For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 11, 2011
USDL-11-0014
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Second Quarter 2010
From June 2009 to June 2010, employment declined in 192 of the 326 largest U.S. counties according
to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Yolo, Calif., and Marion, Fla.,
posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 3.7 percent each over the year, compared with a
national job decrease of 0.2 percent. Within Yolo, the largest employment decline occurred in trade,
transportation, and utilities, which lost 843 jobs over the year (-4.4 percent). In Marion, financial
activities had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment, shedding 1,495 jobs (-27.1 percent).
Elkhart, Ind., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the
largest counties in the U.S. with a gain of 9.3 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 3.0 percent to $865 in the second quarter of
2010. Among the large counties in the U.S., Santa Clara, Calif., had the largest over-the-year increase in
average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2010, with a gain of 10.6 percent. Within Santa Clara,
manufacturing had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in average weekly wages.
Fort Bend, Texas, experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 1.7 percent
over the year. County employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (QCEW) program.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in
employment, June 2009-10
(U.S. average = -0.2 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, second quarter 2009-10
(U.S. average = 3.0 percent)
12
-3.7
-3.7
-2.9
-2.9
-2.7
10
10.6
8
9.0
7.6
6
6.9
6.4
4
2
0
Yolo,
Calif.
Marion,
Fla.
Kane,
Ill.
McHenry,
Ill.
San Joaquin,
Calif.
Santa Clara,
Calif.
New York,
N.Y.
Elkhart,
Ind.
Lake,
Ind.
Rockingham,
N.H.
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by June 2010 employment, June 2009-10 employment
decrease, and June 2009-10 percent decrease in employment
Employment in large counties
June 2010 employment
(thousands)
United States
Decrease in employment,
June 2009-10
(thousands)
129,371.6
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.
3,890.5
2,371.7
2,291.3
1,996.5
1,565.2
1,415.2
1,369.7
1,253.3
1,125.9
932.4
United States
Percent decrease in employment,
June 2009-10
-276.5
Los Angeles, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Cook, Ill.
Clark, Nev.
Sacramento, Calif.
Orange, Calif.
San Bernardino, Calif.
Riverside, Calif.
St. Louis, Mo.
Alameda, Calif.
-62.3
-24.3
-22.7
-17.5
-15.7
-15.1
-14.0
-12.8
-12.3
-10.6
United States
-0.2
Yolo, Calif.
Marion, Fla.
Kane, Ill.
McHenry, Ill.
San Joaquin, Calif.
Sacramento, Calif.
Durham, N.C.
Sedgwick, Kan.
St. Louis City, Mo.
Gloucester, N.J.
Spokane, Wash.
-3.7
-3.7
-2.9
-2.9
-2.7
-2.6
-2.6
-2.5
-2.5
-2.4
-2.4
Large County Employment
In June 2010, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129.4 million, down by
0.2 percent from June 2009. The 326 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.7
percent of total U.S. employment and 71.5 percent of total wages. These 326 counties had a net job
decline of 350,897 over the year, accounting for 126.9 percent of the overall U.S. employment decrease.
(See chart 3.)
Yolo, Calif., and Marion, Fla., both had the largest percentage decline in employment among the largest
U.S. counties. The top five counties with the greatest employment level declines (Los Angeles, Calif.;
Maricopa, Ariz.; Cook, Ill.; Clark, Nev.; and Sacramento, Calif.) had a combined over-the-year loss of
142,500, or 51.1 percent of the employment decline for the U.S. (See table A.)
Employment rose in 120 of the large counties from June 2009 to June 2010. Elkhart, Ind., had the largest
over-the-year percentage increase in employment (9.3 percent) in the nation. Manufacturing was the
largest contributor to the increase in employment. In Elkhart, employment declines exceeded 10 percent
from third quarter of 2008 through third quarter of 2009. Employment rebounded in December 2009,
and strong job growth continued through this quarter. Kings, N.Y., experienced the second largest
employment increase, followed by Allen, Ind.; Ottawa, Mich.; Macomb, Mich.; Arlington, Va.; and
Benton, Wash.
-2-
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by second quarter 2010 average weekly wages, second quarter 2009-10
increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2009-10 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2010
United States
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
Fairfax, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Mateo, Calif.
Somerset, N.J.
Increase in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2009-10
$865
$1,659
1,603
1,506
1,481
1,395
1,392
1,346
1,334
1,329
1,277
United States
$25
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Washington, D.C.
Fairfield, Conn.
Alexandria City, Va.
Middlesex, Mass.
Durham, N.C.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, Ore.
Douglas, Colo.
$153
137
81
79
73
62
61
59
54
53
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2009-10
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Elkhart, Ind.
