For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, September 29, 2011
USDL-11-1397
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
First Quarter 2011
From March 2010 to March 2011, employment increased in 256 of the 322 largest U.S. counties, the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart, Ind., posted the largest percentage increase, with
a gain of 6.2 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.3 percent. Within Elkhart,
the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 5,125 jobs over the year (12.4
percent). Sacramento, Calif., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment
among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 1.6 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 5.2 percent to $935 in the first quarter of
2011. Among the large counties in the U.S., Peoria, Ill., had the largest over-the-year increase in average
weekly wages in the first quarter of 2011 with a gain of 18.9 percent. Within Peoria, professional and
business services had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in average weekly
wages. Williamson, Texas, experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 3.8
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, March 2010-11
(U.S. average = 1.3 percent)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, first quarter 2010-11
(U.S. average = 5.2 percent)
20
18.9
6.2
15
4.7
4.3
4.3
4.3
10
12.4
12.0
11.9
11.3
Santa Clara,
Calif.
Macomb,
Mich.
Clayton,
Ga.
Wayne,
Mich.
5
0
Elkhart,
Ind.
Ottawa,
Mich.
Washington, Prince William,
Pa.
Va.
Benton,
Wash.
Peoria,
Ill.
Table A. Large counties ranked by March 2011 employment, March 2010-11 employment
increase, and March 2010-11 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
March 2011 employment
(thousands)
United States
127,851.0
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.
3,887.9
2,333.9
2,304.1
2,014.4
1,628.8
1,416.9
1,370.6
1,239.7
1,117.2
967.7
Increase in employment,
March 2010-11
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
March 2010-11
1,622.8
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Orange, Calif.
Dallas, Texas
Santa Clara, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
Maricopa, Ariz.
King, Wash.
Hennepin, Minn.
44.6
43.4
37.3
26.7
26.7
24.6
22.9
21.1
20.0
19.3
United States
1.3
Elkhart, Ind.
Ottawa, Mich.
Washington, Pa.
Prince William, Va.
Benton, Wash.
Butler, Pa.
Loudoun, Va.
Williamson, Tenn.
Washington, Ore.
Collier, Fla.
6.2
4.7
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.8
Large County Employment
In March 2011, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 127.9 million, up by
1.3 percent or 1.6 million workers, from March 2010. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more
employees accounted for 70.7 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.4 percent of total wages. These
322 counties had a net job growth of 1,054,300 over the year, accounting for 65.0 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 (6.2
percent). The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; New
York, N.Y.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Orange, Calif.; and Dallas, Texas. These counties had a combined
over-the-year gain of 178,700, or 11.0 percent of the employment increase for the U.S.
Employment declined in 53 of the large counties from March 2010 to March 2011. Sacramento, Calif.,
had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-1.6 percent). Within Sacramento,
construction was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 9.5 percent.
Montgomery, Ala., and Atlantic, N.J., tied for the second largest employment decrease, followed by San
Joaquin, Calif., Marion, Fla., and Champaign, Ill., which tied for the third largest decline. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by first quarter 2011 average weekly wages, first quarter 2010-11
increase in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2010-11 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2011
United States
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Somerset, N.J.
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Hudson, N.J.
San Mateo, Calif.
Increase in average weekly
wage, first quarter 2010-11
$935
$2,634
1,888
1,867
1,863
1,723
1,625
1,549
1,540
1,509
1,485
United States
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, first
quarter 2010-11
$46
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Peoria, Ill.
Somerset, N.J.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fulton, Ga.
Wayne, Mich.
Fairfield, Conn.
Hartford, Conn.
Macomb, Mich.
$222
205
150
114
112
111
104
102
102
101
United States
Peoria, Ill.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Macomb, Mich.
Clayton, Ga.
Wayne, Mich.
Brazoria, Texas
Saginaw, Mich.
Stark, Ohio
Butler, Pa.
New York, N.Y.
5.2
18.9
12.4
12.0
11.9
11.3
10.0
9.8
9.7
9.3
9.2
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 5.2 percent over the year in the first quarter of
2011. Among the 322 largest counties, 315 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See
chart 4.) Peoria, Ill., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties (18.9 percent).
