For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 10, 2012
USDL-12-0026
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Second Quarter 2011
From June 2010 to June 2011, employment increased in 215 of the 322 largest U.S. counties, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Ottawa, Mich., posted the largest increase, with a gain of 4.7
percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 0.9 percent. Within Ottawa, the largest
employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 2,514 jobs over the year (9.0 percent).
San Joaquin, Calif., experienced the largest over-the-year 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 $891 in the second quarter of
2011. Among the large counties in the U.S., Williamson, Texas, had the largest over-the-year increase in
average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2011 with a gain of 18.0 percent. Within Williamson, a
total wage increase of $195.2 million (39.2 percent) in the trade, transportation, and utilities industry had
the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. Champaign, Ill.,
experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 3.6 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, June 2010-11
(U.S. average = 0.9 percent)
5
4
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, second quarter 2010-11
(U.S. average = 3.0 percent)
20
4.7
4.1
4.0
3
3.9
3.9
15
18.0
10
10.2
2
5
1
0
0
Ottawa,
Mich.
Montgomery,
Texas
Utah,
Utah
Washington,
Pa.
Webb,
Texas
Williamson,
Texas
Middlesex,
Mass.
8.8
8.5
Harford,
Md.
Santa Clara,
Calif.
7.5
Butler,
Pa.
Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2011 employment, June 2010-11 employment
increase, and June 2010-11 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
June 2011 employment
(thousands)
United States
Increase in employment,
June 2010-11
(thousands)
130,469.9
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Orange, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
3,899.6
2,397.5
2,334.1
2,043.2
1,593.3
1,438.3
1,379.2
1,249.3
1,145.6
953.4
United States
Percent increase in employment,
June 2010-11
1,131.6
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Cook, Ill.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Los Angeles, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
Oakland, Mich.
Hennepin, Minn.
48.4
43.6
28.1
28.0
26.5
24.7
22.9
20.8
20.3
20.1
United States
0.9
Ottawa, Mich.
Montgomery, Texas
Utah, Utah
Washington, Pa.
Webb, Texas
Elkhart, Ind.
Weld, Colo.
Oakland, Mich.
Travis, Texas
Saginaw, Mich.
Washington, Ore.
4.7
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
Large County Employment
In June 2011, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.5 million, up by 0.9
percent or 1.1 million workers, from June 2010. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees
accounted for 70.5 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.0 percent of total wages. These 322
counties had a net job growth of 802,400 over the year, accounting for 70.9 percent of the overall U.S.
employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Ottawa, Mich., had the largest percentage increase in employment among the largest U.S. counties (4.7
percent). The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; New
York, N.Y.; Cook, Ill.; Maricopa, Ariz.; and Dallas, Texas. These counties had a combined over-theyear gain of 174,600, or 15.4 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S.
Employment declined in 89 of the large counties from June 2010 to June 2011. San Joaquin, Calif., had
the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.0 percent). Within San Joaquin, natural
resources and mining was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 5,268 jobs
(-17.8 percent). Yakima, Wash., had the second largest employment decrease, followed by Montgomery,
Ala., and Marion, Ore., both tied for the third largest decline, and Monterey, Calif. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2011 average weekly wages, second quarter 2010-11
increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2010-11 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2011
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Fairfield, Conn.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
San Mateo, Calif.
Middlesex, Mass.
Suffolk, Mass.
Increase in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2010-11
$891
$1,743
1,645
1,553
1,541
1,469
1,435
1,421
1,403
1,385
1,382
United States
$26
Williamson, Texas
Santa Clara, Calif.
Middlesex, Mass.
San Mateo, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Harford, Md.
New Castle, Del.
Douglas, Colo.
Arlington, Va.
$159
137
128
81
79
76
72
68
67
65
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2010-11
United States
Williamson, Texas
Middlesex, Mass.
Harford, Md.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Butler, Pa.
Douglas, Colo.
New Castle, Del.
San Mateo, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Erie, Pa.
Dane, Wis.
3.0
18.0
10.2
8.8
8.5
7.5
7.4
6.9
6.1
5.8
5.8
5.8
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 3.0 percent over the year in the second quarter of
2011. Among the 322 largest counties, 307 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See
chart 4.) Williamson, Texas, had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties (18.0 percent).
