For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, June 28, 2012
USDL-12-1290
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Fourth Quarter 2011
From December 2010 to December 2011, employment increased in 266 of the 322 largest U.S.
counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Kern, Calif., posted the largest increase,
with a gain of 5.3 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.4 percent. Within Kern,
the largest employment increase occurred in natural resources and mining, which gained 8,896 jobs over
the year (16.7 percent). Benton, Wash., experienced the largest over-the-year decrease in employment
among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 3.4 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage decreased over the year by 1.7 percent to $955 in the fourth quarter of
2011. This is one of only five declines in the history of the series which dates back to 1978. (See
Technical Note.) This is the only quarter in which the average weekly wage decline occurred while
employment grew over the year and total wages decreased (-0.5 percent). Smaller bonus payments in the
fourth quarter of 2011 contributed to the decrease in the average weekly wage. In contrast, the average
weekly wage declines posted in the first two quarters of 2009 resulted from significant declines in both
employment and wages. During this period, total wage declines were 5.0 percent or more, while
employment losses were above 3.0 percent. In the fourth quarter of 2011, Olmsted, Minn., had the
largest over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 21.3 percent. Within Olmsted, a
total wage decline of $287.3 million (-29.1 percent) in the education and health services industry had the
largest impact on the county’s decrease in average weekly wages.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, December 2010-11
(U.S. average = 1.4 percent)
6
5
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decrease in
average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2010-11
(U.S. average = -1.7 percent)
0
-5
5.3
4
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
-8.6
-6.7
-6.5
-6.2
Williamson,
Tenn.
Durham,
N.C.
St. Clair,
Ill.
-10
3
-15
2
-20
1
0
-25
Kern,
Calif.
Fort Bend,
Texas
Weld,
Colo.
Williamson,
Tenn.
Utah,
Utah
-21.3
Olmsted,
Minn.
Douglas,
Colo.
Table A. Large counties ranked by December 2011 employment, December 2010-11 employment
increase, and December 2010-11 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
December 2011 employment
(thousands)
United States
131,254.2
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.
3,953.7
2,413.1
2,387.3
2,081.7
1,683.7
1,460.4
1,390.2
1,264.2
1,156.6
996.2
Increase in employment,
December 2010-11
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
December 2010-11
1,782.4
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Cook, Ill.
Los Angeles, Calif.
King, Wash.
Hennepin, Minn.
Oakland, Mich.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
62.7
51.9
41.6
32.2
31.1
27.5
26.9
23.4
22.2
21.1
United States
1.4
Kern, Calif.
Fort Bend, Texas
Weld, Colo.
Williamson, Tenn.
Utah, Utah
Washington, Pa.
Rutherford, Tenn.
Montgomery, Texas
Harford, Md.
Webb, Texas
5.3
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
Tulsa, Okla., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 8.6 percent over
the year. County employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment
and Wages (QCEW) program.
Large County Employment
In December 2011, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 131.3 million, up
by 1.4 percent or 1.8 million jobs, from December 2010. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more
jobs accounted for 70.7 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.4 percent of total wages. These 322
counties had a net job growth of 1.2 million over the year, accounting for 68.8 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Kern, Calif., had the largest percentage increase in employment among the largest U.S. counties (5.3
percent). The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; New
York, N.Y.; Maricopa, Ariz.; Dallas, Texas; and Cook, Ill. These counties had a combined over-the-year
gain of 219,500, or 12.3 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S.
Employment declined in 46 of the large counties from December 2010 to December 2011. Benton,
Wash., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-3.4 percent). Within Benton,
professional and business services was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss
of 2,280 jobs (-9.5 percent). St. Clair, Ill., had the second largest employment decrease, followed by
Jackson, Ore.; Frederick, Md.; and Monmouth, N.J. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2011 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2010-11
decrease in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2010-11 percent decrease in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2011
United States
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
San Mateo, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Alexandria City, Va.
Decrease in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2010-11
$955
$1,889
1,836
1,668
1,599
1,597
1,591
1,589
1,556
1,519
1,434
United States
-$17
Olmsted, Minn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Douglas, Colo.
Durham, N.C.
Arlington, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
Williamson, Tenn.
Somerset, N.J.
Loudoun, Va.
Denver, Colo.
-$279
-111
-100
-84
-84
-77
-75
-74
-60
-59
Percent decrease in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2010-11
United States
Olmsted, Minn.
Douglas, Colo.
Williamson, Tenn.
Durham, N.C.
St. Clair, Ill.
