2.9
2.0
-0.1
-1.1
1.1
2.5
177
124
143
9
22
65
199
266
109
38
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
37.0
7.3
18.7
8.1
9.1
8.1
84.1
6.0
35.1
49.0
560.0
78.8
186.1
138.6
104.7
89.3
935.1
76.4
638.4
480.8
-7.3
-6.7
-8.4
-3.2
-6.9
-9.5
-5.8
-3.1
-6.8
-7.5
281
256
312
61
266
323
211
50
263
293
830
591
703
747
659
607
839
701
759
810
2.6
-1.7
-0.3
0.0
0.2
0.7
-0.2
1.7
-0.5
-0.4
33
290
213
190
170
136
207
77
230
219
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
9.8
30.8
12.4
14.7
14.1
13.6
4.7
7.7
4.4
20.7
94.6
387.4
186.2
130.7
155.8
149.3
80.2
127.0
107.6
293.0
-4.6
-6.7
-6.3
-7.7
-8.9
-7.3
-5.9
-6.3
-4.0
-7.2
135
256
240
298
319
281
219
240
94
277
590
738
680
707
696
618
682
732
786
898
-0.7
0.3
0.1
-0.4
-2.2
0.8
1.9
1.0
-0.3
-1.1
244
163
177
219
297
124
67
113
213
266
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
17.6
39.4
23.8
4.7
4.8
25.1
14.6
4.2
142.0
36.2
275.6
693.5
292.8
91.1
97.3
428.1
193.3
88.7
2,364.2
547.3
-5.9
-6.7
-7.8
-4.5
-4.4
-4.0
-8.3
-4.8
-5.6
-6.8
219
256
301
128
121
94
308
148
200
263
897
1,087
832
700
746
818
754
745
975
964
1.6
0.6
-1.3
3.7
1.9
2.4
1.2
2.3
-1.4
-2.7
82
143
278
14
67
45
106
53
280
307
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
12.9
21.2
8.5
3.7
6.0
4.7
3.5
5.5
5.3
14.2
192.5
316.8
95.9
84.0
92.5
97.6
74.3
93.6
125.9
189.6
-8.2
-6.2
-7.7
-3.8
-4.3
-8.3
-7.1
-4.9
-3.1
-5.8
304
235
298
83
116
308
272
162
50
211
759
1,001
705
834
720
803
859
711
880
746
-0.5
-3.3
-3.0
2.2
0.1
-0.9
3.9
2.4
3.7
-1.2
230
318
311
55
177
252
11
45
14
273
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ........................
6.9
9.0
4.9
7.9
10.3
23.9
6.1
3.3
4.8
3.5
123.5
171.3
95.6
108.4
184.3
546.7
114.7
72.1
103.4
74.9
-9.3
-6.1
-14.5
-6.3
-6.2
-5.1
-7.0
-7.1
-4.8
-1.6
322
226
331
240
235
169
267
272
148
15
$738
701
682
790
731
856
709
740
702
793
0.1
-0.3
2.4
-2.2
-5.2
0.2
0.1
2.2
0.0
0.5
177
213
45
297
325
170
177
55
190
148
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
6.3
14.8
5.3
20.9
12.5
4.9
3.2
9.2
21.7
7.4
123.0
267.5
85.2
299.4
241.5
92.9
78.8
171.0
409.1
120.2
-2.9
-3.3
-5.7
-5.6
-6.1
-3.6
-2.7
-3.1
-3.8
-4.0
41
64
205
200
226
76
35
50
83
94
802
831
686
858
755
724
812
766
812
708
-2.8
0.0
-1.3
-0.9
-0.9
1.5
-2.2
1.6
1.2
-1.7
308
190
278
252
252
89
297
82
106
290
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
14.6
14.1
9.0
10.7
12.2
14.3
21.2
5.9
5.6
83.0
259.3
192.7
128.5
166.3
167.8
227.3
360.6
91.7
81.1
-3.6
-0.8
-1.2
-4.7
-1.3
-3.9
-2.9
-4.1
-3.7
-2.7
76
6
10
140
14
89
41
100
78
35
726
815
787
802
925
773
927
873
844
834
-2.3
2.6
1.4
-2.8
0.8
0.8
3.5
1.6
2.7
6.2
302
33
96
308
124
124
17
82
27
2
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
