For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, September 27, 2012
USDL-12-1939
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
First Quarter 2012
From March 2011 to March 2012, employment increased in 293 of the 328 largest U.S. counties, the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Gregg, Texas, posted the largest increase, with a gain of
6.0 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.8 percent. Within Gregg, the largest
employment increase occurred in construction, which gained 1,948 jobs over the year (28.7 percent).
Benton, Wash., experienced the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the largest
counties in the U.S. with a loss of 3.9 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 5.4 percent to $984 in the first quarter of
2012. Williamson, Texas, had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of
27.4 percent. Within Williamson, a total wage gain of $298.1 million (49.5 percent) in the trade,
transportation, and utilities industry had the largest impact on the county’s increase in average weekly
wages. New York, N.Y., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 6.3
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, March 2011-12
(U.S. average = 1.8 percent)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, first quarter 2011-12
(U.S. average = 5.4 percent)
30
6.0
25
5.6
5.3
4.9
27.4
20
4.7
15
13.6
10
12.4
12.1
11.8
Washington,
Pa.
Newport
News City,
Va.
Collin,
Texas
5
0
Gregg,
Texas
Williamson,
Tenn.
Rutherford, Montgomery,
Tenn.
Texas
Harford,
Md.
Williamson,
Texas
Middlesex,
N.J.
Table A. Large counties ranked by March 2012 employment, March 2011-12 employment
increase, and March 2011-12 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
March 2012 employment
(thousands)
United States
130,175.4
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.
3,925.0
2,373.7
2,360.9
2,085.3
1,665.1
1,446.5
1,386.8
1,253.4
1,144.4
989.5
Increase in employment,
March 2011-12
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
March 2011-12
2,338.1
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Cook, Ill.
Dallas, Texas
King, Wash.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Hennepin, Minn.
Orange, Calif.
70.4
53.0
52.9
41.4
35.8
34.6
33.6
30.2
27.1
24.1
United States
1.8
Gregg, Texas
Williamson, Tenn.
Rutherford, Tenn.
Montgomery, Texas
Harford, Md.
Kent, Mich.
Delaware, Ohio
Fort Bend, Texas
Kern, Calif.
Douglas, Colo.
Manatee, Fla.
Ottawa, Mich.
Washington, Pa.
Denton, Texas
Davis, Utah
Utah, Utah
6.0
5.6
5.3
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
Large County Employment
In March 2012, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.2 million, up by
1.8 percent or 2.3 million jobs, from March 2011. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs
accounted for 71.1 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.5 percent of total wages. These 328
counties had a net job growth of 1.6 million over the year, accounting for 70.2 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Gregg, Texas, had the largest percentage increase in employment (6.0 percent) among the largest U.S.
counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; New
York, N.Y.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Maricopa, Ariz.; and Cook, Ill. These counties had a combined overthe-year gain of 253,500, or 10.8 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S. (See table A.)
Employment declined in 32 of the large counties from March 2011 to March 2012. Benton, Wash., had
the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-3.9 percent). Within Benton, professional
and business services was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 3,103 jobs
(-13.3 percent). Madison, Ill., had the second largest percent decrease in employment, followed by
Arlington, Va. Two counties, St. Clair, Ill., and Jefferson, La., tied for the fourth largest employment
decrease. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by first quarter 2012 average weekly wages, first quarter 2011-12
increase in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2011-12 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2012
United States
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Somerset, N.J.
San Francisco, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Mateo, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Morris, N.J.
Increase in average weekly
wage, first quarter 2011-12
$984
$2,464
1,957
1,942
1,881
1,791
1,708
1,622
1,617
1,602
1,595
United States
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, first
quarter 2011-12
$50
Williamson, Texas
Middlesex, N.J.
Morris, N.J.
Lake, Ill.
Collin, Texas
San Mateo, Calif.
Washington, Pa.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Durham, N.C.
Newport News City, Va.
$261
160
138
126
126
112
110
103
103
100
United States
Williamson, Texas
Middlesex, N.J.
Washington, Pa.
Newport News City, Va.
Collin, Texas
Tulsa, Okla.
Gregg, Texas
Lake, Ill.
Peoria, Ill.
Santa Cruz, Calif.
5.4
27.4
13.6
12.4
12.1
11.8
11.3
10.9
10.3
10.3
10.0
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 5.4 percent during the year ending in the first
quarter of 2012. Among the 328 largest counties, 323 had over-the-year increases in average weekly
wages. (See chart 4.) Williamson, Texas, had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties
(27.4 percent).
Of the 328 largest counties, 4 experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. New York,
N.Y., had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 6.3 percent. Smaller first quarter
bonus payments in 2012 contributed to this decrease in the average weekly wage. Within New York
County, total wages in financial activities decreased by $5.3 billion (-13.4 percent) over the year.
