For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, June 30, 2011
USDL-11-0962
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Fourth Quarter 2010
From December 2009 to December 2010, employment increased in 220 of the 326 largest U.S.
counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart, Ind., posted the largest percentage
increase, with a gain of 5.2 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 0.9 percent.
Within Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 4,185 jobs
over the year (10.3 percent). Manatee, Fla., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in
employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 4.0 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 3.0 percent to $971 in the fourth quarter of
2010. Among the large counties in the U.S., Olmsted, Minn., had the largest over-the-year increase in
average weekly wages in the fourth quarter of 2010 with a gain of 31.9 percent. Within Olmsted,
education and health services had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in average
weekly wages. Union, N.J., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 2.8
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, December 2009-10
(U.S. average = 0.9 percent)
6
5
5.2
4
5.0
4.0
3
4.0
3.7
2
1
0
Elkhart,
Ind.
Benton,
Wash.
Peoria,
Ill.
Washington,
Pa.
Lehigh,
Pa.
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2009-10
(U.S. average = 3.0 percent)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
31.9
14.4
9.0
Olmsted,
Minn.
Santa Clara, Williamson,
Calif.
Tenn.
8.1
7.6
Rock Island,
Ill.
Lake,
Ind.
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by December 2010 employment, December 2009-10 employment
increase, and December 2009-10 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
December 2010 employment
(thousands)
United States
129,451.6
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.
3,931.6
2,379.8
2,335.9
2,019.3
1,643.9
1,429.9
1,382.0
1,256.1
1,131.8
970.3
Increase in employment,
December 2009-10
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
December 2009-10
1,139.2
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Dallas, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Cook, Ill.
Kings, N.Y.
King, Wash.
Travis, Texas
Santa Clara, Calif.
Hennepin, Minn.
37.5
35.6
22.4
18.8
15.9
15.8
15.7
15.2
14.0
12.8
United States
0.9
Elkhart, Ind.
Benton, Wash.
Peoria, Ill.
Washington, Pa.
Lehigh, Pa.
Montgomery, Texas
Kings, N.Y.
Washington, Ore.
Denton, Texas
Arlington, Va.
5.2
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.0
Large County Employment
In December 2010, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129.5 million, up
by 0.9 percent or 1.1 million workers, from December 2009. The 326 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more
employees accounted for 70.9 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.8 percent of total wages. These
326 counties had a net job growth of 704,131 over the year, accounting for 61.8 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
five counties with the largest increases in employment level (New York, N.Y.; Harris, Texas; Dallas,
Texas; Maricopa, Ariz.; and Cook, Ill.) had a combined over-the-year gain of 130,200, or 11.4 percent
of the employment increase for the U.S.
Employment declined in 83 of the large counties from December 2009 to December 2010. Manatee,
Fla., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.0 percent) in the nation.
Within Manatee, professional and business services was the largest contributor to the decrease in
employment with a loss of 14.0 percent. San Joaquin, Calif., experienced the second largest employment
decrease, followed by Volusia, Fla., Marion, Fla., and Broome, N.Y.
-2-
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2010 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2009-10
increase in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2009-10 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2010
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Washington, D.C.
Fairfield, Conn.
Arlington, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Somerset, N.J.
Increase in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2009-10
$971
$1,943
1,929
1,688
1,668
1,668
1,651
1,573
1,564
1,541
1,448
United States
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2009-10
$28
Olmsted, Minn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Williamson, Tenn.
Rock Island, Ill.
San Mateo, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Fulton, Ga.
Suffolk, Mass.
Middlesex, Mass.
Alexandria City, Va.
$317
245
92
90
86
76
72
70
70
69
69
United States
Olmsted, Minn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Williamson, Tenn.
Rock Island, Ill.
Lake, Ind.
Ottawa, Mich.
Lafayette, La.
Jefferson, Colo.
Weld, Colo.
Lorain, Ohio
3.0
31.9
14.4
9.0
8.1
7.6
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.2
6.2
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 3.0 percent over the year in the fourth quarter of
2010. Among the 326 largest counties, 294 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See
chart 4.) Olmsted, Minn., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties, 31.9 percent. This
increase was largely due to a 55.1 percent increase in average weekly wages in education and health
services.
Union, N.J., had the largest wage decline with a loss of 2.8 percent over the year. Professional and
business services contributed significantly to the county’s overall average weekly wage loss.