Of the 322 largest counties, 11 experienced declines in average weekly wages. Champaign, Ill., had the
largest wage decline with a loss of 3.6 percent over the year. A $55.3 million total wage loss (-29.3
percent) within education and health services contributed significantly to the county’s overall average
weekly wage decline. Benton, Ark., had the second largest decline in average weekly wages among the
counties, followed by Rutherford, Tenn., New York, N.Y., and Elkhart, Ind. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent increases in employment in June 2011.
Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain in employment (2.4 percent). Within Harris, professional and
business services had the largest over-the-year increase among all private industry groups with a gain of
16,936 workers (5.3 percent). San Diego, Calif., had the smallest increase in employment among the 10
largest counties. (See table 2.)
Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. Harris,
Texas, experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 5.0 percent. Within
Harris, the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth occurred in natural resources and
mining, largely due to significant total wage gains over the year ($522.2 million or 20.0 percent). New
York, N.Y., had the only average weekly wage decrease.
-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. June 2011 employment and 2011
second quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.1 million employer reports cover 130.5 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the second quarter of 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 third quarter 2011 is scheduled to be released on
Wednesday, March 28, 2012.
-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 frequency
Quarterly
— 7 months after the end of each
quarter
Quarterly
— 8 months after the end of each
quarter
Monthly
— Usually first Friday of following
month
Use of UI file
Directly summarizes and publishes
each new quarter of UI data
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
Principal
products
Provides a quarterly and annual
universe count of establishments,
employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by
detailed industry
Provides quarterly employer dynamics
data on establishment openings, closings, expansions, and contractions at
the national level by NAICS supersectors and by size of firm, and at the
state private-sector total level
Provides current monthly estimates of
employment, hours, and earnings at the
MSA, state, and national level by industry
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:
— Business cycle analysis
— Analysis of employer dynamics
underlying economic expansions
and contractions
— Analysis of employment expansion
and contraction by size of firm
Major uses include:
— Principal national economic indicator
— Official time series for employment
change measures
— Input into other major economic indicators
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 2010 edition
of this publication, which was published in November 2011, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics
(BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first
quarter 2011 version of this news release. Tables and additional
content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2010 are
now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn10.htm.
The 2011 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in 2012.
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,
second quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2010-11 5
United States 6 ...................
9,084.2
130,469.9
0.9
–
$891
3.0
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.7
8.8
9.8
6.3
4.3
8.3
94.9
19.0
5.4
15.1
332.4
178.8
166.4
128.0
82.6
152.5
1,593.3
338.1
94.6
242.8
0.1
-1.3
-1.9
-2.8
1.6
1.5
1.8
-0.7
( 7)
-1.4
204
290
303
311
74
82
66
267
–
293
883
997
777
779
778
992
878
794
816
817
2.3
3.3
4.0
2.6
4.9
2.2
2.2
4.3
-2.7
3.9
185
101
65
153
30
196
196
50
318
72
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.5
55.8
29.9
30.6
17.9
434.5
11.7
12.9
103.5
10.7
91.4
637.6
316.5
338.0
282.6
3,899.6
103.1
182.5
1,379.2
126.2
( 7)
0.4
-1.3
-1.9
0.9
0.6
1.0
-2.4
0.8
0.2
–
178
290
303
134
166
123
310
145
196
735
1,172
1,099
709
792
993
1,112
754
999
875
0.8
2.0
3.9
1.7
2.7
2.2
5.6
1.3
3.2
3.4
291
218
72
243
148
196
14
265
109
96
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 .................