Kitsap, Wash.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Vanderburgh, Ind.
Williamson, Texas
Somerset, N.J.
Arlington, Va.
Loudoun, Va.
-1.7
-21.3
-8.6
-6.7
-6.5
-6.2
-6.0
-5.7
-5.6
-5.3
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation decreased by 1.7 percent during the year ending in the fourth
quarter of 2011. Among the 322 largest counties, 282 had over-the-year declines in average weekly
wages. (See chart 4.) Olmsted, Minn., had the largest wage loss among the largest U.S. counties (-21.3
percent). This decline reflects a return to normal pay in 2011 following a big payout in education and
health services in the fourth quarter of 2010.
Of the 322 largest counties, 36 experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Tulsa,
Okla., had the largest average weekly wage increase with a gain of 8.6 percent. An acquisition within
professional and business services resulted in large payouts in the fourth quarter of 2011, which
significantly boosted the county’s average weekly wage. Total wages in this industry in Tulsa increased
by $219.4 million (33.3 percent) over the year. Harford, Md., had the second largest increase in average
weekly wages, followed by Lake, Ohio; Snohomish, Wash.; and Westmoreland, Pa. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percentage increases in employment in
December 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 16,195 jobs (5.0 percent). Orange, Calif., had the smallest percent increase in
employment among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.)
Eight of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages. San
Diego, Calif., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 3.6 percent,
-3-
largely due to significant total wage declines over the year in financial activities (-$226.6 million or
-17.3 percent). King, Wash., had the largest average weekly wage increase.
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. December 2011 employment and
2011 fourth quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 131.3 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the fourth quarter of 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 first quarter 2012 is scheduled to be released on
Thursday, September 27, 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,
fourth quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,178.6
131,254.2
1.4
–
$955
-1.7
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.7
8.9
9.8
6.3
4.2
8.3
96.1
19.0
5.5
15.1
334.7
179.1
165.6
128.5
84.5
152.1
1,683.7
348.9
95.8
246.5
0.9
-0.5
-0.9
-0.7
1.0
1.6
2.5
0.1
2.0
0.3
172
291
306
303
156
97
42
256
78
238
964
1,077
876
877
828
1,015
929
828
869
869
-0.8
-0.6
1.9
0.5
-0.4
-1.2
-1.0
-1.9
2.7
-0.5
80
67
9
28
55
109
95
167
6
58
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.6
57.5
30.6
31.5
18.3
447.9
12.0
13.2
106.1
11.1
92.3
641.2
319.5
329.2
285.2
3,953.7
105.1
147.5
1,390.2
128.0
1.9
1.6
0.7
0.6
5.3
0.7
2.3
2.1
0.6
2.1
83
97
191
205
1
191
52
70
205
70
828
1,212
1,139
751
826
1,124
1,181
799
1,080
935
( 7)
-3.8
-2.9
-1.8
-0.8
-3.2
-1.1
-2.9
-3.1
-2.7
–
280
240
157
80
258
105
240
254
232
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 .................
51.3
55.1
52.6
102.3
56.7
17.9
9.9
24.9
14.8
64.3
565.1
575.4
609.6
1,264.2
572.3
200.0
100.0
333.9
173.6
883.0
0.6
-0.2
0.2
1.0
3.3
0.9
1.1
2.5
2.5
2.3
205
283
248
156
20
172
144
42
42
52
759
1,042
811
1,041
1,597
799
798
1,556
894
1,836
-1.6
-1.4
-1.6
-3.6
0.8
-3.0
-2.0
0.1
-2.6
-5.7
137
121
137
275
24
247
176
36
224
313
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.3
10.3
19.4
15.4
9.6
24.5
6.2
8.8
18.7
12.9
86.1
120.7
177.9
158.2
140.4
301.5
87.7
156.3
282.8
158.8
-0.9
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
1.2
3.3
2.6
306
222
205
191
172
205
179
130
20
38
860
925
895
775
669
954
922
860
1,108
1,114
-0.2
-3.6
-3.0
-2.1
-0.6
-3.1
-4.9
-2.4
-1.4
-0.6
45
275
247
185
67
254
307
212
121
67
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.4
9.4
16.7
17.7
10.0
5.8
32.5
25.4
22.3
6.9
429.3
93.5
236.5
208.0
130.2
83.2
412.7
495.5
356.3
123.5
2.2
2.9
1.0
2.0
2.5
4.3
1.5
0.7
1.0
-1.1
63
30
156
78
42
3
109
191
156
311
1,162
1,065
870
976
857
808
1,589
1,145
1,006
953
-4.8
-8.6
-2.1
-3.9
-0.1
-1.5
-4.6
-2.5
-3.2
-0.4
305
318
185
283
38
126
300
220
258
55
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .............................