Montgomery, Ala., and Montgomery, Pa., had the second largest percent decline in average weekly
wages among the counties, followed by Collin, Texas, Benton, Ark., and Williamson, Texas.
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Nine of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent increases in employment in
December 2010. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain in employment with a 1.8 percent increase.
Within Harris, trade, transportation, and utilities had the largest over-the-year increase among all private
industry groups with a gain of 7,830 workers (1.8 percent). (See table 2.) Employment was unchanged in
Los Angeles, Calif., over the year.
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. San Diego,
Calif., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 5.3 percent. Within San
Diego, the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth occurred in professional and
business services, where total wages increased by $268.7 million over the year (6.8 percent). Maricopa,
Ariz., had the smallest wage increase.
-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. December 2010 employment and
2010 fourth 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 9.1 million employer reports cover 129.5 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the fourth 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 first quarter 2011 is scheduled to be released on
Thursday, September 29, 2011.
Upcoming Industry Changes to Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data
The 2010 data will be the last from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW)
program using the 2007 version of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Beginning with the release of first quarter 2011 data, the program will switch to the 2012 version of
the North American Industry Classification System as the basis for the assignment and tabulation of
economic data by industry. For more information on the change, please see the Federal Register
notice at http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/federal_register_notices/notices/fr12my10.pdf.
-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 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,
fourth quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,093.5
129,451.6
0.9
–
$971
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
8.8
9.9
6.3
4.3
8.1
94.6
19.1
5.4
14.9
332.7
179.9
166.3
129.4
83.6
149.3
1,643.9
347.1
93.9
244.9
-0.8
0.0
0.8
-0.7
1.8
1.1
1.2
-0.9
2.0
0.2
284
221
151
280
47
116
103
287
35
206
972
1,087
856
873
832
1,031
937
846
839
872
2.6
3.8
3.0
-2.1
4.3
2.1
1.1
1.8
-1.6
0.8
144
71
124
316
45
192
251
210
313
271
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.5
56.1
30.1
30.8
18.0
437.6
12.0
13.0
104.5
11.0
90.6
631.2
315.0
326.0
267.1
3,931.6
103.7
144.6
1,382.0
125.5
1.7
-0.5
-1.4
0.5
2.5
0.0
1.4
2.2
0.9
1.7
52
268
304
173
21
221
84
29
139
52
805
1,260
1,175
766
859
1,158
1,197
822
1,112
960
3.7
4.9
3.9
0.9
4.8
5.2
3.6
-0.1
4.4
( 7)
74
29
59
264
32
19
80
296
41
–
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 .................
49.2
54.1
50.8
100.4
54.8
17.4
9.8
24.4
14.7
62.6
556.8
577.1
605.4
1,256.1
557.9
197.8
97.8
323.5
169.1
862.3
-0.9
-1.7
-0.1
0.5
1.7
-2.5
1.4
0.3
0.0
1.6
287
307
234
173
52
315
84
199
221
69
772
1,059
825
1,075
1,573
822
804
1,564
919
1,943
2.1
4.0
2.5
5.3
1.7
1.0
0.6
5.8
2.6
14.4
192
53
152
17
220
255
279
12
144
2
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.2
10.2
19.0
15.2
9.5
24.2
6.2
8.9
18.7
12.8
86.7
123.0
176.6
157.0
140.1
300.9
92.4
148.9
272.8
154.5
0.1
0.3
1.0
0.9
-0.5
1.2
( 7)
0.5
1.1
1.3
215
199
125
139
268
103
–
173
116
93
848
945
930
792
668
983
915
875
1,116
1,122
2.8
4.0
4.6
0.5
0.3
2.7
( 7)
3.1
1.5
5.2
133
53
37
282
287
141
–
118
232
19
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.1
9.3
16.7
17.8
9.9
5.7
32.7
25.3
22.4
6.9
426.5
91.0
234.2
204.3
127.0
79.4
407.4
491.3
352.8
125.0
1.9
0.7
0.5
0.2
1.7
2.9
1.3
0.9
-0.4
-0.4
41
163
173
206
52
11
93
139
259
259
1,215
1,165
891
1,031
858
820
1,668
1,177
1,039
956
5.4
-1.2
3.1
6.4
1.8
6.2
3.9
1.7
2.8
1.5
16
311
118
8
210
9
59
220
133
232
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .............................
