For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Tuesday, March 29, 2011
USDL-11-0434
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Third Quarter 2010
From September 2009 to September 2010, employment increased in 162 of the 326 largest U.S.
counties according to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart, Ind.,
posted the largest percentage increase, with a gain of 6.8 percent over the year, compared with national
job growth of 0.2 percent. Within Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing,
which gained 5,570 jobs over the year (14.2 percent). Sacramento, Calif., experienced the largest overthe-year percentage decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 3.7
percent. Within Sacramento, state government had the largest percentage decrease in employment with a
loss of 7.5 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 3.4 percent to $870 in the third quarter of
2010. Among the large counties in the U.S., Rock Island, Ill., had the largest over-the-year increase in
average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2010 with a gain of 12.2 percent. Within Rock Island,
professional and business services had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in
average weekly wages. Sacramento, Calif., experienced the only decline in average weekly wages
among the largest U.S. counties with a loss of 2.2 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 increase in
employment, September 2009-10
(U.S. average = 0.2 percent)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6.8
Elkhart,
Ind.
3.2
3.1
3.1
Denton,
Texas
Bell,
Texas
Arlington,
Va.
2.7
Washington,
Pa.
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, third quarter 2009-10
(U.S. average = 3.4 percent)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
12.2
10.4
Rock Island,
Ill.
Benton,
Ark.
10.1
Santa Clara,
Calif.
8.9
8.8
Anoka,
Minn.
Butler,
Pa.
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by September 2010 employment, September 2009-10 employment
increase, and September 2009-10 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
September 2010 employment
(thousands)
United States
128,440.4
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.
3,844.5
2,354.8
2,273.0
1,995.8
1,597.0
1,415.0
1,348.8
1,238.6
1,121.8
940.9
Increase in employment,
September 2009-10
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
September 2009-10
310.8
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Washington, D.C.
Dallas, Texas
Hennepin, Minn.
Travis, Texas
Kings, N.Y.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Fairfax, Va.
Bexar, Texas
26.9
21.2
13.7
12.7
11.0
10.9
9.7
9.7
7.5
7.4
United States
0.2
Elkhart, Ind.
Denton, Texas
Bell, Texas
Arlington, Va.
Washington, Pa.
Benton, Wash.
Washtenaw, Mich.
Boone, Mo.
Brazoria, Texas
Hamilton, Tenn.
Collin, Texas
6.8
3.2
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
Large County Employment
In September 2010, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 128.4 million, up
by 0.2 percent, or 310,800 workers, from September 2009. The 326 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more
employees accounted for 70.6 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.1 percent of total wages. These
326 counties had a net job growth of 80,826 over the year, accounting for 26.0 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Elkhart, Ind., had the largest percentage increase in employment among the largest U.S. counties. The
top five counties with the greatest increases in employment level (New York, N.Y.; Harris, Texas;
Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; and Hennepin, Minn.) had a combined over-the-year gain of 85,500,
or 27.5 percent of the employment increase for the U.S.
Employment declined in 149 of the large counties from September 2009 to September 2010.
Sacramento, Calif., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-3.7 percent) in
the nation. At the supersector level, public administration within state government was the largest
contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 7.1 percent. San Joaquin, Calif., experienced
the second largest employment decrease, followed by Marion, Fla., East Baton Rouge, La., and Pinellas,
Fla.
-2-
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by third quarter 2010 average weekly wages, third quarter 2009-10
increase in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2009-10 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
third quarter 2010
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Fairfax, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
Middlesex, Mass.
Increase in average weekly
wage, third quarter 2009-10
$870
$1,662
1,572
1,505
1,471
1,374
1,358
1,351
1,346
1,339
1,285
United States
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, third
quarter 2009-10
$29
Santa Clara, Calif.
Rock Island, Ill.
Middlesex, Mass.
Arlington, Va.
Benton, Ark.
Washington, Ore.
Fairfield, Conn.
New York, N.Y.
Clay, Mo.
Anoka, Minn.
$153
105
98
92
79
71
70
70
69
68
United States
Rock Island, Ill.
Benton, Ark.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Anoka, Minn.
Butler, Pa.
Clay, Mo.
Middlesex, Mass.
Lake, Ind.
Washington, Ore.
Tuscaloosa, Ala.
3.4
12.2
10.4
10.1
8.9
8.8
8.5
8.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 3.4 percent over the year in the third quarter of
2010. Among the 326 largest counties, 319 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See
chart 4.) Rock Island, Ill., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties.