8.7
32.3
15.6
13.7
9.0
15.4
20.8
14.7
47.3
23.4
143.9
443.0
300.8
324.3
94.4
206.7
291.9
192.8
791.7
310.9
-3.7
-3.1
-4.1
-4.2
-2.6
-5.2
-3.3
-3.7
-4.3
-4.4
78
50
100
108
29
176
64
78
116
121
1,021
1,144
951
981
706
753
889
799
1,194
968
3.9
2.1
1.9
-0.2
-0.3
0.4
0.0
1.8
-0.3
-0.1
11
60
67
207
213
159
190
70
213
199
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
13.6
21.9
20.6
7.6
6.7
5.5
14.2
17.4
38.4
5.7
171.5
571.3
306.2
127.7
149.4
108.0
304.3
269.4
607.3
102.8
-3.4
-3.9
-4.8
-6.1
-6.4
-5.8
-7.6
-10.3
-9.8
-7.6
68
89
148
226
249
211
295
327
325
295
789
1,306
854
719
820
768
768
854
937
685
0.5
-1.1
-0.5
-2.3
1.5
-2.2
1.3
0.1
-3.1
-3.2
148
266
230
302
89
297
103
177
312
315
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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
8.0
31.6
7.6
10.3
42.3
3.5
14.8
5.8
4.4
80.3
180.4
660.0
106.5
166.6
794.9
87.5
317.2
92.0
77.6
-4.8
-4.2
-8.6
-7.4
-4.8
-5.5
-3.5
-5.7
-6.3
-5.6
148
108
314
287
148
194
73
205
240
200
$704
958
918
764
798
1,047
894
920
690
703
0.6
1.5
-2.5
-0.8
-0.4
-5.1
-5.8
-1.4
-1.0
2.9
143
89
306
248
219
324
327
280
260
22
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
5.0
8.1
18.4
8.2
32.2
8.6
5.9
84.1
124.1
80.7
86.6
148.8
353.1
118.0
568.8
219.5
76.6
-2.9
-2.3
-3.1
-5.7
-5.2
-4.4
-4.8
-5.7
( 7)
-2.6
41
25
50
205
176
121
148
205
–
29
652
760
691
785
666
858
679
893
904
691
-1.8
2.4
4.7
2.7
2.0
0.7
-2.4
0.2
( 7)
0.1
293
45
6
27
65
136
304
170
–
177
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
15.8
8.2
49.7
14.4
12.1
10.8
6.9
34.0
11.3
12.9
311.0
154.5
808.7
188.2
186.2
132.7
137.8
425.1
194.5
196.8
-2.9
-2.9
-10.6
-9.6
-5.3
-4.3
-6.3
-4.7
-3.1
-4.8
41
41
329
324
185
116
240
140
50
148
795
698
804
800
933
792
737
1,035
904
845
-3.2
1.6
-1.0
0.5
0.8
-0.6
-0.5
0.3
0.7
-0.6
315
82
260
148
124
237
230
163
136
237
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
21.1
6.3
13.9
11.1
21.8
20.5
17.9
12.3
12.4
10.1
340.6
99.1
229.9
222.9
377.8
246.6
270.1
149.9
167.0
165.3
-4.2
-5.8
-3.8
-3.5
-5.5
-4.2
-5.1
-2.2
-4.7
-4.9
108
211
83
73
194
108
169
24
140
162
1,059
763
1,170
1,071
1,019
889
1,203
699
890
1,244
1.7
-0.4
0.0
0.5
-0.9
0.1
0.4
1.5
1.8
0.1
77
219
190
148
252
177
159
89
70
177
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
14.8
17.6
10.0
16.4
4.5
8.2
23.6
48.0
18.0
52.4
217.6
318.0
220.9
230.1
92.4
111.1
449.0
477.8
366.8
580.9
-5.1
-5.4
-3.3
0.2
-3.1
-3.8
-3.2
-0.3
-3.9
-3.1
169
189
64
2
50
83
61
4
89
50
1,036
776
905
850
697
885
739
737
813
922
0.2
1.7
2.6
1.8
0.0
3.0
0.5
-0.1
-0.4
0.8
170
77
33
70
190
21
148
199
219
124
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ................