Lake, Ind.
Rockingham, N.H.
Alexandria City, Va.
Douglas, Colo.
Fairfield, Conn.
Champaign, Ill.
Butler, Pa.
3.0
10.6
9.0
7.6
6.9
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.0
5.9
5.8
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 3.0 percent over the year in the second quarter of
2010. Among the 326 largest counties, 301 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Santa
Clara, Calif., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties. (See table B.) Of the 326 largest
counties, 16 experienced declines in average weekly wages. (See chart 4.)
Fort Bend, Texas, led the nation in average weekly wage decline with a loss of 1.7 percent over the year.
Large declines in employment (-10.0 percent) and wages (-14.0 percent) within construction had
contributed significantly to the county’s overall average weekly wage loss. Baltimore City, Md., had the
second largest overall decline among the counties, followed by St. Charles, Mo.; Anoka, Minn.; and
Calcasieu, La.
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Eight of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent declines in employment in June
2010. Los Angeles, Calif., experienced the largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties
with a 1.6 percent decrease. Within Los Angeles, other services had the largest over-the-year decline
among all private industry groups with a loss of 20,933 workers (-8.0 percent). (See table 2.) New York,
N.Y., experienced the largest increase in employment among the 10 largest counties.
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. New York,
N.Y., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties and the
nation with a gain of 9.0 percent. Orange, Calif., had the smallest wage increase among the 10 largest
counties.
-3-
For More Information
The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 326 U.S. counties
with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2009. June 2010 employment and 2010
second quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the 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 9.0 million employer reports cover 129.4 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the second quarter of 2010 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 third quarter 2010 is scheduled to be released on
Tuesday, March 29, 2011.
-4-
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 2010 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 327 counties
presented in this release were derived using 2009 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2010 data, two counties have
been added to the publication tables: St. Tammany Parish, La., and
Benton, Wash. These counties will be included in all 2010 quarterly
releases. Ten counties, Shelby, Ala.; Butte, Calif.; Tippecanoe, Ind.;
Johnson, Iowa; Saratoga, N.Y.; Trumbull, Ohio; Warren, Ohio;
Kent, R.I.; Gregg, Texas; and Racine, Wis., which were published
in the 2009 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 9.0 million establishments in first quarter of 2010
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative records submitted by
6.7 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 2010 releases because their 2009 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 9.0 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2009. 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
2009, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 128.6 million
jobs. The estimated 123.6 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received
$5.859 trillion in pay, representing 93.4 percent of the wage and
salary component of personal income and 41.5 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 2009 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 327 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2009-10 5
United States 6 ...................
9,009.6
129,371.6
-0.2
–
$865
3.0
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.9
8.7
9.9
6.4
4.3
8.1
94.6
19.4
5.4
15.1
332.8
180.7
168.5
132.1
81.2
150.1
1,565.2
338.9
92.8
245.6
-1.5
0.5
1.9
-1.7
2.8
0.7
-1.5
( 7)
0.6
0.3
262
82
17
275
10
72
262
–
76
95
864
966
747
759
742
971
860
765
839
779
2.4
3.0
1.4
3.7
2.6
2.1
1.7
1.9
4.5
-0.1
160
110
250
63
147
195
226
204
27
302
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.6
54.3
29.3
29.8
17.6
422.4
11.7
12.7
101.7
10.6
91.1
635.1
319.3
343.7
277.7
3,890.5
102.9
187.1
1,369.7
126.0
( 7)
-1.6
-2.0
-0.6
1.9
-1.6
0.1
2.3
-1.1
-1.4
–
267
285
167
17
267
112
12
225
252
725
1,148
1,061
697
773
968
1,059
741
965
841
( 7)
4.4
-0.8
1.3
1.2
3.1
2.9
-0.8
1.5
2.1
–
29
308
252
261
103
115
308
242
195
Riverside, CA .....................
Sacramento, CA ................
San Bernardino, CA ...........
San Diego, CA ...................
San Francisco, CA .............
San Joaquin, CA ................
San Luis Obispo, CA .........
San Mateo, CA ..................
Santa Barbara, CA .............
Santa Clara, CA .................