Of the 322 largest counties, 3 experienced declines in average weekly wages. Williamson, Texas, had
the largest wage decline with a loss of 3.8 percent over the year. Trade, transportation, and utilities
contributed significantly to the county’s overall average weekly wage loss. Hudson, N.J., had the second
largest percent decline in average weekly wages among the counties, followed by Durham, N.C. (See
table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent increases in employment in March
2011. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain in employment (2.3 percent). Within Harris,
professional and business services had the largest over-the-year increase among all private industry
groups with a gain of 16,522 workers (5.3 percent). Los Angeles, Calif., and Cook, Ill., both had the
smallest percent increase in employment. (See table 2.)
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. New York,
N.Y., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 9.2 percent. Within New
York, the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth occurred in financial activities,
largely due to significant total wage gains over the year ($5,287.0 million or 15.4 percent). Orange,
Calif., had the smallest average weekly wage increase.
-3-
For More Information
The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 322 U.S. counties
with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2010. March 2011 employment and 2011
first 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 127.9 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the first quarter of 2011 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 second quarter 2011 is scheduled to be released
on Tuesday, January 10, 2012.
Industry Changes to Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data
Beginning with the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data presented in this release, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics is introducing 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/fr17au11.pdf. For more
information on the impact of the change, please see http://www.bls.gov/cew/naics2012.htm.
County Changes for the 2011 County Employment and Wages News Releases
Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2010 are included in this release and
will be included in future 2011 releases. Four counties will be excluded: Okaloosa, Fla., Rock Island,
Ill., St. Tammany, La., and Potter, Texas. No counties have been added to the publication tables.
-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 2012 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2011 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 323 counties
presented in this release were derived using 2010 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2011 data, four counties, Okaloosa, Fla., Rock Island, Ill., St. Tammany, La., and Potter, Texas,
which were published in the 2010 releases, will be excluded from
this and future 2011 releases because their 2010 annual average
employment
levels
were
less
than
75,000.
Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures
QCEW
BED
CES
Source
• Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 9.1 million establishments in first quarter of 2011
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative records submitted by
6.7 million private-sector employers
• Sample survey: 440,000 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:
— Business cycle analysis
— Principal national economic indicator
— Analysis of employer dynamics
— Official time series for employment
underlying economic expansions
change measures
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/
No counties have been added to the publication tables. 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 2010. 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 2010,
UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 127.8 million jobs. The
estimated 123.2 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for
multiple jobholders) represented 95.3 percent of civilian wage and
salary employment. Covered workers received $5.976 trillion in pay,
representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.1 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 2010 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
Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2009 edition
of this publication, which was published in March 2011, 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 print version of the annual bulletin, Employment and
Wages Annual Averages. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online, 2009 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn09.htm. The 2010
edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be
available later in 2011.
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 323 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,074.3
127,851.0
1.3
–
$935
5.2
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.8
8.8
9.8
6.3
4.2
8.1
93.8
18.9
5.4
15.1
328.8
176.4
165.0
127.2
83.1
147.4
1,628.8
344.0
92.5
241.6
-0.5
-0.8
0.9
-1.5
1.5
1.7
1.3
-0.7
( 7)
0.3
280
294
169
314
106
86
132
290
–
229
919
978
741
764
778
958
889
768
1,110
819
4.9
4.4
4.7
4.1
5.9
2.6
5.1
4.2
6.5
5.5
99
134
111
157
64
264
89
148
45
80
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.5
56.4
30.3
30.9
18.0
438.0
11.9
13.0
104.8
10.9
89.2
632.2
312.6
322.4
259.5
3,887.9
101.5
148.1
1,370.6
126.2
( 7)
-0.1
-0.1
1.6
1.8
1.0
2.4
-0.3
2.0
1.3
–
264
264
97
80
158
42
274
65
132
726
1,183
1,210
709
790
1,046
1,103
808
1,035
876
4.6
4.0
6.4
3.4
4.2
6.6
7.2
1.6
3.3
4.5
116
165
49
200
148
43
29
301
213
125
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 .................