49.6
53.9
51.0
99.6
55.0
17.5
9.6
24.3
14.4
62.6
562.2
577.3
596.8
1,249.3
556.9
209.2
102.1
325.0
184.7
869.1
-0.9
-2.1
-0.6
0.4
2.7
-4.0
-0.9
1.0
-0.1
2.3
276
307
264
178
24
314
276
123
226
33
743
1,004
774
982
1,435
767
764
1,403
840
1,743
1.9
2.7
1.8
4.7
5.8
1.7
4.7
6.1
2.9
8.5
232
148
238
39
9
243
39
8
131
4
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.1
10.1
18.9
15.1
9.4
24.0
6.1
8.8
18.8
12.8
96.9
120.9
176.9
162.9
151.6
303.3
89.8
156.1
280.6
157.2
-1.7
0.1
-0.4
-1.6
-0.5
0.6
-0.7
0.0
2.3
2.0
302
204
248
298
258
166
267
216
33
48
806
902
856
752
617
934
896
814
1,023
1,027
4.7
3.4
4.9
0.8
1.8
3.8
3.3
3.0
3.4
2.1
39
96
30
291
238
76
101
125
96
209
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.3
9.4
16.8
17.7
10.0
5.8
32.5
25.3
22.2
6.9
425.0
92.9
238.1
208.5
131.4
82.1
406.3
492.3
352.7
126.5
2.0
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.4
3.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
-0.1
48
134
90
82
90
7
156
145
156
226
1,072
972
820
915
758
740
1,469
1,095
947
903
4.1
7.4
2.6
4.2
2.0
4.2
5.5
3.6
2.2
1.0
59
6
153
52
218
52
17
84
196
288
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2010-11 5
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
6.5
14.4
62.1
11.6
26.6
7.8
37.1
7.1
264.0
711.3
114.7
187.8
681.6
107.3
435.1
119.2
562.7
75.4
-0.2
1.4
-0.4
-0.8
0.0
2.1
0.7
0.2
0.5
1.5
237
90
248
271
216
43
156
196
174
82
$1,051
1,541
777
852
837
796
845
726
860
619
6.9
2.4
5.1
2.3
2.6
1.1
1.6
4.5
2.6
0.8
7
181
22
185
153
280
248
44
153
291
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.3
8.2
9.1
7.9
86.3
35.4
48.8
9.9
30.3
190.3
135.9
98.6
88.9
953.4
650.9
485.7
91.3
379.0
1.6
-0.3
-0.7
-0.4
2.2
1.8
0.6
2.0
-0.1
74
244
267
248
37
66
166
48
226
732
767
718
656
876
792
874
666
798
0.8
4.5
2.9
1.5
3.2
2.1
1.4
-0.3
3.6
291
44
131
256
109
209
261
310
84
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.4
14.2
13.7
13.2
4.6
7.5
4.2
20.4
17.2
39.3
183.0
131.0
152.6
145.8
79.1
129.7
101.7
288.9
274.3
712.7
-1.1
1.1
-1.5
-0.1
-0.1
1.0
0.1
0.6
0.4
1.2
286
114
296
226
226
123
204
166
178
104
696
750
760
656
688
753
793
918
926
1,155
3.6
2.5
3.0
1.2
1.3
1.2
3.1
1.9
3.5
2.8
84
168
125
272
265
272
120
232
90
142
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
23.2
4.6
4.6
24.4
14.0
4.2
145.8
36.6
13.2
21.7
300.8
93.6
97.4
433.5
195.4
87.1
2,397.5
568.4
193.4
321.2
2.3
( 7)
0.6
0.9
0.8
-2.2
1.2
2.4
-0.9
-0.2
33
–
166
134
145
309
104
29
276
237
862
714
761
830
775
757
1,037
1,031
798
1,141
1.3
( 7)
3.3
2.9
2.6
-3.6
2.6
4.4
2.8
4.0
265
–
101
131
153
319
153
47
142
65
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
94.9
86.0
96.1
102.0
98.6
132.0
202.1
126.5
175.2
-0.3
-0.4
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.3
0.5
1.0
1.6
244
248
74
97
114
97
174
123
74
747
864
733
843
793
917
798
749
744
2.5
1.2
1.4
5.1
4.1
2.9
1.9
2.6
1.6
168
272
261
22
59
131
232
153
248
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
4.9
8.3
105.5
113.2
3.8
3.1
6
12
728
821
-1.0
0.4
315
301
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2010-11 5
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
10.4
23.7
6.0
4.8
6.2
14.5
5.2
21.4
186.4
546.8
115.1
105.9
127.4
268.3
87.6
303.4