118.4
5.3
12.8
10.0
44.2
8.8
9.8
5.4
50.4
36.1
2,240.3
108.2
243.8
128.6
493.7
91.8
111.5
74.4
602.1
400.2
-5.3
-1.2
-4.5
-2.7
-3.3
-1.8
-4.1
-2.4
-4.1
-4.7
185
10
128
35
64
16
100
26
100
140
$1,500
681
791
729
843
761
891
719
955
1,058
-3.4
1.3
( 7)
2.5
1.0
-1.2
-1.5
1.4
-1.6
( 7)
320
103
–
38
113
273
283
96
285
–
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
7.8
4.4
6.2
7.0
9.0
14.3
32.2
7.3
28.3
5.9
109.6
76.2
118.4
178.8
175.8
256.5
534.6
96.8
428.7
99.2
-5.1
-10.4
-1.9
-3.7
-5.4
-7.4
-6.5
-6.7
-5.4
-2.0
169
328
18
78
189
287
253
256
189
19
669
640
692
1,148
769
753
950
710
837
734
0.9
0.5
6.1
3.2
0.3
-0.8
-0.9
2.5
0.5
1.4
118
148
3
19
163
248
252
38
148
96
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
7.4
36.9
29.5
23.6
6.6
6.2
10.6
6.3
12.6
8.9
136.6
687.4
646.3
489.7
92.6
92.1
199.6
97.5
241.8
148.7
-7.2
-6.1
-4.4
-4.8
-7.7
-7.1
-5.7
-4.8
-7.2
-7.6
277
226
121
148
298
272
205
148
277
295
746
851
851
926
696
681
741
615
763
650
1.1
-0.2
0.0
-1.1
1.8
-4.1
0.5
0.0
-2.8
-0.6
109
207
190
266
70
321
148
190
308
237
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Warren, OH ........................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
14.8
4.7
4.2
23.9
19.7
12.6
6.5
10.9
9.3
28.2
254.2
67.9
73.8
408.9
329.7
138.3
76.9
135.0
137.6
420.9
-7.2
-11.0
-3.9
-4.4
-6.4
-8.9
-7.9
-8.2
-5.1
-6.6
277
330
89
121
249
319
302
304
169
255
758
655
714
799
772
784
645
672
690
863
0.5
-8.3
-0.4
1.7
0.7
0.9
1.6
-1.8
2.5
0.6
148
328
219
77
136
118
82
293
38
143
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
16.2
35.1
9.0
19.8
4.8
15.1
6.0
7.4
13.5
7.5
229.7
666.5
160.3
247.9
79.1
232.9
119.7
178.1
202.2
121.1
-7.5
-2.9
-4.8
-5.3
-2.6
-4.7
-5.2
-2.9
-4.2
-5.9
293
41
148
185
29
140
176
41
108
219
975
881
762
824
736
1,024
785
820
882
676
-1.2
-0.5
-1.0
0.7
-1.6
-0.5
1.7
-0.1
0.2
-0.6
273
230
260
136
285
230
77
199
170
237
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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
12.5
8.7
7.8
27.4
6.5
31.4
5.4
9.4
9.0
97.7
217.7
170.4
138.0
462.8
97.1
616.9
78.1
130.5
168.4
-3.7
-5.2
-4.5
-4.1
-4.6
-2.8
-3.1
-4.0
-5.1
-5.7
78
176
128
100
135
39
50
94
169
205
$659
733
849
666
1,018
746
1,020
752
682
749
1.4
1.8
2.4
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.1
1.3
-0.9
1.2
96
70
45
163
124
159
177
103
252
106
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
12.4
8.0
5.6
9.2
6.1
6.5
18.3
72.9
266.0
199.2
221.3
109.4
91.7
204.5
110.7
113.2
416.6
-7.3
-5.6
-6.3
-7.4
-7.0
-6.4
-5.1
-7.1
-2.6
-4.5
281
200
240
287
267
249
169
272
29
128
736
825
741
727
534
647
768
723
723
858
0.7
2.5
2.5
-0.4
0.2
-1.1
2.7
-1.5
1.1
-0.2
136
38
38
219
170
266
27
283
109
207
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
8.5
11.0
4.3
19.6
6.0
4.6
33.0
4.7
3.9
6.4
176.0
216.3
92.6
468.0
84.2
102.6
709.3
82.7
86.0
121.7
-8.6
-5.2
-5.8
-6.3
-4.6
-0.7
-3.0
-4.2
( 7)
-1.0
