For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 8, 2013
USDL-13-0013
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Second Quarter 2012
From June 2011 to June 2012, employment increased in 287 of the 328 largest U.S. counties, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Yakima, Wash., posted the largest increase, with a gain of 8.2
percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.8 percent. Within Yakima, the largest
employment increase occurred in natural resources and mining, which gained 8,646 jobs over the year
(34.6 percent). Madison, Ill., St. Clair, Ill., and Clay, Mo., had the largest over-the-year decreases in
employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with losses of 2.0 percent each. County employment
and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program,
which produces detailed information on local employment and wages within 7 months after the end of
each quarter.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 1.3 percent to $903 in the second quarter of
2012. Washington, Ore., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of
8.5 percent. Within Washington County, a total wage gain of $159.4 million (16.0 percent) in the
manufacturing industry had the largest contribution to the increase in average weekly wages. Within this
industry, large payouts, which included bonuses, significantly boosted the county’s average weekly
wages. Williamson, Texas, experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 17.0
percent over the year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, June 2011-12
(U.S. average = 1.8 percent)
10
8
10
8
8.2
6
6
5.7
4
5.6
5.5
5.4
8.5
7.8
7.2
7.1
McLean,
Ill.
San Mateo,
Calif.
6.4
4
2
2
0
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, second quarter 2011-12
(U.S. average = 1.3 percent)
0
Yakima,
Wash.
Montgomery,
Texas
Elkhart,
Ind.
Williamson,
Tenn.
Delaware,
Ohio
Washington, Washington,
Ore.
Pa.
Weld,
Colo.
Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2012 employment, June 2011-12 employment
increase, and June 2011-12 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
June 2012 employment
(thousands)
United States
Increase in employment,
June 2011-12
(thousands)
132,896.0
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Orange, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
3,961.9
2,428.3
2,392.0
2,121.7
1,635.4
1,475.1
1,416.5
1,283.3
1,174.4
974.6
United States
Percent increase in employment,
June 2011-12
2,366.8
Harris, Texas
Los Angeles, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Dallas, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
King, Wash.
Orange, Calif.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
San Diego, Calif.
78.3
64.1
56.2
46.1
44.3
34.7
33.4
32.8
31.0
26.7
United States
1.8
Yakima, Wash.
Montgomery, Texas
Elkhart, Ind.
Williamson, Tenn.
Delaware, Ohio
Utah, Utah
Rutherford, Tenn.
Kern, Calif.
Lafayette, La.
Gregg, Texas
8.2
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
Large County Employment
In June 2012, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 132.9 million, up by 1.8
percent or 2.4 million, from June 2011. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs accounted for
70.9 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.2 percent of total wages. These 328 counties had a net job
growth of 1.7 million over the year, accounting for 73.3 percent of the overall U.S. employment
increase. (See chart 3.)
Yakima, Wash., had the largest percentage increase in employment (8.2 percent) among the largest U.S.
counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; Los
Angeles, Calif.; New York, N.Y.; Dallas, Texas; and Maricopa, Ariz. These counties had a combined
over-the-year gain of 289,000, or 12.2 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S. (See table
A.)
Employment declined in 38 of the large counties from June 2011 to June 2012. Three counties,
Madison, Ill., St. Clair, Ill., and Clay, Mo., had the largest over-the-year percentage decreases in
employment (-2.0 percent each). Within Madison, construction was the largest contributor to the
decrease in employment with a loss of 998 jobs (-17.9 percent). The largest employment decrease in St.
Clair occurred within local government in the education and health services industry, which lost 463
jobs (-6.1 percent), followed by construction where 452 jobs were lost (-10.9 percent) within the private
sector. Within Clay, manufacturing had the largest employment decline, with a loss of 1,584 jobs (-15.2
percent). Benton, Wash., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by New
London, Conn. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2012 average weekly wages, second quarter 2011-12
increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2011-12 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2012
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Washington, D.C.
San Mateo, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Fairfax, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
Somerset, N.J.
Increase in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2011-12
$903
$1,754
1,646
1,544
1,515
1,493
1,487
1,425
1,422
1,381
1,345
United States
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2011-12
$12
San Mateo, Calif.
Washington, Ore.