Somerset, N.J., had the second largest decline in average weekly wages, followed by Hudson, N.J., and
Douglas, Colo. Clayton, Ga., had the smallest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages (0.1
percent). (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percentage increases in employment in March
2012. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain (3.5 percent). Within Harris, professional and business
services had the largest over-the-year level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of
19,800 jobs (6.0 percent). San Diego, Calif., had the smallest percent increase in employment (1.1
percent) among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.)
Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. San Diego,
Calif., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages (7.5 percent), largely due to substantial
total wage gains over the year in professional and business services ($291.1 million or 7.6 percent). New
York, N.Y., had the only average weekly wage decline (-6.3 percent) among the 10 largest counties.
-3-
For More Information
The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 328 U.S. counties
with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2011. March 2012 employment and 2012
first quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 130.2 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the first quarter of 2012 will be available later at http://www.bls.gov/cew/.
Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling (202) 691-6567.
Several BLS regional offices are issuing QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. For links to
these releases, see http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.
The County Employment and Wages release for second quarter 2012 is scheduled to be released
on Tuesday, January 8, 2013.
County Changes for the 2012 County Employment and Wages News Releases
Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2011 are included in this release and
will be included in future 2012 releases. Seven counties have been added to the publication tables:
Okaloosa, Fla.; Tippecanoe, Ind.; Johnson, Iowa; St. Tammany, La.; Saratoga, N.Y.; Delaware, Ohio;
and Gregg, Texas. One county, Jackson, Ore., will be excluded.
-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 2012 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 329 counties
presented in this release were derived using 2011 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2012 data, seven counties have
been added to the publication tables: Okaloosa, Fla.; Tippecanoe,
Ind.; Johnson, Iowa; St. Tammany, La.; Saratoga, N.Y.; Delaware,
Ohio; and Gregg, Texas. These counties will be included in all 2012
quarterly releases. One county, Jackson, Ore., which was published
in the 2011 releases, will be excluded from this and future 2012
releases because their 2011 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 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2012
· 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 fre- · Quarterly
quency
— 7 months after the end of each
quarter
· Quarterly
— 8 months after the end of each
quarter
· Monthly
— Usually first Friday of following
month
· Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal database and directly summarizes gross job gains and losses
· Uses UI file as a sampling frame and
annually realigns (benchmarks) sample
estimates to first quarter UI levels
Use of UI file
· Directly summarizes and publishes
each new quarter of UI data
Principal
products
· Provides quarterly employer dynamics · Provides current monthly estimates of
· Provides a quarterly and annual
data on establishment openings, closuniverse count of establishments,
employment, hours, and earnings at the
ings, expansions, and contractions at
employment, and wages at the counMSA, state, and national level by industy, MSA, state, and national levels by
the national level by NAICS supersectry
detailed industry
tors and by size of firm, and at the
state private-sector total level
· Future expansions will include data
with greater industry detail and data at
the county and MSA level
Principal uses
· Major uses include:
— Detailed locality data
— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates
— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys
· Major uses include:
· Major uses include:
— Principal national economic indicator
— Business cycle analysis
— Official time series for employment
— Analysis of employer dynamics
change measures
underlying economic expansions
and contractions
— Input into other major economic indicators
— Analysis of employment expansion
and contraction by size of firm
Program Web
sites
· www.bls.gov/cew/
· www.bls.gov/bdm/
· www.bls.gov/ces/
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 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted
by states to the BLS in 2011. 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 2011,
UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 129.4 million jobs. The
estimated 124.8 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for
multiple jobholders) represented 95.7 percent of civilian wage and
salary employment. Covered workers received $6.217 trillion in pay,
representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.2 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 employers 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 2011 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 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,211.8
130,175.4
1.8
–
$984
5.4
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.6
8.8
9.7
6.3
4.2
8.4
95.6
19.0
5.5
14.3
335.0
176.9
163.8
126.4
83.9
150.3
1,665.1
348.1
96.1
241.5
1.6
0.3
-0.5
0.0
1.1
2.0
2.6
1.5
3.1
1.0
151
276
315
294
203
121
78
159
45
217
978
1,024
790
809
806
1,022
945
804
1,166
861
6.4
4.6
6.3
6.3
3.7
7.2
5.8
5.0
5.2
5.6
100
241
110
110
291
65
149
211
194
162
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.5
57.9
30.7
31.8
18.4
448.8
12.0
13.2
106.0
11.1
90.9
646.5
317.2
325.8
272.4
3,925.0
103.7
153.0
1,386.8
128.9
2.9
2.5
0.9
1.4
4.4
1.4
2.8
3.1
1.8
1.7
54
86
228
175
9
175
63
45
137
142
746
1,276
1,256
736
853
1,090
1,128
834
1,095
934
2.9
7.2
4.0
3.7
8.1
4.2
2.5
3.2
5.2
6.1
312
65
276
291
31
265
317
306
194
129
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 .................