17.4
35.5
6.6
14.4
62.4
11.6
26.6
7.8
36.7
7.2
267.7
698.5
115.7
188.9
692.4
119.4
439.2
120.3
575.3
79.5
1.1
1.6
-1.1
-0.3
0.2
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.2
-0.9
116
69
298
251
206
139
125
151
206
287
$1,123
1,688
837
906
923
849
939
771
939
671
4.9
4.5
3.2
1.0
2.4
1.7
2.8
1.6
1.1
-0.6
29
38
111
255
161
220
133
226
251
303
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.4
8.2
9.4
7.9
85.7
6.0
35.4
49.0
9.7
30.7
198.1
139.7
103.5
89.5
970.3
74.1
661.2
499.9
97.9
384.7
0.9
0.3
-4.0
-1.9
0.9
-0.9
1.9
-0.2
1.0
-1.0
139
199
316
312
139
287
41
246
125
295
775
831
741
680
966
801
862
977
686
891
-1.0
1.7
2.1
0.6
1.4
0.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
4.9
309
220
192
279
236
287
246
255
264
29
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
13.8
13.3
4.6
7.6
4.2
20.8
17.6
39.9
193.5
135.2
156.4
149.2
79.8
128.4
103.4
288.4
275.4
715.4
-0.1
-0.1
-0.4
-2.1
-0.3
1.0
( 7)
0.5
-1.0
( 7)
234
234
259
314
251
125
–
173
295
–
728
814
795
692
755
823
820
997
993
1,289
-0.7
1.2
0.4
1.8
0.8
1.2
( 7)
3.2
2.1
5.7
305
246
285
210
271
246
–
111
192
13
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
23.6
4.7
4.7
24.8
14.2
4.2
144.6
36.5
13.1
21.6
300.7
92.3
98.4
440.6
193.0
87.6
2,379.8
556.0
191.8
309.2
1.7
0.4
-0.5
1.1
0.0
-1.8
0.7
1.4
0.8
-0.8
52
187
268
116
221
309
163
84
151
284
942
777
820
896
868
793
1,157
1,125
867
1,255
3.7
2.6
2.8
2.4
5.2
-0.3
1.8
3.6
1.5
4.8
74
144
133
161
19
300
210
80
232
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
14.5
6.9
9.0
92.9
85.6
94.5
101.7
74.3
94.4
127.9
195.5
125.0
172.5
-0.8
( 7)
2.1
4.0
0.2
0.1
1.2
1.2
0.8
1.7
284
–
31
3
206
215
103
103
151
52
817
925
801
926
1,206
803
952
864
828
782
3.4
2.2
0.5
3.8
8.1
2.3
2.5
3.3
3.9
1.0
97
180
282
71
4
170
152
102
59
255
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ......................
4.9
8.1
10.3
23.7
6.0
4.8
6.3
14.7
5.2
21.1
101.4
109.6
184.6
549.3
115.2
104.8
126.5
266.4
86.3
300.4
5.2
1.5
0.4
0.4
-0.3
0.5
2.0
0.0
1.4
0.9
1
77
187
187
251
173
35
221
84
139
$739
912
859
965
796
835
923
969
796
994
-0.7
3.6
7.6
2.3
-0.3
6.1
4.5
3.9
4.2
1.1
305
80
5
170
300
11
38
59
49
251
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
12.6
4.9
3.3
9.6
22.5
7.5
4.9
14.6
13.9
9.1
240.5
93.8
80.3
177.7
416.8
122.0
82.4
255.7
195.5
132.4
-0.4
0.4
1.7
( 7)
1.7
0.8
-0.9
-1.7
0.4
1.6
259
187
52
–
52
151
287
307
187
69
900
811
893
847
924
817
806
904
911
946
3.2
2.3
0.0
-0.1
1.7
2.5
2.8
0.9
1.4
6.5
111
170
295
296
220
152
133
264
236
7
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
7.3
12.5
14.5
21.3
6.0
5.6
8.9
32.9
15.7
172.4
76.1
170.1
230.0
367.1
93.1
82.6
148.7
451.5
305.3
1.4
0.7
1.0
1.3
-0.1
1.2
1.4
( 7)
1.0
0.4
84
163
125
93
234
103
84
–
125
187
1,036
816
875
1,054
1,022
966
940
1,182
1,326
1,040
3.0
( 7)
1.4
( 7)
1.7
3.4
4.3
4.4
2.2
1.0
124
–
236
–
220
97
45
41
180
255
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
13.7
9.3
16.4
21.7
15.3
49.3
24.5
14.3
23.1
21.5
326.8
83.2
211.0
298.4
196.2
817.3
318.6
172.4
580.1
314.7
-0.4
0.1
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.2