50.1
54.3
51.5
100.7
55.1
17.4
9.7
24.6
14.6
63.1
559.0
573.9
592.0
1,239.7
548.6
196.0
100.0
322.3
173.9
857.3
-0.1
-1.6
-0.3
1.4
2.9
-1.4
1.1
1.5
1.4
3.0
264
316
274
118
26
311
148
106
118
19
748
1,025
754
1,003
1,723
752
742
1,485
869
1,863
3.2
5.1
3.3
7.2
7.0
3.2
2.1
1.6
5.1
12.4
219
89
213
29
35
219
285
301
89
2
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.1
10.2
18.9
15.2
9.5
24.3
6.2
8.8
18.6
12.8
87.3
118.1
174.9
156.5
134.7
300.6
89.0
151.3
272.0
153.1
1.5
0.2
1.6
-0.2
1.1
1.4
( 7)
0.8
2.0
1.7
106
242
97
271
148
118
–
180
65
86
814
921
846
748
622
964
892
806
1,130
1,050
2.1
2.7
3.4
2.5
2.8
4.4
( 7)
4.1
2.7
3.9
285
260
200
268
248
134
–
157
260
170
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.0
9.3
16.7
17.7
9.9
5.7
32.4
25.3
22.2
6.9
417.8
87.9
232.0
200.3
124.4
80.6
396.3
481.1
344.3
122.0
2.0
0.6
1.4
0.5
1.2
3.6
2.3
1.1
0.9
0.0
65
196
118
206
139
12
49
148
169
257
1,212
1,069
812
929
795
776
1,888
1,260
956
960
5.0
7.1
2.9
3.7
5.3
7.6
5.7
8.8
4.7
4.7
94
34
242
183
83
22
73
11
111
111
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 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 .............................
17.5
34.8
6.5
14.3
61.8
11.5
26.5
7.8
36.6
7.1
261.9
702.3
115.4
187.1
682.9
119.6
439.1
120.1
574.6
79.3
1.6
2.5
0.2
-0.5
0.3
3.8
1.8
0.8
0.7
1.1
97
35
242
280
229
10
80
180
188
148
$1,194
1,540
730
801
834
767
891
690
880
586
6.3
2.4
3.5
2.2
3.2
4.1
3.1
4.2
4.5
2.8
51
272
197
279
219
157
226
148
125
248
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.2
8.1
9.3
7.8
85.5
35.2
48.7
9.7
30.1
199.9
137.9
104.1
89.0
967.7
655.7
496.5
98.6
379.7
1.4
0.4
0.3
-1.4
1.9
2.1
0.7
2.4
-1.1
118
216
229
311
74
56
188
42
304
711
722
668
614
874
805
886
596
765
4.3
1.0
3.6
2.8
3.4
4.4
4.4
2.8
2.8
143
310
188
248
200
134
134
248
248
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.3
14.2
13.7
13.2
4.6
7.6
4.2
20.6
17.4
39.7
191.4
135.3
154.4
151.0
79.0
128.0
101.5
285.6
272.4
710.8
-0.5
1.4
-0.5
-0.7
0.1
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.2
280
118
280
290
249
188
158
188
158
139
668
722
735
629
699
752
844
962
992
1,370
3.9
2.4
3.1
2.8
2.5
3.9
11.9
4.0
6.0
8.8
170
272
226
248
268
170
4
165
60
11
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
23.4
4.6
4.6
24.5
14.0
4.2
145.1
36.5
13.2
21.7
298.6
92.8
99.3
436.5
190.0
86.3
2,333.9
546.6
187.8
303.1
2.7
0.9
1.7
1.5
0.4
-1.4
1.0
1.8
0.9
( 7)
30
169
86
106
216
311
158
80
169
–
879
749
743
821
773
750
1,145
1,076
777
1,230
3.4
5.9
3.9
3.1
4.9
2.9
5.8
3.4
2.8
( 7)
200
64
170
226
99
242
70
200
248
–
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
8.6
3.8
6.0
4.7
5.5
5.3
14.7
6.8
9.0
89.7
84.8
94.3
99.8
93.6
125.9
192.9
122.9
170.4
-0.5
0.1
2.0
2.5
0.6
1.2
0.9
0.3
2.1
280
249
65
35
196
139
169
229
56
727
904
738
944
709
907
793
769
747
4.5
2.1
2.1
18.9
2.0
3.4
5.0
7.6
4.0
125
285
285
1
293
200
94
22
165
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
4.9
8.3
102.5
107.8
6.2
2.5
1
35
698
924
5.4
6.6
82
43
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
10.3
23.8
6.0
4.8
6.2
14.5
5.2
21.1
181.1
542.2
114.9
104.0
123.4
260.6
84.2
295.8
