For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, July 7, 2010
USDL-10-0932
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Fourth Quarter 2009
From December 2008 to December 2009, employment declined in 325 of the 334 largest U.S. counties
according to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Trumbull, Ohio,
posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 8.6 percent over the year, compared with a national
job decrease of 4.1 percent. Almost 54 percent of the employment decline in Trumbull occurred in
manufacturing, which lost 3,504 jobs over the year (-22.7 percent). Arlington, Va., experienced the
largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., with a
gain of 0.5 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 2.5 percent over the year. Among the large counties in the
U.S., Douglas, Colo., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages in the fourth
quarter of 2009, with a gain of 26.1 percent. Within Douglas, professional and business services had the
largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 99.8 percent. A fourth-quarter
acquisition in this industry resulted in large payouts, which may include bonuses, severance pay, and
stock options. St. Louis City, Mo., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss
of 33.9 percent over the year. This decline reflects a return from very high levels in 2008 caused by an
acquisition in professional and business services and manufacturing.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in
employment, December 2008-09
(U.S. average = -4.1 percent)
-1.0
-3.0
-5.0
-7.0
-9.0
-11.0
-13.0
-15.0
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2008-09
(U.S. average = 2.5 percent)
30
25
-8.6
-8.1
-8.0
-7.9
-7.7
26.1
20
15
10
5
10.1
9.5
8.6
8.2
Alachua,
Fla.
Durham,
N.C.
Elkhart,
Ind.
Santa Clara,
Calif.
0
Trumbull,
Ohio
Oakland,
Mich.
Peoria,
Ill.
Seminole,
Fla.
Sedgwick,
Kan.
Douglas,
Colo.
A redesign of the County Employment and Wages news release will be implemented with the first
quarter 2010 release. Table 3, along with the associated text on the largest county by state, will be
removed.
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by December 2009 employment, December 2008-09 employment
decrease, and December 2008-09 percent decrease in employment
Employment in large counties
December 2009 employment
(thousands)
United States
128,334.9
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.
3,926.0
2,369.9
2,294.4
1,990.2
1,626.8
1,409.9
1,361.4
1,245.3
1,119.1
959.7
Decrease in employment,
December 2008-09
(thousands)
United States
-5,521.5
Los Angeles, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Orange, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
Dallas, Texas
Clark, Nev.
Santa Clara, Calif.
-217.9
-113.0
-111.1
-93.6
-90.0
-89.7
-64.6
-63.6
-60.7
-56.8
Percent decrease in employment,
December 2008-09
United States
-4.1
Trumbull, Ohio
Oakland, Mich.
Peoria, Ill.
Seminole, Fla.
Sedgwick, Kan.
Tulare, Calif.
Winnebago, Ill.
Catawba, N.C.
Kern, Calif.
Macomb, Mich.
-8.6
-8.1
-8.0
-7.9
-7.7
-7.6
-7.6
-7.5
-7.4
-7.3
Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2008 annual average employment),
159 had over-the-year percentage declines in employment greater than or equal to the national average
(-4.1 percent) in December 2009, 166 large counties experienced smaller declines than the national
average, and 3 counties experienced employment gains. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average
weekly wages was equal to or greater than the national average (2.5 percent) in 196 of the largest U.S.
counties and was below the national average in 133 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 128.3 million full- and part-time workers.
Large County Employment
In December 2009, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 128.3 million,
down by 4.1 percent from December 2008. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees
accounted for 71.4 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.1 percent of total wages. These 334
counties had a net job decline of 4,119,900 over the year, accounting for 74.6 percent of the overall U.S.
employment decrease.
Employment declined in 325 counties from December 2008 to December 2009. The largest percentage
decline in employment was in Trumbull, Ohio (-8.6 percent). Oakland, Mich., had the next largest
percentage decline (-8.1 percent), followed by the counties of Peoria, Ill. (-8.0 percent), Seminole, Fla.
(-7.9 percent), and Sedgwick, Kan. (-7.7 percent). The largest decline in employment levels occurred in
Los Angeles, Calif. (-217,900), followed by the counties of Maricopa, Ariz. (-113,000), Cook, Ill.
(-111,100), New York, N.Y. (-93,600), and Harris, Texas (-90,000). (See table A.) Combined
employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 625,600, or 11.3 percent of the
employment decline for the U.S. as a whole.
-2-
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2009 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2008-09
increase in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2008-09 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2009
United States
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Fairfield, Conn.
Arlington, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
San Mateo, Calif.
Morris, N.J.
Increase in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2008-09
$942
$1,878
1,699
1,614
1,607
1,594
1,565
1,539
1,489
1,477
1,429
United States
$23
Douglas, Colo.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Durham, N.C.
Arlington, Va.
Montgomery, Md.
Alachua, Fla.
Fairfax, Va.
Montgomery, Ala.
McLean, Ill.
Morris, N.J.
Montgomery, Pa.
$244
129
108
87
76
74
73
66
66
64
64
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2008-09
United States
Douglas, Colo.
Alachua, Fla.
Durham, N.C.
Elkhart, Ind.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Montgomery, Ala.
McLean, Ill.
Okaloosa, Fla.