17.1
36.4
6.5
14.4
63.1
11.7
26.9
7.8
37.5
7.2
270.4
708.0
116.1
189.6
701.2
122.9
444.1
120.2
587.1
80.0
0.8
1.3
0.2
0.3
0.8
2.1
0.5
0.0
1.3
0.6
179
119
248
238
179
70
222
267
119
205
$1,102
1,668
825
863
891
809
900
765
920
649
-1.6
-1.2
-1.2
-4.7
-3.4
-4.3
-4.1
-0.9
-2.3
-1.5
137
109
109
303
267
294
289
88
202
126
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.5
8.2
9.2
7.9
87.8
35.9
49.4
9.9
30.6
201.1
138.9
107.3
89.9
996.2
672.5
511.7
100.0
382.4
1.1
-0.6
3.3
-0.6
2.2
2.0
2.4
-0.1
0.6
144
298
20
298
63
78
48
275
205
761
807
736
672
939
828
931
666
884
-2.1
-2.7
-0.8
-1.0
-2.5
-4.1
-4.8
-2.8
-1.6
185
232
80
95
220
289
305
238
137
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.4
14.4
13.8
13.2
4.6
7.7
4.3
21.1
17.8
41.2
192.7
137.5
157.2
149.9
80.6
131.2
102.0
297.0
278.6
735.5
-1.5
2.1
1.1
-0.1
1.3
1.1
0.0
1.9
1.2
1.8
314
70
144
275
119
144
267
83
130
89
718
800
781
673
742
806
823
975
979
1,238
-0.8
-1.8
-2.1
-2.3
-2.2
-1.9
-0.5
-3.1
-1.0
-3.9
80
157
185
202
195
167
58
254
95
283
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
24.0
4.7
4.7
24.6
13.9
4.2
147.3
37.0
13.3
21.9
305.4
94.1
98.9
446.3
197.7
87.4
2,413.1
570.9
192.5
313.6
1.6
1.1
0.2
1.2
2.4
-0.5
1.3
2.2
0.2
0.1
97
144
248
130
48
291
119
63
248
256
922
761
804
882
833
786
1,122
1,112
863
1,208
-2.6
-2.6
-2.1
-1.5
-4.0
-0.6
-2.9
-1.1
-0.9
-4.5
224
224
185
126
286
67
240
105
88
298
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
5.6
5.3
14.9
6.8
9.0
92.4
86.2
94.9
102.6
96.6
130.5
201.4
125.8
174.6
-0.6
0.3
-0.7
0.4
-2.9
0.8
1.1
0.1
1.0
298
238
303
231
319
179
144
256
156
820
937
791
926
796
956
827
815
775
0.6
1.5
-1.5
0.3
-6.2
-0.1
-4.4
-1.5
-0.9
26
11
126
32
315
38
296
126
88
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
4.9
8.4
104.6
112.9
3.8
3.4
11
19
717
877
-2.4
-4.2
212
292
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ......................
10.4
23.9
6.0
4.9
6.2
14.7
5.2
22.0
188.4
558.9
117.7
107.0
126.8
270.2
87.8
308.0
2.1
1.7
1.5
2.0
0.6
1.8
1.6
2.4
70
94
109
78
205
89
97
48
$868
948
763
786
942
940
799
985
0.7
-1.9
-4.5
-5.6
1.5
-3.2
-0.2
-1.0
25
167
298
312
11
258
45
95
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
12.7
5.0
3.4
9.3
22.0
7.4
4.8
14.4
13.6
8.9
240.9
94.9
81.6
179.5
420.1
122.3
82.0
257.9
193.9
136.2
0.2
-0.3
1.0
( 7)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
1.1
-0.9
2.7
248
286
156
–
222
267
291
144
306
33
877
789
875
836
915
812
817
888
896
951
-2.6
-1.6
-2.1
-1.9
-1.0
-0.5
0.6
-3.0
-1.9
-0.2
224
137
185
167
95
58
26
247
167
45
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
10.9
12.6
14.3
20.8
6.1
5.5
8.9
32.4
15.3
177.1
171.1
235.4
366.8
91.5
86.0
153.4
456.5
303.4
2.6
0.7
2.8
0.5
-2.0
3.9
2.2
1.0
-0.4
38
191
32
222
317
9
63
156
288
987
865
1,025
988
943
996
1,159
1,324
1,009
-4.6
-1.1
-2.3
-3.4
-2.5
5.8
-2.4
-0.5
-2.6
300
105
202
267
220
2
212
58
224