1.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
1.6
0.1
1.7
1.6
104
188
196
134
74
204
70
74
$807
892
736
738
838
872
706
907
4.1
2.5
1.5
1.1
0.8
3.2
2.5
2.1
59
168
256
280
291
109
168
209
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
9.5
22.4
7.5
4.9
14.6
13.9
9.0
238.1
94.3
82.0
175.0
418.2
121.0
83.1
248.4
192.9
132.5
-1.3
-1.9
1.2
( 7)
1.0
-1.0
0.1
-0.9
-1.5
0.8
290
303
104
–
123
284
204
276
296
145
815
780
853
822
880
762
753
827
825
852
2.9
4.1
2.4
2.9
3.3
2.3
4.9
2.9
2.6
3.9
131
59
181
131
101
185
30
131
153
72
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
11.1
12.4
14.5
21.1
6.0
5.6
9.0
32.9
15.7
171.3
171.0
233.4
363.3
92.1
84.8
153.7
453.0
301.7
0.9
1.1
1.5
-0.4
-1.4
2.8
1.5
1.1
-0.4
134
114
82
248
293
22
82
114
248
937
798
960
906
861
890
1,080
1,213
981
2.3
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.1
8.8
4.9
3.3
2.1
185
181
238
280
280
3
30
101
209
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
13.8
9.4
16.7
22.1
15.7
50.1
24.9
14.5
23.6
22.0
329.0
97.8
212.9
304.0
197.7
814.7
319.2
174.7
585.2
316.8
-0.2
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
1.8
0.9
237
134
134
114
156
178
178
204
66
134
1,034
754
837
976
814
1,385
1,047
875
1,382
908
3.3
2.2
5.0
5.6
4.4
10.2
2.5
3.2
3.7
2.6
101
196
27
14
47
2
168
109
80
153
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
7.2
6.3
5.3
13.6
16.6
36.6
5.5
4.1
7.9
30.6
129.7
153.6
107.5
320.3
288.8
640.6
106.8
82.6
187.8
675.4
1.4
-0.5
-0.4
3.1
2.8
3.3
4.7
3.2
2.0
1.3
90
258
248
12
22
8
1
10
48
97
735
854
804
785
880
989
728
723
939
961
1.2
0.0
2.0
1.7
1.6
4.0
2.2
0.1
3.6
1.9
272
308
218
243
248
65
196
306
84
232
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
7.0
9.5
42.8
3.3
108.5
171.8
832.7
89.0
0.0
0.6
2.5
0.4
216
166
28
178
859
892
1,116
1,015
4.0
4.1
3.3
2.7
65
59
101
148
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2010-11 5
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
13.7
5.5
4.2
4.5
6.0
4.5
318.3
95.6
79.8
83.8
121.9
83.8
0.5
1.0
2.6
0.7
-1.1
1.9
174
123
26
156
286
56
$993
749
699
669
777
697
3.8
3.2
2.9
0.6
2.0
1.8
76
109
131
298
218
238
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
8.1
31.8
8.9
5.9
15.9
8.1
47.2
91.2
148.7
342.2
125.2
569.8
212.4
77.4
313.5
154.7
805.3
1.6
0.9
-0.5
2.1
0.0
-0.9
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.2
74
134
258
43
216
276
90
216
188
196
826
680
887
710
924
975
733
814
722
806
2.2
1.2
1.3
0.3
1.3
5.1
2.5
2.0
2.6
2.5
196
272
265
304
265
22
168
218
153
168
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
33.4
11.1
12.4
20.8
6.2
13.8
185.0
187.6
136.1
140.3
430.8
194.4
195.9
336.5
98.5
230.7
0.0
0.8
-0.1
-2.0
0.0
-1.6
-1.1
-1.2
-1.4
0.3
216
145
226
306
216
298
286
289
293
188
808
986
853
781
1,085
947
892
1,130
798
1,227
1.3
2.6
-0.8
1.4
3.1
2.6
1.6
4.1
-0.3
2.0
265
153
313
261
120
153
248
59
310
218
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.1
21.8
20.1
17.4
12.2
12.2
10.1
14.5
17.6
10.0
229.9
378.5
250.5
273.0
155.3
172.8
172.1
220.9
312.3
218.8
-0.5
-0.5
-1.6
-1.0
-0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.8
-0.9
258
258
298
284
237
188
196
204
271
276
1,182
1,095
924
1,257
734
924
1,304
1,119
781
931
4.2
3.0