McLennan, Texas
Lucas, Ohio
2.5
26.1
10.1
9.5
8.6
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.0
Employment rose in three of the large counties from December 2008 to December 2009. Arlington, Va.,
had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (0.5 percent), followed by Bronx, N.Y.,
and Kings, N.Y. (0.2 percent each).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 2.5 percent over the year ending in the fourth
quarter of 2009. Among the 334 largest counties, 305 had over-the-year increases in average weekly
wages in the fourth quarter. The largest wage gain occurred in Douglas, Colo., with an increase of 26.1
percent from the fourth quarter of 2008. Alachua, Fla., had the second largest gain (10.1 percent),
followed by the counties of Durham, N.C. (9.5 percent), Elkhart, Ind. (8.6 percent), and Santa Clara,
Calif. (8.2 percent). (See table B.)
Of the 334 largest counties, 23 experienced declines in average weekly wages. St. Louis City, Mo., led
the nation in average weekly wage decline with a loss of 33.9 percent over the year. Within St. Louis
City, large payouts related to an acquisition were distributed within professional and business services
and manufacturing industries in the fourth quarter of 2008. Manufacturing had the largest over-the-year
decline in average weekly wages (-57.9 percent) followed by professional and business services (-56.2
percent). Somerset, N.J., had the second largest overall decline (-6.2 percent), followed by the counties
of Clayton, Ga. (-5.3 percent), Calcasieu, La. (-5.1 percent), and Lake, Ind. (-3.4 percent).
The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2009 was $942. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 105 of the 334 largest U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., held the top
position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,878. Santa Clara,
Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,699, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,614),
Fairfield, Conn. ($1,607), and Arlington, Va. ($1,594). There were 226 counties with an average weekly
wage below the national average in the fourth quarter of 2009. The lowest average weekly wage was
-3-
reported in Horry, S.C. ($584), followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas, Hidalgo, Texas ($598
each), Webb, Texas ($619), and Yakima, Wash. ($640). (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 increase in
average weekly wages for the nation was partially due to large employment declines in low-paying
industries such as trade, transportation, and utilities. (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 December 2009. Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the largest
decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 6.5 percent decrease. Within Maricopa,
every private industry group except education and health services experienced an employment decline,
with construction experiencing the largest decline (-28.5 percent). (See table 2.) Orange, Calif., had the
next largest decline in employment (6.2 percent), followed by Los Angeles, Calif. (-5.3 percent). New
York, N.Y., experienced the smallest decline in employment (-3.9 percent) among the 10 largest
counties. Dallas, Texas, and Harris, Texas, had the second smallest employment losses (-4.3 percent
each).
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. San Diego,
Calif., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties with a
gain of 3.7 percent. This average weekly wage growth was a result of a large employment loss in the
professional and business services supersector. Employment dropped by 7.2 percent while total wages
only dropped by 2.7 percent, thus average weekly wages for this supersector increased by 4.8 percent.
San Diego’s average weekly wage growth was followed by King, Wash. (3.6 percent), and Maricopa,
Ariz. (3.4 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows December 2009 employment and the 2009 fourth 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 ranged from 3.9 million in Los Angeles, Calif., to 42,600 in Laramie,
Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,878), while the
lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($768).
-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. December 2009 employment and
2009 fourth 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 fourth quarter of 2009 will be available 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 first quarter 2010 is scheduled to be released on
Tuesday, October 19, 2010.
The QCEW State and County Map application was released on June 30, 2010
(http://beta.bls.gov/maps). This new feature of the BLS website provides users with supersector
industry employment and wages at the national, state, and county levels. Data are presented in map,
tabular, and downloadable formats.
-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 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,
fourth quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,085.0
128,334.9
-4.1
–
$942
2.5
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Shelby, AL .........................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
18.1
8.8
9.8
6.4
4.8
4.4
8.2
98.7
20.2
5.5
336.1
179.8
165.8
130.0
70.7
82.2
147.6
1,626.8
350.9
90.9
-5.6
-1.6
-5.1
-3.7
-6.5
-4.6
-0.3
-6.5
-4.8
-3.6
263
20
241
140
302
209
6
302
221
134
946
1,047
828
891
849
798
1,005
923
829
854
2.5
4.9
2.5
8.0
1.6
1.9
3.5
3.4
3.4
0.9
193
41
193
6
247
230
114
119
119
280
Pulaski, AR ........................
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Butte, CA ...........................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
15.1
5.6
54.3
8.0
30.0
30.9
18.3
434.0
11.8
12.9
244.2
89.0
628.3
71.4
318.4
323.7
260.4
3,926.0
102.4
141.4
-2.7
-2.4
-6.6
-3.7
-5.6
-6.5
-7.4
-5.3
-5.6
-7.0
64
50
305
140
263
302
320
248
263
312
863
774
1,195
720
1,132
759
820
1,099
1,163
821
1.6
3.9
2.8
3.4
0.3
2.8
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.4
247
87
167
119
301
167
227
227
276
197
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 ..................
102.8
10.9
48.4
54.5
50.6
99.4
52.9
17.8
9.7
24.1
1,361.4
122.0
559.7
587.0
606.0
1,245.3
548.0
202.3
95.7
324.1
-6.2
-7.0
-6.4
-4.1
-5.8
-4.9
-4.5
-6.0
-6.1
-5.2
295
312
300
170
276
225
201
287
289
245
1,065
920
757
1,019
806
1,019
1,539
816
798
1,477
2.0
3.0
1.7
1.3
2.3
3.7
3.1
2.4
4.2
2.6
227
141
244
262
208
103
136
197
74
180
Santa Barbara, CA .............