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.1
1.7
-0.5
1.1
1.5
196
158
188
249
86
280
148
106
$791
987
723
729
847
940
725
955
5.6
3.6
3.1
5.7
3.9
4.9
6.1
2.5
77
188
226
73
170
99
57
268
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
12.5
4.9
3.3
9.6
22.6
7.5
5.0
14.7
14.0
9.1
237.6
93.9
79.3
169.5
407.9
120.4
82.2
254.2
192.1
132.0
0.1
-1.1
1.8
1.7
1.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.4
2.3
249
304
80
86
132
206
242
249
216
49
816
751
826
811
873
736
768
831
831
847
6.9
4.3
4.4
6.0
3.4
6.8
4.8
2.8
3.6
4.7
37
143
134
60
200
38
105
248
188
111
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
11.1
12.5
14.5
21.1
6.0
5.6
8.9
32.9
15.7
173.1
164.1
224.7
357.7
90.4
81.4
147.7
445.7
297.8
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.3
0.3
2.5
2.5
2.0
0.6
139
132
148
229
229
35
35
65
196
983
835
958
920
904
844
1,141
1,311
933
3.0
4.8
( 7)
2.3
5.9
4.5
6.5
3.9
2.1
236
105
–
276
64
125
45
170
285
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
16.6
22.0
15.5
49.9
24.8
14.5
23.5
21.8
327.8
78.3
205.0
291.6
191.7
796.6
309.4
166.6
574.8
309.2
0.6
0.1
1.4
1.7
1.4
0.9
0.5
0.6
1.4
1.6
196
249
118
86
118
169
206
196
118
97
1,081
759
791
955
812
1,370
1,066
815
1,625
908
3.7
4.5
6.3
6.3
1.0
7.3
4.5
5.0
5.0
7.2
183
125
51
51
310
27
125
94
94
29
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
7.3
6.4
5.3
13.7
16.8
37.0
5.5
4.1
8.0
30.7
126.1
151.0
106.2
310.0
277.6
618.7
101.2
79.1
188.9
660.6
0.0
-0.4
0.9
3.0
3.0
2.7
4.7
1.6
2.1
1.5
257
277
169
19
19
30
2
97
56
106
742
879
816
792
941
1,019
714
760
925
1,021
8.3
6.0
5.0
3.4
12.0
7.5
6.1
9.8
1.1
11.3
15
60
94
200
3
24
57
7
307
5
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
7.1
9.7
43.5
3.4
104.0
165.0
805.9
85.4
0.3
0.3
2.4
-0.3
229
229
42
274
829
895
1,197
968
7.2
3.6
7.7
3.4
29
188
20
200
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
13.9
5.7
4.3
4.5
6.0
4.4
310.1
91.2
77.2
82.0
121.6
82.0
0.2
0.2
2.5
0.7
-1.1
1.0
242
242
35
188
304
158
$1,093
722
700
668
778
692
6.2
5.6
2.2
1.7
3.9
3.1
55
77
279
300
170
226
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
5.0
8.0
18.0
8.1
31.8
8.8
5.9
15.8
8.1
47.2
89.3
147.0
338.9
120.2
560.8
212.1
74.6
307.4
151.5
795.2
0.8
-0.6
0.0
2.2
0.1
-0.6
0.0
0.9
0.4
0.4
180
287
257
53
249
287
257
169
216
216
850
661
894
744
973
1,037
721
853
711
790
2.4
4.6
1.6
1.6
3.6
2.8
4.6
3.1
3.6
1.8
272
116
301
301
188
248
116
226
188
297
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
13.6
11.8
10.5
6.8
33.5
11.1
12.4
20.9
6.2
13.8
179.9
185.0
129.7
128.3
420.2
189.1
191.3
336.0
96.4
229.4
-0.8
1.3
1.3
-1.5
0.6
-1.1
-0.9
-0.8
0.3
0.0
294
132
132
314
196
304
298
294
229
257
789
975
857
772
1,152
957
903
1,229
766
1,509
3.4
5.9
5.7
2.8
2.8
3.5
5.7
4.5
1.1
-1.5
200
64
73
248
248
197
73
125
307
317
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.2
21.9
20.2
17.4
12.2
12.2
10.1
14.6
17.6
10.0
226.1
371.7
237.4
264.9
140.2
169.1
164.9
215.1
308.5
215.2
0.5
-0.2
-0.7
-0.5
-0.2
0.5
0.4
-0.9
-0.4
-0.9
206
271
290
280
271
206
216
298
277
298
1,283
1,191
945
1,462
746
921
1,867
1,199
781
937
5.3
4.6
2.7
2.5
3.2
3.1
6.5
1.9
2.6
2.9
83
116
260
268
219
226
45
294