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
13.7
9.3
16.5
22.2
15.5
50.6
24.2
14.4
23.9
22.0
332.1
83.2
212.3
302.5
197.2
824.0
323.8
173.9
593.5
319.5
0.8
0.1
0.3
1.4
0.5
1.0
1.2
0.6
2.2
1.3
179
256
238
115
222
156
130
205
63
119
1,114
828
856
1,024
864
1,376
1,159
903
1,599
965
-3.6
-1.3
-0.5
-1.8
-2.0
-3.0
-2.1
-1.2
-2.9
-0.2
275
119
58
157
176
247
185
109
240
45
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
7.1
6.2
5.2
13.6
16.6
36.6
5.4
4.0
7.8
30.4
130.3
155.2
108.3
327.8
287.4
650.0
105.0
83.4
194.9
684.9
0.9
0.1
0.4
3.6
2.0
3.5
3.6
2.3
0.5
2.3
172
256
231
14
78
17
14
52
222
52
829
899
862
854
999
1,104
833
786
993
1,075
-0.1
-3.2
-2.0
-1.7
1.1
-1.6
-0.6
-1.5
-1.6
1.2
38
258
176
151
19
137
67
126
137
16
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
7.2
9.7
43.6
3.4
109.4
171.5
842.8
89.0
3.1
1.2
2.9
2.1
24
130
30
70
867
900
1,157
1,032
-3.1
-4.7
-4.6
-21.3
254
303
300
319
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth 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
6.1
4.5
321.3
93.3
80.6
82.5
122.8
85.4
1.8
-0.1
2.3
0.0
0.1
3.5
89
275
52
267
256
17
$1,027
772
756
685
828
732
-3.9
-1.2
-0.5
-3.5
-2.2
-1.2
283
109
58
274
195
109
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
18.4
8.2
32.0
9.1
6.0
16.1
8.3
47.8
89.4
151.8
344.0
125.4
569.5
218.9
77.5
315.7
156.2
807.9
0.0
2.5
0.5
2.3
0.4
1.3
2.7
0.1
1.2
1.2
267
42
222
52
231
119
33
256
130
130
884
709
961
746
1,017
1,029
803
858
763
841
-0.1
-2.6
-2.0
-1.2
-2.9
-1.5
-0.1
-2.6
-0.9
-3.4
38
224
176
109
240
126
38
224
88
267
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
13.7
11.9
10.6
6.7
33.4
11.1
12.3
20.8
6.2
13.9
186.3
190.7
135.3
131.8
435.4
193.0
197.3
343.9
97.9
233.6
-0.3
0.7
0.9
0.2
0.7
-0.5
0.6
0.3
-0.9
0.1
286
191
172
248
191
291
205
238
306
256
860
1,093
923
827
1,198
1,020
987
1,178
853
1,268
-1.8
-0.1
-2.3
-0.2
-2.4
-2.1
-4.0
-4.2
-1.3
-1.1
157
38
202
45
212
185
286
292
119
105
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
12.3
10.1
14.5
17.8
10.0
229.2
384.7
242.1
271.6
145.6
175.4
171.3
221.6
310.2
220.1
0.7
0.7
-1.6
-0.2
1.1
1.4
0.7
0.8
-0.8
-0.1
191
191
316
283
144
115
191
179
305
275
1,260
1,146
1,005
1,400
797
1,024
1,393
1,222
829
957
-2.2
-2.3
-3.0
-1.5
-3.7
2.4
-5.0
1.0
-2.7
-2.2
195
202
247
126
278
7
308
21
232
195
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
16.9
4.5
8.2
23.7
52.0
18.2
52.7
122.0
5.2
12.9
235.6
90.9
113.2
459.4
518.8
379.7
603.4
2,387.3
106.9
243.1
-0.1
-0.5
0.6
0.4
2.3
1.7
1.3
2.2
-1.5
0.0
275
291
205
231
52
94
119
63
314
267
908
749
956
828
806
887
1,110
1,889
749
879
( 7)
-1.6
-1.4
-1.0
-3.4
-0.6
-0.9
-2.3
-1.7
-1.6
–
137
121
95
267
67
88
202
151
137
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
9.9
46.4
9.0
9.9
50.6
133.3
512.3
93.7
116.7
621.7
0.6
2.3
1.2
1.3
0.7
205
52
130
119
191
806
916
814
991
1,056
-1.6
-2.4
-3.3
-4.3
-0.8
137
212
263
294
80
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