1.7
0.5
2.0
1.3
259
215
69
47
52
103
52
173
35
93
1,157
836
860
1,040
881
1,411
1,188
915
1,651
969
4.0
0.5
-0.8
2.5
-1.1
5.1
3.1
0.8
4.4
2.0
53
282
307
152
310
24
118
271
41
198
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
7.4
6.5
5.4
13.9
17.0
37.5
5.6
4.2
8.1
31.2
128.7
153.6
107.8
314.9
280.2
623.3
100.4
81.0
193.6
665.1
0.8
0.6
-0.4
2.5
1.9
1.5
( 7)
1.0
( 7)
0.0
151
169
259
21
41
77
–
125
–
221
834
936
880
871
990
1,127
842
800
1,009
1,065
0.8
2.6
4.4
1.8
2.0
2.9
6.6
1.1
2.7
3.1
271
144
41
210
198
131
6
251
141
118
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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
9.7
43.1
3.3
13.9
5.6
4.3
4.5
6.1
4.5
104.9
168.5
817.0
87.0
317.6
93.3
78.4
82.5
122.9
82.7
-0.7
0.0
1.6
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
-0.2
-1.8
1.3
280
221
69
246
206
187
206
246
309
93
$894
950
1,211
1,312
1,070
781
761
710
847
738
4.1
3.6
5.0
31.9
3.1
3.9
2.0
-1.4
2.2
3.4
51
80
26
1
118
59
198
312
180
97
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
18.2
8.2
31.9
8.9
5.9
15.9
8.2
47.2
90.9
148.0
341.8
122.5
567.0
216.4
75.5
315.5
154.4
798.2
1.7
-1.0
-0.6
2.3
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
1.2
1.1
-1.5
52
295
275
28
275
259
246
103
116
306
916
728
975
754
1,046
1,048
803
881
769
870
3.9
2.4
2.5
0.9
4.1
3.9
4.7
0.7
2.4
-0.3
59
161
152
264
51
59
35
278
161
300
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
13.7
12.0
10.6
6.9
34.1
11.3
12.8
21.4
6.3
14.1
186.7
188.4
134.0
131.5
433.8
193.3
195.9
342.3
99.0
232.9
-0.3
0.5
1.5
-1.8
0.2
-0.9
-1.2
-1.1
-1.4
0.3
251
173
77
309
206
287
301
298
304
199
877
1,095
946
824
1,229
1,044
1,030
1,231
870
1,276
1.0
2.8
1.8
-0.6
1.9
3.1
1.8
1.9
0.6
2.6
255
133
210
303
205
118
210
205
279
144
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.4
22.3
20.6
17.8
12.4
12.5
10.2
14.9
17.8
10.0
226.9
382.6
245.5
271.3
144.4
173.0
168.0
221.8
312.9
219.8
-0.3
-0.5
-0.1
-1.1
-0.1
0.9
-0.1
0.1
-1.3
-0.9
251
268
234
298
234
139
234
215
302
287
1,283
1,178
1,035
1,420
828
1,004
1,448
1,200
849
981
5.0
1.0
0.3
-0.9
1.3
0.8
2.8
-2.8
-0.2
2.2
26
255
287
308
242
271
133
318
299
180
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
8.2
23.6
50.2
18.1
52.6
121.4
5.3
12.8
234.3
91.3
112.4
456.7
506.0
373.0
597.6
2,335.9
108.3
243.6
0.5
-1.9
0.3
0.9
3.2
0.3
0.4
1.6
-0.4
-0.6
173
312
199
139
7
199
187
69
259
275
927
762
976
838
837
895
1,119
1,929
762
896
0.2
1.5
3.2
2.3
0.2
1.0
0.9
2.5
1.3
2.2
291
232
111
170
291
255
264
152
242
180
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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
45.3
8.9
9.9
50.5
36.2
7.9
4.4
6.2
7.3
132.2
500.3
95.9
114.9
612.8
406.6
111.9
78.3
119.1
179.8
0.8
1.0
( 7)
0.7
0.5
0.1
1.0
1.5
-0.1
0.6
151
125
–
163
173
215
125
77
234
169
$822
941
827
1,035
1,067
1,333
747
734
769
1,282
2.4
0.9
( 7)
3.2
1.6
3.0
0.1
1.4
2.7
3.3
161
264
–
111
226
124
294
236
141
102
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
32.2
7.3
28.8
5.9
7.3
36.2
29.5
23.4
174.8
261.7
547.8
94.9
437.5
101.1
140.0
690.7
658.0
486.8
-0.3
0.7
2.2