264
242
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
17.0
4.5
8.1
23.7
50.9
18.1
52.7
121.9
5.3
12.8
234.1
89.5
109.3
444.8
503.9
366.1
578.6
2,304.1
104.6
236.8
0.8
-1.0
-0.1
0.5
3.7
0.5
0.4
1.9
-1.3
-0.1
180
302
264
206
11
206
216
74
310
264
818
703
917
794
725
847
1,015
2,634
708
831
3.2
4.5
1.8
4.6
1.1
3.4
3.3
9.2
4.1
4.3
219
125
297
116
307
200
213
10
157
143
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
10.0
45.7
9.0
9.9
50.8
128.2
494.0
90.8
112.0
596.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.2
0.7
106
97
80
139
188
755
844
758
991
972
2.2
4.2
3.6
2.6
4.2
279
148
188
264
148
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
36.2
7.8
4.4
6.2
7.1
397.8
110.5
78.4
118.9
177.8
1.0
2.1
2.8
1.3
1.4
158
56
28
132
118
$1,332
676
692
695
1,276
1.4
4.8
7.5
4.2
-0.5
305
105
24
148
316
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
8.9
14.0
31.9
7.2
28.6
5.9
7.3
35.7
29.2
23.1
170.6
260.6
546.4
96.2
437.2
100.2
136.5
675.4
644.1
478.5
-0.8
1.7
2.8
2.1
3.3
3.0
0.4
0.5
1.4
0.8
294
86
28
56
14
19
216
206
118
180
891
802
1,231
741
917
765
781
953
920
992
7.9
4.8
7.3
4.2
1.9
6.7
0.5
7.4
4.4
4.1
18
105
27
148
294
41
314
26
134
157
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
6.5
6.1
10.3
6.1
12.2
8.7
14.3
24.4
20.2
12.5
90.9
91.3
196.4
94.5
238.9
148.5
248.9
413.5
324.5
135.2
0.4
2.5
1.5
1.7
0.8
2.2
0.3
2.0
0.2
0.6
216
35
106
86
180
53
229
65
242
196
774
750
793
632
782
703
841
837
825
798
3.6
7.0
5.9
4.6
3.3
9.7
2.2
5.5
5.1
3.4
188
35
64
116
213
8
279
80
89
200
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
29.0
16.2
35.1
9.0
19.6
4.8
14.9
73.2
134.7
128.0
424.9
239.4
666.8
161.7
244.9
80.2
233.3
-1.1
0.9
-1.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
1.4
0.5
4.2
1.1
304
169
302
65
9
106
118
206
6
148
644
672
699
918
1,120
997
780
855
799
1,164
2.7
3.4
1.9
5.2
6.8
5.2
4.0
3.1
9.3
2.9
260
200
294
85
38
85
165
226
9
242
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
6.0
7.4
13.6
7.6
5.8
12.4
8.6
7.7
27.1
6.4
120.5
173.3
205.3
121.9
96.4
214.0
170.4
136.3
456.4
97.6
1.1
0.4
1.7
3.2
-0.4
0.4
2.0
1.0
0.2
0.6
148
216
86
15
277
216
65
158
242
196
815
889
1,003
695
665
734
879
684
1,198
791
3.7
4.6
3.7
6.8
2.9
4.7
3.8
4.1
2.1
4.6
183
116
183
38
242
111
180
157
285
116
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
33.7
5.5
9.3
9.0
17.4
11.6
628.0
80.2
128.8
168.2
263.9
206.6
1.2
4.3
1.1
1.6
0.0
2.9
139
3
148
97
257
26
1,079
867
716
789
895
774
4.5
8.8
6.1
3.5
2.3
5.9
125
11
57
197
276
64
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
12.1
7.5
5.6
8.8
228.3
101.9
93.5
201.8
2.7
0.4
0.9
-0.9
30
216
169
298
$770
534
650
794
5.2
2.9
4.0
3.1
85
242
165
226
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
5.8
6.5
18.1
8.4
10.7
4.3
18.9
6.1
4.7
33.8
110.9
111.9
415.0
181.0
215.4
95.7
458.0
89.6
106.9
730.6
1.5
1.4
1.0
2.0
1.9
1.6
0.1
4.1
2.4
1.4
106
118
158
65
74
97
249
8
42
118
761
748
927
785
750
771
915
1,054
736
838
2.6
4.9
3.2
0.1
3.0
2.1
4.9
4.4
4.1
6.5
264
99
219
315
236
285
99
134
157
45
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
4.9
3.9
6.4
18.2
67.9
11.1
13.8
9.2
5.3
100.9
87.8
86.7
126.5