314
176
211
240
135
5
49
108
–
8
743
715
730
852
879
696
752
780
653
553
3.2
-0.1
-13.2
-0.6
-4.1
6.6
2.7
-2.0
( 7)
2.8
19
199
329
237
321
1
27
296
–
24
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Gregg, TX ..........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
17.4
67.7
10.7
13.5
8.6
5.2
4.0
98.2
10.6
5.9
277.9
1,405.1
164.8
264.4
127.9
92.5
71.0
1,979.6
213.5
118.2
( 7)
-5.2
-3.4
-2.5
-1.8
-2.6
-4.9
-3.4
-0.8
-5.0
–
176
68
27
16
29
162
68
6
166
976
1,012
746
619
863
805
717
1,044
564
841
-3.1
-1.1
-0.1
2.8
-0.7
0.2
-2.2
-0.6
2.7
2.6
312
266
199
24
244
170
297
237
27
33
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
6.8
4.8
8.4
8.0
3.8
5.3
37.2
29.4
4.7
7.3
122.5
101.3
124.9
149.6
74.1
90.7
740.9
555.4
83.8
118.8
-2.0
-2.1
-1.2
-3.4
-2.1
-4.0
-3.8
-4.3
-5.2
-2.5
19
21
10
68
21
94
83
116
176
27
643
692
768
721
721
738
839
932
574
792
0.3
1.8
-2.4
-1.0
1.5
( 7)
-0.1
0.8
2.5
-1.1
163
70
304
260
89
–
199
124
38
266
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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
37.5
12.8
5.7
6.0
8.0
7.6
34.2
9.7
9.2
101.0
560.7
165.2
89.2
91.9
157.9
113.1
568.2
167.5
128.7
-2.9
-5.0
-6.0
-6.1
-3.9
-0.1
-4.7
-2.7
-6.1
-3.5
41
166
224
226
89
3
140
35
226
73
$678
800
663
652
851
1,413
779
1,321
849
1,013
2.1
0.5
-0.3
2.4
1.6
4.8
0.5
1.8
-0.7
0.9
60
148
213
45
82
5
148
70
244
118
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
5.7
4.0
5.9
7.3
11.5
12.9
79.4
6.7
102.0
97.5
93.7
95.4
137.3
149.4
165.6
127.8
1,122.7
81.5
-2.1
-2.6
-5.8
-3.8
-4.1
-4.6
-4.6
-5.2
-6.1
-3.1
21
29
211
83
100
135
135
176
226
50
789
1,212
696
788
826
952
666
778
1,177
794
2.1
4.6
2.4
2.3
1.6
0.7
1.4
0.3
1.4
3.8
60
7
45
53
82
136
96
163
96
13
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
21.4
18.4
15.9
7.2
7.0
8.6
6.0
6.6
13.9
20.9
263.5
240.5
200.9
97.3
78.5
112.7
105.2
142.6
291.6
470.7
-5.4
-6.4
-4.8
-4.1
-5.5
1.7
-3.2
-4.4
-4.5
-5.9
189
249
148
100
194
1
61
121
128
219
804
887
720
810
693
584
750
746
822
834
3.7
3.5
2.7
2.8
2.2
0.9
1.5
-0.9
0.6
-0.2
14
17
27
24
55
118
89
252
143
207
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
5.0
4.1
12.9
3.7
12.3
100.2
70.4
218.9
87.3
266.2
-5.5
-8.2
-7.1
-3.1
-5.7
194
304
272
50
( 8)
711
742
834
776
594
-1.0
-1.6
-0.4
0.9
4.0
260
285
219
118
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.1 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
9,066.0
8,771.6
126.3
837.9
351.9
1,892.5
145.9
839.2
1,531.0
871.0
741.7
1,241.5
294.4
128,088.7
106,481.7
1,866.9
5,957.4
11,624.2
24,412.0
2,767.5
7,507.9
16,316.4
18,290.1
13,180.4
4,339.9
21,607.1
-5.3
-6.2
-7.1
-17.9
-12.9
-6.0
-7.0
-5.2
-8.1
1.6
-2.9
-3.3
-0.4
$840
828
836
934
1,005
711
1,317
1,180
1,060
819
357
543
907
-0.1
-0.6
-5.1
1.3
-0.2
-1.0
-1.3
-2.3
1.4
2.0
-0.3
-0.2
2.4
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 ...................................................