-0.1
1.5
2.1
1.1
0.4
1.5
-0.1
251
163
29
234
77
31
116
187
77
234
876
840
1,081
803
963
826
841
989
938
1,044
3.3
2.1
3.9
0.4
3.9
3.9
2.8
5.2
2.2
3.5
102
192
59
285
59
59
133
19
180
90
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
6.2
12.3
8.8
14.5
24.3
20.3
12.4
93.3
92.9
201.6
98.2
241.6
151.8
256.8
418.5
332.1
138.4
1.2
1.0
1.9
0.9
0.0
1.7
1.2
2.5
0.0
0.5
103
125
41
139
221
52
103
21
221
173
804
787
847
707
857
741
873
907
887
869
3.5
6.2
1.8
3.5
1.4
3.6
3.9
4.3
4.5
3.3
90
9
210
90
236
80
59
45
38
102
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
28.9
16.1
34.9
9.0
19.6
4.8
14.9
77.5
135.6
129.6
429.2
240.8
674.8
163.5
252.1
80.9
237.8
1.4
0.1
-0.5
2.0
3.2
0.7
1.2
1.1
2.5
0.4
84
215
268
35
7
163
103
116
21
187
700
745
744
979
1,070
1,033
869
953
855
1,264
1.6
2.2
2.2
2.5
4.0
3.3
2.5
1.9
3.8
2.0
226
180
180
152
53
102
152
205
71
198
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
6.0
7.5
13.6
7.6
5.9
12.4
8.6
7.7
27.2
6.4
121.4
175.9
209.1
123.9
98.5
219.7
177.2
138.5
466.4
99.3
0.0
-0.6
1.7
2.7
-0.7
0.8
3.7
0.9
0.3
1.3
221
275
52
17
280
151
5
139
199
93
886
955
1,011
754
741
811
956
745
1,200
847
1.8
3.0
0.9
2.4
1.0
2.9
4.0
1.4
-2.1
2.5
210
124
264
161
255
131
53
236
316
152
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ......................
33.0
5.5
9.4
9.1
17.6
11.6
12.0
7.5
5.6
8.8
634.3
81.3
131.9
170.3
269.2
207.4
229.1
101.3
93.5
203.6
1.3
4.0
0.8
1.3
0.6
2.9
2.4
1.1
-0.9
-0.4
93
3
151
93
169
11
26
116
287
259
$1,156
881
780
838
980
843
843
585
717
836
1.2
2.4
3.7
3.2
3.0
2.3
2.3
0.2
1.3
0.8
246
161
74
111
124
170
170
291
242
271
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
19.0
6.1
4.7
33.8
112.8
113.5
422.7
183.1
218.0
95.6
472.0
90.5
106.9
728.4
0.8
0.5
0.8
2.7
0.4
( 7)
-0.2
2.8
2.4
1.2
151
173
151
17
187
–
246
14
26
103
819
806
1,051
864
847
861
1,010
1,110
769
865
2.0
3.7
5.6
5.2
3.5
( 7)
3.3
9.0
( 7)
2.2
198
74
14
19
90
–
102
3
–
180
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
18.2
68.1
11.0
13.7
9.1
5.3
100.7
87.6
87.7
125.9
292.0
1,429.9
175.9
274.9
133.1
95.8
2,019.3
2.6
0.5
1.2
2.9
1.6
3.2
1.7
2.1
2.8
1.8
20
173
103
11
69
7
52
31
14
47
897
714
610
1,091
1,167
836
692
981
902
1,234
4.2
2.6
2.2
-1.8
3.4
0.8
1.3
3.3
3.2
3.5
49
144
180
315
97
271
242
102
111
90
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
10.9
6.0
6.9
4.8
8.6
8.0
3.9
5.4
37.6
30.2
225.1
122.4
125.4
100.4
131.1
152.3
75.1
93.2
758.7
576.5
2.0
2.5
1.7
-0.3
3.6
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.7
2.7
35
21
52
251
6
139
151
125
52
17
611
953
743
792
918
826
839
829
978
1,092
2.3
3.3
3.6
2.6
4.3
4.0
5.1
2.2
3.4
5.3
170
102
80
144
45
53
24
180
97
17
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
4.8
7.5
7.2
37.2
12.9
5.6
5.9
8.2
7.6
34.4
87.6
122.4
100.2
568.2
167.3
88.2
95.3
166.0
114.5
585.9
1.8
2.1
1.0
1.2
1.8
-0.6
2.0
3.0
-0.5
1.9
47
31
125
103
47
275
35
10
268
41
653
887
784
923
767
720
961
1,668
879
1,541
5.5
-1.6
2.3
3.7
3.5
2.4
2.1
4.8
3.0
3.6
15
313
170
74
90
161
192
32
124
80
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ........................
