For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, March 28, 2012
USDL-12-0549
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Third Quarter 2011
From September 2010 to September 2011, employment increased in 271 of the 322 largest U.S.
counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Williamson, Tenn., posted the largest
increase, with a gain of 5.4 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.6 percent.
Within Williamson, the largest employment increase occurred in professional and business services,
which gained 1,743 jobs over the year (9.0 percent). Frederick, Md., experienced the largest over-theyear decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 2.6 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 5.3 percent to $916 in the third quarter of
2011. Among the large counties in the U.S., Lake, Ohio, had the largest over-the-year increase in
average weekly wages with a gain of 17.1 percent. Within Lake, a total wage increase of $124.7 million
(48.5 percent) in the manufacturing industry had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year
increase in average weekly wages. A third quarter acquisition in this industry resulted in large payouts,
which may include bonuses and stock options. Clay, Mo., experienced the largest decline in average
weekly wages with a loss of 2.3 percent over the year. County employment and wage data are compiled
under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, September 2010-11
(U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
6
5
4
20
5.4
4.8
4.8
15
4.5
4.4
4.4
17.1
4.4
10
3
2
11.7
11.5
10.2
9.8
5
1
0
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, third quarter 2010-11
(U.S. average = 5.3 percent)
0
Williamson, Weld, Montgomery, Utah, Washington, Webb,
Tenn.
Colo.
Texas
Utah
Pa.
Texas
Loudoun,
Va.
Lake,
Ohio
Santa Clara,
Calif.
Oklahoma,
Okla.
Williamson, Sacramento,
Texas
Calif.
Table A. Large counties ranked by September 2011 employment, September 2010-11 employment
increase, and September 2010-11 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
September 2011 employment
(thousands)
United States
130,524.7
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.
3,872.5
2,402.7
2,332.5
2,054.1
1,641.4
1,448.7
1,372.4
1,252.4
1,150.7
970.3
Increase in employment,
September 2010-11
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
September 2010-11
2,040.9
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Cook, Ill.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
King, Wash.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Hennepin, Minn.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
Santa Clara, Calif.
62.3
60.6
48.5
46.0
37.9
31.7
31.1
28.2
27.6
26.4
United States
1.6
Williamson, Tenn.
Weld, Colo.
Montgomery, Texas
Utah, Utah
Washington, Pa.
Webb, Texas
Loudoun, Va.
Kern, Calif.
Fort Bend, Texas
San Francisco, Calif.
5.4
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.1
Large County Employment
In September 2011, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.5 million, up
by 1.6 percent or 2.0 million workers, from September 2010. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more
employees accounted for 70.5 percent of total U.S. employment and 75.9 percent of total wages. These
322 counties had a net job growth of 1.5 million over the year, accounting for 71.5 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Williamson, Tenn., had the largest percentage increase in employment among the largest U.S. counties
(5.4 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 255,300, or 12.5 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S.
Employment declined in 39 of the large counties from September 2010 to September 2011. Frederick,
Md., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-2.6 percent). Within Frederick,
financial activities was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 2,168 jobs
(-27.2 percent). Broome, N.Y., had the second largest employment decrease, followed by Monmouth,
N.J., Mobile, Ala., and Montgomery, Ala. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by third quarter 2011 average weekly wages, third quarter 2010-11
increase in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2010-11 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
third quarter 2011
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
San Mateo, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Somerset, N.J.
Increase in average weekly
wage, third quarter 2010-11
$916
$1,857
1,647
1,550
1,527
1,457
1,440
1,432
1,426
1,419
1,338
United States
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, third
quarter 2010-11
$46
Santa Clara, Calif.
Lake, Ohio
Mercer, N.J.
Durham, N.C.
Fairfield, Conn.
Oklahoma, Okla.
Sacramento, Calif.
King, Wash.
Williamson, Texas
San Francisco, Calif.
Yolo, Calif.
Lake, Ill.
$195
123
97
96
93
93
91
90
86
84
84
84
United States
Lake, Ohio
Santa Clara, Calif.
Oklahoma, Okla.
Williamson, Texas
Sacramento, Calif.
Yolo, Calif.
St. Louis, Minn.
York, Pa.
Tulsa, Okla.
Kitsap, Wash.