52.1
55.3
53.0
102.3
57.2
18.1
9.8
25.1
14.8
64.9
565.6
580.1
602.4
1,253.4
573.0
199.1
102.6
334.0
179.0
884.7
1.1
0.8
1.0
1.1
4.1
1.0
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.5
203
238
217
203
17
217
63
63
54
28
777
1,081
790
1,076
1,791
785
775
1,622
924
1,957
4.3
6.0
5.2
7.5
3.6
4.8
4.3
7.4
6.5
5.6
260
139
194
44
295
224
260
51
93
162
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.3
10.4
19.4
15.3
9.6
24.5
6.3
8.9
18.8
12.9
86.9
119.0
172.2
158.7
137.8
305.4
87.7
155.6
279.0
158.6
0.9
2.5
0.6
1.3
2.9
2.2
0.6
1.9
2.7
3.1
228
86
250
184
54
107
250
126
72
45
902
990
867
803
649
1,034
1,010
848
1,198
1,126
10.0
6.6
3.1
7.4
4.0
7.0
( 7)
5.0
5.9
6.6
10
84
310
51
276
69
–
211
145
84
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
9.5
16.7
17.8
10.0
5.8
32.6
25.5
22.3
6.9
425.2
92.1
233.8
208.5
128.3
83.2
402.3
485.7
350.9
121.4
2.9
4.2
0.7
3.0
3.0
3.4
1.8
1.4
1.6
-0.8
54
10
242
49
49
33
137
175
151
322
1,270
1,077
857
970
826
819
1,942
1,320
1,003
987
4.3
-0.3
5.5
7.1
3.6
6.0
2.9
4.4
5.4
2.7
260
324
166
68
295
139
312
256
179
315
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 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 .............................
16.7
35.3
6.5
14.5
63.1
11.8
26.9
7.9
37.9
7.2
263.7
712.1
116.3
187.7
699.6
124.6
437.3
119.4
589.2
81.8
0.6
1.3
0.4
-0.4
2.3
3.2
-0.1
-0.4
2.1
1.3
250
184
269
312
99
40
297
312
115
184
$1,244
1,602
761
853
877
813
947
725
920
620
3.8
4.0
4.4
6.4
5.7
6.8
6.3
5.4
4.7
6.2
284
276
256
100
158
74
110
179
233
122
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.7
8.2
9.4
7.9
88.6
6.0
36.0
49.5
10.0
30.6
206.9
137.5
106.3
89.7
989.5
76.4
676.5
509.4
99.8
382.2
2.6
-0.5
4.2
-0.1
2.2
0.9
3.0
2.5
0.9
1.0
78
315
10
297
107
228
49
86
228
217
739
750
706
643
909
767
846
934
624
829
4.1
3.7
5.5
5.2
4.1
8.0
5.0
5.2
4.7
7.9
270
291
166
194
270
34
211
194
233
37
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
13.7
13.4
4.6
7.6
4.3
21.3
17.8
41.1
191.9
139.4
157.8
152.4
79.9
132.0
111.1
301.9
276.1
711.7
-0.1
2.8
2.1
0.6
1.4
2.3
-0.8
2.6
0.2
2.2
297
63
115
250
175
99
322
78
283
107
700
755
774
659
732
801
981
1,057
1,034
1,406
4.5
4.6
5.6
4.8
4.4
6.2
0.1
3.9
3.5
5.1
250
241
162
224
256
122
323
280
299
205
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
24.5
13.7
4.2
147.8
37.0
13.3
22.0
306.3
92.9
99.0
440.6
195.1
86.9
2,373.7
559.8
190.3
313.4
1.7
-0.5
-0.7
0.8
2.9
0.4
1.5
1.9
2.8
1.3
142
315
318
238
54
269
159
126
63
184
940
781
791
870
810
795
1,195
1,161
815
1,344
6.3
4.6
6.3
6.1
4.5
6.1
4.7
6.2
4.2
10.3
110
241
110
129
250
129
233
122
265
8
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
15.1
6.8
9.0
91.4
85.2
93.5
102.1
93.1
127.8
198.6
123.2
173.3
1.8
0.3
-1.5
1.7
-0.9
0.1
2.2
0.3
1.4
137
276
327
142
324
291
107
276
175
769
949
775
1,039
753
946
830
818
810
6.2
5.0
5.2
10.3
6.1
3.4
5.3
6.6
8.0
122
211
194
8
129
301
186
84
34
Elkhart, IN ..........................