47.5
53.0
49.2
97.5
53.1
16.9
9.5
23.7
14.3
60.6
563.0
589.6
597.3
1,253.3
545.9
216.5
102.0
320.1
184.2
849.5
-2.2
-2.6
-2.3
-0.5
-0.9
-2.7
0.6
-0.3
-1.0
-0.5
296
310
301
158
202
312
76
144
216
158
729
980
762
934
1,346
752
731
1,329
818
1,603
1.7
3.6
2.6
2.3
3.2
1.8
0.8
1.5
1.1
10.6
226
70
147
172
95
214
279
242
265
1
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.0
9.9
18.5
14.7
9.3
23.6
5.9
9.0
18.9
12.9
98.5
123.8
176.9
166.2
151.8
302.7
96.1
151.2
273.6
153.6
-2.0
0.4
-1.6
-0.9
-1.0
-1.4
-3.7
-1.2
-0.9
0.3
285
91
267
202
216
252
315
234
202
95
761
860
817
744
606
897
816
785
980
1,007
1.2
0.2
0.6
2.1
1.3
1.7
-0.9
2.7
1.0
4.0
261
298
287
195
252
226
310
138
269
46
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.3
9.4
16.8
18.0
10.1
5.8
32.7
25.2
22.3
6.9
421.7
92.1
235.2
205.9
129.5
79.0
403.7
487.9
350.2
126.3
-0.2
-0.7
-0.8
-0.6
0.4
-0.9
-0.2
-1.0
-0.8
-1.4
132
182
196
167
91
202
132
216
196
252
1,033
906
800
882
742
712
1,395
1,058
926
895
2.4
6.2
1.7
2.9
2.5
3.8
6.0
4.2
2.4
1.6
160
7
226
115
154
53
8
40
160
235
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2009-10 5
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
17.6
34.2
6.7
14.7
63.3
11.9
26.8
7.9
37.1
7.3
262.9
701.4
115.4
189.9
678.6
104.7
430.4
119.1
558.1
74.7
-1.9
2.3
-0.6
-0.7
-1.2
-0.3
-0.7
1.1
-1.2
-2.3
283
12
167
182
234
144
182
46
234
301
$985
1,506
738
833
816
789
834
695
840
616
2.6
5.7
3.7
1.6
1.5
2.7
2.2
1.2
2.3
1.0
147
11
63
235
242
138
182
261
172
269
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.9
8.2
9.1
8.1
85.9
6.1
35.4
49.2
9.9
30.7
186.9
136.1
105.5
88.9
932.4
75.1
642.2
485.8
89.1
382.5
-1.2
-1.1
-1.5
-3.7
-0.2
-1.7
0.5
-0.8
-0.6
-1.6
234
225
262
315
132
275
82
196
167
267
727
732
679
648
850
741
776
858
666
766
1.0
1.1
1.8
3.8
1.9
1.8
1.3
2.5
( 7)
3.4
269
265
214
53
204
214
252
154
–
85
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.4
14.6
14.1
13.5
4.6
7.6
4.3
20.5
17.5
39.4
184.5
130.2
155.7
145.1
79.4
128.1
102.2
287.0
275.7
700.8
-1.8
-0.9
-2.2
-2.2
-1.3
-1.1
( 7)
-0.7
-1.3
-0.7
278
202
296
296
243
225
–
182
243
182
674
728
739
651
679
747
773
894
899
1,122
1.5
0.1
0.8
2.4
2.1
2.8
( 7)
2.4
0.7
2.6
242
299
279
160
195
126
–
160
284
147
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
23.4
4.7
4.7
24.8
14.2
4.2
142.8
36.3
13.0
21.4
295.7
93.1
97.1
428.2
193.6
88.9
2,371.7
552.9
193.9
317.8
-0.9
( 7)
-1.0
-1.7
-0.9
0.3
-0.9
-0.1
-2.9
-1.4
202
–
216
275
202
95
202
125
313
252
853
690
736
809
755
785
1,012
988
776
1,081
3.5
2.4
1.8
1.0
2.7
5.9
2.4
2.7
2.9
3.6
78
160
214
269
138
9
160
138
115
70
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
8.5
3.8
6.0
4.7
3.5
5.5
5.3
14.4
6.9
8.9
95.7
86.0
93.5
99.9
74.2
93.2
128.1
197.4
124.5
172.2
-2.9
0.8
1.8
0.5
-2.3
-1.8
-0.1
0.1
-1.3
3.5
313
67
22
82
301
278
125
112
243
3
733
855
724
804
845
728
886
781
732
732
3.8
2.9
4.2
2.7
2.8
1.5
2.8
4.3
3.7
4.3
53
115
40
138
126
242
126
34
63
34
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2009-10 5
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
4.8
7.9
10.3
23.6
6.0
4.8
6.3
14.7
5.3
20.9
102.3
109.1
184.3
547.7
114.0
104.7
124.8
268.5
86.0
297.8
9.3
-0.5
-0.7
0.5
-0.3
1.0
-0.6
-1.6
0.6
-2.0
1
158
182
82
144
53
167
267
76
285
$737
816
771
870
721
731
829
850
688
889
7.6
3.2
6.9
2.2
1.3
3.8
4.5
3.2
3.0
2.2
3
95
4
182
252
53
27
95
110
182
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
12.5
4.9
3.2
9.5
22.4
7.6
5.1
15.0
14.4
9.3
241.4
94.7
81.2
172.3
413.0
123.6
83.8
252.3
194.6
131.6
-2.5
-0.6
2.6
1.0
-0.2
1.6
-2.0
-1.4
-0.4
0.3
308
167
11
53
132
30
285
252
151
95
791
757
831
798
852
743
715
803
803
819
0.1
3.1
2.2
1.8
3.4
3.2
-1.0
-0.4
2.8
3.7
299
103
182
214
85
95
313
305
126
63
Orleans, LA ........................