36.0
8.0
4.4
6.3
7.3
410.2
113.0
79.2
120.2
182.4
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.6
179
179
156
179
97
$1,278
734
730
771
1,205
-4.1
-1.5
-0.3
0.5
-6.5
289
126
54
28
316
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
32.8
7.4
29.6
6.1
7.4
36.1
29.8
23.4
174.4
265.3
565.5
96.6
447.9
105.0
141.4
695.8
669.6
490.7
1.2
1.1
3.1
1.1
2.1
3.7
0.6
0.9
2.3
1.2
130
144
24
144
70
12
205
172
52
130
853
819
1,047
790
945
830
821
971
932
1,032
-3.4
-2.4
-3.3
-1.9
-1.6
0.4
-1.8
-1.9
-0.6
-1.4
267
212
263
167
137
30
157
167
67
121
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
6.5
6.1
10.3
6.1
12.2
8.8
14.4
24.7
20.3
12.7
94.8
95.0
203.6
98.1
244.3
153.9
257.3
426.4
333.4
140.1
1.3
2.1
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.3
1.6
1.0
1.3
119
70
130
191
179
109
238
97
156
119
842
797
837
693
841
730
858
902
963
862
4.9
1.1
-1.2
-1.8
-2.0
-1.6
-1.7
-0.2
8.6
-0.6
3
19
109
157
176
137
151
45
1
67
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
6.6
10.8
9.4
29.4
16.3
35.5
9.0
19.9
4.9
15.2
75.8
136.8
128.8
437.7
248.0
685.4
164.8
252.3
82.6
238.6
-2.6
0.8
-0.6
1.8
2.7
1.2
0.6
0.5
1.9
0.1
318
179
298
89
33
130
205
222
83
256
689
738
734
969
1,085
1,011
851
929
856
1,284
-1.7
-0.9
-1.2
-1.0
1.4
-1.9
-2.0
-2.3
-0.1
1.3
151
88
109
95
14
167
176
202
38
15
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
6.1
7.5
13.7
7.8
5.9
12.7
8.6
7.8
27.3
6.5
124.4
174.8
210.3
125.4
97.8
219.5
177.9
140.7
467.3
100.7
0.9
-0.4
0.1
1.2
-1.2
-0.1
1.1
0.7
0.1
1.0
172
288
256
130
312
275
144
191
256
156
843
917
1,003
761
718
787
938
723
1,173
833
-4.0
-3.8
-0.9
0.9
-3.0
-2.7
-2.4
-3.0
-2.2
-2.0
286
280
88
22
247
232
212
247
195
176
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
34.8
5.7
9.5
9.2
17.3
11.8
632.6
85.5
131.8
171.3
270.0
213.3
-0.6
4.0
-0.1
0.3
-0.1
2.7
298
6
275
238
275
33
1,133
900
803
808
964
829
-2.2
2.0
2.9
-3.3
-1.6
-1.2
195
8
5
263
137
109
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
12.2
7.6
5.5
8.9
235.1
101.9
97.9
204.1
3.0
0.2
2.7
0.4
28
248
33
231
$814
569
712
827
-3.8
-2.7
-1.4
-0.7
280
232
121
77
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
5.8
6.6
18.1
8.4
10.7
4.4
18.9
6.1
4.8
34.7
114.0
115.3
429.9
185.2
222.1
100.3
475.9
95.1
108.1
741.7
1.0
1.5
2.3
1.1
1.9
4.0
1.8
4.3
1.5
1.6
156
109
52
144
83
6
89
3
109
97
817
814
1,022
861
842
841
968
1,050
773
863
-0.2
0.9
-2.9
-0.2
-0.7
-2.2
-3.7
-6.7
1.2
-0.2
45
22
240
45
77
195
278
317
16
45
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
4.9
4.0
6.4
18.9
69.1
11.3
14.0
9.6
5.4
102.9
89.6
87.2
126.8
302.4
1,460.4
184.1
277.0
140.7
96.1
2,081.7
1.6
-1.4
0.0
2.6
2.3
3.7
0.3
4.5
1.3
3.1
97
313
267
38
52
12
238
2
119
24
909
707
597
1,085
1,148
831
674
954
869
1,239
1.5
-1.0
-1.8
0.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.3
-2.7
-0.5
0.2
11
95
157
37
176
95
202
232
58
34