9.8
9.6
7.6
6.2
5.7
3.9
5.7
7.2
11.4
5.7
173.3
135.4
106.3
96.4
96.7
96.6
137.5
149.0
163.0
79.6
1.7
2.8
1.9
-1.3
1.0
-0.1
0.0
-0.3
-0.7
5.0
52
14
41
302
125
234
221
251
280
2
$958
1,194
871
1,441
763
889
962
1,066
768
1,023
1.2
3.0
2.6
5.0
-0.1
1.9
1.8
4.7
1.6
3.9
246
124
144
26
296
205
210
35
226
59
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
13.5
83.9
6.8
22.2
19.4
16.4
7.5
7.1
9.1
6.0
128.0
1,131.8
81.4
262.5
243.2
197.2
97.2
77.8
92.2
105.8
1.3
1.4
0.0
0.2
1.6
-0.5
0.0
0.6
1.4
-0.1
93
84
221
206
69
268
221
169
84
234
860
1,216
890
864
971
788
848
758
653
840
2.0
3.6
3.5
2.2
0.3
1.9
2.3
3.3
2.0
2.4
198
80
90
180
287
205
170
102
198
161
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.6
14.0
21.6
5.0
12.8
3.7
11.7
144.8
300.1
473.2
101.1
222.3
89.8
269.9
1.0
1.1
0.5
0.4
1.3
1.5
-3.2
125
116
173
187
93
77
( 8)
868
928
968
801
951
902
669
1.6
3.6
2.3
1.6
3.6
3.7
2.8
226
80
170
226
80
74
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 326 U.S. counties comprise 70.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
9,093.5
8,795.6
127.7
790.8
342.8
1,882.5
144.7
816.7
1,557.6
899.7
751.9
1,289.6
298.0
129,451.6
107,606.5
1,723.4
5,392.7
11,569.9
25,333.3
2,715.0
7,431.1
17,073.9
18,949.5
12,850.8
4,363.2
21,845.1
0.9
1.2
4.6
-2.9
0.7
1.1
-1.8
-0.9
3.4
1.8
1.8
0.5
-0.8
$971
973
1,056
1,060
1,206
806
1,513
1,487
1,289
924
409
604
962
3.0
3.2
7.1
0.6
5.1
2.9
4.5
4.4
4.1
1.4
2.5
2.5
2.1
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
437.6
432.0
0.5
13.1
13.5
52.2
8.5
22.5
42.1
29.0
27.3
204.3
5.6
3,931.6
3,358.5
9.6
102.8
371.6
761.8
198.5
211.5
540.9
511.8
387.9
243.6
573.0
0.0
0.4
4.2
-5.8
-1.1
0.8
0.8
-0.6
1.7
( 6)
1.2
-4.5
-2.4
1,158
1,156
1,797
1,148
1,204
884
2,234
1,601
1,464
1,065
931
477
1,165
5.2
5.6
21.3
-0.7
3.4
3.4
9.3
7.2
8.6
( 6)
2.0
6.0
2.6
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 ...................................................