Santa Clara, CA .................
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
14.5
61.6
9.2
10.2
18.9
15.2
9.6
24.0
6.0
9.0
169.5
846.5
86.4
120.5
174.2
155.5
140.9
295.5
93.7
147.7
-6.2
-6.3
-4.0
-3.8
-6.3
-6.8
-7.6
-5.7
-6.0
-5.3
295
297
162
147
297
310
322
272
287
248
895
1,699
819
921
886
790
666
959
882
849
3.2
8.2
-0.2
1.9
-1.1
4.4
4.4
2.6
-0.1
1.4
129
5
308
230
313
61
61
180
307
257
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
18.8
12.8
25.0
9.3
16.8
18.0
10.1
5.8
32.9
25.4
269.9
152.8
420.2
89.9
232.7
202.9
124.6
77.1
401.6
486.0
-3.8
-3.8
-4.7
-4.8
-3.7
-4.0
-4.2
-6.6
-4.5
-3.8
147
147
215
221
140
162
178
305
201
147
1,094
1,069
1,154
1,179
863
969
841
772
1,607
1,153
3.8
3.2
3.4
26.1
3.6
4.4
0.5
1.3
0.7
3.6
96
129
119
1
110
61
293
262
288
110
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .....................
22.4
7.0
17.8
34.8
6.7
14.7
63.3
11.9
26.9
7.9
353.3
125.7
264.6
686.7
116.7
189.1
689.2
117.5
436.8
118.9
-3.6
-3.8
-5.9
-0.1
-4.1
-4.0
-5.6
-6.6
-4.5
-3.3
134
147
282
4
170
162
263
305
201
107
$1,013
942
1,070
1,614
810
897
900
832
911
760
3.7
3.5
1.9
2.7
10.1
4.3
2.4
2.7
3.9
5.6
103
114
230
173
2
67
197
173
87
22
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
37.2
7.3
18.8
8.2
9.2
8.2
85.0
6.0
35.4
49.5
574.9
80.4
194.9
139.1
111.8
90.6
959.7
75.6
648.2
500.2
-6.1
-5.3
-5.6
-2.4
-4.0
( 7)
-4.5
-2.2
-4.8
-5.4
289
248
263
50
162
–
201
41
221
253
927
674
781
815
708
677
949
791
850
967
5.8
2.6
2.9
4.2
2.2
( 7)
2.9
7.5
2.4
5.2
17
180
153
74
214
–
153
8
197
33
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
9.8
31.0
12.5
14.8
14.2
13.6
4.6
7.7
4.4
20.7
96.6
389.2
192.8
134.6
156.2
151.0
79.4
127.9
107.3
296.4
-4.4
-5.5
-4.4
-5.9
-7.9
-4.9
-5.8
-5.0
-3.9
-5.7
196
257
196
282
325
225
276
231
156
272
680
852
734
804
791
680
752
807
810
974
1.8
5.7
4.0
2.6
0.8
2.7
5.0
1.6
-5.3
0.9
241
21
83
180
285
173
39
247
327
280
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
17.6
39.3
23.6
4.7
4.8
25.0
14.5
4.2
142.6
36.4
278.8
697.4
294.5
91.5
99.3
435.3
193.7
89.3
2,369.9
548.0
-4.2
-5.0
-5.7
-3.9
-2.4
-3.2
-4.9
-2.9
-4.5
-5.9
178
231
272
156
50
100
225
76
201
282
971
1,207
907
757
793
875
824
794
1,142
1,082
4.7
1.9
1.3
5.1
3.4
2.9
1.5
2.1
2.1
2.2
46
230
262
35
119
153
252
222
222
214
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
12.9
21.4
8.6
3.7
6.0
4.7
3.5
5.5
5.3
14.2
190.3
311.4
93.5
83.7
91.3
97.9
74.4
93.9
126.3
188.4
-7.2
-5.1
-7.0
-3.1
-4.5
-8.0
-6.1
-3.1
-2.3
-4.3
318
241
312
88
201
326
289
88
47
184
848
1,197
789
901
801
895
1,115
782
928
837
1.8
4.9
0.9
7.9
4.2
2.8
2.9
3.7
3.5
1.2
241
41
280
7
74
167
153
103
114
268
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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
9.1
4.9
7.9
10.3
24.0
6.1
3.3
4.8
3.5
123.8
170.7
96.4
107.1
183.6
547.0
114.9
72.1
104.7
74.5
-7.6
-4.7
-4.8
-5.1
-5.3
-3.8
-5.5
-6.8
-3.2
-2.1
322
215
221
241
248
147
257
310
100
36
$797
774
744
873
798
942
799
800
791
807
2.7
3.3
8.6
2.2
-3.4
3.1
5.1
3.8
3.3
2.7
173
126
4
214
325
136
35
96
126
173
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
9.4
22.0
7.5
123.6
265.7
84.9
298.8
241.3
92.9
79.0
172.9
409.9
121.9
-3.0
-3.1
-4.6
-5.0
-7.7
-2.9
-1.5