4.9
106.9
4.1
17
750
7.3
59
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Tippecanoe, IN ..................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Johnson, IA ........................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
8.6
10.4
24.1
6.1
3.3
4.9
3.6
6.3
15.0
112.1
186.0
555.7
114.5
77.4
105.8
76.9
125.2
266.8
3.2
2.0
2.8
-0.3
3.3
1.2
1.8
1.5
2.8
40
121
63
306
38
197
137
159
63
$952
852
1,029
760
829
766
836
905
992
3.3
8.4
4.1
5.6
6.6
5.7
6.2
6.7
5.4
305
26
270
162
84
158
122
77
179
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
5.2
22.0
12.6
4.9
3.3
9.4
22.0
7.5
4.9
14.8
86.3
306.9
238.7
94.5
82.8
174.8
418.4
120.2
82.8
256.6
1.6
3.7
0.9
0.5
4.0
1.9
2.4
-0.3
0.3
1.1
151
25
228
262
19
126
95
306
276
203
765
1,016
880
795
893
849
955
769
826
877
5.8
6.4
7.6
6.7
8.2
5.2
8.6
4.8
7.4
5.7
149
100
42
77
29
194
22
224
51
158
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
St. Tammany, LA ...............
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
13.9
9.1
11.3
7.5
12.6
14.5
21.1
6.1
5.6
9.1
190.1
137.0
177.4
78.8
165.1
234.4
361.0
91.6
86.1
155.6
-0.9
3.9
3.2
2.7
0.6
3.6
1.3
-0.1
4.7
2.8
324
22
40
72
250
27
184
297
5
63
868
918
979
817
868
1,042
977
958
895
1,202
5.1
7.4
1.2
6.4
3.8
9.3
6.1
4.6
5.5
4.6
205
51
319
100
284
17
129
241
166
241
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
32.8
15.5
13.8
9.2
16.5
22.3
15.6
50.8
24.2
14.5
447.6
298.8
327.7
80.1
207.6
298.0
194.3
811.5
314.4
171.0
1.1
0.5
-0.3
2.0
0.9
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.5
1.9
203
262
306
121
228
159
197
142
159
126
1,355
984
1,173
808
844
1,006
858
1,459
1,133
858
3.4
5.0
8.5
6.6
6.7
4.7
5.5
6.3
6.5
5.3
301
211
23
84
77
233
166
110
93
186
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
24.2
22.0
7.1
6.2
5.2
13.6
16.6
36.6
5.4
4.1
589.7
313.8
128.5
152.8
108.9
325.7
285.4
643.2
105.3
81.9
2.2
1.3
1.9
0.2
1.1
4.6
2.4
3.3
4.2
2.0
107
184
126
283
203
6
95
38
10
121
1,708
947
794
916
874
847
982
1,081
747
760
4.5
4.5
6.6
5.4
7.5
7.2
4.4
6.0
4.6
0.7
250
250
84
179
44
65
256
139
241
321
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
7.8
30.5
191.3
677.0
1.9
1.9
126
126
974
1,070
5.8
4.9
149
218
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
7.2
9.9
43.3
3.5
14.0
5.6
4.4
4.4
107.6
168.3
833.2
88.5
312.1
90.9
79.6
81.9
2.6
0.7
3.4
2.9
1.0
0.0
2.7
-0.3
78
242
33
54
217
294
72
306
$870
954
1,274
1,001
1,116
781
736
702
4.8
7.4
6.3
3.8
3.0
8.0
5.1
5.1
224
51
110
284
311
34
205
205
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
6.0
4.5
5.0
8.0
18.4
8.2
31.8
9.1
6.0
17.1
121.5
85.5
88.6
152.3
342.4
124.1
561.0
217.0
76.2
311.5
0.3
3.9
0.8
3.9
0.4
2.5
0.2
1.3
2.2
1.5
276
22
238
22
269
86
283
184
107
159
802
724
884
707
960
784
1,023
1,155
769
898
3.4
4.5
4.9
7.3
6.5
5.2
5.7
9.4
6.5
5.3
301
250
218
59
93
194
158
14
93
186
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
9.1
47.9
13.5
11.8
10.5
6.7
33.3
11.0
12.2
20.6
155.8
807.9
180.3
186.2
131.5
130.8
423.1
191.5
191.1
338.1
2.9
1.5
0.6
0.6
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.1
0.5
0.7
54
159
250
250
159
126
142
203
262
242
749
836
828
1,031
891
801
1,207
1,008
955
1,320
5.3
5.8
4.9
5.3
4.2
3.8
4.9
5.1
5.8
7.7
186
149
218
186
265
284
218
205
149
38
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