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
11.3
5.9
7.1
4.9
9.0
7.9
5.6
38.3
31.4
229.0
124.0
125.6
100.7
137.9
154.2
94.1
775.2
591.6
1.4
1.6
-0.2
0.4
4.0
1.2
0.6
2.2
3.1
115
97
283
231
6
130
205
63
24
601
966
717
773
910
841
817
933
1,080
-1.6
1.2
-3.4
-2.4
-1.8
1.6
-1.7
-4.4
0.2
137
16
267
212
157
10
151
296
34
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
4.9
7.8
7.3
37.7
13.0
5.5
6.0
8.4
7.7
34.9
91.5
130.5
106.4
582.3
174.1
89.8
98.4
168.4
116.6
592.7
3.9
1.9
( 7)
2.6
4.3
1.4
3.0
0.3
1.6
1.7
9
83
–
38
3
115
28
238
97
94
651
914
771
896
760
703
943
1,591
852
1,519
-0.5
-5.3
( 7)
-2.9
-0.8
-2.1
-1.8
-5.0
-2.5
-1.5
58
311
–
240
80
185
157
308
220
126
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
10.0
9.9
7.9
6.3
5.7
3.8
5.6
7.3
175.5
139.8
110.9
96.0
96.4
98.1
139.6
150.3
1.0
2.5
3.2
0.6
0.2
1.9
0.8
1.6
156
42
23
205
248
83
179
97
939
1,136
848
1,434
751
876
933
1,027
-2.0
-5.0
-2.8
0.4
-0.7
-1.7
-2.6
-3.3
176
308
238
30
77
151
224
263
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2010-11 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Benton, WA ........................
11.4
5.6
162.6
77.5
0.5
-3.4
222
320
$763
991
-0.8
-3.2
80
258
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
13.3
82.0
6.6
21.4
18.9
15.7
7.3
6.9
8.8
6.0
129.0
1,156.6
81.0
261.8
252.1
198.1
96.3
79.3
93.9
106.6
1.0
2.4
-0.5
0.0
3.6
0.4
-0.9
1.0
1.5
1.6
156
48
291
267
14
231
306
156
109
97
844
1,220
836
842
1,001
783
831
773
648
834
-2.3
0.3
-6.0
-1.8
3.0
-0.6
-2.1
-0.5
-0.8
-1.0
202
32
314
157
4
67
185
58
80
95
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.5
14.0
22.5
5.0
12.6
3.7
11.3
146.4
304.5
472.9
102.1
224.7
89.6
272.5
0.3
1.0
-0.4
0.6
0.7
-0.5
0.7
238
156
288
205
191
291
( 8)
851
907
942
797
940
885
655
-1.5
-2.3
-3.4
-0.4
-0.6
-1.9
-1.8
126
202
267
55
67
167
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 322 large U.S. counties comprise 70.7 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 4
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
9,178.6
8,881.5
129.2
762.3
337.4
1,880.8
144.0
811.1
1,580.3
916.6
762.3
1,342.4
297.1
131,254.2
109,730.2
1,848.4
5,466.3
11,789.5
25,771.9
2,684.6
7,470.7
17,615.4
19,305.0
13,143.3
4,414.6
21,523.9
1.4
1.9
7.0
1.3
1.9
1.7
-1.1
0.5
3.0
1.9
2.2
1.1
-1.4
$955
957
1,082
1,050
1,169
796
1,500
1,462
1,266
904
404
600
944
-1.7
-1.6
1.9
-0.9
-3.1
-1.2
-0.9
-1.7
-1.8
-2.2
-1.2
-0.7
-2.0
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
447.9
442.3
0.4
12.3
12.7
50.7
8.4
22.0
42.0
29.3
27.2
212.4
5.6
3,953.7
3,398.7
9.5
106.5
363.9
774.0
193.0
211.6
556.7
520.9
401.2
239.1
555.0
0.7
1.2
3.4
3.5
-1.6
1.5
-4.0
0.0
2.1
2.0
2.4
-1.7
-2.0
1,124
1,117
1,413
1,113
1,140
867
2,077
1,536
1,401
1,053
911
458
1,166
-3.2
-3.5
-21.6
-2.8
-4.6
-1.5
-6.5
-3.3
-5.7
-1.0
-2.8
-3.6
-1.2
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 ...................................................