-2.9
-3.2
-2.7
85
88
209
231
324
76
17
76
100
64
885
933
763
982
872
798
890
846
908
790
-1.1
3.1
1.6
3.4
3.3
5.4
4.3
1.7
4.2
1.4
313
136
247
119
126
30
67
244
74
257
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
5.0
14.7
14.2
9.1
10.9
12.3
14.3
21.2
5.9
5.6
83.1
259.1
194.5
129.6
169.4
168.0
226.4
364.8
91.4
81.6
-5.4
-3.1
-3.0
-5.5
-1.5
-3.2
-3.1
-3.4
-2.9
-1.1
253
88
85
257
17
100
88
117
76
11
783
897
896
887
1,007
863
1,019
1,004
933
896
-5.1
2.6
2.6
-2.6
0.5
4.7
5.6
4.0
4.7
6.2
326
180
180
324
293
46
22
83
46
12
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
8.7
32.5
15.5
13.7
9.0
15.6
21.0
14.8
47.9
23.6
143.0
447.4
304.2
326.1
82.7
207.4
293.0
192.3
803.0
312.9
-2.9
-2.1
-3.4
-3.4
-1.9
-4.1
-2.0
-3.6
-2.8
-3.4
76
36
117
117
27
170
32
134
70
117
1,131
1,294
1,032
1,113
834
866
1,013
893
1,344
1,151
4.0
6.2
3.8
1.2
2.7
2.2
3.6
2.8
3.5
0.5
83
12
96
268
173
214
110
167
114
293
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
13.6
22.2
20.8
7.6
6.6
5.5
14.0
17.2
37.9
5.6
171.3
574.8
309.8
127.0
151.1
108.0
305.9
270.8
607.1
98.0
-2.5
-3.5
-3.0
-5.5
-4.3
-4.6
-5.0
-7.3
-8.1
-5.9
56
128
85
257
184
209
231
319
327
282
902
1,565
947
826
913
842
855
976
1,093
787
1.0
-0.3
1.6
3.0
3.0
-1.3
2.4
1.0
-0.5
-0.4
276
309
247
141
141
317
197
276
311
310
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .......................
4.2
8.0
31.1
7.4
10.0
40.7
3.4
14.5
5.7
4.3
79.1
184.2
662.6
105.8
168.8
802.6
87.3
316.0
92.2
78.1
( 7)
-1.8
-7.1
-6.6
-2.6
-4.3
-2.8
-4.3
-4.2
-3.3
–
24
317
305
62
184
70
184
178
107
$782
981
1,036
858
920
1,152
994
1,040
755
747
( 7)
1.0
0.5
2.3
2.6
0.7
1.9
6.0
-0.7
5.8
–
276
293
208
180
288
230
15
312
17
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
8.0
18.5
8.2
32.1
8.6
5.9
83.4
125.0
81.2
84.8
149.2
351.2
117.8
571.0
215.2
75.7
-2.1
-2.4
-1.7
-5.2
-4.2
-4.3
-4.1
-4.7
( 7)
-3.4
36
50
22
245
178
184
170
215
–
117
718
832
719
856
711
958
739
1,006
996
768
2.3
3.4
4.2
4.3
3.9
3.2
0.8
1.5
-33.9
3.9
208
119
74
67
87
129
285
252
329
87
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
15.9
8.2
49.4
14.3
12.1
10.8
7.0
34.5
11.4
13.0
312.1
153.2
809.7
187.4
188.3
131.9
133.3
432.8
194.6
198.8
-3.1
-3.9
-7.0
-7.0
-3.9
-3.2
-4.5
-3.8
-2.7
-2.9
88
156
312
312
156
100
201
147
64
76
874
750
872
868
1,065
930
832
1,205
1,011
1,010
3.9
3.2
1.9
0.1
0.2
2.6
1.2
1.7
3.8
0.9
87
129
230
304
303
180
268
244
96
280
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
21.5
6.4
14.1
11.2
22.1
20.8
18.1
12.4
12.5
10.3
348.2
100.4
232.4
226.1
385.0
246.3
274.3
144.3
171.3
168.8
-2.7
-4.3
-2.8
-2.2
-3.4
-3.3
-3.5
-1.3
-3.1
-3.3
64
184
70
41
117
107
128
13
88
107
1,211
865
1,241
1,224
1,160
1,032
1,429
816
997
1,413
2.7
1.3
2.4
-2.2
1.4
1.3
4.7
2.6
2.3
-6.2
173
262
197
322
257
262
46
180
208
328
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
14.9
17.5
9.9
16.4
4.5
8.2
23.5
48.3
17.9
52.4
221.3
317.3
223.3
232.7
92.7
113.1
453.4
488.8
371.8
595.3
-3.3
-3.7
-2.6
0.2
-3.3
-2.8
-2.5
0.2
-2.9
-2.2
107
140
62
2
107
70
56
2
76
41
1,226
850
963
919
753
942
817
830
887
1,101
( 7)
4.4
1.9
3.5
3.7
4.7
3.0
1.2
3.0
4.3
–
61
230
114
103
46
141
268
141
67
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ................