5.3
17.1
11.7
11.5
10.2
9.8
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.0
9.0
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 5.3 percent over the year in the third quarter of
2011. Among the 322 largest counties, 315 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See
chart 4.) Lake, Ohio, had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties (17.1 percent).
Of the 322 largest counties, 3 experienced declines in average weekly wages. Clay, Mo., had the largest
wage decline with a loss of 2.3 percent over the year due to a 23.8 percent decline (-$49.7 million) in
manufacturing wages. In the third quarter of 2010, an acquisition in manufacturing had boosted wages.
Alachua, Fla., and Leon, Fla., had the second and third largest declines in average weekly wages.
Orleans, La., and Richmond, N.Y., were tied for the smallest over-the-year increase in average weekly
wages. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent increases in employment in September
2011. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain in employment (3.1 percent). Within Harris,
professional and business services had the largest over-the-year level increase among all private industry
groups with a gain of 19,560 workers (6.1 percent). Los Angeles, Calif., had the smallest percent
increase in employment among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.)
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. San Diego,
Calif., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 7.5 percent, largely due
to significant total wage gains over the year in professional and business services ($261.6 million or 7.8
percent). Miami-Dade, Fla., 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. September 2011 employment and
2011 third quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.1 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 third 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 fourth quarter 2011 is scheduled to be released
on Thursday, June 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: 486,000 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,
third quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,135.8
130,524.7
1.6
–
$916
5.3
–
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
8.2
95.6
19.0
5.5
15.2
332.9
178.3
166.1
127.1
84.2
155.5
1,641.4
343.2
94.7
244.7
1.3
0.0
-1.1
-0.9
1.1
1.8
2.9
( 7)
( 7)
0.3
151
272
313
312
167
109
42
–
–
249
921
1,035
836
812
804
1,017
901
799
866
842
4.4
3.2
8.2
4.2
3.1
4.3
4.8
( 7)
3.6
6.2
197
267
18
214
274
204
164
–
249
69
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.5
56.7
30.3
31.1
18.1
440.1
11.8
13.1
104.4
10.9
91.5
640.9
315.8
346.3
293.3
3,872.5
103.6
181.4
1,372.4
127.0
( 7)
1.6
-0.5
-0.1
4.2
0.8
2.7
0.4
1.7
2.1
–
128
301
278
8
204
54
236
121
83
743
1,217
1,105
724
809
1,026
1,077
789
1,036
901
( 7)
5.3
5.8
5.7
8.2
5.2
5.8
4.9
6.0
6.3
–
125
90
98
18
130
90
158
78
65
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 .................
50.3
54.5
51.8
100.7
55.8
17.7
9.7
24.6
14.6
63.4
553.5
576.9
593.9
1,252.4
566.9
206.2
103.3
327.8
183.0
873.1
0.8
0.5
0.3
1.2
4.1
0.4
2.0
2.4
2.1
3.1
204
226
249
158
10
236
92
69
83
34
757
1,021
795
1,014
1,457
799
756
1,426
879
1,857
5.0
9.8
5.4
7.5
6.1
5.0
5.0
6.2
5.9
11.7
147
5
118
30
75
147
147
69
86
2
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.2
10.1
19.1
15.3
9.5
24.2
6.1
9.0
19.0
13.1
95.7
119.9
178.8
166.7
150.7
295.9
96.6
156.6
280.5
157.8
-0.1
0.4
0.4
0.1
3.7
0.9
-0.1
1.9
3.4
3.2
278
236
236
268
13
193
278
100
24
30
840
917
884
784
634
940
949
861
1,085
1,070
5.5
5.5
5.0
5.8
2.6
6.0
9.7
4.2
6.2
3.1
109
109
147
90
290
78
6
214
69
274
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.6
9.6
16.9
17.9
10.1
5.8
32.5
25.4
22.3
6.9
426.2
92.5
237.2
207.5
131.4
83.4
406.2
491.1
351.3
124.5
2.0
2.8
1.8
2.6
2.2
4.8
1.4
1.1
0.5
-0.8
92
48
109
60
77
2
143
167
226
309
1,125
972
855
944
826
800
1,432
1,093
973
929
7.6
5.2
3.6
5.1
5.5
6.0
6.9
2.7
3.6
3.7
29
130
249
139
109
78
44
288
249
242
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third 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 .............................