Of the 326 largest counties, only one, Sacramento, Calif., experienced an average weekly wage decline
with a loss of 2.2 percent over the year. Large declines in total wages (-19.1 percent) within state
government contributed significantly to the county’s overall average weekly wage loss. Orleans, La.,
had the smallest overall increase among the counties, followed by San Luis Obispo, Calif., Prince
Georges, Md., and Marion, Ore.
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Six of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent increases in employment in September
2010. New York, N.Y., experienced the largest gain in employment among the 10 largest counties with
a 1.2 percent increase. Within New York, professional and business services had the largest over-theyear increase among all private industry groups with a gain of 8,396 workers (1.9 percent). (See table 2.)
Los Angeles, Calif., experienced the largest decline 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., and King, Wash., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages among the 10 largest
counties with a gain of 4.7 percent each. Within New York, the largest impact on the county’s average
weekly wage growth occurred in financial activities, where total wages increased by $832.0 million over
the year (6.7 percent). In King County, information had the largest impact on average weekly wage
growth with an increase of $227.6 million over the year (6.5 percent). Miami-Dade, Fla., 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. September 2010 employment and
2010 third 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 128.4 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the third 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 fourth quarter 2010 is scheduled to be released
on Thursday, June 30, 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
data on establishment openings, closuniverse count of establishments,
employment, hours, and earnings at the
ings, expansions, and contractions at
employment, and wages at the counMSA, 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 indi— Analysis of employment expansion
cators
and contraction by size of firm
Program Web
sites
• www.bls.gov/cew/
• www.bls.gov/bdm/
• www.bls.gov/ces/
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 employ-
ers 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. Over-the-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 overthe-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 prioryear levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS
Web site. Over-the-year change calculations based on data from the
Web site, or from data published in prior BLS news releases, may
differ substantially from the over-the-year changes presented in this
news release.
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change
measures presented in this release account for most of the administrative changes—those occurring when employers update the industry, location, and ownership information of their establishments. The
most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of
updated information about the county location of individual establishments. Included in these adjustments are administrative changes
involving the classification of establishments that were previously
reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry
categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, adjusted data
account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers
who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a
single entity.
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change
measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news
release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending
points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured
in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data.
County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information
Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by
the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties include those designated as independent cities in some jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where counties
have not been created. County data also are presented for the New
England states for comparative purposes even though townships are
the more common designation used in New England (and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined as census
regions.
Additional statistics and other information
An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages Annual Averages,
features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The
2009 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 2010 version of this news
release. This web-only publication has replaced the annual print
bulletin, Employment and Wages Annual Averages. The March 2010
issue of this annual bulletin was the final one to be issued on paper.
Tables and additional content from the 2009 Employment and Wages
Annual
Bulletin
are
now
available
online
at
http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn09.htm.
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,
third quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,044.4
128,440.4
0.2
–
$870
3.4
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.8
8.7
9.9
6.4
4.3
8.1
95.0
19.3
5.4
15.1
329.4
178.0
167.0
128.4
83.2
152.1
1,597.0
341.4
93.0
244.1
-1.0
-0.4
2.2
-1.1
1.4
1.0
-0.5
-2.0
1.0
0.8
258
203
16
264
46
68
211
309
68
87
882
1,004
769
779
783
975
859
769
835
797
2.4
3.8
3.2
4.3
7.1
3.3
2.4
2.1
10.4
0.9
214
97
146
62
10
137
214
233
2
301
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.5
54.6
29.3
30.2
17.7
427.0
11.6
12.8
101.7
10.6
90.6
631.0
314.2
346.4
279.3
3,844.5
101.7
179.1
1,348.8
124.6
2.0
-0.8
-1.3
-0.6
1.3
-0.8
1.5
0.6
-0.1
0.3
18
242
276
219
52
242
37
107
172
131
721
1,155
1,050
684
747
972
1,027
752
975
849
4.3
4.2
2.2
2.1
2.3
3.1
1.5
1.1
2.8
1.3
62
71
223
233
221
158
275
294
183
284
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 .................