291.0
1,416.9
175.2
272.8
133.0
95.1
2,014.4
3.2
-1.1
1.5
3.1
1.9
3.0
0.8
2.4
2.6
2.3
15
304
106
17
74
19
180
42
34
49
922
659
546
1,075
1,156
780
626
979
827
1,258
10.0
3.0
3.0
5.8
5.2
3.9
3.3
8.2
4.4
7.7
6
236
236
70
85
170
213
16
134
20
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
11.0
6.0
7.0
4.8
8.7
7.9
5.4
37.6
30.5
226.0
120.9
124.4
99.8
130.8
152.7
92.0
750.5
576.1
2.3
1.9
2.2
0.3
3.0
-0.1
0.9
1.7
2.7
49
74
53
229
19
264
169
86
30
556
920
653
727
886
748
739
900
1,002
3.2
8.1
2.8
3.0
7.9
6.4
3.8
3.3
6.0
219
17
248
236
18
49
180
213
60
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
4.8
7.6
7.1
36.2
12.5
5.4
5.9
8.2
7.5
34.4
87.6
128.4
100.8
559.5
164.9
87.9
92.8
166.6
113.0
572.9
2.4
3.0
( 7)
1.7
3.1
-0.1
2.1
3.6
0.8
2.1
42
19
–
86
17
264
56
12
180
56
590
953
704
856
681
642
878
1,549
830
1,479
4.8
-3.8
2.3
3.8
3.7
2.4
3.1
0.8
4.1
4.4
105
318
276
180
183
272
226
313
157
134
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
9.7
9.7
7.6
6.2
5.7
3.8
5.7
7.0
171.5
134.7
108.3
93.6
94.0
95.3
137.7
148.5
1.2
4.2
4.3
( 7)
1.0
0.6
0.7
1.1
139
6
3
–
158
196
188
148
1,027
1,093
808
1,226
724
826
861
1,071
6.3
2.1
1.3
( 7)
4.2
4.3
3.6
4.9
51
285
306
–
148
143
188
99
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Benton, WA ........................
11.2
5.7
159.4
80.8
-0.7
4.3
290
3
$717
959
5.8
4.8
70
105
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
13.3
83.1
6.7
21.8
19.2
15.9
7.4
7.0
8.9
5.9
125.7
1,117.2
80.2
259.3
241.1
194.3
96.5
77.7
95.0
104.4
0.4
1.8
0.0
0.3
2.1
-0.6
0.3
1.6
1.2
1.2
216
80
257
229
56
287
229
97
139
139
800
1,185
798
821
968
751
800
745
606
797
4.3
5.6
1.8
3.0
8.8
4.6
1.0
6.7
2.2
5.1
143
77
297
236
11
116
310
41
279
89
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.6
14.0
21.6
5.0
12.7
3.7
11.9
142.6
293.6
464.6
99.1
217.9
88.5
259.7
0.5
1.5
1.0
2.1
2.4
1.9
-2.5
206
106
158
56
42
74
( 8)
803
878
929
747
902
831
598
4.2
6.2
7.2
3.9
3.9
2.2
-0.2
148
55
29
170
170
279
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 322 large U.S. counties comprise 70.7 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 4
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 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 ...................................................
9,074.3
8,776.1
127.3
774.2
339.8
1,875.9
143.9
811.3
1,553.4
902.8
752.2
1,297.0
298.2
127,851.0
106,054.4
1,701.7
5,137.6
11,556.7
24,316.5
2,659.8
7,354.6
16,972.0
18,941.2
12,842.6
4,349.8
21,796.6
1.3
1.8
5.3
-0.9
1.9
1.3
-1.8
-0.3
4.1
1.9
2.3
1.2
-1.3
$935
941
1,116
917
1,164
766
1,609
1,886
1,212
793
363
559
902
5.2
5.7
9.7
2.6
7.8
5.5
9.7
10.2
5.1
3.1
2.8
3.5
2.0
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
438.0
432.4
0.5
12.7
13.2
51.5
8.3
22.1
41.2
28.8
26.9
205.8
5.7
3,887.9
3,321.8
10.0
102.4
368.7
735.0
186.1
209.6
546.4
511.8
387.9
243.0
566.1
1.0
1.6
-0.9
-2.8
-0.7
1.7
1.0
-0.5
2.1
2.7
2.9
-2.6
-2.4
1,046
1,030
1,645
1,000
1,149
804
1,997
1,907
1,265
912
589
442
1,139
6.6
7.6
7.2
4.0
7.1
5.8
10.1
12.0
6.2
4.9
13.9
5.2
2.5
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 ...................................................