118.1
5.3
12.7
9.9
44.2
8.8
9.8
5.4
50.0
36.0
2,294.4
109.3
246.1
131.4
499.4
94.6
114.3
74.6
608.5
406.5
-3.9
-2.3
-3.1
-1.3
-2.1
-1.1
-2.8
-2.5
-3.1
-4.0
156
47
88
13
36
11
70
56
88
162
$1,878
745
881
799
935
850
982
792
1,044
1,288
1.1
3.2
3.8
2.8
1.3
2.9
-2.1
3.9
0.3
4.4
273
129
96
167
262
153
321
87
301
61
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
7.1
9.0
14.3
32.3
7.3
28.5
5.9
110.7
77.3
119.6
177.3
176.2
260.1
534.2
95.3
430.7
99.3
-4.0
-7.5
-1.4
-4.3
-4.6
-5.4
-5.7
-5.8
-4.1
-1.4
162
321
15
184
209
253
272
276
170
15
747
725
749
1,239
849
823
1,042
798
929
795
2.9
4.2
5.5
9.5
2.9
3.0
2.5
5.6
1.5
2.1
153
74
27
3
153
141
193
22
252
222
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
7.3
36.7
29.4
23.5
6.6
6.2
10.5
6.2
12.5
8.9
138.2
689.8
651.3
488.6
92.1
91.8
198.5
97.7
242.1
149.2
-5.0
-4.7
-3.7
-4.6
-6.7
-4.1
-5.5
-2.7
-5.5
-5.8
231
215
140
209
309
170
257
64
257
276
819
939
918
1,007
777
742
830
683
846
713
4.6
1.2
4.3
2.4
2.8
0.0
7.0
1.9
2.9
1.4
55
268
67
197
167
306
10
230
153
257
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Warren, OH ........................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
14.7
4.6
4.2
24.1
19.8
12.6
6.5
10.9
9.3
28.1
254.2
68.9
71.7
408.0
331.0
138.5
76.2
135.4
130.4
421.9
-6.3
-8.6
-3.5
-4.4
-5.6
-5.3
-5.8
-5.9
-3.4
-4.9
297
328
128
196
263
248
276
282
117
225
842
739
802
870
845
842
688
729
727
953
2.1
-1.3
5.4
1.9
0.8
2.4
3.1
2.5
2.3
1.9
222
317
30
230
285
197
136
193
208
230
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
16.0
35.1
9.0
19.7
4.8
15.0
6.0
7.4
13.5
7.6
230.9
668.8
161.5
249.3
79.5
236.1
120.8
177.8
205.2
120.9
-5.0
-2.4
-3.8
-4.2
-1.6
-3.3
-3.4
-2.1
-3.2
-4.3
231
50
147
178
20
107
117
36
100
184
1,031
1,003
849
930
831
1,233
869
924
994
735
4.5
2.9
3.8
2.9
3.0
5.4
6.0
4.3
4.3
0.7
58
153
96
153
141
30
15
67
67
288
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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
98.7
217.7
170.4
137.5
469.0
97.7
624.5
77.5
130.2
168.8
-2.9
-4.2
-3.7
-3.4
-3.5
-1.5
-2.4
-3.7
-3.9
-4.7
76
178
140
117
128
17
50
140
156
215
$736
789
921
735
1,219
823
1,145
847
751
810
3.1
2.2
1.5
5.6
5.5
2.1
4.7
4.2
3.0
2.9
136
214
252
22
27
222
46
74
141
153
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
5.5
17.7
11.6
12.4
7.9
5.6
9.2
6.0
6.5
18.3
73.7
267.0
198.1
224.0
100.1
93.0
205.1
111.9
113.2
418.3
-5.1
-4.0
-5.6
-4.5
-5.6
-5.0
-4.3
-5.4
-2.5
-4.0
241
162
263
201
263
231
184
253
56
162
828
951
821
820
584
710
826
803
777
996
5.6
1.9
5.1
2.9
1.4
4.1
4.7
3.7
5.0
2.2
22
230
35
153
257
82
46
103
39
214
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
8.5
10.9
4.3
19.4
6.0
4.6
33.0
4.7
3.9
6.4
177.4
217.2
93.5
471.5
85.7
103.5
719.1
84.0
87.2
123.7
-6.1
-4.4
-4.6
-5.0
-2.9
-0.7
-1.9
-5.0
( 7)
-0.8
289
196
209
231
76
7
27
231
–
8
821
835
846
971
1,012
741
843
845
695
598
0.6
4.5
0.4
3.9
3.0
5.1
4.7
-2.3
( 7)
2.2
292
58
299
87
141
35
46
323
–
214
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Gregg, TX ..........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
17.5
67.8
10.7
13.5
8.8
5.2
4.1
98.7
10.7
5.9
282.4
1,409.9
167.9
269.5
128.9
93.1
71.5
1,990.2
220.4
119.8
( 7)
-4.3
-1.8
-1.7
-3.4
-0.2
-5.6
-4.3
-1.0
-6.1
–
184
24
22
117
5
263
184
10
289
1,108
1,129
827
684
954
877
821
1,195
598
924
5.5
0.5
2.2
6.4
-2.0
5.8
-1.2
0.7
4.2
-1.5
27
293
214
11
320
17
316
288
74
319
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
6.9
4.9
8.4
8.0
3.9
5.3
37.3
29.5
4.7
7.4
123.9
101.4
127.1
151.2
74.9
92.2
748.1
558.5
86.0
120.2
-2.2
-2.0
-2.0
( 7)
-2.0
-3.6
-3.1
-3.3
-3.5
-1.9
41
32
32
–
32
134
88
107
128
27
718
772
879
794
798
811
947
1,036
619
906
2.6
7.4
0.5
( 7)
2.3
0.4
3.2
2.6
3.0
1.1
180
9
293
–
208