422.5
418.6
0.5
13.6
14.0
52.6
8.7
23.2
42.4
28.4
27.3
200.1
3.9
3,858.5
3,306.5
10.3
112.8
380.4
728.1
194.3
216.6
517.8
493.0
382.6
262.2
552.0
-6.7
-7.5
-12.3
-21.8
-12.7
-8.0
-9.7
-7.2
-11.1
0.8
-5.2
1.6
-1.9
942
914
1,296
1,023
1,025
763
1,598
1,341
1,124
910
528
417
1,113
-0.8
-1.0
5.1
3.1
2.8
-1.0
1.7
-9.6
1.5
2.6
-2.0
-4.8
-0.6
Cook, IL ..............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
142.0
140.6
0.1
12.3
6.9
27.5
2.6
15.4
29.3
14.4
12.1
14.9
1.4
2,364.2
2,058.2
1.1
76.5
198.0
430.9
52.2
192.2
393.4
386.5
230.2
92.8
306.1
-5.6
-6.3
-6.5
-17.2
-12.0
-7.0
( 6)
-6.4
-9.4
1.5
-2.8
-4.3
-0.9
975
964
973
1,271
1,004
764
1,363
1,525
1,241
864
443
723
1,051
-1.4
-2.2
-2.2
-0.9
0.1
-2.7
-12.2
-1.6
-0.9
-0.6
-0.7
2.3
4.2
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 ...................................................
118.4
118.1
0.0
2.3
2.7
21.2
4.4
18.8
24.9
8.8
11.8
18.2
0.3
2,240.3
1,799.5
0.1
32.4
28.2
227.1
125.5
344.3
450.7
284.4
214.6
85.4
440.8
-5.3
-6.3
-15.9
-16.0
-19.4
-9.0
-7.8
-8.3
-8.5
0.9
-2.8
-4.2
-0.7
1,500
1,609
1,948
1,551
1,195
1,107
1,907
2,762
1,793
1,089
733
935
1,058
-3.4
-3.9
7.4
1.4
1.3
-1.9
-3.6
-7.3
-0.3
2.5
-2.0
1.7
3.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
98.2
97.6
1.5
6.7
4.6
22.3
1.4
10.4
19.6
10.6
7.8
12.2
0.5
1,979.6
1,724.8
81.3
138.7
169.4
411.9
30.0
114.4
310.9
231.0
177.4
58.8
254.8
-3.4
-4.1
( 6)
-11.9
-10.7
-3.7
-5.5
-4.2
-7.3
5.6
1.7
-1.2
( 6)
$1,044
1,048
2,579
1,033
1,278
897
1,217
1,212
1,245
871
389
608
1,013
-0.6
-1.2
-0.6
2.5
0.3
-2.1
-5.1
-5.1
0.8
0.8
1.3
0.0
( 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 ...................................................
98.8
98.2
0.5
10.0
3.4
22.4
1.5
12.1
22.0
10.3
7.1
7.1
0.7
1,605.7
1,387.1
7.4
88.8
107.5
333.8
27.6
133.7
258.8
217.4
164.5
46.6
218.6
-8.8
-9.7
-8.5
-32.2
-13.9
-7.6
-8.1
-5.8
-12.1
0.2
-7.0
-6.2
-3.0
838
826
716
869
1,133
767
1,077
997
893
917
398
559
921
0.4
0.1
-14.6
-1.1
-0.4
-0.3
-1.1
-0.7
3.7
1.6
0.5
-4.9
0.7
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
67.7
67.2
0.6
4.2
3.0
14.9
1.6
8.7
14.7
6.8
5.4
6.8
0.5
1,405.1
1,237.9
8.3
72.0
119.0
283.1
44.9
137.2
249.5
159.4
126.4
37.5
167.2
-5.2
-5.8
-0.1
-15.4
-11.6
-6.1
-6.2
( 6)
-9.3
( 6)
( 6)
-3.9
-0.7
1,012
1,015
2,857
940
1,150
941
1,436
1,295
1,158
941
454
635
990
-1.1
-1.7
-41.2
2.4
( 6)
-1.2
-0.8
( 6)
0.7
1.0
( 6)
1.3
( 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 ...................................................