47.8
52.9
49.6
97.7
53.3
17.0
9.5
23.8
14.3
61.0
544.1
570.8
588.3
1,238.6
549.7
203.9
98.6
317.9
178.4
845.2
-1.4
-3.7
-1.3
0.4
0.9
-3.3
-0.6
0.2
-0.2
0.8
283
320
276
128
73
319
219
142
186
87
721
920
756
943
1,358
759
722
1,351
831
1,662
1.3
-2.2
1.3
2.7
3.7
1.9
0.3
3.4
4.0
10.1
284
320
284
193
108
256
316
128
83
3
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.0
10.0
18.6
14.9
9.3
23.5
6.0
9.0
19.0
13.0
96.4
122.0
177.7
166.1
148.4
293.6
97.2
148.4
270.3
152.5
-0.9
-1.4
-0.2
0.5
-0.7
-0.3
-2.2
-1.1
-0.3
0.2
249
283
186
120
230
194
313
264
194
142
782
856
840
741
610
887
862
813
1,016
1,038
3.2
1.5
2.1
0.5
1.0
2.7
2.6
3.0
2.1
6.6
146
275
233
314
298
193
202
167
233
12
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.5
9.6
17.0
18.1
10.1
5.9
32.8
25.3
22.3
7.0
423.6
90.1
233.2
202.9
128.6
79.0
401.1
485.1
349.2
125.0
1.5
0.1
-0.3
-0.6
1.0
-0.1
0.6
0.1
0.2
-1.2
37
152
194
219
68
172
107
152
142
271
1,049
925
825
905
783
755
1,339
1,065
941
899
0.9
2.1
3.3
3.1
1.2
5.3
5.5
4.3
3.2
3.5
301
233
137
158
291
29
27
62
146
122
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
17.7
35.0
6.6
14.5
62.2
11.6
26.7
8.0
36.8
7.2
263.2
693.8
115.3
186.1
673.2
105.6
432.2
119.6
556.8
77.3
-0.1
2.0
-0.9
-0.9
-0.5
0.3
0.6
-0.4
-0.7
-1.7
172
18
249
249
211
131
107
203
230
300
$1,013
1,471
773
840
824
762
832
695
844
620
2.8
1.2
3.8
3.8
3.1
3.1
2.5
2.1
1.7
4.2
183
291
97
97
158
158
209
233
266
71
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.5
8.2
9.1
7.9
85.0
6.1
35.2
48.6
9.8
30.5
187.0
137.8
99.3
88.1
940.9
74.5
644.4
478.0
95.8
378.5
-0.7
-1.1
-0.9
-2.6
0.3
-2.1
0.8
-0.7
1.3
-2.4
230
264
249
317
131
311
87
230
52
316
710
762
681
611
853
727
782
841
609
760
0.9
2.0
0.6
0.8
1.5
3.0
2.9
3.6
3.4
3.7
301
246
310
306
275
167
175
116
128
108
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.3
14.4
13.9
13.3
4.6
7.6
4.3
20.7
17.5
39.7
186.0
129.7
154.5
147.5
78.8
127.6
101.7
283.8
271.6
704.3
-0.6
-1.5
-1.3
-2.2
-1.7
0.2
( 7)
0.0
-1.2
0.6
219
291
276
313
300
142
–
163
271
107
699
720
712
640
694
746
800
911
923
1,122
2.8
2.0
2.0
3.6
1.8
2.1
( 7)
3.3
2.7
2.2
183
246
246
116
261
233
–
137
193
223
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
23.5
4.7
4.7
24.8
14.2
4.2
143.4
36.3
13.0
21.4
296.0
91.6
96.4
429.5
193.0
87.9
2,354.8
546.9
191.2
311.7
0.9
0.1
-0.5
0.2
0.2
-0.8
-0.4
( 7)
-0.9
-1.2
73
152
211
142
142
242
203
–
249
271
848
708
769
834
778
770
1,008
1,010
784
1,052
1.4
1.3
2.4
2.0
2.9
3.4
3.2
4.4
2.6
5.1
282
284
214
246
175
128
146
59
202
32
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
8.6
3.8
6.0
4.7
3.5
5.5
5.3
14.4
6.9
8.9
94.5
85.3
93.6
99.8
74.7
93.9
128.0
195.7
123.7
171.8
-1.5
( 7)
0.0
1.9
0.5
-0.1
1.4
0.8
0.1
1.1
291
–
163
23
120
172
46
87
152
61
735
871
735
841
964
730
907
773
759
738
4.3
3.9
2.7
5.1
12.2
2.2
3.1
3.5
2.8
5.0
62
90
193
32
1
223
158
122
183
42
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
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
10.2
23.5
6.0
4.8
6.2
14.7
5.2
20.9
102.3
109.2
181.9
546.0
115.8
104.6
124.6
265.0
85.4
295.9
6.8
0.5
-1.2
-0.1
0.1
0.9
1.0
-1.3
0.0
-0.7
1
120
271
172
152
73
68
276
163
230
$716
829
786
881
716
720
826
856
721
891
5.1
4.1
7.4
3.0
1.1
2.7
3.3
2.9
4.9
3.7
32
75
8
167
294
193
137
175
45
108
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
12.4
4.9
3.2
9.5
22.4
7.7
5.1
15.1
14.6
9.4
237.3
92.8
80.1
174.1
410.4
120.5
81.5
253.1
192.5
130.9
-1.7
-0.7
1.7
1.6
0.3
0.5
-1.7
-2.6
-0.1
1.4
300
230
32
33
131
120
300
317
172
46
780
736
827
782
845
750
760
825
825
851
3.3
2.2
1.1
2.2
4.1
6.1
4.4
1.2
4.8
6.6
137
223
294
223
75
17
59
291
47
12
Orleans, LA ........................