2.3
2.0
2.2
1.0
1.7
0.6
0.1
2.1
52
125
185
218
196
288
243
298
306
209
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
8.2
23.7
51.2
18.1
52.6
121.6
5.3
12.7
236.0
91.8
111.6
457.5
508.4
377.6
600.0
2,334.1
107.8
244.2
-0.9
-0.8
-0.6
0.7
1.8
1.0
0.9
1.9
-2.1
0.1
276
271
264
156
66
123
134
56
307
204
876
722
946
782
743
852
1,034
1,645
731
826
3.7
1.1
3.2
1.7
0.4
0.2
2.0
-1.1
4.0
1.1
80
280
109
243
301
305
218
316
65
280
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
10.0
46.0
9.0
9.9
50.7
133.1
504.5
92.6
116.4
631.3
0.2
1.2
0.2
1.1
0.7
196
104
196
114
156
811
845
774
997
980
3.2
0.8
0.5
4.5
1.2
109
291
300
44
272
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2010-11 5
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
36.1
7.8
4.4
6.3
7.2
412.8
111.2
78.5
120.5
176.4
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.7
1.9
123
145
90
70
56
$1,205
672
677
748
1,196
3.1
-0.1
1.2
4.8
5.7
120
309
272
35
12
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
8.9
14.1
32.1
7.2
28.9
6.0
7.4
35.8
29.5
23.3
171.6
261.6
547.8
98.8
449.2
103.1
138.3
691.3
657.0
488.4
0.4
1.9
3.0
( 7)
( 7)
2.7
-0.1
0.0
1.5
0.3
178
56
16
–
–
24
226
216
82
188
815
780
993
741
896
769
783
898
864
959
1.6
1.4
1.1
( 7)
1.0
4.3
2.5
1.9
2.0
4.0
248
261
280
–
288
50
168
232
218
65
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
6.0
12.2
8.7
14.3
24.3
20.2
12.6
95.5
94.1
199.6
97.0
243.8
151.7
255.9
420.1
328.6
138.9
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.6
1.5
0.4
2.1
0.3
0.1
145
178
196
166
166
82
178
43
188
204
758
731
767
649
785
689
790
832
816
837
5.3
4.6
3.5
3.5
1.6
3.9
2.3
5.3
4.2
4.9
19
43
90
90
248
72
185
19
52
30
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
6.5
10.7
9.3
29.0
16.2
35.2
9.0
19.6
4.9
15.0
75.6
138.5
132.5
432.2
244.7
686.8
165.4
253.2
83.6
240.2
-0.8
0.8
-2.8
1.9
3.2
1.1
1.6
-0.4
3.1
1.3
271
145
311
56
10
114
74
248
12
97
683
704
725
923
1,033
948
808
863
827
1,163
2.1
2.8
4.0
4.2
3.8
3.2
2.5
2.9
7.5
2.6
209
142
65
52
76
109
168
131
5
153
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
6.1
7.4
13.7
7.7
5.8
12.5
8.6
7.7
27.1
6.5
123.1
179.7
208.1
126.2
98.3
220.2
176.9
139.9
464.7
101.0
1.9
0.0
0.9
2.4
0.0
-0.2
1.9
1.2
-0.4
2.3
56
216
134
29
216
237
56
104
248
33
835
882
944
710
682
741
866
697
1,081
778
3.6
3.4
2.8
5.8
1.6
2.3
5.1
2.7
1.3
2.2
84
96
142
9
248
185
22
148
265
196
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
34.3
5.6
9.4
9.1
17.2
11.7
630.3
84.8
134.4
171.4
269.3
212.0
0.1
3.9
-0.1
1.0
-0.1
2.4
204
4
226
123
226
29
1,031
820
726
791
898
781
2.3
5.5
4.8
2.5
4.8
2.1
185
17
35
168
35
209
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2010-11 5
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
12.1
7.5
5.6
8.9
230.9
117.3
94.8
201.5
2.2
2.1
-0.2
-0.5
37
43
237
258
$788
526
662
779
3.7
-0.8
2.2
2.2
80
313
196
196
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
5.8
6.5
18.0
8.4
10.7
4.3
18.8
6.1
4.8
34.1
110.4
115.3
423.4
183.7
218.4
96.5
465.4
91.7
107.7
733.9
0.7
1.0
1.4
2.0
1.2
1.5
0.7
2.2
2.0
0.8
156
123
90
48
104
82
156
37
48
145
781
739
892
783
763
788
917
968
733
798
2.4
4.8
2.1
3.3
3.7
-2.2
2.8
1.6
2.2
3.2
181
35
209
101
80
317
142
248
196
109