299
129
180
141
273
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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
13.0
5.7
6.0
8.0
7.6
34.3
9.7
9.2
99.2
562.1
164.6
88.5
93.2
160.9
115.0
574.6
169.8
131.1
-2.8
-4.1
-4.4
-5.0
-2.3
0.5
-4.3
-1.9
-5.8
-1.9
70
170
196
231
47
1
184
27
276
27
$764
888
741
705
937
1,594
852
1,489
945
1,141
3.0
4.7
1.8
3.7
4.6
5.8
3.0
5.2
2.9
4.8
141
46
241
103
55
17
141
33
153
43
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
6.1
5.7
3.9
5.8
7.3
11.5
13.3
82.1
6.8
103.5
98.6
94.9
96.4
138.1
150.2
164.4
126.8
1,119.1
81.6
-0.8
-2.7
-3.8
-3.5
-3.1
-3.2
-3.3
-2.2
-4.7
-1.8
8
64
147
128
88
100
107
41
215
24
848
1,376
761
873
946
1,021
756
842
1,172
858
3.9
4.8
6.1
2.6
4.5
0.9
4.0
3.2
3.6
4.6
87
43
14
180
58
280
83
129
110
55
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
21.9
18.9
16.2
7.4
7.1
8.9
6.0
6.7
13.9
21.2
261.4
238.1
198.2
97.3
77.5
90.9
105.7
143.6
295.6
470.3
-3.4
-5.2
-4.1
-2.2
-3.6
-2.5
-3.3
-3.6
-3.1
-4.9
117
245
170
41
134
56
107
134
88
225
846
969
771
830
734
640
819
851
897
948
3.9
4.4
4.8
2.6
3.7
2.4
2.4
3.8
2.4
2.9
87
61
43
180
103
197
197
96
197
153
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
5.0
4.1
12.9
3.7
11.8
100.3
70.5
218.1
87.9
276.8
-4.9
-6.1
-6.4
-2.5
-4.6
225
289
300
56
( 8)
792
867
919
870
653
1.1
-1.1
0.1
1.5
4.8
273
313
304
252
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.4 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,
fourth quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
9,085.0
8,790.5
126.9
827.3
349.9
1,886.7
145.7
834.7
1,534.3
876.0
742.6
1,261.9
294.5
128,334.9
106,313.0
1,649.6
5,558.7
11,484.8
25,057.0
2,766.2
7,498.6
16,512.5
18,597.7
12,621.7
4,343.0
22,022.0
-4.1
-4.9
-8.5
-16.2
-10.9
-4.8
-6.3
-4.6
-4.9
1.6
-2.6
-2.4
-0.4
$942
942
985
1,053
1,148
783
1,448
1,422
1,237
911
399
589
942
2.5
2.4
-1.1
0.1
4.9
2.2
6.4
2.3
2.9
4.5
2.3
1.4
3.1
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 ...................................................
434.0
430.1
0.5
13.6
13.9
52.4
8.8
23.2
42.5
28.5
27.4
204.6
3.9
3,926.0
3,342.6
9.3
107.1
375.8
752.7
199.0
217.3
526.0
504.6
380.2
253.7
583.4
-5.3
-5.7
-10.6
-21.2
-10.5
-6.1
-4.4
-6.1
-8.1
0.6
-4.5
-1.4
-2.4
1,099
1,093
1,473
1,154
1,169
858
2,045
1,487
1,339
1,034
908
449
1,136
2.0
2.4
16.6
1.3
6.3
3.5
7.2
1.5
1.7
5.6
-3.4
-1.3
-0.4
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 ...................................................
142.6
141.2
0.1
12.2
6.8
27.5
2.6
15.4
29.5
14.5
12.2
15.1
1.4
2,369.9
2,062.3
0.9
69.1
196.5
444.4
52.1
190.9
396.2
392.6
220.9
93.9
307.6
-4.5
-5.0
-11.2
-16.0
-10.1
-5.7
-5.9
-6.6
-6.7
1.6
-2.4
-2.9
-1.0
1,142
1,141
1,071
1,407
1,158
843
1,622
2,063
1,542
976
454
792
1,148
2.1
1.2
-0.6
-4.6
3.7
0.8
9.1
2.0
0.7
5.1
2.0
1.4
8.4
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 ...................................................
118.1
117.9
0.0
2.2
2.7
21.0
4.4
18.7
24.6
8.8
11.9
18.1
0.3
2,294.4
1,845.7
0.1
31.0
27.3
241.2
124.9
345.1
459.7
298.9
223.7
88.2
448.7
-3.9
-4.7
-8.9
-15.3
-17.4
-5.5
-7.4
-7.2
-6.3
1.3
-1.2
-2.0
-0.8
1,878
2,072
1,795
2,062
1,582
1,316
2,144
4,264
2,148
1,180
927
1,112
1,087
1.1
1.5
12.0
6.1
5.2
1.6
4.1
4.6
-1.1
4.1
3.8
1.0
2.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
98.7
98.2
1.5
6.6
4.6
22.4
1.4
10.6
19.8
10.7
7.9
12.4
0.5
1,990.2
1,726.5
80.3
134.7
166.9
421.5
30.2
114.2
311.4
232.9
175.0
58.7
263.7
-4.3
-5.3
-5.9
-14.5
-12.3
-4.7
-4.8
-4.0
-7.3
4.0
-0.8
-2.6
2.4
$1,195
1,225
3,130
1,229
1,494
1,027
1,381
1,456
1,494
990
414
660
997
0.7
0.8
9.4
1.1
1.4
-0.5
-0.4
-3.4
2.5
3.3
2.7
-2.4
1.0
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 ...................................................