145.1
143.7
0.1
12.2
6.6
28.1
2.6
15.4
30.4
15.1
12.6
15.8
1.4
2,333.9
2,033.8
0.8
56.4
193.7
427.4
51.3
184.8
400.1
402.1
219.8
93.3
300.1
1.0
1.6
-2.9
-2.8
1.0
1.5
-1.1
-2.0
2.6
3.0
2.4
0.8
-2.8
1,145
1,154
782
1,276
1,104
841
1,849
2,867
1,432
835
422
743
1,085
5.8
6.1
-5.1
-0.2
7.6
8.5
8.4
15.7
1.6
2.3
5.0
3.5
( 6)
New York, NY .....................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
121.9
121.6
0.0
2.2
2.5
21.1
4.4
19.0
25.4
9.3
12.6
18.9
0.3
2,304.1
1,865.2
0.2
29.7
25.6
234.7
131.8
351.8
460.8
302.8
232.3
87.4
438.9
1.9
3.0
25.6
-2.5
-1.3
3.2
1.1
2.6
2.9
0.7
6.7
2.1
-2.3
2,634
2,995
2,745
1,609
1,644
1,252
2,751
8,684
2,512
1,065
762
1,270
1,095
9.2
8.9
22.8
4.1
9.1
6.5
11.4
12.3
3.5
5.1
8.1
7.2
4.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 4
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 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 ...................................................
100.9
100.4
1.6
6.5
4.5
22.6
1.3
10.5
20.0
11.3
8.1
13.5
0.6
2,014.4
1,749.9
77.4
131.5
172.6
419.4
28.2
111.6
326.7
240.6
180.9
60.1
264.4
2.3
2.7
7.3
-2.4
4.0
2.2
-1.6
-0.3
5.3
2.6
3.0
1.5
-0.6
$1,258
1,302
4,206
1,092
1,607
1,167
1,378
1,882
1,441
876
384
658
968
7.7
8.1
7.5
2.7
9.4
8.5
6.7
13.9
( 6)
4.2
0.8
7.5
3.1
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 ...................................................
93.8
93.1
0.5
8.5
3.2
21.7
1.5
11.0
22.0
10.4
6.9
6.6
0.7
1,628.8
1,412.8
7.6
77.7
107.8
331.8
27.0
134.2
264.7
237.5
176.0
47.9
215.9
1.3
1.8
5.0
-2.5
1.0
1.4
0.6
1.7
2.7
2.9
2.3
2.4
-2.0
889
898
1,152
884
1,439
847
1,208
1,270
925
864
409
585
829
5.1
5.4
16.4
1.7
13.6
6.8
6.5
7.4
3.0
1.6
1.7
5.0
2.5
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 ...................................................
67.9
67.3
0.6
4.0
2.9
14.8
1.6
8.4
14.8
7.1
5.6
7.1
0.5
1,416.9
1,248.2
8.7
66.2
113.7
280.1
45.5
137.6
263.0
166.2
127.8
38.8
168.7
1.9
2.2
11.5
0.2
-0.2
1.8
0.0
0.9
3.8
3.4
3.3
2.2
-0.3
1,156
1,180
4,366
960
1,501
982
2,078
1,879
1,251
941
474
628
975
5.2
5.5
10.2
2.8
16.7
3.9
11.7
8.3
1.2
2.2
-1.0
3.6
1.9
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 ...................................................
104.8
103.4
0.2
6.3
5.0
16.1
1.2
9.7
18.6
10.3
7.2
21.6
1.4
1,370.6
1,224.2
4.3
67.1
150.3
242.5
24.0
103.4
248.5
159.0
168.9
48.8
146.4
2.0
2.4
-15.9
-0.4
1.3
0.4
-3.1
1.7
3.9
( 6)
3.6
1.6
-1.6
1,035
1,014
635
1,049
1,239
944
1,796
1,629
1,204
883
408
516
1,214
3.3
3.8
12.6
1.5
3.8
5.4
-1.1
2.5
5.2
3.8
4.9
3.0
0.9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11 4
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11 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 ...................................................
100.7
99.2
0.7
6.2
3.0
13.6
1.2
8.5
16.0
8.4
7.0
28.3
1.4
1,239.7
1,017.7
11.4
54.7
92.5
195.4
24.3
67.1
210.1
146.5
152.5
56.7
222.0
1.4
1.7
2.8
-0.2
-0.1
0.9
-2.6
0.4
2.2
2.9
1.5
0.7
0.0
$1,003
989
491
1,033
1,458
797
1,624
1,343
1,432
880
387
499
1,068
7.2
8.4
1.2
5.5
9.1
7.3
12.5
8.7
13.4
4.0
2.4
4.2
2.2
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 ...................................................