Washington, Pa.
McLean, Ill.
Jefferson, Texas
Davidson, Tenn.
Franklin, Ohio
San Francisco, Calif.
Weld, Colo.
Harris, Texas
$100
88
64
62
55
52
50
48
47
46
United States
1.3
Washington, Ore.
Washington, Pa.
McLean, Ill.
San Mateo, Calif.
Weld, Colo.
Jefferson, Texas
Davidson, Tenn.
Franklin, Ohio
Lucas, Ohio
Lake, Ind.
8.5
7.8
7.2
7.1
6.4
6.3
5.8
5.6
5.0
4.8
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 1.3 percent during the year ending in the second
quarter of 2012. Among the 328 largest counties, 233 had over-the-year increases in average weekly
wages. (See chart 4.) Washington, Ore., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties (8.5
percent).
Of the 328 largest counties, 86 experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages.
Williamson, Texas, had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 17.0 percent. Within
Williamson, total wages in trade, transportation, and utilities decreased by $212.4 million (-30.5 percent)
over the year. This decline reflects a return to pay levels seen previously following a big payout in the
second quarter of 2011. Williamson also received large payouts in this industry in the first quarter of
2012. Kitsap, Wash., had the second largest decline in average weekly wages, followed by Arlington,
Va., Durham, N.C., and Benton, Wash. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June
2012. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain (3.8 percent). Within Harris, professional and business
services had the largest over-the-year level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of
20,285 jobs (6.0 percent). Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.3 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. Harris,
Texas, experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages (4.1 percent), largely due to substantial
total wage gains over the year in trade, transportation, and utilities ($960.6 million or 17.3 percent).
Miami-Dade, Fla., had the only average weekly wage decline (-0.5 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. June 2012 employment and 2012
second quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 132.9 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the second quarter of 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 third quarter 2012 is scheduled to be released on
Thursday, March 28, 2013.
-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 its 2011 annual average employment level was less
than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each
year based on the annual average employment from the preceding
year.
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
6.8 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 to
annually realign sample-based estimates
to population counts (benchmarking)
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/
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. Compari-
sons 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 2011 edition
of this publication, which was published in October 2012, contains
selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED)
on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter
2012 version of this news release. Tables and additional content
from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2011 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn11.htm. The 2012
edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be
available later in 2013.
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,
second quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2011-12 5
United States 6 ...................
9,224.5
132,896.0
1.8
–
$903
1.3
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.6
8.9
9.7
6.3
4.2
8.3
95.5
19.1
5.5
14.4
338.2
178.5
164.2
128.3
84.7
155.5
1,635.4
343.5
97.4
243.6
1.5
0.1
-1.0
1.3
2.4
2.1
2.8
1.9
2.1
0.9
168
280
317
184
86
107
64
130
107
222
913
1,010
791
783
792
998
905
795
844
825
3.4
0.9
1.7
0.0
1.8
0.9
2.6
0.4
3.2
1.6
32
182
120
234
111
182
74
211
37
128
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.5
58.4
31.0
32.3
18.6
452.9
12.0
13.3
106.6
11.2
92.7
660.2
326.3
351.8
299.7
3,961.9
107.0
187.0
1,416.5
131.4
2.2
2.7
2.2
3.2
4.8
1.6
3.6
1.5
2.4
3.0
100
72
100
44
8
158
27
168
86
57
728
1,181
1,091
702
813
1,006
1,122
770
1,014
898
-1.0
0.2
-0.5
-0.3
2.9
1.3
1.5
2.3
1.3
2.7
289
221
269
254
53
142
133
82
142
66
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 .................