St. Tammany, LA ...............
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
11.0
7.6
12.2
14.3
21.1
5.9
5.6
8.7
32.3
15.5
170.8
75.8
169.0
230.8
368.0
93.3
82.3
149.7
448.3
303.3
0.9
( 7)
-1.1
0.3
-0.4
-0.4
1.2
1.4
-0.1
-1.6
61
–
225
95
151
151
42
34
125
267
920
731
779
946
894
851
816
1,027
1,173
959
0.9
( 7)
3.2
( 7)
2.4
2.9
3.2
1.7
3.8
2.9
275
–
95
–
160
115
95
226
53
115
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
13.5
9.2
15.9
21.2
14.8
48.4
24.0
14.0
22.6
21.0
328.7
96.7
210.7
300.2
196.2
812.4
317.0
174.0
574.4
313.5
-0.5
-1.2
-0.2
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
-0.7
0.6
0.4
158
234
132
42
82
82
82
182
76
91
999
738
796
923
779
1,252
1,022
850
1,334
886
-1.6
1.5
2.4
3.6
0.3
5.2
3.0
1.0
1.8
3.1
316
242
160
70
292
17
110
269
214
103
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
7.5
6.5
5.4
14.0
17.2
37.8
5.6
4.2
8.0
31.3
127.8
154.4
108.1
309.9
280.6
618.1
102.2
79.9
184.1
665.0
0.7
0.9
-2.0
1.0
3.0
-0.8
3.5
1.8
1.7
0.9
72
61
285
53
5
196
3
22
25
61
728
854
785
773
866
953
712
725
910
944
1.1
3.5
2.7
0.8
2.2
-0.2
3.8
0.3
1.6
2.2
265
78
138
279
182
304
53
292
235
182
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2009-10 5
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
7.4
10.0
44.3
3.4
14.4
5.7
4.4
4.5
6.2
4.4
106.9
171.0
812.2
88.3
318.0
94.4
77.8
83.3
123.0
82.5
-2.3
0.2
0.3
-1.4
-0.7
0.0
-0.5
-0.2
-1.8
1.3
301
107
95
252
182
121
158
132
278
38
$827
860
1,073
988
957
725
683
663
762
682
-1.1
1.3
4.4
3.6
2.9
4.9
4.1
-0.6
2.6
0.6
314
252
29
70
115
22
44
306
147
287
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
5.0
8.0
18.0
8.1
31.6
8.7
5.8
15.7
8.1
48.0
91.2
147.0
342.8
122.5
569.1
213.2
76.4
313.6
153.5
804.1
-1.9
-1.3
-2.3
0.0
-2.1
-2.5
-1.1
0.1
-0.7
-2.1
283
243
301
121
294
308
225
112
182
294
828
672
872
708
911
921
714
796
702
786
2.3
0.7
0.7
-1.5
1.9
( 7)
3.6
1.8
3.5
-0.9
172
284
284
315
204
–
70
214
78
310
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
13.9
11.9
10.6
6.9
33.9
11.2
12.8
21.1
6.3
13.9
184.5
185.4
136.3
143.3
431.3
197.0
198.6
342.0
99.9
229.7
-2.0
-1.5
1.0
1.2
-0.9
-1.8
-0.5
-0.7
-2.4
-1.0
285
262
53
42
202
278
158
182
306
216
800
961
861
769
1,050
925
880
1,083
806
1,198
0.4
5.4
6.4
1.9
1.9
3.4
2.1
2.2
3.7
3.6
290
15
5
204
204
85
195
182
63
70
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.1
21.9
20.4
17.7
12.3
12.3
10.1
14.8
17.5
9.9
229.7
380.8
254.4
274.8
155.9
172.4
170.2
222.9
313.7
220.5
0.5
-0.7
-0.9
-1.4
0.7
1.9
0.1
1.0
-1.1
-1.1
82
182
202
252
72
17
112
53
225
225
1,134
1,065
902
1,230
720
917
1,277
1,101
780
912
3.0
2.2
1.6
3.4
0.8
1.9
2.8
4.0
1.8
0.6
110
182
235
85
279
204
126
46
214
287
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
16.8
4.5
8.1
23.6
49.4
18.0
52.3
120.6
5.3
12.8
237.1
92.7
112.4
453.3
499.6
373.9
596.9
2,291.3
110.3
244.1
1.9
-1.8
-0.6
0.3
3.6
0.2
-0.2
0.3
0.2
-1.0
17
278
167
95
2
107
132
95
107
216
842
709
916
765
739
850
1,010
1,659
695
817
1.4
2.6
2.0
2.3
0.4
2.3
2.5
9.0
1.8
3.3
250
147
202
172
290
172
154
2