144.6
143.2
0.1
12.3
6.7
27.8
2.6
15.4
30.4
15.0
12.5
15.6
1.4
2,379.8
2,079.8
0.9
61.5
194.9
448.2
51.1
188.5
414.2
398.9
224.1
93.4
299.9
0.7
1.1
0.8
-8.0
0.0
1.5
-3.6
-1.7
3.2
2.7
1.4
-0.8
-2.4
1,157
1,161
1,154
1,420
1,251
888
1,550
1,979
1,584
976
469
822
1,129
1.8
1.7
3.3
0.6
7.8
5.8
-3.4
-4.5
3.2
0.1
3.5
3.8
2.8
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 ...................................................
121.4
121.1
0.0
2.2
2.5
21.0
4.4
19.0
25.5
9.2
12.4
18.7
0.3
2,335.9
1,894.9
0.1
30.2
26.8
249.0
131.5
352.9
469.3
303.0
236.2
88.8
441.0
1.6
2.4
5.0
-3.1
0.9
3.1
0.0
2.2
2.3
1.2
5.1
0.7
( 6)
1,929
2,126
3,306
1,966
1,915
1,350
2,279
4,222
2,328
1,203
922
1,117
1,094
2.5
2.4
58.3
-4.9
22.4
2.7
6.8
0.6
5.1
1.8
-0.5
-0.4
( 6)
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
100.7
100.2
1.6
6.5
4.5
22.6
1.3
10.5
19.9
11.2
8.2
13.4
0.6
2,019.3
1,755.8
76.3
130.3
171.7
432.0
28.3
112.9
324.4
240.4
178.4
60.1
263.6
1.8
2.2
6.4
-2.6
1.9
1.8
-4.8
0.1
( 6)
3.3
2.2
3.2
-0.6
$1,234
1,269
3,203
1,206
1,588
1,101
1,423
1,542
1,579
977
420
682
1,004
3.5
3.7
1.8
-1.6
5.0
5.4
2.9
4.9
5.7
-1.3
1.4
3.5
1.3
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
8.7
3.2
21.8
1.5
11.2
21.9
10.4
6.9
6.8
0.7
1,643.9
1,428.3
7.9
79.5
107.5
346.4
27.5
134.6
271.3
235.9
170.4
46.3
215.7
1.2
1.6
-0.4
-3.9
-1.1
1.0
5.3
0.0
2.8
( 6)
1.8
2.8
-1.6
937
940
822
990
1,332
862
1,252
1,131
1,032
1,028
444
636
919
1.1
1.6
-4.1
-1.6
3.9
4.2
0.6
2.6
1.8
( 6)
1.1
-3.0
-2.2
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 ...................................................
68.1
67.6
0.6
4.0
2.9
14.9
1.6
8.5
14.9
7.1
5.5
7.1
0.5
1,429.9
1,259.4
8.9
67.5
112.8
288.4
45.0
137.0
266.0
167.6
127.0
38.3
170.5
1.6
1.7
16.7
-0.3
-1.8
1.0
-1.6
0.1
4.0
3.8
1.8
-0.1
1.0
1,167
1,185
3,908
1,125
1,372
1,046
1,643
1,486
1,403
1,080
527
704
1,034
3.4
3.6
3.9
-0.8
7.8
5.3
3.6
4.2
2.1
1.1
2.9
5.4
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 ...................................................
104.5
103.1
0.2
6.4
5.0
16.4
1.3
9.8
18.9
10.4
7.2
21.1
1.4
1,382.0
1,237.8
3.3
67.3
151.7
254.7
24.6
105.6
248.3
158.2
169.3
48.4
144.1
0.9
1.2
-3.5
-0.8
0.4
0.4
-4.3
1.1
2.2
( 6)
1.2
-0.5
-1.7
1,112
1,119
677
1,237
1,368
1,008
1,625
1,871
1,308
1,045
422
560
1,057
4.4
4.8
5.3
2.6
5.8
3.9
1.1
13.4
2.4
( 6)
1.9
0.9
1.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
100.4
99.1
0.7
6.4
3.0
13.7
1.2
8.7
16.2
8.5
7.0
27.9
1.4
1,256.1
1,029.5
9.0
54.5
92.8
207.1
24.9
68.2
209.0
147.9
152.3
58.3
226.6
0.5
0.6
1.7
-5.8
( 6)
0.5
-3.7
-0.2
-0.7
2.5
2.0
1.4
0.0
$1,075
1,065
627
1,174
1,482
809
1,607
1,477
1,559
1,013
444
530
1,124
5.3
5.7
2.3
-0.8
( 6)
3.1
9.5
24.5
7.3
2.4
1.1
4.1
( 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 ...................................................