52.8
55.6
53.7
102.8
58.1
18.2
9.9
25.3
14.9
65.6
575.1
592.7
609.8
1,283.3
585.8
216.3
106.5
342.1
189.4
903.1
2.3
1.7
1.4
2.1
4.3
2.0
3.4
4.3
2.0
3.8
98
151
176
107
15
122
34
15
122
22
749
1,018
791
989
1,487
758
750
1,515
863
1,754
1.1
1.4
2.3
0.9
3.3
-0.5
-1.4
7.1
3.1
1.2
163
140
82
182
33
269
302
4
43
153
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
9.4
10.5
19.6
15.5
9.6
24.7
6.3
8.9
18.9
13.1
99.3
122.1
176.5
168.2
150.9
308.1
92.2
161.9
288.9
162.2
1.7
2.0
1.5
2.8
0.3
1.1
2.2
2.4
3.0
2.7
151
122
168
64
266
204
100
86
57
72
834
909
842
761
634
926
934
834
1,041
1,048
4.0
0.2
-1.2
1.3
2.3
-0.3
4.1
2.6
1.8
2.0
20
221
294
142
82
254
17
74
111
101
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
26.0
9.7
16.8
17.8
10.1
5.8
32.8
25.7
22.4
6.9
435.9
97.3
240.1
214.7
135.9
85.2
413.5
496.6
358.0
125.5
3.6
4.2
0.7
1.8
3.3
3.7
1.8
1.3
0.9
-1.3
27
17
235
140
41
24
140
184
222
324
1,088
980
843
907
782
786
1,425
1,097
952
926
1.0
0.1
2.2
0.9
3.7
6.4
-2.9
-0.1
0.7
2.1
170
228
87
182
25
5
318
243
196
96
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2011-12 5
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
17.0
35.5
6.5
14.4
63.2
11.8
27.1
7.9
37.9
7.2
265.6
717.9
115.8
188.2
698.7
110.6
438.1
117.3
576.6
77.6
0.1
0.9
0.7
-0.3
2.0
4.2
1.3
-0.8
2.4
2.1
280
222
235
298
122
17
184
313
86
107
$1,071
1,544
786
829
830
781
862
736
868
614
1.9
0.3
1.0
-3.2
-0.6
-1.9
1.5
1.0
1.0
-0.5
108
215
170
321
276
311
133
170
170
269
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.6
8.2
9.3
7.9
88.9
6.1
36.1
49.6
10.0
30.6
196.2
134.8
100.7
89.7
974.6
77.0
672.8
499.9
92.5
382.6
2.0
-0.8
2.5
1.2
2.3
1.2
3.2
2.8
1.5
1.3
122
313
83
196
98
196
44
64
168
184
730
768
712
654
876
750
790
873
664
805
-0.1
0.0
-0.8
-0.3
-0.5
-0.7
-0.4
-0.2
-0.3
0.5
243
234
285
254
269
282
262
252
254
205
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
13.3
4.6
7.7
4.3
21.4
17.9
41.5
184.1
134.5
156.6
147.1
80.4
134.0
111.9
303.1
276.2
723.8
0.7
3.0
1.9
1.3
1.1
2.4
-0.1
1.9
-0.3
3.1
235
57
130
184
204
86
291
130
298
51
698
751
757
668
708
755
869
959
957
1,171
2.0
0.3
-0.3
1.7
2.9
0.0
2.2
3.0
3.2
2.0
101
215
254
120
53
234
87
51
37
101
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
24.1
4.6
4.7
24.6
13.7
4.3
148.8
37.2
13.3
22.1
308.2
94.2
97.0
443.0
200.8
87.3
2,428.3
576.6
196.8
331.3
1.2
-0.1
-1.0
2.1
2.9
0.1
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.5
196
291
317
107
62
280
184
140
158
168
887
716
784
844
778
789
1,052
1,054
795
1,156
2.4
0.6
2.9
1.7
0.4
4.2
1.3
2.1
-0.1
2.2
80
200
53
120
211
13
142
96
243
87
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
8.7
3.8
6.0
4.7
5.6
5.3
15.2
6.8
8.9
96.0
86.9
94.4
103.9
92.5
130.2
205.8
126.8
176.5
0.9
1.1
-2.0
1.5
-2.0
-1.1
1.0
0.4
0.7
222
204
326
168
326
321
210
262
235
744
926
742
869
735
928
794
774
734
0.0
7.2
1.1
3.1
0.0
1.2
-0.3
3.5
-2.1
234
3
163
43
234
153
254
30
312
Elkhart, IN ..........................