214
90
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2009-10 5
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
10.0
44.8
8.9
9.9
50.3
36.1
7.8
4.4
6.2
7.1
132.2
498.8
95.0
115.4
625.9
408.8
110.6
77.7
118.6
177.0
1.1
1.1
1.6
0.1
0.5
-0.6
1.7
1.0
-0.4
-2.6
46
46
30
112
82
167
25
53
151
310
$784
837
759
946
966
1,161
678
669
720
1,155
1.3
1.9
1.6
2.2
4.4
3.8
2.9
4.4
3.7
5.6
252
204
235
182
29
53
115
29
63
14
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
9.0
14.2
32.1
7.2
28.4
5.8
7.2
35.7
28.9
23.1
173.2
255.8
531.5
95.3
436.1
100.4
137.9
690.9
649.5
488.3
-1.3
-0.8
-0.2
-2.2
0.8
0.9
0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-1.2
243
196
132
296
67
61
67
167
151
234
797
769
984
718
873
737
767
882
848
923
3.6
3.1
4.7
2.9
5.1
3.8
4.6
3.8
3.7
2.8
70
103
23
115
19
53
25
53
63
126
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
6.4
6.1
10.3
6.0
12.2
8.7
14.3
24.2
20.1
12.4
94.4
93.4
199.2
96.7
241.4
149.3
254.4
412.1
329.1
138.9
-0.8
-1.1
1.3
-0.3
-0.5
-1.6
-0.5
0.2
-2.0
-1.3
196
225
38
144
158
267
158
107
285
243
721
698
743
631
772
664
773
789
783
799
2.6
3.9
2.2
2.4
1.8
2.2
1.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
147
50
182
160
214
182
269
172
154
126
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
6.5
10.7
9.3
28.4
16.0
34.9
9.0
19.6
4.8
14.9
76.1
137.3
136.0
422.8
236.6
679.9
163.0
255.0
81.5
237.6
-1.6
0.1
-0.6
-0.1
0.3
0.3
1.3
0.4
2.9
-0.4
267
112
167
125
95
95
38
91
8
151
670
685
698
885
994
919
786
839
767
1,131
1.8
1.3
0.3
1.7
5.7
3.5
0.3
0.1
5.8
1.8
214
252
292
226
11
78
292
299
10
214
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
6.0
7.4
13.5
7.5
5.8
12.4
8.6
7.7
27.1
6.4
120.6
180.0
205.8
123.4
98.0
220.7
173.1
137.9
466.5
98.7
-0.7
-1.2
0.7
1.1
-0.9
-0.2
0.6
-0.7
-1.0
0.8
182
234
72
46
202
132
76
182
216
67
807
853
917
671
672
725
823
680
1,068
758
1.3
3.3
2.9
0.3
2.1
2.8
-0.1
2.4
2.8
1.7
252
90
115
292
195
126
302
160
126
226
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2009-10 5
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
32.5
5.5
9.3
9.0
17.4
11.6
12.0
7.7
5.6
9.0
628.6
81.1
134.3
169.3
269.2
206.5
226.4
114.4
94.0
202.8
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-0.2
1.7
-1.3
-1.3
-0.6
42
34
121
121
151
132
25
243
243
167
$1,007
777
694
773
853
768
758
546
647
763
0.8
5.0
3.0
3.8
2.2
4.6
2.8
5.2
3.5
1.1
279
21
110
53
182
25
126
17
78
265
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
6.0
6.5
18.1
8.4
10.8
4.3
19.1
6.1
4.7
33.3
109.4
114.1
419.4
179.2
216.4
94.2
466.3
89.1
107.1
727.4
-1.1
-0.5
( 7)
0.3
-0.3
( 7)
-1.4
( 7)
( 7)
1.0
225
158
–
95
144
–
252
–
–
53
764
704
873
761
735
806
895
942
714
772
4.2
2.3
3.6
5.1
2.7
( 7)
4.3
3.9
( 7)
3.2
40
172
70
19
138
–
34
50
–
95
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
4.8
3.8
6.3
17.8
67.5
10.9
13.6
9.0
5.2
99.7
86.7
86.0
125.0
287.7
1,415.2
173.1
271.9
133.2
95.9
1,996.5
1.8
0.8
1.4
1.7
0.2
1.9
2.2
1.0
2.9
-0.3
22
67
34
25
107
17
14
53
8
144
831
652
562
997
1,030
756
633
855
791
1,065
4.3
1.6