99.8
98.4
0.2
6.7
5.2
16.7
1.3
10.2
19.0
10.2
7.1
19.3
1.4
1,340.7
1,204.3
4.0
70.4
150.1
245.4
26.7
104.1
234.7
148.1
170.8
47.2
136.4
-8.6
-9.1
-6.6
-22.9
-13.4
-9.0
-8.8
( 6)
-12.0
-1.7
-4.0
-4.3
-4.0
948
936
647
1,099
1,145
875
1,350
1,290
1,087
931
413
525
1,058
-0.7
-1.2
-6.8
0.6
1.4
0.1
-13.8
-4.7
0.5
4.1
-1.0
-3.1
2.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
96.5
95.2
0.7
6.7
3.1
13.9
1.2
9.0
16.2
8.3
6.9
26.8
1.3
1,229.1
1,014.7
10.3
58.6
93.0
196.7
36.2
69.4
193.5
141.6
156.3
56.7
214.5
-6.7
-7.7
-9.5
-22.9
-10.4
-8.3
-6.7
-6.5
-10.1
2.6
-6.3
-3.1
-1.6
$918
890
557
1,032
1,229
732
1,824
1,069
1,137
887
407
488
1,052
-0.4
-1.7
-1.9
4.6
( 6)
( 6)
-18.8
-2.4
0.3
1.5
-2.9
0.4
3.5
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 ...................................................
79.4
78.8
0.4
6.5
2.4
15.0
1.8
6.8
14.1
6.8
6.4
18.6
0.5
1,122.7
968.6
3.0
53.8
100.5
205.6
79.1
67.7
171.8
130.0
109.6
47.5
154.1
-6.1
-7.1
-5.7
-24.8
-10.2
-6.1
-2.2
-8.3
-11.2
3.3
-5.2
0.4
0.8
1,177
1,191
1,042
1,123
1,321
920
3,385
1,307
1,257
896
455
600
1,093
1.4
1.2
-19.7
3.7
4.7
-0.1
0.7
-4.7
( 6)
3.5
( 6)
-0.3
3.6
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
84.1
83.8
0.5
5.7
2.6
23.1
1.5
9.6
17.6
9.6
6.1
7.5
0.4
935.1
789.2
6.9
34.2
36.1
231.7
17.2
61.5
119.7
147.7
100.1
34.0
146.0
-5.8
-6.3
-6.4
-22.3
-16.9
-6.9
-9.1
-8.2
-8.6
2.6
-1.4
-6.7
-3.1
839
803
485
862
763
742
1,208
1,147
1,020
826
474
539
1,041
-0.2
0.0
-1.0
1.8
2.6
-0.3
-1.5
-1.5
1.3
0.6
0.6
2.1
-1.6
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 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, third quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2008-09 5
United States 6 .........................
9,066.0
128,088.7
-5.3
$840
-0.1
Jefferson, AL ............................
Anchorage Borough, AK ...........
Maricopa, AZ ............................
Pulaski, AR ...............................
Los Angeles, CA .......................
Denver, CO ..............................
Hartford, CT ..............................
New Castle, DE ........................
Washington, DC .......................
Miami-Dade, FL ........................
18.3
8.1
98.8
15.0
422.5
25.6
25.5
18.0
34.4
84.1
333.2
150.4
1,605.7
241.7
3,858.5
419.3
484.1
263.6
682.6
935.1
-7.0
-1.2
-8.8
-4.2
-6.7
-7.0
-4.7
-5.8
-1.1
-5.8
861
942
838
789
942
1,040
1,020
985
1,450
839
-0.5
2.1
0.4
2.6
-0.8
0.0
0.8
0.6
4.2
-0.2
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
39.4
25.1
14.6
142.0
23.9
14.8
20.9
21.7
14.6
12.2
693.5
428.1
193.3
2,364.2
546.7
267.5
299.4
409.1
259.3
167.8
-6.7
-4.0
-8.3
-5.6
-5.1
-3.3
-5.6
-3.8
-0.8
-3.9
1,087
818
754
975
856
831
858
812
815
773
0.6
2.4
1.2
-1.4
0.2
0.0
-0.9
1.2
2.6
0.8
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.3
47.3
31.6
42.3
6.3
32.2
5.9
15.8
49.7
12.1
443.0
791.7
660.0
794.9
124.1
568.8
76.6
311.0
808.7
186.2
-3.1
-4.3
-8.6
-5.5
-2.3
-5.7
-2.6
-2.9
-10.6
-5.3
1,144
1,194
918
1,047
760
893
691
795
804
933
2.1
-0.3
-2.5
-5.1
2.4
0.2
0.1
-3.2
-1.0
0.8
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
34.0
17.6
118.4
32.2
5.9
36.9
23.9
28.2
35.1
17.8
425.1
318.0
2,240.3
534.6
99.2
687.4
408.9
420.9
666.5
266.0
-4.7
-5.4
-5.3
-6.5
-2.0
-6.1
-4.4
-6.6
-2.9
-5.6
1,035
776
1,500
950
734
851
799
863
881
825
0.3
1.7
-3.4
-0.9
1.4
-0.2
1.7
0.6
-0.5
2.5
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
12.4
6.5
19.6
98.2
37.5
6.0
34.2
79.4
6.0
20.9
221.3
113.2
468.0
1,979.6
560.7
91.9
568.2
1,122.7
105.2
470.7
-7.4
-2.6
-6.3
-3.4
-5.0
-3.9
-2.7
-6.1
-3.2
-5.9
727
723
852
1,044
800
851
1,321
1,177
750
834
-0.4
1.1
-0.6
-0.6
0.5
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.5
-0.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2008-09 5
Laramie, WY .............................