83.1
82.5
0.4
5.8
2.3
14.9
1.8
6.5
14.2
7.2
6.5
22.9
0.6
1,117.2
959.8
2.5
43.5
97.6
204.8
79.0
63.4
177.6
134.3
105.3
51.7
157.4
1.8
2.2
-0.3
-4.5
0.8
3.3
1.0
-1.7
4.8
3.4
1.3
2.7
-0.1
1,185
1,198
1,492
1,108
1,579
1,029
2,280
1,647
1,431
887
424
591
1,107
5.6
6.1
-3.4
0.1
14.0
8.4
5.2
6.9
5.8
3.5
-2.3
2.1
2.5
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 ...................................................
85.5
85.1
0.5
4.9
2.6
24.3
1.4
8.9
17.8
9.6
6.4
7.7
0.4
967.7
824.4
10.0
30.5
35.1
243.2
17.5
61.1
126.5
152.7
110.2
36.0
143.3
1.9
2.8
3.6
-2.5
-1.2
3.2
-1.3
1.2
3.6
2.6
3.6
4.1
-2.6
874
856
409
872
821
799
1,424
1,593
1,024
831
481
523
974
3.4
4.6
10.5
6.0
1.0
5.1
3.1
10.2
2.9
5.6
3.2
1.0
-1.6
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2010 annual average employment.
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,
first quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11
United States 4 ...................
9,074.3
127,851.0
1.3
$935
5.2
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.3
21.2
144.8
85.7
1,376.1
169.0
110.6
28.3
34.8
591.2
1,808.5
310.1
2,392.1
1,133.5
14,413.8
2,179.8
1,589.2
396.0
702.3
7,235.9
0.3
2.0
0.7
0.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.5
1.2
766
912
837
715
1,066
952
1,282
1,026
1,540
794
4.2
3.8
4.9
6.1
6.2
4.4
6.3
5.7
2.4
3.8
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
266.7
38.6
54.2
382.7
159.7
93.7
87.9
110.8
127.4
49.5
3,771.0
593.8
590.3
5,472.4
2,717.1
1,419.3
1,293.3
1,715.6
1,841.3
558.6
1.4
1.2
-0.1
1.2
1.9
0.6
0.6
1.5
0.9
0.1
885
790
659
1,003
772
738
748
737
798
723
5.7
3.1
4.1
6.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
3.7
4.5
4.8
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
164.9
226.4
244.0
167.2
69.1
173.9
42.0
60.0
71.3
47.5
2,452.1
3,116.5
3,757.7
2,530.7
1,074.8
2,562.3
412.2
886.2
1,102.6
596.3
1.3
1.2
2.2
1.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.4
1.1
1,010
1,159
872
935
650
786
656
721
802
876
3.6
5.8
7.1
6.0
3.2
3.0
3.6
3.9
3.0
5.2
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
265.0
54.7
596.9
252.3
26.6
286.5
102.8
131.0
344.7
35.0
3,701.1
776.5
8,336.5
3,809.6
364.5
4,870.6
1,491.5
1,590.3
5,459.3
438.1
0.0
-0.1
1.2
1.6
5.0
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.5
0.1
1,160
738
1,368
825
748
819
739
812
896
863
3.5
3.1
6.7
4.3
9.5
4.6
5.3
4.6
4.6
3.4
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
110.1
30.9
139.5
577.2
82.7
24.2
233.1
235.3
48.5
156.8
1,767.2
382.3
2,575.9
10,324.3
1,156.9
291.9
3,539.9
2,785.3
689.3
2,609.5
1.4
1.3
1.7
2.2
2.0
0.9
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.6
722
659
793
946
753
741
968
947
723
779
4.5
4.1
3.8
5.9
3.4
3.8
4.0
5.2
4.5
5.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2011
(thousands)
March
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2010-11
First
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
first quarter
2010-11
Wyoming ............................
25.0
265.2
1.0
$808
4.4
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
50.6
3.5
923.0
45.1
-2.6
0.4
500
738
0.8
1.0
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,
March 2010-11 (U.S. average = 1.3 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
September 2011
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, first quarter 2010-11 (U.S. average = 5.2 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
September 2011