17.4
36.3
6.5
14.4
62.4
11.5
26.8
7.8
37.1
7.2
266.3
708.1
115.8
186.2
683.4
110.1
436.7
119.6
569.7
78.4
0.8
2.1
0.3
-0.3
0.9
3.7
0.6
0.2
1.7
1.4
204
83
249
293
193
13
216
261
121
143
$1,060
1,527
761
893
861
787
869
730
885
638
4.8
3.9
-0.8
6.6
4.4
3.8
4.6
5.2
5.1
3.2
164
230
317
52
197
235
184
130
139
267
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.4
8.2
9.2
7.9
86.8
35.6
49.0
9.9
30.4
194.1
137.4
99.7
88.5
970.3
662.0
487.5
97.3
376.0
3.4
-0.5
2.2
-0.2
2.9
2.9
1.9
0.4
-0.2
24
301
77
288
42
42
100
236
288
737
759
721
634
880
811
876
636
805
3.9
-0.1
4.8
4.3
3.3
3.8
4.4
4.3
5.8
230
316
164
204
262
235
197
204
90
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
7.6
4.2
20.7
17.5
40.2
186.0
132.3
153.9
149.1
79.6
129.7
100.3
290.5
273.8
716.6
-0.2
2.3
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.0
-0.1
2.2
1.3
1.3
288
72
272
249
226
177
278
77
151
151
712
745
753
650
735
786
825
935
958
1,206
1.9
3.8
5.6
2.0
5.9
5.8
2.9
2.5
4.8
7.3
308
235
101
306
86
90
280
293
164
36
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
23.6
4.7
4.6
24.4
13.9
4.2
146.8
36.8
13.3
21.8
301.7
93.5
97.4
435.7
198.3
87.8
2,402.7
564.8
194.0
317.3
2.4
1.0
1.4
1.2
2.5
-0.5
2.1
2.7
1.2
0.7
69
177
143
158
65
301
83
54
158
212
919
732
801
871
799
804
1,047
1,054
829
1,143
8.0
3.1
4.7
4.6
3.1
4.6
4.0
4.4
5.6
7.9
24
274
177
184
274
184
224
197
101
26
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
14.9
6.8
9.0
93.6
85.7
95.8
101.7
98.3
130.8
201.5
125.2
175.1
-0.8
0.0
1.0
0.8
-0.4
0.6
1.3
0.4
1.4
309
272
177
204
296
216
151
236
143
785
907
772
877
819
941
814
799
766
6.9
4.5
4.9
4.7
5.8
3.3
5.2
5.4
4.2
44
192
158
177
90
262
130
118
214
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
4.8
8.3
104.8
113.3
3.2
2.9
30
42
737
869
3.2
5.0
267
147
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third 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
23.7
6.0
4.8
6.2
14.5
5.1
21.7
188.0
555.7
117.1
106.9
125.8
268.7
87.7
303.7
2.9
1.9
0.3
1.7
1.1
1.8
2.6
2.5
42
100
249
121
167
109
60
65
$844
943
757
742
884
912
754
935
6.2
6.9
5.3
3.9
6.5
6.4
4.7
4.6
69
44
125
230
56
59
177
184
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
9.4
22.1
7.4
4.8
14.4
13.7
9.0
238.2
95.1
82.8
176.5
417.6
121.0
82.5
255.0
191.6
134.5
0.2
0.9
3.0
( 7)
1.6
0.3
1.0
1.2
-0.6
2.8
261
193
39
–
128
249
177
158
306
48
825
788
871
833
887
772
801
854
874
910
5.6
8.5
5.3
6.5
5.1
3.3
5.5
3.6
5.2
7.1
101
14
125
56
139
262
109
249
130
42
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
10.9
12.5
14.4
20.9
6.0
5.5
9.0
32.6
15.5
173.8
171.5
231.9
359.1
90.6
85.1
153.2
451.2
301.9
3.0
1.9
2.0
0.3
-2.6
3.7
3.1
1.0
0.5
39
100
92
249
316
13
34
177
226
931
813
999
957
895
915
1,128
1,245
1,001
1.4
2.8
6.3
6.0
2.3
3.5
7.3
4.5
5.6
314
284
65
78
302
258
36
192
101
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
13.7
9.4
17.0
22.4
15.9
50.9
25.1