147.3
145.9
0.1
12.3
6.6
28.6
2.6
15.6
31.1
15.5
13.0
16.2
1.4
2,413.1
2,115.1
0.8
61.6
194.3
456.8
51.6
185.1
425.6
408.0
232.9
95.4
298.0
1.3
1.6
-2.0
1.2
-0.4
1.3
-0.6
-1.6
3.2
1.8
3.1
1.8
-0.7
1,122
1,124
1,111
1,402
1,201
858
1,571
2,013
1,483
961
459
804
1,109
-2.9
-3.1
-2.9
-1.3
-3.7
-3.3
0.4
1.0
-6.1
-1.3
-2.1
-1.7
-1.8
New York, NY .....................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
122.0
121.8
0.0
2.1
2.4
20.9
4.3
19.0
25.3
9.3
12.9
18.9
0.3
2,387.3
1,950.0
0.1
30.2
25.9
259.6
140.3
356.4
481.6
307.3
250.9
90.9
437.3
2.2
2.9
-13.2
-0.1
-0.4
3.8
4.5
0.9
3.3
1.4
4.7
2.1
-0.8
1,889
2,071
1,666
1,951
1,783
1,347
2,315
4,092
2,263
1,198
883
1,113
1,088
-2.3
-2.9
-49.8
-2.7
-7.9
-0.4
2.3
-3.4
-3.7
-0.7
-3.9
-0.6
-0.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 4
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
102.9
102.3
1.7
6.5
4.5
23.0
1.3
10.6
20.5
11.6
8.4
13.7
0.6
2,081.7
1,827.4
85.8
134.6
183.5
446.8
27.9
112.8
341.3
248.7
183.6
61.5
254.3
3.1
4.1
12.0
2.2
7.4
3.5
-1.6
0.4
5.0
3.0
3.7
2.3
-3.5
$1,239
1,273
3,219
1,235
1,555
1,104
1,393
1,548
1,568
959
416
682
996
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.7
-1.8
0.4
-2.5
-0.6
-0.9
-1.6
-1.0
0.4
-0.8
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 ...................................................
96.1
95.4
0.5
8.4
3.2
22.2
1.6
11.2
22.8
10.6
7.4
6.7
0.7
1,683.7
1,469.8
8.1
81.8
110.0
353.5
27.3
141.5
277.4
246.9
176.0
46.8
213.9
2.5
3.0
4.3
2.5
1.3
3.5
1.2
5.4
2.3
3.6
2.7
0.7
-0.8
929
932
919
976
1,285
896
1,230
1,122
1,022
987
432
611
906
-1.0
-1.0
10.5
-1.4
-3.3
4.4
-3.9
-1.2
-1.6
-4.3
-2.5
-1.9
-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 ...................................................
69.1
68.6
0.6
4.0
2.8
15.0
1.6
8.6
15.2
7.4
5.8
7.2
0.5
1,460.4
1,297.1
9.9
67.0
114.9
297.7
45.9
141.7
277.9
170.4
131.1
39.8
163.3
2.3
3.1
10.2
0.6
1.1
3.4
0.9
3.2
4.1
2.4
4.3
3.4
-4.2
1,148
1,164
4,425
1,100
1,324
1,012
1,605
1,483
1,384
1,038
497
702
1,022
-2.0
-2.2
7.9
-2.1
-4.6
-2.7
-2.1
-0.3
-2.1
-4.2
-3.7
0.1
-1.2
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 ...................................................
106.1
104.7
0.2
6.2
4.8
15.9
1.2
9.6
18.6
10.4
7.2
22.4
1.4
1,390.2
1,254.0
3.3
69.5
153.8
254.7
23.4
106.3
251.3
160.6
175.7
48.3
136.2
0.6
1.3
-4.1
1.3
0.6
0.5
-2.8
0.3
0.6
1.9
3.3
-0.5
( 6)
1,080
1,086
699
1,180
1,291
985
1,504
1,878
1,260
1,034
413
565
1,030
-3.1
-3.0
-3.7
-4.6
-4.4
-3.4
-7.3
-0.1
-3.5
-1.6
-2.1
1.1
( 6)
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11 4
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
102.3
100.9
0.7
6.0
2.9
13.4
1.2
8.4
16.2
8.5
7.0
29.4
1.4
1,264.2
1,046.5
10.4
54.8
93.1
210.8
24.3
68.3
215.2
149.4
155.6
57.9
217.7
1.0
1.5
3.3
0.6
-0.2
1.5
-2.4
0.4
1.3
2.2
1.5
( 6)
-1.6
$1,041
1,029
574
1,135
1,448
785
1,605
1,222
1,524
1,009
441
519
1,095
-3.6
-3.3
-2.2
-3.2
-2.0
-3.1
0.4
-17.5
-1.5
-0.9
-0.5
-2.1
-5.3
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 ...................................................