83.9
83.3
0.4
6.0
2.3
15.0
1.8
6.6
14.4
7.1
6.5
23.3
0.6
1,131.8
974.5
2.5
45.7
97.1
212.3
79.3
64.4
180.6
133.4
107.5
51.7
157.3
1.4
1.7
-5.1
-5.5
-0.7
2.5
1.3
-2.5
5.0
1.5
1.6
5.6
-0.2
1,216
1,226
1,472
1,244
1,489
1,036
2,093
1,449
1,625
1,004
480
596
1,156
3.6
3.7
9.3
-1.0
-0.9
4.2
3.6
-4.7
11.5
3.4
2.3
-0.3
( 6)
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
85.7
85.3
0.5
5.1
2.6
24.5
1.5
9.0
18.0
9.7
6.4
7.7
0.4
970.3
826.1
9.1
31.0
34.4
249.0
17.3
61.6
126.6
151.8
109.6
35.5
144.2
0.9
1.6
-5.1
-6.5
-3.9
2.8
-3.0
-0.2
2.0
1.1
5.2
1.5
-2.5
966
938
522
982
934
849
1,419
1,412
1,291
930
534
591
1,122
1.4
1.5
8.3
0.8
2.4
1.2
3.2
0.9
4.3
1.5
-0.9
2.4
0.9
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,
fourth quarter 2010 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2009-10
United States 4 ...................
9,093.5
129,451.6
0.9
$971
3.0
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.9
21.3
146.2
84.6
1,375.4
169.8
111.3
28.2
35.5
595.6
1,823.8
306.6
2,417.0
1,143.4
14,561.6
2,203.9
1,628.6
404.9
698.5
7,258.9
0.3
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.5
1.6
0.7
839
987
892
738
1,128
1,001
1,226
1,003
1,688
871
2.4
2.9
1.4
1.8
5.0
3.7
2.8
4.4
4.5
1.8
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
268.7
38.9
54.9
381.4
158.4
94.7
88.3
110.5
126.5
49.5
3,790.7
598.0
601.7
5,573.7
2,743.6
1,446.1
1,311.7
1,747.7
1,849.5
578.3
0.7
0.8
-0.4
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.2
1.3
0.3
-0.1
906
859
733
1,035
804
797
812
794
863
769
3.4
1.9
3.5
2.9
2.9
3.4
2.5
1.7
3.5
1.3
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
164.6
223.5
246.4
165.5
69.6
175.1
42.3
60.7
71.5
48.5
2,488.6
3,188.2
3,817.3
2,579.6
1,081.6
2,596.8
419.5
902.9
1,114.5
610.0
1.0
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.4
-0.1
0.1
0.7
-0.8
0.6
1,080
1,217
938
974
706
839
721
772
880
978
2.7
3.3
2.7
5.0
1.3
2.8
3.6
2.0
0.6
2.1
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
270.0
55.3
593.4
253.4
26.5
287.6
102.6
130.9
343.6
35.2
3,792.0
786.7
8,507.7
3,831.7
368.8
4,963.5
1,506.9
1,609.4
5,547.3
450.8
-0.2
-0.1
1.0
0.7
4.3
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.3
0.5
1,161
817
1,219
840
809
865
797
852
951
940
1.5
2.8
2.1
2.7
7.6
3.0
4.5
2.8
2.0
3.1
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
109.7
31.0
139.6
575.5
84.8
24.3
234.4
238.9
48.7
158.6
1,770.6
391.1
2,599.4
10,352.8
1,170.2
299.3
3,578.5
2,803.1
698.0
2,665.9
1.2
1.4
1.1
2.0
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.6
1.1
775
714
878
977
827
814
1,028
981
778
836
1.6
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.9
1.1
3.3
2.9
3.5
3.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2010
(thousands)
December
2010
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2009-10
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2009-10
Wyoming ............................
25.1
270.5
1.3
$872
4.9
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
49.8
3.6
956.7
44.9
-2.3
2.0
559
805
1.5
8.3
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,
December 2009-10 (U.S. average = 0.9 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
June 2011
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, fourth 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
June 2011