3.3
2.0
2.3
1.6
4.3
-1.7
-0.9
2.3
34
235
90
202
172
235
34
317
310
172
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
10.8
5.9
6.9
4.8
8.5
7.9
3.8
5.3
37.2
29.7
220.5
119.5
122.7
101.7
128.7
152.9
73.9
92.3
747.5
569.7
2.0
1.1
0.3
( 7)
1.6
1.7
-1.2
0.9
0.1
1.4
15
46
95
–
30
25
234
61
112
34
563
838
672
704
782
732
752
742
873
954
3.3
1.3
4.0
( 7)
2.4
2.7
4.3
3.5
4.4
3.9
90
252
46
–
160
138
34
78
29
50
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
4.7
7.4
7.0
36.4
12.6
5.5
5.9
8.0
7.6
34.0
85.2
122.6
102.9
558.0
164.9
89.6
91.9
164.2
115.4
580.3
0.9
1.1
1.1
-0.2
-0.1
-0.7
-1.0
3.0
-0.9
0.6
61
46
46
132
125
182
216
5
202
76
590
824
714
810
679
662
875
1,481
798
1,392
5.7
4.2
1.9
1.5
-0.6
2.3
4.7
4.1
4.0
3.2
11
40
204
242
306
172
23
44
46
95
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2009-10 5
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Benton, WA ........................
9.6
9.2
7.4
6.1
5.7
3.9
5.7
7.2
11.3
5.5
172.4
134.9
106.2
97.1
95.7
96.3
136.6
149.0
169.2
84.0
-0.1
2.0
1.5
-0.9
-0.1
0.1
-2.2
-0.6
-0.6
3.0
125
15
33
202
125
112
296
167
167
5
$873
1,054
796
1,237
705
811
873
962
696
909
1.7
3.3
3.1
6.3
3.4
1.9
3.1
0.3
2.8
2.5
226
90
103
6
85
204
103
292
126
154
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
13.0
80.6
6.6
21.4
18.7
15.9
7.3
6.9
8.8
6.0
128.2
1,125.9
81.8
263.3
240.0
199.2
97.5
78.8
106.5
106.5
-0.2
-0.9
-0.6
-1.2
-2.0
-2.4
-1.3
-1.4
-1.0
-0.6
132
202
167
234
285
306
243
252
216
167
785
1,101
842
809
923
732
807
706
597
773
0.9
2.1
2.9
2.7
2.8
1.9
1.5
0.9
1.2
0.9
275
195
115
138
126
204
242
275
261
275
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.5
13.7
20.9
5.0
12.6
3.7
11.7
145.9
297.5
467.5
100.9
220.8
90.0
261.8
0.1
-0.3
-1.4
-1.5
-2.0
1.3
-3.8
112
144
252
262
285
38
( 8)
742
833
866
725
852
798
592
2.5
1.7
2.2
3.1
3.5
5.4
1.5
154
226
182
103
78
15
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 326 U.S. counties comprise 70.7 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2009-10 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 ...................................................
9,009.6
8,711.9
126.3
801.1
344.4
1,876.4
144.2
821.2
1,538.5
887.5
745.0
1,246.0
297.7
129,371.6
107,283.2
1,940.2
5,657.4
11,549.2
24,488.7
2,723.8
7,440.9
16,801.1
18,589.5
13,518.8
4,404.9
22,088.4
-0.2
-0.5
1.5
-7.5
-1.6
-0.7
-3.7
-2.6
2.0
1.7
-0.2
-0.7
1.1
$865
849
882
910
1,063
733
1,324
1,259
1,088
817
359
553
941
3.0
3.3
4.1
0.6
5.8
3.2
4.1
6.2
2.7
1.6
3.2
1.8
2.0
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 ...................................................
422.4
416.8
0.5
13.0
13.5
52.0
8.4
22.3
41.6
28.7
26.8
194.9
5.6
3,890.5
3,298.4
10.8
105.6
376.7
730.8
189.5
210.1
528.2
505.0
390.8
240.4
592.0
-1.6
-1.5
3.3
-11.7
-3.9
-0.4
-1.0
-2.5
-0.4
2.0
-0.8
-8.0
-1.9
968
935
1,107
989
1,063
781
1,667
1,417
1,144
897
529
458
1,154
3.1
2.9
8.2
-1.2
3.9
3.4
2.3
2.7
1.6
2.3
2.1
8.3
( 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 ...................................................