14.7
24.2
22.2
329.9
94.4
212.2
302.2
198.5
814.8
319.1
173.6
590.2
316.2
1.1
-0.8
1.5
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.4
0.4
3.1
1.8
167
309
134
92
100
134
143
236
34
109
1,074
757
823
959
841
1,325
1,058
842
1,419
928
7.2
5.1
5.1
2.8
4.6
2.5
5.4
4.3
5.7
2.3
40
139
139
284
184
293
118
204
98
302
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
16.7
36.8
5.5
4.1
7.9
30.6
129.2
154.8
108.2
323.7
285.9
641.4
108.2
83.4
190.6
678.7
1.7
0.3
0.2
3.0
2.5
3.6
3.5
3.6
1.4
1.8
121
249
261
39
65
17
21
17
143
109
774
860
850
817
926
1,013
750
760
994
1,005
5.0
1.5
6.6
4.7
4.3
4.9
4.2
1.5
3.4
5.1
147
311
52
177
204
158
214
311
259
139
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
7.1
9.7
43.8
3.4
108.7
170.0
835.5
89.1
2.3
1.8
3.5
2.1
72
109
21
83
872
885
1,125
949
4.7
8.1
3.1
3.2
177
22
274
267
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
13.9
5.6
4.3
4.5
6.0
4.5
323.4
94.8
80.0
82.7
122.4
84.4
2.2
1.1
2.3
0.6
0.6
2.4
77
167
72
216
216
69
$1,024
785
750
687
799
733
6.1
9.5
3.7
3.6
4.0
4.3
75
7
242
249
224
204
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
18.3
8.2
31.9
9.0
6.0
16.0
8.2
47.7
90.2
149.4
340.4
124.4
564.3
219.1
77.5
311.7
154.9
804.3
0.9
1.6
-0.4
1.5
0.4
0.6
2.1
0.2
0.8
1.4
193
128
296
134
236
216
83
261
204
143
844
714
925
731
970
1,013
768
865
746
833
-2.3
4.4
6.0
4.4
6.4
7.3
7.7
6.0
5.4
2.8
318
197
78
197
59
36
27
78
118
284
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
13.6
11.9
10.5
6.7
33.2
11.0
12.3
20.6
6.2
13.7
186.5
187.1
135.6
135.7
426.8
191.1
192.3
335.0
96.7
230.4
0.5
0.7
1.0
-0.4
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
-0.5
1.0
226
212
177
296
177
268
272
226
301
177
849
999
889
785
1,083
971
903
1,138
815
1,283
4.8
5.6
8.0
2.6
2.6
2.9
3.2
4.8
3.3
3.7
164
101
24
290
290
280
267
164
262
242
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.1
21.7
20.1
17.3
12.2
12.2
10.0
14.5
17.6
10.0
226.3
377.9
241.5
268.3
149.7
170.0
168.8
218.2
312.3
218.2
0.3
0.9
-1.4
-0.1
0.6
0.6
1.7
0.4
0.2
0.2
249
193
314
278
216
216
121
236
261
261
1,206
1,104
929
1,292
736
916
1,338
1,142
832
968
8.7
4.8
2.4
4.3
3.1
2.5
3.6
5.9
4.3
2.5
12
164
297
204
274
293
249
86
204
293
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
23.8
51.7
18.2
52.7
122.0
5.3
12.8
234.9
89.9
110.9
457.7
507.7
374.6
588.9
2,332.5
106.2
241.9
0.3
-1.6
0.3
1.3
3.3
1.6
1.5
2.7
-0.5
0.5
249
315
249
151
26
128
134
54
301
226
889
738
925
813
764
887
987
1,647
726
845
( 7)
2.8
( 7)
5.4
1.5
3.9
2.1
4.6
1.7
3.9
–
284
–
118
311
230
304
184
309
230
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
9.9
46.2
9.0
10.0
50.7
131.1
509.0
91.7
114.0
617.2
0.4
2.7
1.1
2.0
0.9
236
54
167
92
193
776
866
804
975
1,022
3.6
2.4
1.4
5.0
2.7
249
297
314
147
288
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
36.1
7.9
4.4
6.3
7.3
406.2
111.7
77.8
119.1
179.7
1.7
0.5
1.0
1.6
1.1
121
226
177
128