St. Tammany, LA ...............
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
11.4
7.7
12.3
14.4
21.2
5.9
5.6
8.8
32.5
15.6
169.2
74.8
168.2
228.5
360.2
93.0
81.7
147.2
446.3
300.8
1.5
0.0
-0.2
0.7
-0.6
0.9
1.1
1.8
0.9
0.0
37
163
186
96
219
73
61
28
73
163
924
761
791
941
904
870
882
1,045
1,189
953
0.1
( 7)
2.5
( 7)
3.2
2.6
5.1
2.2
3.3
0.3
319
–
209
–
146
202
32
223
137
316
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
13.6
9.2
16.2
21.4
15.0
48.8
24.3
14.2
22.8
21.3
324.6
94.9
208.7
296.3
194.7
804.4
314.2
172.4
572.7
310.3
-0.4
0.3
0.6
1.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.1
1.2
0.9
203
131
107
37
96
107
96
152
58
73
1,001
720
785
932
805
1,285
1,004
811
1,346
905
1.7
2.1
3.8
5.1
1.0
8.3
4.1
2.8
1.4
6.1
266
233
97
32
298
7
75
183
282
17
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
13.9
17.1
37.6
5.6
4.2
8.1
31.3
126.3
152.8
107.7
312.7
277.4
614.3
104.5
80.1
187.6
663.0
-1.7
1.2
-1.0
2.3
1.9
-0.1
1.9
-0.3
2.5
0.1
300
58
258
12
23
172
23
194
7
152
740
852
793
780
889
968
720
750
963
964
2.9
4.0
3.4
1.7
4.2
3.1
5.0
6.8
0.8
5.1
175
83
128
266
71
158
42
11
306
32
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
7.1
9.6
43.3
3.3
13.9
5.6
4.3
4.5
6.1
4.5
105.0
166.1
806.1
87.1
317.9
93.5
78.1
82.3
121.8
82.7
-1.1
0.1
1.4
-0.8
-0.1
0.7
0.7
-1.6
-2.0
2.5
264
152
46
242
172
96
96
297
309
7
$831
821
1,090
919
969
717
731
665
771
702
8.9
3.1
4.0
2.9
5.4
4.5
4.0
2.2
1.7
1.6
4
158
83
175
28
55
83
223
266
272
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
18.1
8.2
31.7
8.7
5.9
15.8
8.1
47.0
90.9
146.8
340.6
122.5
560.8
216.4
76.1
311.0
154.0
792.7
-0.4
-1.6
-1.4
2.3
-1.5
-1.8
-0.6
0.1
-0.1
-2.1
203
297
283
12
291
306
219
152
172
311
879
684
870
703
913
942
711
817
708
810
8.5
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.1
3.4
3.0
2.8
1.3
0.6
6
193
214
209
233
128
167
183
284
310
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
13.6
11.9
10.6
6.8
33.6
11.1
12.7
20.9
6.3
13.8
185.2
185.1
134.3
136.4
424.6
191.0
193.1
332.8
97.1
227.4
-1.5
-0.3
1.1
-1.4
-0.1
-1.9
-1.5
-1.8
-2.3
-0.8
291
194
61
283
172
308
291
306
315
242
816
945
823
765
1,058
941
876
1,088
803
1,234
2.1
1.5
4.0
3.9
2.1
3.9
3.7
3.1
5.9
5.1
233
275
83
90
233
90
108
158
20
32
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.1
21.9
20.3
17.6
12.3
12.3
10.1
14.7
17.6
9.9
226.9
375.8
245.5
267.5
149.4
169.6
163.9
218.1
312.1
217.0
1.3
-0.6
-0.2
-0.7
-0.7
1.8
-0.5
-0.2
-1.5
-1.4
52
219
186
230
230
28
211
186
291
283
1,104
1,052
904
1,238
712
903
1,255
1,074
796
945
3.2
3.0
1.8
( 7)
1.7
1.5
1.0
2.5
1.9
4.8
146
167
261
–
266
275
298
209
256
47
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
49.8
18.0
52.5
120.9
5.3
12.8
232.6
91.5
110.3
450.3
489.2
368.4
582.0
2,273.0
106.6
241.1
0.6
-1.4
-0.1
0.3
2.0
0.3
-0.2
1.2
-1.3
-1.0
107
283
172
131
18
131
186
58
276
258
876
716
904
773
755
853
966
1,572
713
816
2.9
3.9
1.8
4.6