98.7
98.0
0.5
9.8
3.3
22.4
1.5
12.1
22.3
10.3
7.1
7.1
0.7
1,626.8
1,407.7
7.9
82.8
106.7
345.4
27.5
134.3
265.2
224.1
166.3
46.6
219.1
-6.5
-6.9
-6.4
-28.5
-11.5
-5.5
-6.8
-4.5
-7.9
3.2
-5.9
-4.6
-4.0
923
920
857
998
1,272
824
1,227
1,094
1,007
1,037
440
655
940
3.4
2.8
-16.6
1.1
4.4
3.3
11.0
2.5
1.6
3.9
4.3
6.0
6.6
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
67.8
67.3
0.6
4.2
3.0
14.9
1.6
8.6
14.8
6.9
5.4
6.9
0.5
1,409.9
1,240.9
8.3
67.6
116.5
288.7
45.5
137.0
251.3
162.2
124.9
38.1
169.0
-4.3
-4.9
-0.5
-15.9
-11.2
-5.1
-5.0
( 6)
-7.4
6.1
-3.0
-2.2
-0.1
1,129
1,144
3,746
1,110
1,279
997
1,564
1,427
1,377
1,067
514
672
1,018
0.5
0.3
-22.4
3.4
( 6)
0.7
3.2
( 6)
0.0
1.0
4.5
-0.3
3.2
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
102.8
101.5
0.2
6.7
5.1
16.6
1.3
10.2
19.0
10.2
7.1
20.0
1.4
1,361.4
1,215.9
3.3
67.8
149.4
253.8
26.0
104.8
238.5
152.1
166.5
47.8
145.5
-6.2
-6.5
-16.9
-20.0
-11.1
-6.7
-10.0
( 6)
( 6)
0.0
-3.1
-2.7
-3.1
1,065
1,067
637
1,199
1,299
971
1,546
1,643
1,279
1,014
417
556
1,048
2.0
2.2
-5.5
-2.1
6.1
3.3
7.3
3.4
0.6
5.7
3.5
-0.7
0.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
99.4
98.1
0.7
6.7
3.1
13.9
1.2
9.0
16.3
8.3
7.0
27.7
1.3
1,245.3
1,021.4
8.6
57.0
92.0
205.9
36.3
69.6
197.0
144.6
149.2
56.8
224.0
-4.9
-5.8
-7.6
-19.2
-9.7
-5.6
-6.1
-5.1
-6.3
2.5
-6.3
-3.6
-0.9
$1,019
1,005
613
1,182
1,411
785
2,156
1,185
1,320
990
442
512
1,082
3.7
4.4
4.8
3.6
7.5
( 6)
9.8
0.5
4.8
4.3
3.3
7.6
0.0
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 ...................................................
82.1
81.6
0.4
6.6
2.4
15.2
1.8
6.9
14.5
6.9
6.4
20.5
0.5
1,119.1
962.2
2.7
48.8
98.5
209.1
78.4
66.2
171.9
131.6
105.8
49.2
157.0
-4.7
-5.4
-7.9
-22.8
-9.4
-5.5
-4.3
-7.9
-7.5
1.8
-2.7
12.6
0.0
1,172
1,180
1,321
1,255
1,504
996
2,016
1,515
1,449
968
469
598
1,122
3.6
3.4
-16.3
5.0
3.7
4.0
2.1
6.4
5.3
8.0
4.5
-5.7
4.9
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 ...................................................
85.0
84.6
0.5
5.6
2.6
23.3
1.5
9.5
17.7
9.6
6.1
7.5
0.4
959.7
811.8
9.5
32.9
35.5
242.0
17.4
62.2
123.4
150.2
103.5
34.7
147.8
-4.5
-4.7
-3.2
-21.1
-14.1
-4.4
-8.6
-6.2
-7.0
3.0
-1.9
-4.9
-3.2
949
919
483
980
914
834
1,340
1,397
1,215
915
538
576
1,112
2.9
1.7
7.3
0.8
10.1
2.8
6.3
0.1
-1.0
1.7
6.5
-0.9
9.3
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 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, fourth quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2008-09 5
United States 6 .........................
9,085.0
128,334.9
-4.1
$942
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 ........................