167
$1,146
714
698
764
1,261
3.4
4.1
4.0
5.2
8.2
259
220
224
130
18
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
9.0
14.2
32.5
7.3
29.4
6.0
7.4
36.0
29.7
23.4
171.5
262.6
553.5
97.0
443.1
104.2
140.2
692.8
663.8
486.2
0.9
1.5
3.3
0.6
2.2
3.9
1.0
1.0
2.8
0.9
193
134
26
216
77
12
177
177
48
193
851
814
1,046
763
894
823
810
928
930
1,010
7.2
4.1
8.1
3.8
3.8
8.4
3.4
5.6
4.5
5.2
40
220
22
235
235
15
259
101
192
130
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
12.3
8.7
14.4
24.3
20.2
12.6
94.9
93.0
200.2
98.4
242.1
152.0
256.0
422.5
329.7
138.7
1.2
-0.1
-0.1
1.4
0.7
1.7
1.3
2.1
1.5
0.9
158
278
278
143
212
121
151
83
134
193
842
773
795
685
814
719
826
903
871
841
17.1
8.3
3.7
8.6
4.0
6.4
6.4
11.5
9.0
5.0
1
16
242
13
224
59
59
3
9
147
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
6.6
10.8
9.3
29.2
16.2
35.1
8.9
19.5
4.9
15.0
77.4
136.4
135.8
433.1
244.2
678.8
163.7
248.0
83.1
235.8
1.1
1.0
-0.6
2.3
2.6
1.0
1.2
-0.2
3.5
0.5
167
177
306
72
60
177
158
288
21
226
686
717
717
937
1,119
978
837
880
846
1,134
5.2
5.6
3.8
5.2
7.4
6.8
5.7
4.9
6.5
6.6
130
101
235
130
32
48
98
158
56
52
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
6.0
7.5
13.5
7.6
5.8
12.5
8.5
7.7
27.0
6.4
122.1
174.3
205.9
125.7
97.0
218.1
175.4
138.7
458.4
100.4
1.5
-0.7
0.4
1.8
-0.2
-0.1
1.9
0.5
0.1
2.2
134
308
236
109
288
278
100
226
268
77
859
913
968
772
713
776
898
731
1,108
810
6.2
8.2
4.8
7.5
4.9
4.3
3.2
4.9
4.7
3.7
69
18
164
30
158
204
267
158
177
242
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
34.2
5.5
9.3
9.1
17.3
11.8
626.2
85.0
131.7
171.1
269.8
211.5
-0.3
4.4
-0.4
0.8
0.3
3.3
293
5
296
204
249
26
1,114
867
768
854
913
805
5.8
7.0
6.7
9.3
6.0
5.5
90
43
50
8
78
109
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
12.1
7.6
5.6
8.9
231.5
110.4
94.2
201.1
3.2
1.0
0.2
-0.1
30
177
261
278
$806
561
700
813
6.1
3.7
4.6
4.1
75
242
184
220
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
34.4
112.7
114.1
425.9
184.6
221.1
97.1
466.9
93.0
107.4
734.7
1.8
1.2
2.5
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
5.4
1.8
2.0
109
158
65
100
100
109
128
1
109
92
784
776
945
815
786
803
948
948
758
823
4.8
2.0
6.4
4.8
5.1
4.6
4.8
4.4
1.7
5.8
164
306
59
164
139
184
164
197
309
90
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
4.9
4.0
6.4
18.6
68.5
11.2
13.8
9.4
5.4
101.9
90.2
86.1
125.7
296.6
1,448.7
179.5
274.9
137.1
95.2
2,054.1
3.7
( 7)
1.1
3.6
2.7
2.9
1.2
4.2
1.9
3.1
13
–
167
17
54
42
158
8
100
34
899
719
591
1,038
1,102
814
671
926
844
1,156
7.4
8.3
5.5
4.2
6.4
6.7
5.5
5.1
7.7
6.3
32
16
109
214
59
50
109
139
27
65
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
11.2
5.9
7.0
4.9
8.8
7.9
5.6
38.0
31.0
222.3
123.6
123.8
101.0
135.1
153.4
92.1
766.3
583.3
2.1
3.6
1.0
0.4
4.8
0.8
0.4
3.1
3.3
83
17
177
236
2
204
236
34
26
602
919
703
756
869
797
788
917
1,010
4.5
5.0
5.9
4.0
6.2
6.8
2.9
3.6
5.4
192
147
86