4.8
112.4
5.6
3
747
2.8
61
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2011-12 5
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Tippecanoe, IN ..................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Johnson, IA ........................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
8.5
10.4
24.0
6.0
3.3
4.8
3.6
6.3
15.1
114.5
190.4
565.7
116.2
78.8
104.9
78.0
128.9
275.0
0.7
1.8
3.6
0.4
4.6
-1.0
1.7
1.0
2.7
235
140
27
262
11
317
151
210
72
$840
846
905
751
776
728
826
846
882
2.8
4.8
1.3
2.7
0.0
-1.1
2.9
1.1
1.0
61
10
142
66
234
292
53
163
170
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
5.2
21.0
12.3
4.8
3.2
9.5
22.5
7.6
4.9
15.0
89.5
313.3
240.6
94.7
85.4
178.5
427.9
120.5
84.9
254.7
1.8
3.4
1.2
0.6
3.6
1.7
2.1
-0.3
1.6
2.7
140
34
196
246
27
151
107
298
158
72
738
929
818
771
839
808
895
767
764
855
3.9
2.0
0.2
-1.0
-1.4
-1.6
1.8
0.5
1.3
3.1
22
101
221
289
302
308
111
205
142
43
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
St. Tammany, LA ...............
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
14.0
9.2
11.4
7.6
12.7
14.6
21.2
6.2
5.6
9.2
191.5
139.3
175.7
79.2
174.3
242.4
366.1
94.2
88.2
162.0
-1.0
4.8
3.1
1.2
1.8
3.6
1.1
0.5
3.2
2.7
317
8
51
196
140
27
204
253
44
72
824
891
902
740
807
958
917
889
917
1,106
0.5
4.2
-2.7
-1.2
0.9
-0.8
1.8
2.7
2.8
2.7
205
13
316
294
182
285
111
66
61
66
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
33.1
15.6
13.9
8.9
16.0
21.4
15.3
48.8
23.3
13.9
455.8
302.6
329.9
101.1
214.1
312.1
201.0
833.8
325.5
181.4
1.4
0.0
0.1
3.3
0.1
1.8
1.6
2.1
2.0
3.1
176
288
280
41
280
140
158
107
122
51
1,222
979
1,020
758
826
953
832
1,342
1,055
867
1.2
-0.4
-1.4
0.4
-1.3
-3.0
2.2
-3.2
0.9
-0.7
153
262
302
211
299
319
87
321
182
282
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
23.2
21.3
7.2
6.3
5.3
14.0
17.1
37.9
5.5
4.2
598.1
320.6
130.1
153.7
110.3
337.9
294.9
667.5
110.2
83.4
2.0
0.9
0.3
-0.4
0.9
4.4
1.5
3.4
2.4
0.1
122
222
266
305
222
14
168
34
86
280
1,381
910
741
839
814
801
916
1,003
744
727
-0.7
0.0
0.7
1.7
1.9
1.6
3.3
1.3
2.8
1.0
282
234
196
120
108
128
33
142
61
170
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
8.1
31.4
192.6
690.2
3.4
1.6
34
158
964
975
3.1
1.5
43
133
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2011-12 5
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
7.2
9.9
41.4
3.5
14.1
5.6
4.4
4.4
112.1
176.2
850.1
92.1
320.5
95.0
81.5
84.1
1.9
1.3
2.1
2.8
0.8
-0.7
1.8
0.3
130
184
107
64
230
311
140
266
$868
880
1,120
1,031
1,003
726
722
670
0.8
-0.9
0.3
1.7
0.9
-3.2
3.3
0.3
192
288
215
120
182
321
33
215
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
5.9
4.5
5.1
8.0
18.6
8.3
32.1
9.3
6.0
17.3
120.7
86.6
87.4
154.0
349.0
127.1
567.5
217.3
78.9
318.6
-1.1
2.9
-2.0
3.6
1.0
1.3
-0.3
1.0
2.1
1.7
321
62
326
27
210
184
298
210
107
151
793
714
816
695
920
738
956
953
766
810
1.9
2.6
1.5
2.2
3.1
3.8
3.7
-3.1
4.4
-0.4
108
74
133
87
43
24
25
320
12
262