6.2
13.9
11.0
21.8
20.0
17.4
12.2
12.3
10.1
14.5
96.3
232.0
228.3
380.2
237.5
269.2
143.6
169.6
169.3
217.5
0.1
1.0
1.3
2.3
-0.4
1.6
2.3
0.7
1.5
1.0
291
217
184
99
312
151
99
242
159
217
810
1,514
1,391
1,338
967
1,595
769
956
1,881
1,265
5.3
-0.4
7.5
13.6
2.7
9.5
3.8
5.5
-1.6
5.4
186
325
44
2
315
13
284
166
326
179
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
17.6
10.0
17.1
4.6
8.2
23.8
52.6
18.2
52.8
122.8
306.5
216.7
234.1
89.6
110.0
449.4
518.1
370.7
587.1
2,360.9
-0.3
0.2
-0.1
-0.2
0.7
1.1
2.8
1.4
2.4
2.3
306
283
297
303
242
203
63
175
95
99
825
973
851
728
958
842
754
892
1,058
2,464
5.5
3.8
4.0
3.4
4.6
6.0
4.1
5.1
4.1
-6.3
166
284
276
301
241
139
270
205
270
327
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
5.3
12.9
9.9
103.8
238.4
129.2
-0.7
0.5
0.5
318
262
262
739
874
789
4.2
5.3
4.9
265
186
218
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
46.9
9.0
10.0
5.5
50.8
36.2
8.0
513.9
91.3
113.1
75.5
608.6
401.0
111.9
2.9
0.6
0.9
3.2
1.6
0.7
1.5
54
250
228
40
151
242
159
$877
778
1,055
836
1,046
1,399
714
3.7
2.8
6.2
7.0
7.7
4.7
5.8
291
314
122
69
38
233
149
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
4.4
6.3
7.3
9.0
14.1
32.9
7.4
29.6
6.1
7.4
78.3
119.1
182.8
173.5
261.7
563.6
95.8
448.3
103.8
137.5
0.2
0.3
2.5
2.4
1.1
2.9
1.4
2.7
3.7
1.1
283
276
86
95
203
54
175
72
25
203
705
729
1,381
945
854
1,274
749
960
829
831
1.9
5.0
8.1
5.5
6.8
3.2
3.2
4.7
8.4
6.3
318
211
31
166
74
306
306
233
26
110
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Delaware, OH ....................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
35.6
4.3
29.6
23.1
6.4
6.0
10.1
5.9
12.1
8.8
689.2
76.8
659.6
484.2
92.1
93.6
198.5
95.7
241.5
151.6
1.9
4.6
2.6
1.7
1.5
2.3
2.2
1.6
1.1
1.9
126
6
78
142
159
99
107
151
203
126
1,003
1,073
972
1,092
802
796
837
671
831
745
5.4
7.6
5.5
9.7
3.8
6.1
5.3
7.0
6.3
6.0
179
42
166
11
284
129
186
69
110
139
Summit, OH .......................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
14.3
24.7
20.4
12.7
10.8
9.4
29.6
16.4
35.8
9.0
252.8
424.7
330.3
136.6
135.4
127.5
437.4
245.6
675.9
162.8
2.0
2.6
1.3
1.5
0.8
-0.3
2.7
2.1
1.4
1.3
121
78
184
159
238
306
72
115
175
184
897
912
914
840
710
728
979
1,205
1,067
832
6.7
9.4
11.3
5.5
5.8
4.1
6.8
7.3
7.7
6.7
77
14
6
166
149
270
74
59
38
77
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
19.8
4.9
15.2
6.1
7.5
13.9
7.7
5.9
12.7
8.7
245.0
82.2
234.1
121.7
173.9
209.4
123.6
96.0
216.5
173.6
0.2
2.3
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.2
-0.1
1.0
1.5
283
99
262
269
250
217
197
297
217
159
894
861
1,255
873
966
1,082
746
719
775
950
5.2
6.7
8.5
7.4
8.8
6.5
7.3
7.0
5.9
8.1
194
77
23
51
21
93
59
69
145
31
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
7.8
27.5
6.6
36.0
136.9
460.7
101.7
626.7
0.2
0.6
2.3
0.0
283
250
99
294
743
1,294
840
1,148
8.9
7.4
6.3
6.3
19
51
110
110
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
5.7
9.5
9.1
17.2
11.8
12.0
84.3
131.4
170.3
267.1
213.9
232.9
4.2
1.7
0.9
1.2
3.4
2.6
10
142
228
197
33
78
$995
761
826
970
834
820
12.4
6.1
4.8
8.5
7.5
6.6
3
129
224
23
44
84
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
7.6
5.6
9.0
5.8
6.5
18.3
8.4
10.9
4.4
19.1
104.7
95.2
204.6
114.9
113.8
424.4
183.8
218.0
101.5
466.8
2.5
1.6
1.3
3.2
1.8
2.7