224
69
48
280
249
118
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
4.8
7.7
7.2
37.0
12.8
5.5
5.9
8.3
7.6
34.4
89.2
129.1
106.6
574.7
172.8
89.2
96.6
167.7
113.0
584.9
4.4
2.6
( 7)
2.8
4.5
0.8
2.6
1.8
0.0
2.0
5
60
–
48
4
204
60
109
272
92
629
933
744
868
715
686
892
1,550
829
1,440
5.5
10.2
6.0
5.6
4.2
2.1
2.4
2.4
3.6
5.0
109
4
78
101
214
304
297
297
249
147
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
9.8
9.7
7.7
6.2
5.6
3.8
5.6
7.1
173.4
137.8
108.2
95.6
95.0
97.3
138.8
150.3
2.7
4.4
3.2
1.3
-0.1
2.8
1.5
2.0
54
5
30
151
278
48
134
92
912
1,114
845
1,268
736
876
904
1,011
3.8
7.4
5.4
2.4
5.3
8.8
6.9
5.5
235
32
118
297
125
11
44
109
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Benton, WA ........................
11.2
5.6
163.0
82.9
-0.3
1.1
293
167
$725
991
4.8
2.9
164
280
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
13.5
83.3
6.8
21.7
19.2
15.9
7.5
7.0
8.8
6.0
129.1
1,150.7
81.2
263.5
250.7
199.4
96.4
80.7
110.8
105.7
1.5
2.8
0.6
0.0
4.0
0.7
0.1
2.3
-0.4
1.0
134
48
216
272
11
212
268
72
296
177
836
1,323
894
841
987
782
849
756
619
804
4.1
7.3
9.0
3.2
5.3
6.3
4.7
4.0
3.3
3.7
220
36
9
267
125
65
177
224
262
242
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.6
14.1
22.6
5.0
12.7
3.7
11.9
145.6
301.3
473.0
101.6
225.4
90.5
257.7
0.6
2.1
0.9
0.9
1.8
1.2
0.4
216
83
193
193
109
158
( 8)
823
880
917
770
901
825
604
6.6
5.0
7.4
4.5
4.8
4.3
0.2
52
147
32
192
164
204
( 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,
third quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 4
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
9,135.8
8,838.2
128.4
768.5
338.3
1,880.5
143.4
809.1
1,569.8
913.3
760.4
1,330.5
297.6
130,524.7
109,309.0
2,023.6
5,725.3
11,806.5
24,834.9
2,674.8
7,435.0
17,513.3
19,080.1
13,605.1
4,410.3
21,215.7
1.6
2.1
5.0
0.5
1.9
1.8
-1.0
0.7
3.7
2.2
2.2
1.4
-1.0
$916
907
988
991
1,127
779
1,522
1,323
1,149
882
389
587
965
5.3
5.3
11.6
4.8
4.9
5.0
7.3
7.1
5.1
4.8
5.1
4.4
5.2
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
440.1
434.4
0.4
12.3
12.8
50.6
8.3
21.9
41.2
29.1
26.9
209.2
5.7
3,872.5
3,347.1
9.5
107.5
366.4
743.1
190.0
208.9
546.6
516.0
402.5
239.5
525.4
0.8
1.2
-6.2
3.5
-1.6
1.6
-4.0
-0.3
2.8
2.3
2.8
-3.3
-1.5
1,026
1,000
2,296
1,049
1,108
828
1,720
1,549
1,227
984
577
474
1,191
5.2
5.3
22.0
4.0
3.1
6.2
3.6
7.0
6.6
5.4
5.9
1.7
5.7
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 ...................................................
146.8
145.4
0.1
12.4
6.6
28.6
2.6
15.5
30.9
15.3
12.9
16.1
1.4
2,402.7
2,104.8
1.0
67.7
194.4
438.6
51.9
185.6
423.9
403.4
240.7
95.0
297.9
2.1
2.4
2.6
1.5
0.0
2.0
0.0
-1.0
4.8
2.7
3.6
2.6
-0.4
1,047
1,038
1,001
1,291
1,093
831
1,549
1,741
1,298
926
482
779
1,114
4.0
3.8
-2.5
5.1
2.5
5.9
6.7
5.2
3.4
2.7
4.1
2.2
5.1
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 ...................................................