82.0
81.4
0.4
5.5
2.2
14.5
1.8
6.2
13.8
7.2
6.4
23.5
0.6
1,156.6
1,000.4
2.7
46.3
101.5
217.3
80.0
64.5
185.9
137.5
111.6
53.0
156.3
2.4
2.9
13.5
1.1
4.5
3.1
1.4
-1.4
3.8
3.2
4.0
1.4
-0.6
1,220
1,229
1,487
1,265
1,520
1,028
2,213
1,454
1,596
989
477
587
1,162
0.3
0.2
-1.5
1.6
2.1
0.3
5.1
-0.5
-2.2
-1.3
-0.2
-2.3
0.5
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
87.8
87.5
0.5
4.9
2.6
25.1
1.4
9.0
18.2
9.8
6.6
7.8
0.4
996.2
856.1
9.1
29.2
35.9
259.8
17.4
63.3
131.3
156.4
115.0
37.2
140.1
2.2
3.0
-1.5
-6.0
1.2
3.9
-0.4
2.9
3.8
2.1
3.9
4.2
-2.8
939
909
594
917
897
813
1,371
1,385
1,229
925
536
568
1,117
-2.5
-2.8
14.2
-5.0
-2.6
-4.0
-4.2
-2.2
-5.5
1.1
0.2
-3.2
-0.4
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,
fourth quarter 2011 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2010-11
United States 4 ...................
9,178.6
131,254.2
1.4
$955
-1.7
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.7
21.8
146.6
84.8
1,417.5
169.6
110.7
27.7
36.4
602.0
1,828.3
311.3
2,458.4
1,157.1
14,731.8
2,250.1
1,642.0
405.9
708.0
7,364.1
0.2
1.6
1.7
0.9
1.3
2.1
0.9
0.4
1.3
1.4
832
982
882
736
1,100
975
1,188
984
1,668
847
-0.8
-0.5
-1.1
-1.2
-2.7
-2.6
-3.1
-1.6
-1.2
-2.8
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
268.9
38.5
54.0
388.2
160.4
93.9
88.4
108.0
124.8
49.2
3,826.9
607.0
606.4
5,635.9
2,799.2
1,464.2
1,320.1
1,770.2
1,870.8
580.9
1.0
1.4
0.8
1.1
2.0
1.1
0.7
1.3
1.0
0.4
885
845
717
1,013
789
793
800
786
850
755
-2.2
-1.5
-2.2
-2.1
-1.9
-0.8
-1.5
-1.0
-1.7
-1.8
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
162.2
227.5
242.3
168.6
69.3
175.7
42.2
61.2
72.1
48.8
2,516.4
3,230.8
3,911.8
2,636.4
1,083.8
2,617.0
426.7
910.5
1,124.1
615.4
1.1
1.3
2.4
2.1
0.3
0.8
1.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1,058
1,192
933
936
699
825
727
762
852
971
-2.0
-2.1
-0.5
-3.9
-1.1
-1.7
0.7
-1.3
-3.2
-0.7
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
264.8
55.5
599.5
257.5
28.1
289.3
103.4
132.3
351.0
35.0
3,811.6
784.3
8,618.4
3,885.9
397.0
5,027.6
1,530.0
1,629.8
5,595.1
451.9
0.6
-0.3
1.4
1.3
7.6
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.1
1,138
799
1,197
824
871
855
817
850
936
919
-2.1
-2.2
-1.8
-2.0
7.7
-1.3
2.6
-0.2
-1.6
-2.1
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
111.3
31.4
139.6
588.0
85.5
24.4
237.4
231.9
49.1
160.5
1,796.1
397.0
2,654.9
10,607.9
1,202.8
303.9
3,625.0
2,843.6
714.0
2,689.6
1.3
1.5
2.1
2.4
2.8
1.3
1.3
1.4
2.2
0.7
763
724
858
973
806
809
1,004
979
776
817
-1.5
1.4
-2.3
-0.3
-2.5
-0.5
-2.4
-0.2
-0.3
-2.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 2011 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2011
(thousands)
December
2011
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2010-11
Fourth
quarter
2011
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2010-11
Wyoming ............................
25.3
276.9
2.3
$876
0.6
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
48.2
3.6
960.9
43.2
0.1
-4.0
552
772
-1.1
-3.4
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
December 2010-11 (U.S. average = 1.4 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
June 2012
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 or more
employees, fourth quarter 2010-11 (U.S. average = -1.7 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
June 2012