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
68.0
11.1
13.8
9.3
5.4
101.2
88.8
84.1
127.2
296.1
1,438.3
180.0
273.0
137.0
96.8
2,043.2
2.0
-1.6
1.1
3.1
1.9
3.0
0.3
2.2
1.7
2.4
48
298
114
12
56
16
188
37
70
29
869
678
572
1,039
1,055
782
648
880
816
1,120
4.7
2.9
1.8
3.8
2.0
3.4
2.5
2.9
5.6
5.0
39
131
238
76
218
96
168
131
14
27
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
11.1
5.9
7.0
4.8
8.7
7.9
5.5
37.7
30.6
225.2
121.6
125.0
101.2
133.7
154.7
92.9
764.2
584.4
1.9
2.1
1.7
-0.6
4.1
1.2
0.3
2.2
3.3
56
43
70
264
2
104
188
37
8
571
881
684
719
837
763
761
899
974
1.2
5.1
1.9
2.0
5.3
4.2
2.3
3.2
3.5
272
22
232
218
19
52
185
109
90
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
36.6
12.6
5.4
6.0
8.2
7.6
34.3
88.9
129.7
106.8
569.3
171.0
89.1
95.8
169.7
114.9
585.2
3.9
1.3
( 7)
1.9
4.0
-0.8
2.9
2.2
-0.9
1.3
4
97
–
56
3
271
19
37
276
97
616
1,040
729
833
714
671
894
1,553
800
1,421
4.2
18.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
1.5
3.0
4.4
0.4
2.2
52
1
218
125
27
256
125
47
301
196
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
7.7
6.1
5.6
3.8
5.7
7.1
173.1
138.8
110.3
94.9
95.6
96.4
138.7
150.0
-0.1
2.9
3.0
( 7)
0.4
0.5
1.2
1.3
226
19
16
–
178
174
104
97
887
1,051
804
1,258
713
839
879
982
1.5
-0.3
1.1
( 7)
2.0
3.5
0.8
2.3
256
310
280
–
218
90
291
185
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2010-11 5
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Benton, WA ........................
11.2
5.5
168.2
84.0
-0.2
-0.7
237
267
$718
963
3.2
5.7
109
12
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
13.1
81.2
6.6
21.1
18.7
15.5
7.3
6.8
8.6
6.0
129.6
1,145.6
82.0
261.9
248.2
199.9
97.3
80.0
102.5
105.6
1.2
2.0
0.1
-0.3
2.9
0.1
-0.3
0.8
-3.8
-0.4
104
48
204
244
19
204
244
145
313
248
808
1,134
863
823
952
755
827
749
610
797
2.8
3.0
2.5
2.6
3.5
3.1
2.7
3.6
2.0
3.1
142
125
168
153
90
120
148
84
218
120
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.6
14.1
22.5
5.0
12.7
3.7
11.9
148.1
300.3
471.9
102.4
227.7
90.3
258.5
1.1
0.7
0.8
1.0
2.6
-0.1
-0.8
114
156
145
123
26
226
( 8)
758
877
878
743
869
814
596
2.3
5.8
1.5
2.6
2.5
2.1
0.7
185
9
256
153
168
209
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 322 large U.S. counties comprise 70.5 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 4
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
9,084.2
8,786.9
127.7
769.8
338.5
1,875.6
142.7
808.9
1,558.4
907.4
755.3
1,309.3
297.3
130,469.9
109,010.2
1,966.3
5,625.6
11,760.7
24,807.3
2,685.6
7,433.9
17,325.3
18,921.8
13,816.3
4,456.3
21,459.7
0.9
1.6
1.2
-0.7
1.8
1.3
-1.3
0.0
3.1
1.8
2.1
1.2
-2.7
$891
874
964
936
1,094
752
1,398
1,287
1,134
835
365
566
973
3.0
2.9
9.4
2.7
2.9
2.7
5.7
2.3
4.1
2.1
2.0
2.4
3.3
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
434.5
428.8
0.5
12.4
12.9
50.5
8.2
21.9
40.8
28.8
26.7
205.0
5.7
3,899.6
3,334.4
9.7
104.3
368.8
737.9
190.8
209.4
539.9
510.6
398.0
243.4
565.3
0.6
1.3
-7.2
-1.0
-1.7
1.1
-0.4
-0.6
2.1
1.5
1.9
1.7
-3.2
993
961
1,210
1,011
1,089
803
1,696
1,452
1,193
938
546
437
1,178
2.2
2.6
9.2
2.1
3.5
3.1
1.9
3.7
2.6
3.6
3.8
-4.0
0.7
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 ...................................................