122.0
121.7
0.0
2.2
2.4
21.0
4.3
19.1
25.5
9.3
12.8
18.9
0.3
2,332.5
1,897.5
0.1
31.2
26.0
242.6
138.0
356.4
471.8
296.5
238.2
89.7
435.0
2.7
3.5
8.5
1.9
-0.7
3.5
4.0
2.1
3.9
2.3
5.1
3.2
-0.9
1,647
1,766
1,530
1,644
1,214
1,183
2,108
3,096
1,982
1,208
770
1,008
1,125
4.6
4.5
-17.5
1.0
-0.9
4.3
3.9
6.5
4.3
5.1
2.1
-1.9
2.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 4
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
101.9
101.4
1.6
6.5
4.5
22.9
1.3
10.5
20.2
11.5
8.3
13.6
0.6
2,054.1
1,800.8
83.2
134.8
179.3
428.5
28.1
113.1
341.2
244.8
185.0
62.0
253.4
3.1
3.9
10.6
-0.3
6.5
3.1
0.0
1.7
6.1
2.4
4.3
3.3
-2.3
$1,156
1,173
3,015
1,134
1,427
1,028
1,343
1,412
1,361
952
415
661
1,037
6.3
6.9
12.0
7.8
5.5
6.1
3.4
9.2
3.7
5.8
4.0
7.1
2.1
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 ...................................................
95.6
94.9
0.5
8.5
3.2
22.1
1.6
11.1
22.7
10.6
7.3
6.7
0.7
1,641.4
1,428.6
6.7
83.3
109.1
335.3
27.0
137.0
267.5
242.8
172.1
47.0
212.9
2.9
3.5
7.1
3.2
1.3
3.4
2.1
4.8
3.1
3.7
4.1
3.7
-0.8
901
895
880
941
1,332
846
1,172
1,090
937
942
435
609
947
4.8
5.0
10.3
5.5
6.6
6.3
5.7
5.9
4.3
2.2
6.4
6.3
3.4
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 ...................................................
68.5
68.0
0.6
3.9
2.8
14.9
1.6
8.5
15.1
7.3
5.7
7.2
0.5
1,448.7
1,284.3
8.6
68.7
115.1
288.2
45.3
140.2
275.5
169.5
131.9
40.5
164.5
2.7
3.4
-0.4
0.8
1.1
3.2
-0.4
2.7
5.2
3.6
4.6
6.2
-2.6
1,102
1,107
3,396
1,031
1,251
1,025
1,661
1,429
1,230
1,013
510
680
1,062
6.4
6.3
12.5
9.1
5.2
6.8
10.3
7.5
4.3
5.0
10.6
6.1
5.8
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
104.4
103.0
0.2
6.1
4.9
15.9
1.2
9.5
18.4
10.4
7.1
22.0
1.4
1,372.4
1,240.2
3.4
71.2
154.0
244.4
23.2
105.3
247.3
158.7
178.0
48.6
132.2
1.7
2.0
-4.7
3.2
2.0
0.1
-2.2
1.3
1.7
2.9
3.5
0.0
-1.0
1,036
1,022
727
1,131
1,308
970
1,554
1,525
1,146
968
440
564
1,173
6.0
5.6
10.8
4.2
7.9
4.8
6.2
11.0
4.5
3.1
2.3
5.2
11.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11 4
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third 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
99.3
0.7
6.0
2.9
13.4
1.2
8.4
16.0
8.5
7.0
28.8
1.4
1,252.4
1,035.5
10.0
55.8
93.4
200.4
24.2
67.5
212.6
148.3
159.7
58.3
216.8
1.2
1.5
-9.4
0.8
0.5
1.6
-2.4
1.6
0.3
3.1
1.4
( 6)
-0.4
$1,014
973
615
1,090
1,391
784
1,617
1,173
1,311
988
451
580
1,220
7.5
6.1
7.9
4.5
5.6
5.4
2.2
4.5
7.4
8.7
6.4
7.0
13.9
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 ...................................................