2.2
5.7
4.3
4.7
5.3
4.2
175
90
261
54
223
23
62
50
29
71
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
10.0
45.2
8.9
9.9
50.5
36.1
7.8
4.4
6.2
7.2
129.8
494.5
93.1
111.4
607.8
399.1
111.3
77.1
117.0
177.6
0.6
0.7
1.1
-0.3
0.5
-0.4
1.5
0.9
-0.8
-1.4
107
96
61
194
120
203
37
73
242
283
$751
845
782
928
997
1,109
698
672
734
1,156
3.0
0.8
2.8
2.8
4.3
4.7
4.5
4.8
6.2
0.5
167
306
183
183
62
50
55
47
16
314
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
8.9
14.1
32.0
7.2
28.4
5.9
7.3
36.0
29.3
23.3
172.2
257.3
533.8
96.0
431.8
100.2
138.1
686.2
649.5
482.9
-1.4
0.2
-0.2
-0.3
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.9
-1.1
283
142
186
194
107
61
107
163
73
264
792
783
972
735
861
759
783
882
890
960
3.4
3.8
2.2
3.2
3.2
3.4
5.0
3.5
4.5
3.7
128
97
223
146
146
128
42
122
55
108
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
6.5
6.1
10.4
6.1
12.3
8.8
14.5
24.2
20.1
12.5
93.4
92.8
200.2
97.4
239.5
149.4
253.2
411.9
326.9
137.4
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.2
-0.7
0.4
0.0
0.8
-1.3
-0.1
87
96
120
142
230
128
163
87
276
172
719
712
768
636
784
678
777
813
795
803
3.8
4.7
3.4
3.2
2.9
4.3
2.6
1.6
2.7
2.6
97
50
128
146
175
62
202
272
193
202
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
6.5
10.8
9.3
28.7
16.1
34.8
8.9
19.5
4.8
14.8
76.4
134.8
136.4
422.0
237.4
671.7
161.8
249.0
80.3
234.8
-1.1
-0.3
-0.7
0.6
2.3
0.9
0.9
0.3
1.9
0.5
264
194
230
107
12
73
73
131
23
120
651
680
693
893
1,042
917
792
842
795
1,069
0.9
1.3
0.3
3.2
7.3
4.4
3.9
2.2
8.8
3.7
301
284
316
146
9
59
90
223
5
108
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
6.0
7.4
13.4
7.6
5.8
12.3
8.6
7.7
26.9
6.4
119.8
175.7
203.8
123.7
97.1
218.0
171.4
137.8
458.0
97.7
-0.5
-1.2
0.8
2.0
-1.0
0.1
0.9
0.3
-0.9
0.4
211
271
87
18
258
152
73
131
249
128
809
846
924
716
682
745
870
699
1,058
780
3.2
3.0
4.3
5.9
3.5
1.8
2.4
4.5
3.8
4.1
146
167
62
20
122
261
214
55
97
75
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
32.8
5.5
9.3
9.0
17.5
11.7
12.0
7.7
5.6
8.9
627.8
80.8
132.1
169.4
268.7
204.8
224.8
108.9
92.4
201.6
1.6
2.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
1.6
1.8
-1.0
-1.3
-0.6
33
5
96
131
96
33
28
258
276
219
$1,054
809
722
781
859
768
758
541
670
785
3.4
6.6
5.6
4.3
4.1
3.2
3.8
1.5
4.0
2.1
128
12
26
62
75
146
97
275
83
233
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
5.9
6.5
18.1
8.4
10.8
4.3
19.1
6.1
4.7
33.5
110.6
112.5
418.3
180.8
217.4
94.7
463.8
87.8
105.9
719.5
-0.4
-0.5
0.3
2.4
0.8
( 7)
-1.1
( 7)
3.1
1.0
203
211
131
10
87
–
264
–
3
68
748
760
886
780
748
769
903
901
748
778
3.6
5.1
3.3
5.1
4.0
( 7)
5.7
0.8
( 7)
3.3
116
32
137
32
83
–
23
306
–
137
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
4.8
3.9
6.4
18.0
67.8
11.0
13.6
9.0
5.2
100.0
86.3
88.4
123.8
285.9
1,415.0
172.6
271.1
131.0
94.1
1,995.8
2.5
( 7)
1.1
2.4
0.9
3.2
2.2
1.3
1.5
1.1
7
–
61
10
73
2
16
52
37
61
839
664
560
999
1,032