145.8
144.4
0.1
12.3
6.6
28.4
2.6
15.5
30.7
15.3
12.8
16.0
1.4
2,397.5
2,094.5
0.9
66.2
195.2
438.1
52.1
186.5
415.3
400.5
241.3
96.4
303.0
1.2
1.9
3.1
-0.2
0.9
1.7
-0.3
-1.4
3.5
2.3
3.5
2.0
-3.6
1,037
1,020
896
1,227
1,087
817
1,494
1,794
1,301
863
462
757
1,152
2.6
2.6
-5.9
2.4
3.9
4.1
4.4
4.2
2.8
0.2
2.9
2.6
3.0
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 ...................................................
121.6
121.3
0.0
2.2
2.5
21.0
4.3
19.0
25.4
9.3
12.6
18.9
0.3
2,334.1
1,898.3
0.1
30.6
26.1
241.8
137.9
358.3
471.5
296.3
238.3
89.5
435.8
1.9
3.2
8.5
1.4
0.7
3.1
2.3
3.1
3.0
0.8
5.8
2.6
-3.3
1,645
1,767
1,789
1,614
1,278
1,228
1,999
3,199
2,000
1,140
762
993
1,115
-1.1
-2.1
-6.0
4.8
4.0
4.2
2.4
-11.3
4.5
3.7
1.2
2.8
2.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 4
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
101.2
100.7
1.6
6.5
4.5
22.7
1.3
10.5
20.0
11.3
8.2
13.5
0.6
2,043.2
1,784.0
80.7
132.4
176.5
424.7
28.5
111.7
336.2
242.5
187.6
62.2
259.2
2.4
3.2
8.1
-1.0
5.5
2.5
-1.4
-0.2
5.3
2.4
4.0
2.8
-2.8
$1,120
1,141
3,052
1,092
1,380
1,012
1,276
1,384
1,341
896
392
643
974
5.0
5.1
11.7
2.4
4.7
5.9
4.8
6.1
2.9
1.5
0.5
5.4
3.0
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
94.9
94.2
0.5
8.5
3.2
22.0
1.5
11.1
22.4
10.5
7.0
6.7
0.7
1,593.3
1,414.0
8.4
82.1
109.0
333.9
27.3
134.7
263.5
235.4
171.4
48.0
179.3
1.8
2.0
16.1
0.8
0.6
2.2
0.1
3.1
0.9
2.7
2.6
2.4
0.0
878
865
750
893
1,341
818
1,101
1,062
915
912
401
591
968
2.2
2.9
0.3
1.6
6.3
3.2
4.1
2.1
3.4
2.6
-1.2
3.3
-1.4
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 ...................................................
68.0
67.5
0.6
3.9
2.8
14.8
1.6
8.5
14.9
7.2
5.6
7.1
0.5
1,438.3
1,272.4
9.0
68.3
115.0
284.8
45.5
138.9
269.8
167.9
132.4
40.1
165.9
1.9
2.6
8.5
0.4
0.3
2.1
-0.9
1.8
4.8
3.1
3.1
3.5
-3.5
1,055
1,061
3,318
958
1,244
975
1,592
1,389
1,175
982
444
667
1,015
2.0
2.0
0.3
3.7
1.8
3.0
6.1
3.0
0.6
0.4
0.0
4.2
2.2
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
103.5
102.1
0.2
6.2
4.9
15.8
1.2
9.5
18.2
10.3
7.1
21.5
1.4
1,379.2
1,231.0
4.0
69.8
153.3
243.9
23.6
103.6
244.1
156.5
175.8
48.6
148.2
0.8
1.2
-9.0
0.7
1.0
0.2
-5.3
0.5
0.4
2.2
2.2
-0.3
-2.3
999
982
658
1,081
1,209
953
1,399
1,454
1,137
914
425
535
1,138
3.2
3.3
9.7
2.9
3.1
4.2
5.2
5.2
2.8
3.7
2.2
1.9
2.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11 4
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
99.6
98.2
0.7
6.0
2.9
13.4
1.2
8.4
15.8
8.4
7.0
28.1
1.4
1,249.3
1,026.7
11.6
55.3
93.5
197.4
23.9
66.9
210.5
146.0
158.3
56.5
222.6
0.4
0.9
0.6
-1.1
0.5
0.5
-4.5
0.6
0.4
2.1
0.5
-1.0
-1.9
$982
949
538
1,027
1,335
771
1,488
1,151
1,372
905
408
516
1,138
4.7
5.2
-0.7
3.2
2.7
2.8
8.3
4.3
10.1
3.2
2.8
4.0
3.5
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 ...................................................