83.3
82.8
0.4
5.8
2.3
14.9
1.8
6.3
14.3
7.3
6.5
23.2
0.6
1,150.7
997.8
2.9
48.9
101.6
210.6
80.8
64.8
184.9
135.6
114.6
53.2
152.9
2.8
3.4
8.3
-0.5
4.5
3.7
2.3
-1.4
4.8
4.0
4.9
2.5
-0.9
1,323
1,346
1,286
1,181
1,504
1,018
4,177
1,376
1,435
993
484
603
1,171
7.3
7.9
8.9
3.9
3.3
5.2
15.1
5.1
7.9
6.9
6.1
4.3
2.9
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 ...................................................
86.8
86.5
0.5
5.0
2.6
24.9
1.4
9.0
18.1
9.7
6.6
7.8
0.4
970.3
829.2
7.3
30.1
35.9
248.0
17.1
62.2
126.5
154.6
110.7
36.0
141.1
2.9
3.7
5.0
-4.5
1.2
4.7
-1.0
3.8
4.6
2.5
4.9
4.5
-1.4
880
858
534
882
877
796
1,387
1,292
1,036
900
515
568
1,009
3.3
4.9
9.9
5.0
10.0
5.4
6.9
5.9
3.9
4.7
3.8
2.7
-3.4
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,
third quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third quarter
2010-11
United States 4 ...................
9,135.8
130,524.7
1.6
$916
5.3
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.6
21.7
146.0
86.2
1,394.4
171.8
110.7
28.2
36.3
597.4
1,823.2
341.5
2,391.6
1,151.0
14,686.3
2,234.4
1,626.5
406.1
708.1
7,167.5
0.5
2.1
2.1
0.4
1.5
2.3
0.9
0.2
2.1
1.7
803
963
860
715
1,051
948
1,118
949
1,527
812
3.7
4.0
4.9
4.5
6.8
5.6
4.7
5.4
3.9
4.2
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
267.3
38.3
54.1
386.7
159.5
93.3
88.5
108.3
125.2
49.4
3,799.6
593.6
623.8
5,629.1
2,797.5
1,466.9
1,311.7
1,757.4
1,852.3
595.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.6
2.1
1.6
1.1
1.7
0.9
0.9
867
836
697
958
785
760
772
764
821
734
5.3
4.0
4.7
4.6
5.8
5.6
5.6
4.8
3.9
2.9
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
163.0
231.3
243.1
167.9
69.2
175.1
42.2
60.8
72.0
48.5
2,497.6
3,227.8
3,920.5
2,642.8
1,081.3
2,610.3
433.9
905.0
1,122.0
613.2
1.1
1.8
2.4
2.5
0.1
0.6
1.3
0.5
1.3
0.7
1,023
1,114
876
916
681
804
687
747
845
903
5.9
4.1
4.4
4.8
4.4
5.2
6.2
5.7
3.8
5.6
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
263.5
55.1
599.6
255.9
27.6
288.7
102.7
131.8
345.7
35.0
3,774.1
788.7
8,511.6
3,863.6
390.8
5,015.3
1,518.5
1,645.0
5,550.9
456.8
0.6
0.4
1.7
1.3
6.7
1.4
1.8
1.4
0.9
0.3
1,069
779
1,099
809
820
834
785
835
912
871
4.3
4.7
4.0
5.3
12.9
5.6
8.3
5.7
6.2
5.3
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
111.9
31.2
139.1
583.2
84.2
24.2
234.2
235.4
48.8
159.7
1,789.9
398.9
2,631.4
10,480.4
1,192.9
297.0
3,602.5
2,905.4
710.8
2,697.9
1.4
1.3
2.1
2.7
2.9
0.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.4
746
684
819
931
779
778
974
1,011
742
792
4.8
3.6
5.3
6.2
5.1
3.3
4.7
6.1
5.8
5.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2011
(thousands)
September
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2010-11
Third
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
third quarter
2010-11
Wyoming ............................
25.3
284.0
1.6
$832
5.1
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
50.8
3.6
910.3
42.7
-0.2
-1.5
506
718
1.2
-5.2
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
September 2010-11 (U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
March 2012
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, third quarter 2010-11 (U.S. average = 5.3 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
March 2012