761
636
879
809
1,083
5.7
1.8
1.3
2.0
2.0
1.7
2.7
2.3
0.9
3.9
23
261
284
246
246
266
193
221
301
90
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
10.8
6.0
6.9
4.8
8.6
7.9
3.8
5.4
37.5
29.9
216.8
120.0
122.1
100.7
128.0
152.4
74.2
91.5
743.5
568.4
1.5
1.8
-0.3
-0.9
2.3
1.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
2.0
37
28
194
249
12
37
96
87
96
18
575
867
666
727
808
745
745
767
881
967
2.0
3.3
3.9
5.1
5.2
3.8
3.5
4.1
4.9
3.6
246
137
90
32
31
97
122
75
45
116
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
4.7
7.5
7.1
36.7
12.7
5.5
5.9
8.1
7.6
34.2
85.2
120.2
101.5
559.2
165.9
87.9
93.9
163.2
112.8
576.7
1.4
1.5
0.9
0.5
0.9
-1.0
1.9
3.1
-0.5
1.3
46
37
73
120
73
258
23
3
211
52
595
793
699
822
687
661
870
1,505
806
1,374
3.7
1.1
2.5
2.0
3.5
0.6
2.0
6.5
3.6
4.1
108
294
209
246
122
310
246
15
116
75
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
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 ........................
9.7
9.4
7.5
6.2
5.7
3.9
5.7
7.2
11.4
5.7
168.0
131.4
104.1
95.3
95.1
95.0
135.8
148.1
164.0
81.8
-0.1
1.6
1.3
-1.6
0.2
-0.4
-0.9
-0.5
-0.6
2.6
172
33
52
297
142
203
249
211
219
6
$882
1,038
801
1,247
708
803
849
964
692
959
3.6
2.4
1.5
3.1
1.9
1.9
2.9
1.6
3.7
6.1
116
214
275
158
256
256
175
272
108
17
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
13.4
83.0
6.8
22.0
19.2
16.3
7.4
7.1
9.1
6.0
127.6
1,121.8
80.7
264.4
240.5
197.7
96.4
78.2
111.3
105.4
0.0
0.1
-0.9
-0.2
-0.6
-1.7
-0.7
-0.6
-0.8
0.0
163
152
249
186
219
300
230
219
242
163
799
1,234
821
821
937
737
813
709
599
772
2.7
4.7
3.0
2.6
5.9
2.4
0.6
2.6
2.0
2.8
193
50
167
202
20
214
310
202
246
183
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.5
13.8
21.2
5.0
12.7
3.7
11.6
144.1
294.4
467.3
100.4
220.6
89.0
256.5
0.6
0.6
-0.7
-0.1
0.2
1.4
-3.8
107
107
230
172
142
46
( 8)
773
837
856
737
865
792
608
3.8
1.9
2.8
4.1
3.8
2.1
2.5
97
256
183
75
97
233
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 326 U.S. counties comprise 70.6 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
9,044.4
8,746.3
126.9
796.6
343.4
1,877.4
144.5
818.0
1,544.9
893.5
748.6
1,267.9
298.0
128,440.4
107,007.4
1,926.7
5,686.9
11,584.3
24,381.8
2,701.5
7,379.9
16,869.8
18,661.9
13,292.8
4,342.8
21,433.0
0.2
0.4
3.3
-4.6
-0.3
-0.2
-2.3
-1.7
3.3
1.9
0.7
-0.1
-0.8
$870
861
884
946
1,074
742
1,416
1,235
1,093
842
370
562
918
3.4
4.0
5.7
1.3
6.8
4.4
7.4
4.6
3.1
2.8
3.6
3.5
1.2
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
427.0
421.4
0.5
13.0
13.5
52.2
8.5
22.4
42.0
29.0
27.1
200.8
5.6
3,844.5
3,311.1
10.8
104.2
374.1
732.2
196.9
209.4
528.2
508.8
390.4
248.5
533.4
-0.8
-0.3
5.9
-9.3
-1.7
0.1
1.2
-1.1
0.9
2.6
0.9
-5.9
-4.0
972
948
1,903
1,010
1,079
783
1,644
1,456
1,145
931
544
451
1,123
3.1
3.6
45.9
-1.6
4.6
2.9
3.1
8.4
1.1
2.6
2.6
7.9
1.1
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 ...................................................