2.6
1.2
5.3
2.1
86
151
184
40
137
72
78
197
3
115
559
683
832
802
798
1,013
843
804
821
970
4.9
6.1
4.7
5.4
6.5
9.0
7.4
7.3
5.9
6.0
218
129
233
179
93
18
51
59
145
139
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
6.2
4.9
35.0
5.0
3.9
6.4
19.1
69.0
11.5
14.1
96.2
107.2
743.0
91.8
86.2
129.5
302.8
1,446.5
182.6
275.0
5.6
0.2
1.5
3.4
-0.7
1.7
3.4
2.5
4.2
0.5
2
283
159
33
318
142
33
86
10
262
1,125
773
886
943
701
570
1,197
1,213
833
669
5.9
5.0
5.5
3.2
6.4
5.2
11.8
5.5
6.4
6.9
145
211
166
306
100
194
5
166
100
73
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Gregg, TX ..........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
9.7
5.4
4.2
102.9
11.4
5.9
7.1
4.9
9.1
7.9
5.7
38.5
31.9
4.9
7.9
7.2
37.0
12.7
5.4
140.7
95.5
78.9
2,085.3
230.1
122.7
123.9
100.3
138.3
154.6
92.7
771.7
595.9
90.7
131.7
105.0
578.7
171.4
89.8
4.6
0.4
6.0
3.5
1.3
1.2
-0.7
0.6
4.9
2.2
0.4
2.5
3.1
3.5
2.5
4.2
3.5
4.2
2.1
6
269
1
28
184
197
318
250
4
107
269
86
45
28
86
10
28
10
115
1,025
867
883
1,340
579
988
700
766
968
821
766
954
1,063
624
1,213
763
911
724
682
4.6
4.8
10.9
6.4
4.7
7.5
7.5
5.8
8.3
9.6
3.9
6.6
6.1
5.8
27.4
8.2
6.4
6.5
6.2
241
224
7
100
233
44
44
149
28
12
280
84
129
149
1
29
100
93
122
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
6.1
8.5
7.8
35.1
10.2
10.0
8.0
95.9
164.9
115.1
585.1
175.4
137.6
110.8
3.0
-1.3
1.3
2.1
1.6
1.7
4.0
49
326
184
115
151
142
19
915
1,617
857
1,562
1,031
1,161
831
4.6
4.3
3.6
5.5
1.1
6.7
6.4
241
260
295
166
320
77
100
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
6.3
5.7
3.8
94.3
95.0
96.8
1.1
1.5
1.5
203
159
159
$1,286
757
926
4.8
4.8
12.1
224
224
4
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Benton, WA ........................
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
5.7
7.1
11.4
5.7
13.6
82.7
6.7
21.8
19.3
15.9
137.9
148.4
161.2
77.4
127.2
1,144.4
79.6
260.8
252.8
195.5
0.4
1.0
0.9
-3.9
1.9
3.0
-0.2
0.6
4.0
0.7
269
217
228
328
126
49
303
250
19
242
927
1,113
745
959
848
1,265
868
840
1,061
806
7.5
3.9
3.9
0.6
6.3
6.4
8.9
4.5
9.4
7.3
44
280
280
322
110
100
19
250
14
59
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
7.5
6.9
8.8
6.0
6.5
13.9
22.8
5.0
12.5
3.6
11.3
96.3
80.2
95.2
104.7
144.3
299.7
464.0
100.2
222.4
88.0
265.0
-0.2
3.5
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.4
0.1
1.0
0.7
0.3
1.7
303
28
228
203
203
175
291
217
242
276
( 8)
829
796
632
836
836
941
981
793
953
869
618
3.6
6.6
4.3
4.8
4.2
7.7
5.5
5.2
6.1
3.5
3.7
295
84
260
224
265
38
166
194
129
299
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 328 large U.S. counties comprise 71.1 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 4
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 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 ...................................................
9,211.8
8,914.4
129.5
752.9
335.9
1,881.9
143.9
810.1
1,582.7
923.9
765.0
1,358.3
297.4
130,175.4
108,645.8
1,847.8
5,282.2
11,792.7
24,782.6
2,668.0
7,424.5
17,536.7
19,362.2
13,295.4
4,418.2
21,529.7
1.8
2.4
8.6
2.8
2.0
1.9
-0.1
0.9
3.5
2.0
3.5
1.5
-1.1
$984
991
1,197
972
1,230
815
1,717
1,905
1,292
841
384
582
949
5.4
5.3
7.5
6.0
5.7
6.4
6.8
1.1
6.5
6.2
5.8
5.4
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 ...................................................