142.8
141.4
0.1
12.2
6.7
27.7
2.6
15.5
30.0
14.8
12.3
15.3
1.4
2,371.7
2,057.3
0.9
67.1
193.4
429.8
51.5
190.0
404.1
390.5
232.3
94.4
314.3
-0.9
-1.1
-11.7
-11.1
-2.9
-0.9
-3.7
-3.3
0.9
1.3
-1.1
-2.8
0.0
1,012
996
952
1,200
1,048
783
1,418
1,714
1,277
861
449
739
1,118
2.4
2.5
7.1
-0.2
7.0
2.4
1.4
4.8
1.5
1.2
4.7
1.4
2.6
New York, NY .....................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
120.6
120.3
0.0
2.3
2.6
21.1
4.4
19.0
25.6
9.1
12.3
18.5
0.3
2,291.3
1,840.6
0.1
30.0
26.7
234.4
129.5
347.3
461.2
294.0
223.4
87.6
450.6
0.3
0.3
-11.3
-12.7
-5.0
1.9
-2.7
-0.2
-0.3
1.3
2.7
-0.4
0.2
1,659
1,799
1,926
1,523
1,227
1,173
2,011
3,611
1,887
1,097
755
957
1,090
9.0
10.2
-24.3
1.6
0.8
4.5
3.3
25.8
4.5
2.7
4.0
0.0
1.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2009-10 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 ...................................................
99.7
99.1
1.6
6.5
4.5
22.5
1.3
10.5
19.8
10.9
8.0
13.1
0.5
1,996.5
1,729.1
74.7
132.1
168.0
414.3
28.8
112.2
319.5
236.7
181.3
60.3
267.4
-0.3
-0.9
3.1
-7.8
-3.0
-1.0
-4.7
-3.1
0.4
3.7
-1.6
0.8
3.8
$1,065
1,084
2,732
1,056
1,323
957
1,214
1,295
1,301
883
390
614
943
2.3
2.7
2.2
-0.2
5.8
1.7
1.0
7.1
4.2
0.5
2.6
-0.5
-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 ...................................................
94.6
93.9
0.5
9.0
3.3
21.9
1.5
11.4
21.8
10.3
6.8
6.8
0.7
1,565.2
1,385.9
7.6
81.2
107.2
331.8
27.5
132.0
260.7
223.5
167.1
46.8
179.3
-1.5
-1.7
-11.8
-15.7
-4.2
-1.1
0.3
-3.1
-0.1
3.6
-1.8
0.3
-0.1
860
842
739
877
1,264
794
1,061
1,038
881
901
406
570
981
1.7
1.8
9.8
0.6
8.0
2.5
1.8
2.4
-0.1
-0.2
2.3
0.5
0.2
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 ...................................................
67.5
67.0
0.6
4.1
2.9
14.8
1.6
8.5
14.7
6.9
5.4
7.0
0.5
1,415.2
1,243.0
8.4
67.5
113.7
279.4
45.6
136.5
257.2
164.0
131.2
38.8
172.2
0.2
-0.4
8.3
-10.2
-4.8
-0.4
-2.0
-2.1
1.5
4.7
0.9
0.1
4.4
1,030
1,036
3,107
926
1,211
953
1,500
1,344
1,165
978
444
641
988
2.3
2.4
9.8
2.1
4.8
2.9
3.2
4.4
2.3
-0.3
-5.1
0.2
1.8
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
101.7
100.3
0.2
6.4
5.0
16.4
1.3
9.7
18.7
10.3
7.1
20.2
1.4
1,369.7
1,217.7
4.8
68.2
152.8
242.5
25.4
103.1
243.7
154.0
170.9
48.7
152.0
-1.1
-1.0
7.6
-9.1
-2.0
-1.4
-6.9
-2.7
0.6
1.9
0.0
0.4
-2.2
965
949
570
1,037
1,166
914
1,353
1,375
1,103
878
419
527
1,100
1.5
1.9
-4.4
-3.9
4.4
2.6
4.6
3.9
1.3
1.5
2.9
1.0
-0.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2009-10 4
San Diego, CA ...................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
97.5
96.2
0.7
6.4
3.0
13.6
1.2
8.7
16.0
8.4
7.0
26.7
1.4
1,253.3
1,020.5
10.6
56.2
93.2
195.9
25.4
67.1
208.4
144.4
157.6
58.4
232.8
-0.5
-0.8
1.2
-9.2
-2.3
-1.0
-4.1
-3.1
-0.3
2.5
0.4
0.3
( 6)
$934
903
573
995
1,313
746
1,363
1,101
1,254
875
398
494
1,069
2.3
2.8
2.1
0.0
5.1
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.6
2.1
2.6
3.8
( 6)
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 ...................................................