143.4
142.0
0.1
12.2
6.7
27.7
2.6
15.4
30.2
14.9
12.4
15.4
1.4
2,354.8
2,055.8
1.0
67.2
194.3
428.9
51.0
187.9
407.7
391.0
230.9
92.5
298.9
-0.4
-0.1
-8.4
-10.0
-1.0
0.2
-3.5
-2.8
2.6
( 6)
0.2
( 6)
-2.5
1,008
1,000
1,051
1,228
1,069
784
1,439
1,644
1,259
903
463
761
1,067
3.2
3.5
7.5
-3.3
6.3
3.2
6.4
7.6
1.7
( 6)
4.5
5.3
1.5
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 ...................................................
120.9
120.6
0.0
2.2
2.5
21.1
4.4
19.0
25.6
9.1
12.3
18.6
0.3
2,273.0
1,834.9
0.1
30.5
26.7
233.4
131.0
348.8
458.2
290.0
223.3
86.3
438.1
1.2
1.6
-5.0
-7.0
-2.5
2.2
-0.8
1.3
1.9
1.7
3.2
0.2
-0.6
1,572
1,685
1,853
1,608
1,256
1,130
2,042
2,903
1,880
1,147
756
1,026
1,098
4.7
4.6
-9.3
3.5
6.1
2.4
7.8
5.5
3.8
5.5
3.7
9.5
3.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
100.0
99.4
1.6
6.5
4.5
22.5
1.3
10.4
19.8
11.1
8.0
13.2
0.6
1,995.8
1,734.1
75.2
133.6
169.0
415.8
27.9
111.4
322.3
238.7
179.2
59.8
261.7
1.1
1.0
4.0
-3.4
0.4
0.2
-5.1
-2.8
2.8
3.5
1.2
3.0
( 6)
$1,083
1,095
2,692
1,038
1,357
969
1,298
1,283
1,310
902
398
620
1,003
3.9
4.6
3.9
0.6
6.6
5.4
6.1
5.5
4.6
3.7
2.3
2.1
( 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 ...................................................
95.0
94.3
0.5
8.9
3.2
22.0
1.5
11.3
22.0
10.4
6.9
6.8
0.7
1,597.0
1,382.4
6.5
80.4
106.6
328.7
26.7
131.2
259.5
231.5
165.5
45.1
214.6
-0.5
-0.3
-12.0
-10.0
-2.6
-1.0
1.3
-2.1
0.7
( 6)
0.3
-0.3
-1.8
859
851
787
892
1,250
797
1,118
1,025
896
919
409
571
915
2.4
2.9
9.8
2.4
9.6
4.2
2.2
2.9
0.4
( 6)
3.0
2.5
-0.7
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
67.8
67.3
0.6
4.0
2.9
14.9
1.6
8.5
14.8
7.0
5.5
7.0
0.5
1,415.0
1,246.2
8.4
69.2
113.1
279.8
45.1
136.0
261.7
165.3
128.5
38.2
168.9
0.9
0.9
10.9
-3.6
-3.8
0.1
-0.3
-0.8
3.7
3.4
1.7
1.7
1.0
1,032
1,035
2,861
944
1,174
961
1,507
1,329
1,175
962
462
642
1,005
2.0
2.0
0.1
-0.4
2.2
2.9
3.5
2.5
1.2
2.2
2.0
1.4
1.5
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
100.4
0.2
6.4
5.0
16.4
1.3
9.8
18.8
10.4
7.1
20.7
1.4
1,348.8
1,215.9
3.9
67.9
151.0
243.5
24.3
104.0
244.0
154.5
171.7
48.4
132.9
-0.1
0.3
-1.9
-5.0
-0.4
-0.4
-8.2
0.2
2.0
2.9
0.1
0.5
-2.9
975
966
620
1,073
1,244
905
1,463
1,363
1,092
940
431
539
1,060
2.8
3.2
-2.7
-3.1
9.0
4.3
8.0
5.2
0.3
1.4
4.9
2.5
0.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
97.7
96.3
0.7
6.4
3.0
13.7
1.2
8.6
16.2
8.4
7.0
27.3
1.4
1,238.6
1,021.5
10.7
55.7
93.0
196.4
25.0
66.9
210.8
145.5
157.4
57.7
217.1
0.4
0.4
5.6
-5.5
0.1
-0.3
-2.8
-1.4
1.8
2.8
0.3
0.1
0.2
$943
917
582
1,045
1,326
742
1,572
1,119
1,223
907
425
540
1,069
2.7
2.8
0.7
0.6
7.2
1.6
10.1
4.0
0.2
2.4
4.9
11.6
( 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 ...................................................