448.8
443.1
0.4
12.0
12.6
50.3
8.2
21.6
41.1
29.2
26.9
213.8
5.7
3,925.0
3,375.9
10.0
105.7
365.0
742.9
188.5
208.1
560.8
528.6
400.5
243.3
549.1
1.4
2.0
1.4
3.0
-0.6
1.6
-2.2
0.6
3.7
2.0
3.7
0.0
-2.1
1,090
1,070
1,660
1,042
1,218
853
2,092
1,987
1,323
952
562
452
1,212
4.2
3.9
0.2
4.1
6.4
5.8
4.3
3.9
4.3
4.6
-2.1
2.5
6.1
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 ...................................................
147.8
146.4
0.1
12.3
6.6
28.7
2.6
15.5
31.2
15.5
13.0
16.3
1.4
2,373.7
2,074.4
0.7
56.8
192.3
435.5
53.5
183.3
412.1
409.6
231.4
95.7
299.3
1.5
1.9
0.1
0.0
-0.1
1.2
1.3
-0.7
3.7
1.7
4.2
1.4
-0.9
1,195
1,204
843
1,307
1,175
907
1,894
2,930
1,510
865
458
797
1,134
4.7
4.4
10.5
2.7
6.7
6.6
3.4
2.1
6.3
3.5
8.5
6.8
6.7
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 ...................................................
122.8
122.5
0.0
2.1
2.4
20.8
4.4
18.9
25.3
9.2
12.9
18.9
0.3
2,360.9
1,924.1
0.1
29.9
26.7
244.7
139.5
351.5
475.3
309.5
248.2
90.6
436.9
2.3
2.9
9.7
1.3
0.2
3.9
3.0
0.2
3.5
0.8
5.9
3.4
-0.5
2,464
2,771
2,784
1,650
1,663
1,321
2,835
7,511
2,560
1,128
793
1,045
1,112
-6.3
-7.3
-11.1
2.5
4.5
5.6
5.3
-13.7
-0.9
6.7
4.2
6.3
1.7
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 4
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 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
102.4
1.7
6.5
4.5
23.1
1.3
10.6
20.5
11.6
8.4
13.7
0.6
2,085.3
1,829.7
85.2
139.2
185.3
433.0
27.9
112.2
348.1
248.2
188.8
60.8
255.6
3.5
4.5
9.6
5.6
7.0
3.4
-0.5
0.7
6.0
2.9
5.0
1.7
-3.4
$1,340
1,388
4,242
1,198
1,686
1,263
1,456
1,929
1,549
934
420
684
996
6.4
6.5
2.0
9.3
5.3
8.6
5.1
4.8
5.3
6.9
9.4
4.0
3.0
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
95.6
94.9
0.5
8.1
3.2
21.9
1.6
11.0
22.6
10.6
7.2
6.6
0.7
1,665.1
1,456.7
8.1
82.4
111.8
338.7
28.1
141.4
269.0
246.0
182.2
46.8
208.3
2.6
3.0
8.0
4.4
2.3
2.5
2.2
3.6
2.3
3.7
3.2
0.2
-0.7
945
953
1,268
935
1,519
895
1,247
1,359
1,005
898
429
610
884
5.8
6.0
9.4
5.9
5.7
5.8
3.3
7.0
8.8
3.9
5.1
5.5
3.6
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 ...................................................
69.0
68.5
0.6
4.0
2.8
14.9
1.6
8.6
15.2
7.4
5.8
7.3
0.5
1,446.5
1,283.1
9.5
67.1
111.4
289.9
45.9
141.0
278.0
170.5
129.9
39.3
163.4
2.5
3.2
14.5
1.1
0.3
3.7
0.7
2.7
5.6
2.6
3.0
0.6
-3.2
1,213
1,237
4,827
1,007
1,510
1,058
2,179
1,896
1,324
1,003
489
670
1,024
5.5
5.4
8.4
4.8
2.1
7.5
4.6
1.8
6.3
7.6
4.9
7.4
5.0
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 ...................................................
106.0
104.6
0.2
6.0
4.8
15.8
1.2
9.5
18.4
10.4
7.2
22.4
1.4
1,386.8
1,243.4
3.5
68.6
156.8
241.5
23.7
106.2
246.5
162.5
176.8
49.8
143.4
1.8
2.2
-16.1
2.4
1.8
0.6
-0.9
1.4
1.9
2.6
4.4
( 6)
-1.8
1,095
1,070
735
1,128
1,368
981
1,668
1,789
1,253
920
431
534
1,310
5.2
4.9
20.1
6.7
6.4
6.1
-8.5
6.9
4.5
4.0
5.9
4.3
7.9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12 4
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12 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
5.8
2.9
13.4
1.1
8.4
15.8
8.6
7.1
29.5
1.4
1,253.4
1,035.8
10.0
55.1
93.1
201.0
24.3
68.8
210.9
154.6
154.2
57.1
217.6
1.1
1.7
0.4
1.3
-0.8
1.4
-1.6
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.4
-0.6
-1.5
$1,076
1,052
575
1,067
1,557
842
1,662
1,565
1,505
922
430
521
1,190
7.5
6.7
7.9
3.2
6.7
5.5
3.1
17.8
5.8
4.9
12.0
4.8
11.4
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 ...................................................