3.2
43.5
-2.0
$739
2.8
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
12.3
1.8
266.2
22.5
-5.7
-4.4
594
679
4.0
4.8
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2008-09
United States 4 ...................
9,066.0
128,088.7
-5.3
$840
-0.1
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
117.7
21.3
155.0
86.1
1,354.4
176.3
112.5
29.0
34.4
598.2
1,814.8
329.3
2,365.2
1,137.0
14,494.0
2,188.1
1,611.1
401.9
682.6
7,047.8
-6.3
-0.9
-8.0
-3.9
-6.6
-5.8
-4.8
-5.0
-1.1
-6.5
744
887
800
658
950
876
1,024
881
1,450
759
1.8
1.6
0.3
1.1
-0.9
-0.1
-0.9
0.5
4.2
0.4
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
271.5
39.6
56.2
374.8
159.7
94.6
88.3
107.3
125.8
50.1
3,757.9
585.1
624.3
5,539.8
2,715.4
1,444.1
1,310.1
1,714.3
1,832.7
592.0
-6.4
-4.8
-6.2
-5.7
-6.3
-3.8
-4.3
-4.4
-2.4
-3.4
800
788
646
880
714
695
706
706
761
688
0.8
1.9
0.5
-1.2
-0.6
-0.1
-0.6
1.9
0.3
0.7
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
162.0
213.9
255.1
169.9
70.6
174.3
42.7
60.0
75.4
49.0
2,458.1
3,140.7
3,785.6
2,561.2
1,076.9
2,610.3
428.7
901.1
1,126.2
607.6
-3.4
-4.0
-7.6
-5.1
-4.7
-4.6
-3.9
-2.7
-10.1
-4.3
941
1,022
809
836
635
744
637
689
805
831
2.4
-0.2
-1.3
-3.0
0.8
0.7
1.3
-0.7
-0.5
1.1
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
268.7
54.3
587.7
250.8
25.9
289.4
101.3
131.1
342.3
35.4
3,782.9
793.7
8,325.5
3,810.7
354.9
4,925.5
1,484.5
1,613.8
5,448.2
451.3
-4.2
-5.0
-3.6
-6.3
-0.6
-6.2
-5.1
-6.9
-4.1
-5.2
995
722
1,012
745
680
764
700
768
826
793
0.4
1.3
-1.7
0.7
2.3
-0.5
0.1
0.3
0.5
1.9
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
114.0
31.0
141.2
565.4
85.5
24.7
232.0
228.6
48.5
157.4
1,752.7
392.1
2,561.4
10,050.2
1,162.5
292.5
3,530.7
2,862.3
691.2
2,639.7
-6.5
-2.3
-6.0
-3.8
-5.4
-4.0
-3.9
-4.7
-3.6
-5.6
688
633
745
845
719
734
897
916
673
726
0.9
1.6
-0.3
-0.5
0.3
1.8
2.2
1.3
1.7
-0.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2009
(thousands)
September
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2008-09
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2008-09
Wyoming ............................
25.2
278.6
-5.4
$756
-3.2
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
52.3
3.5
936.9
42.4
-5.9
-5.7
494
724
3.8
2.4
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
September 2008-09 (U.S. average = -5.3 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average 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
April 2010
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, third quarter 2008-09 (U.S. average = -0.1 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average 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
April 2010