18.1
8.2
98.7
15.1
434.0
25.0
25.4
17.8
34.8
85.0
336.1
147.6
1,626.8
244.2
3,926.0
420.2
486.0
264.6
686.7
959.7
-5.6
-0.3
-6.5
-2.7
-5.3
-4.7
-3.8
-5.9
-0.1
-4.5
946
1,005
923
863
1,099
1,154
1,153
1,070
1,614
949
2.5
3.5
3.4
1.6
2.0
3.4
3.6
1.9
2.7
2.9
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
39.3
25.0
14.5
142.6
24.0
14.8
20.9
22.0
14.7
12.3
697.4
435.3
193.7
2,369.9
547.0
265.7
298.8
409.9
259.1
168.0
-5.0
-3.2
-4.9
-4.5
-3.8
-3.1
-5.0
-3.2
-3.1
-3.2
1,207
875
824
1,142
942
933
982
908
897
863
1.9
2.9
1.5
2.1
3.1
3.1
3.4
4.2
2.6
4.7
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.5
47.9
31.1
40.7
6.3
32.1
5.9
15.9
49.4
12.1
447.4
803.0
662.6
802.6
125.0
571.0
75.7
312.1
809.7
188.3
-2.1
-2.8
-7.1
-4.3
-2.4
-4.7
-3.4
-3.1
-7.0
-3.9
1,294
1,344
1,036
1,152
832
1,006
768
874
872
1,065
6.2
3.5
0.5
0.7
3.4
1.5
3.9
3.9
1.9
0.2
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
34.5
17.5
118.1
32.3
5.9
36.7
24.1
28.1
35.1
17.7
432.8
317.3
2,294.4
534.2
99.3
689.8
408.0
421.9
668.8
267.0
-3.8
-3.7
-3.9
-5.7
-1.4
-4.7
-4.4
-4.9
-2.4
-4.0
1,205
850
1,878
1,042
795
939
870
953
1,003
951
1.7
4.4
1.1
2.5
2.1
1.2
1.9
1.9
2.9
1.9
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
19.4
98.7
37.5
6.0
34.3
82.1
6.0
21.2
224.0
113.2
471.5
1,990.2
562.1
93.2
574.6
1,119.1
105.7
470.3
-4.5
-2.5
-5.0
-4.3
-4.1
-2.3
-1.9
-4.7
-3.3
-4.9
820
777
971
1,195
888
937
1,489
1,172
819
948
2.9
5.0
3.9
0.7
4.7
4.6
5.2
3.6
2.4
2.9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2008-09 5
Laramie, WY .............................
3.2
42.6
-3.2
$778
3.5
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
11.8
1.8
276.8
23.3
-4.6
-2.7
653
696
4.8
3.7
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,
fourth quarter 2009 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2008-09
United States 4 ...................
9,085.0
128,334.9
-4.1
$942
2.5
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
117.5
21.4
154.1
86.1
1,374.0
171.7
112.0
28.6
34.8
599.3
1,819.9
302.4
2,406.2
1,136.2
14,476.4
2,183.6
1,620.1
398.3
686.7
7,208.9
-4.7
-0.5
-6.0
-2.8
-5.3
-4.9
-4.0
-5.0
-0.1
-5.0
818
959
876
725
1,074
965
1,192
960
1,614
855
3.4
3.5
3.3
2.5
3.1
3.5
2.3
2.1
2.7
3.6
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
271.6
39.3
55.8
376.4
159.9
94.6
88.1
108.2
127.0
50.2
3,773.5
592.5
604.3
5,529.4
2,709.7
1,436.2
1,309.8
1,726.2
1,842.8
579.0
-4.9
-3.7
-4.7
-4.6
-4.3
-3.3
-4.4
-3.1
-3.5
-2.8
875
843
708
1,008
781
771
792
781
833
759
2.6
2.7
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.9
3.4
0.4
3.3
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
162.4
215.5
252.2
166.0
70.7
174.3
42.5
60.5
74.9
48.9
2,462.9
3,142.5
3,767.7
2,559.4
1,076.5
2,598.7
419.4
896.6
1,123.2
605.8
-2.8
-3.0
-5.6
-3.8
-3.7
-3.8
-3.3
-2.9
-6.9
-3.2
1,054
1,176
913
928
697
816
695
756
875
958
4.5
1.8
1.1
2.3
2.7
-3.2
2.5
3.6
1.4
2.4
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
270.8
54.1
586.4
251.3
26.0
288.1
101.9
130.6
342.0
35.3
3,806.6
787.0
8,445.4
3,802.2
353.6
4,911.8
1,486.4
1,593.3
5,474.5
448.1
-2.9
-4.2
-2.6
-5.0
-0.2
-4.9
-4.8
-4.8
-3.1
-3.5
1,143
794
1,190
818
752
840
763
829
931
912
1.6
3.3
1.7
3.2
3.7
2.9
0.9
2.5
3.8
2.9
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
112.7
31.0
140.5
567.1
85.7
24.6
231.7
235.0
48.5
158.2
1,748.6
386.0
2,572.3
10,146.9
1,158.1
296.4
3,551.6
2,776.6
693.6
2,634.2
-4.9
-2.4
-4.5
-3.5
-4.5
-2.7
-2.8
-3.7
-2.9
-4.4
763
688
849
944
796
804
994
952
752
810
4.4
3.8
2.9
1.2
3.2
3.7
4.3
3.6
2.5
2.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2009
(thousands)
December
2009
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2008-09
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2008-09
Wyoming ............................
25.1
266.9
-6.3
$831
-2.2
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
50.0
3.5
977.6
43.9
-5.2
-3.7
552
746
4.5
2.2
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,
December 2008-09 (U.S. average = -4.1 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
July 2010
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, fourth quarter 2008-09 (U.S. average = 2.5 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
July 2010