80.6
80.1
0.4
5.9
2.3
14.5
1.7
6.6
13.8
6.9
6.3
21.7
0.5
1,125.9
963.6
2.8
47.4
97.4
203.8
79.5
64.5
175.1
131.2
110.4
51.4
162.3
-0.9
-1.2
-3.2
-15.0
-3.9
-0.3
-0.9
-7.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
10.1
1.1
1,101
1,100
1,214
1,098
1,418
950
1,991
1,283
1,327
913
432
596
1,107
2.1
1.8
5.6
-0.5
2.8
2.9
3.4
-2.4
3.4
3.5
1.2
-2.3
4.8
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 ...................................................
85.9
85.6
0.5
5.5
2.6
24.1
1.5
9.3
18.1
9.7
6.4
7.7
0.4
932.4
800.2
7.0
31.2
35.0
236.9
17.3
60.7
121.2
149.9
105.7
35.1
132.2
-0.2
-0.2
-6.2
-13.7
-6.7
1.2
( 6)
-2.2
-1.6
3.1
3.0
-0.1
-0.2
850
814
513
876
777
764
1,328
1,222
993
835
486
544
1,051
1.9
1.4
8.9
0.9
4.4
0.5
( 6)
6.0
1.6
0.1
2.3
0.7
4.1
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 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 by state,
second quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2009-10
United States 4 ...................
9,009.6
129,371.6
-0.2
$865
3.0
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.6
21.3
147.2
85.8
1,327.9
172.2
111.4
28.5
34.2
600.0
1,831.3
330.6
2,308.7
1,153.7
14,651.5
2,202.5
1,617.8
404.8
701.4
7,043.4
-0.4
1.2
-1.1
1.2
-1.0
-0.9
-1.1
-0.9
2.3
-0.6
750
916
821
684
978
870
1,075
876
1,506
782
2.3
2.7
1.7
2.5
3.2
2.2
4.0
2.1
5.7
2.1
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
267.9
38.9
54.9
377.5
158.0
94.6
87.6
109.9
129.5
48.9
3,767.6
584.0
616.6
5,574.8
2,734.8
1,459.3
1,315.2
1,733.6
1,849.1
591.6
-0.9
-1.9
-1.4
-0.6
1.2
-0.9
-1.1
0.6
-0.1
-0.8
812
782
651
910
732
709
732
743
769
699
2.5
0.9
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.4
1.9
2.8
2.1
2.6
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
162.3
218.7
248.1
169.7
69.3
173.5
42.4
59.8
72.6
48.1
2,501.7
3,199.1
3,828.6
2,605.5
1,083.7
2,611.5
432.0
909.6
1,117.7
612.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
-0.3
0.0
-1.1
-0.5
-0.3
-2.1
-0.5
957
1,060
825
869
652
762
658
696
796
867
2.5
3.1
1.9
3.3
2.0
1.7
3.5
3.3
-0.3
4.6
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
266.9
54.4
589.0
251.8
26.0
283.0
102.5
130.2
341.8
35.0
3,853.2
792.1
8,503.4
3,813.0
363.6
4,959.0
1,499.0
1,626.2
5,552.8
456.5
-0.3
-0.8
0.5
-0.5
2.0
-0.4
-0.3
-0.5
0.6
-0.6
1,028
743
1,078
764
711
775
717
786
849
831
2.6
2.6
5.0
3.9
6.6
2.9
3.0
2.5
2.4
3.1
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
111.5
30.8
139.5
570.0
83.0
24.3
231.5
230.7
48.6
156.4
1,782.5
401.5
2,583.3
10,245.8
1,159.2
291.2
3,590.7
2,858.7
700.5
2,684.4
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.7
-0.4
-1.0
0.1
-0.9
0.4
-0.3
710
631
776
864
733
756
929
898
726
746
3.6
2.8
3.3
3.0
1.4
4.3
3.3
2.0
2.3
2.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2010
(thousands)
June
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2009-10
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2009-10
Wyoming ............................
25.1
280.9
-1.1
$789
2.7
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
49.6
3.6
930.6
43.9
-2.6
0.7
493
709
1.6
-1.4
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,
June 2009-10 (U.S. average = -0.2 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
January 2011
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, second quarter 2009-10 (U.S. average = 3.0 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
January 2011