81.2
80.7
0.3
5.6
2.3
14.6
1.7
6.3
13.9
7.1
6.4
22.3
0.6
1,145.6
986.4
2.8
46.6
99.2
208.7
80.3
64.6
181.7
135.3
113.8
53.5
159.2
2.0
2.7
6.8
-2.0
2.1
3.1
1.9
-1.3
4.7
3.3
3.3
3.1
-1.9
1,134
1,135
1,494
1,128
1,414
997
2,048
1,361
1,400
930
433
580
1,129
3.0
3.3
20.3
2.5
-0.3
5.8
2.7
5.1
5.2
2.0
0.2
-3.7
2.0
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 ...................................................
86.3
85.9
0.5
5.0
2.6
24.6
1.4
9.0
17.8
9.7
6.5
7.7
0.4
953.4
826.4
7.2
30.0
36.0
245.2
17.2
61.7
125.4
154.4
111.6
36.6
127.0
2.2
3.3
1.8
-3.5
-0.1
3.4
-0.6
2.2
4.3
2.9
5.3
4.1
-4.0
876
829
521
858
819
778
1,332
1,275
1,032
847
481
545
1,159
3.2
2.0
2.4
-0.9
6.4
2.1
2.4
3.9
3.4
1.7
-1.2
0.7
10.3
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
second quarter
2010-11
United States 4 ...................
9,084.2
130,469.9
0.9
$891
3.0
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.3
21.7
145.6
85.8
1,379.3
169.7
110.7
28.2
35.5
594.3
1,824.8
335.9
2,336.3
1,140.4
14,664.6
2,234.7
1,630.2
408.4
711.3
7,092.3
-0.4
1.6
1.1
-1.3
0.3
1.4
0.8
0.5
1.4
0.8
767
941
842
703
1,019
900
1,116
926
1,541
802
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.6
4.0
3.4
3.8
5.9
2.4
2.6
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
266.5
38.3
54.1
384.2
159.7
93.5
88.2
109.7
126.8
49.0
3,803.1
590.5
616.6
5,633.0
2,769.2
1,476.9
1,313.2
1,751.8
1,844.3
593.8
1.0
0.7
0.0
1.0
1.3
0.7
-0.1
0.9
-0.1
0.3
832
799
667
939
749
726
754
760
794
712
2.5
2.4
2.3
3.2
2.2
2.5
2.9
2.3
3.1
1.9
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
165.4
227.8
242.1
164.6
68.8
174.3
42.1
60.4
71.4
47.9
2,513.5
3,230.4
3,896.9
2,645.4
1,079.4
2,617.7
434.1
911.6
1,123.0
615.2
0.5
0.9
1.8
1.4
-0.6
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.4
987
1,120
845
898
664
774
681
714
816
888
3.1
5.6
2.4
3.5
1.8
1.6
3.5
2.4
2.5
2.4
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
264.6
54.8
597.1
253.1
27.1
287.5
102.6
131.1
347.1
34.9
3,836.2
788.7
8,575.3
3,865.9
382.4
5,009.1
1,510.3
1,637.5
5,606.5
458.1
-0.3
-0.5
1.0
1.5
5.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.3
1,056
763
1,092
783
769
795
749
819
875
862
2.6
2.8
1.0
2.5
8.2
2.6
4.5
4.2
3.1
3.5
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
111.1
31.1
139.1
578.9
83.4
24.3
233.2
229.5
48.7
158.0
1,801.6
404.8
2,616.9
10,462.4
1,183.9
297.0
3,619.7
2,875.8
702.9
2,712.0
1.1
0.8
1.3
2.1
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.9
726
656
794
900
756
773
949
928
765
767
2.3
3.8
2.3
4.0
3.1
2.8
2.2
3.5
5.4
3.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2011
(thousands)
June
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2010-11
Second
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
second quarter
2010-11
Wyoming ............................
25.1
284.7
1.2
$819
3.7
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
50.7
3.5
915.1
44.1
-1.4
0.6
496
747
0.6
5.5
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
June 2010-11 (U.S. average = 0.9 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
January 2012
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, second quarter 2010-11 (U.S. average = 3.0 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
January 2012