83.0
82.4
0.4
6.0
2.3
14.9
1.8
6.6
14.3
7.0
6.5
22.8
0.6
1,121.8
967.6
2.9
49.1
97.3
204.5
79.9
64.6
177.8
130.3
109.8
51.4
154.2
0.1
0.1
-4.4
-8.8
-2.4
0.4
1.0
-4.4
3.2
0.2
-0.1
8.6
0.1
1,234
1,248
1,162
1,134
1,455
977
3,605
1,297
1,329
930
456
572
1,142
4.7
4.6
9.5
1.1
10.4
6.8
6.4
-1.3
4.7
3.6
0.2
-4.7
( 6)
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
85.0
84.7
0.5
5.3
2.6
24.1
1.5
9.0
17.8
9.6
6.3
7.7
0.4
940.9
797.9
6.8
31.4
34.7
236.4
17.1
60.4
121.5
149.6
104.8
34.8
143.0
0.3
0.7
-0.2
-9.3
-4.3
1.9
-1.5
-1.0
0.4
1.0
3.7
1.5
-1.8
853
819
489
859
805
757
1,289
1,216
993
862
497
553
1,047
1.5
1.7
0.6
-0.2
5.6
1.6
5.5
5.6
-2.8
4.5
4.6
2.6
1.1
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,
third quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10
United States 4 ...................
9,044.4
128,440.4
0.2
$870
3.4
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.8
21.4
147.2
85.6
1,347.5
173.2
111.4
28.4
35.0
595.2
1,813.9
333.5
2,342.3
1,147.0
14,469.7
2,183.8
1,611.9
404.7
693.8
7,045.3
-0.1
1.3
-0.9
0.8
-0.3
-0.2
0.0
0.8
2.0
0.0
774
926
821
684
982
898
1,069
902
1,471
780
4.0
4.4
2.6
3.8
3.3
2.5
4.3
2.4
1.2
2.8
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
268.2
38.9
55.0
378.6
157.2
94.3
87.5
110.1
131.0
49.2
3,749.9
585.6
616.8
5,539.5
2,736.7
1,439.8
1,296.1
1,728.3
1,834.8
589.4
-0.1
-0.1
-1.1
0.0
0.8
-0.5
-1.0
0.8
0.0
-0.6
823
804
667
916
742
719
731
729
790
714
2.7
2.2
3.1
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.9
3.6
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
163.8
221.1
247.6
164.7
69.5
174.5
42.4
60.0
71.2
48.4
2,469.7
3,169.8
3,825.9
2,574.3
1,077.4
2,596.8
428.7
899.8
1,106.8
608.9
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.0
-0.5
0.0
-0.2
-1.7
0.1
966
1,069
840
875
653
764
647
708
815
854
2.7
4.5
3.8
4.7
2.8
2.7
1.6
2.8
1.2
2.9
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
265.6
54.8
591.6
251.7
26.4
286.4
102.2
131.0
341.0
35.2
3,759.0
785.9
8,364.2
3,806.2
366.1
4,942.1
1,487.5
1,620.5
5,500.9
456.0
-0.4
-1.0
0.5
-0.3
3.0
0.3
-0.2
0.3
0.9
0.8
1,024
745
1,057
768
726
791
726
791
860
826
2.8
2.9
4.3
3.1
6.8
3.4
4.0
3.1
4.1
4.2
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
111.4
30.9
139.6
572.4
83.7
24.4
232.9
237.0
48.4
157.6
1,763.7
393.7
2,578.3
10,204.5
1,160.6
294.3
3,544.1
2,855.7
699.4
2,657.7
0.5
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
-0.3
1.1
0.5
714
660
777
876
740
752
930
953
702
752
3.9
4.3
4.3
3.7
2.2
2.6
3.8
4.0
4.3
3.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2010
(thousands)
September
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2009-10
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2009-10
Wyoming ............................
25.2
278.9
0.0
$793
4.9
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
49.6
3.6
910.0
43.5
-2.7
2.3
502
754
1.6
4.3
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 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
September 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
March 2011
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, third quarter 2009-10 (U.S. average = 3.4 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
March 2011