82.7
82.2
0.3
5.4
2.2
14.5
1.8
6.2
13.9
7.3
6.5
24.0
0.5
1,144.4
987.2
2.7
44.9
101.1
208.1
80.3
62.7
185.2
138.8
110.2
53.2
157.2
3.0
3.6
8.7
4.2
4.9
3.3
1.8
0.2
4.3
3.6
4.6
3.3
-0.1
1,265
1,287
1,430
1,159
1,715
1,082
2,546
1,794
1,540
945
443
612
1,127
6.4
7.1
-2.1
4.2
7.9
5.9
11.4
4.5
7.3
7.0
5.5
4.4
1.8
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 ...................................................
88.6
88.3
0.5
5.0
2.6
25.5
1.5
9.0
18.4
9.9
6.7
7.9
0.4
989.5
851.2
9.9
29.0
36.3
254.1
17.2
66.6
124.8
157.2
119.0
35.1
138.3
2.2
3.2
-4.0
-7.2
1.5
4.2
0.1
4.9
0.8
2.0
7.1
4.1
-3.6
909
895
484
862
851
844
1,438
1,567
1,108
875
518
540
988
4.1
4.8
16.9
-0.8
5.5
4.6
5.9
-0.8
9.1
6.1
8.6
4.4
0.7
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 2011 annual average employment.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12
United States 4 ...................
9,211.8
130,175.4
1.8
$984
5.4
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.1
21.9
146.4
85.2
1,422.7
170.4
110.6
27.4
35.3
605.4
1,822.8
316.4
2,437.2
1,151.5
14,670.6
2,230.4
1,613.1
398.8
712.1
7,377.3
0.8
1.9
2.1
1.5
2.0
2.4
1.5
0.8
1.3
2.0
808
973
887
747
1,125
1,003
1,330
1,071
1,602
837
5.6
6.7
5.7
4.6
5.5
5.4
3.8
4.2
4.0
5.4
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
268.3
38.4
53.5
388.7
161.6
95.0
87.8
108.3
128.5
49.3
3,815.5
600.3
596.7
5,557.5
2,777.0
1,448.3
1,314.2
1,750.3
1,863.1
561.4
1.3
0.9
1.1
1.5
2.2
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.2
0.5
931
834
692
1,061
822
784
803
785
836
757
5.2
5.7
5.0
5.9
6.3
6.4
7.2
6.4
4.9
4.7
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
165.1
228.7
241.6
169.9
69.1
175.1
42.1
65.8
72.0
48.3
2,492.4
3,178.7
3,865.8
2,586.3
1,083.5
2,593.7
419.5
905.3
1,118.4
602.1
1.7
1.7
2.6
2.1
0.8
1.2
1.8
2.1
1.4
1.0
1,071
1,227
920
989
687
838
706
765
846
923
6.0
5.7
5.5
6.1
5.9
6.5
7.8
6.1
5.5
5.4
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
264.5
55.0
603.0
256.9
28.5
287.0
103.9
132.9
354.1
35.0
3,749.0
779.7
8,479.4
3,874.9
397.4
4,967.8
1,525.5
1,613.0
5,531.1
443.5
1.5
0.4
1.7
1.7
9.0
2.0
2.0
1.4
1.2
1.1
1,228
782
1,357
869
857
873
806
864
960
931
5.9
5.8
-0.8
5.3
14.6
6.6
9.4
6.4
7.1
8.0
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
112.0
31.2
141.3
591.5
83.8
24.5
239.3
235.5
49.4
158.9
1,797.7
390.4
2,636.7
10,605.2
1,193.1
296.6
3,586.3
2,831.9
705.5
2,639.0
1.7
2.1
2.4
2.6
3.2
1.5
1.4
1.9
2.4
1.1
764
703
847
1,013
799
774
1,019
1,009
768
827
6.0
6.7
6.8
7.2
6.1
4.6
5.3
6.5
6.2
6.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2012
(thousands)
March
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2011-12
First
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
first quarter
2011-12
Wyoming ............................
25.3
271.8
2.4
$850
5.2
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
48.8
3.4
931.3
42.7
0.6
-5.4
521
722
4.6
-2.0
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
March 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.8 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
September 2012
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 or more
employees, first quarter 2011-12 (U.S. average = 5.4 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
September 2012