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
9.3
48.5
13.5
12.0
10.6
6.7
33.1
10.9
12.1
20.4
157.8
822.0
185.4
190.5
139.1
145.6
433.6
196.6
195.1
339.5
2.1
1.9
0.7
1.4
1.9
3.4
1.4
1.0
0.4
0.7
107
130
235
176
130
34
176
210
262
235
732
807
809
977
848
765
1,127
963
899
1,096
1.5
0.1
0.1
-1.2
-0.5
-2.3
3.6
1.8
0.7
-2.6
133
228
228
294
269
313
28
111
196
315
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
6.1
13.8
10.9
21.7
19.9
17.2
12.2
12.2
10.0
14.3
99.2
233.8
232.8
387.6
252.6
275.8
159.2
173.0
175.6
221.7
0.5
1.4
1.1
2.4
0.2
0.7
1.9
0.6
1.0
0.7
253
176
204
86
278
235
130
246
210
235
789
1,233
1,155
1,068
905
1,266
739
928
1,345
1,130
-1.4
0.0
-2.8
-2.4
-1.8
1.3
0.8
0.2
2.6
0.1
302
234
317
314
310
142
192
221
74
228
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
4.5
8.2
23.8
52.9
18.2
52.6
122.7
309.8
221.9
237.2
91.7
111.6
460.0
522.7
380.1
603.4
2,392.0
-0.4
1.2
0.5
-0.1
-0.3
0.6
2.8
0.6
1.4
2.4
305
196
253
291
298
246
64
246
176
86
799
929
868
733
960
793
736
862
1,042
1,646
2.2
-0.3
-0.1
1.4
1.1
1.8
-0.4
0.9
0.6
0.2
87
254
243
140
163
111
262
182
200
221
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
5.3
12.9
9.9
107.2
243.5
133.5
-0.6
-0.4
0.2
308
305
278
741
849
807
1.0
3.2
-0.1
170
37
243
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2011-12 5
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
47.1
9.0
10.0
5.6
50.8
36.1
8.1
521.6
92.5
117.0
80.7
641.9
413.8
112.9
2.2
-0.1
0.5
3.1
1.0
0.1
1.9
100
291
253
51
210
280
130
$846
770
989
815
974
1,195
681
-0.1
-0.5
-0.6
1.6
-0.6
-0.8
1.5
243
269
276
128
276
285
133
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
7.4
9.0
14.2
33.3
7.4
29.8
6.1
7.4
79.2
119.1
185.7
173.6
259.5
562.0
96.8
459.5
107.9
139.6
0.8
-0.7
2.2
1.6
-0.2
2.7
0.3
3.1
4.6
1.3
230
311
100
158
296
72
266
51
11
184
686
739
1,180
811
783
1,000
738
890
789
789
1.3
-1.3
-3.6
-0.5
0.8
0.5
1.2
0.9
2.7
0.8
142
299
325
269
192
205
153
182
66
192
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Delaware, OH ....................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
35.6
4.4
29.6
23.2
6.4
6.0
10.1
5.9
12.1
8.8
706.1
81.4
672.1
494.7
95.9
97.1
203.5
97.9
246.0
155.0
1.9
5.4
2.5
1.6
0.9
3.0
2.8
2.2
1.0
1.9
130
5
83
158
222
57
64
100
210
130
916
881
935
970
760
751
804
651
788
688
2.2
0.9
5.6
1.0
0.5
2.9
5.0
0.6
0.4
0.0
87
182
8
170
205
53
9
200
211
234
Summit, OH .......................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
14.3
24.9
20.5
12.7
10.8
9.4
29.8
16.5
35.6
9.0
258.5
432.3
335.7
141.3
138.8
134.3
442.3
252.2
693.5
164.4
1.2
2.8
1.6
2.4
0.4
1.1
2.1
2.6
1.0
0.1
196
64
158
86
262
204
107
81
210
280
803
832
837
847
712
730
920
1,122
966
812
1.6
0.1
2.7
1.3
1.1
0.7
-0.3
8.5
2.0
0.5
128
228
66
142
163
196
254
1
101
205
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
19.7
4.9
15.1
6.1
7.5
13.9
7.7
5.9
12.7
8.7
253.2
84.6
239.1
125.5
178.3
212.9
126.7
96.7
222.9
178.3
0.3
0.5
0.0
1.6
-0.6
1.4
0.3
-1.2
1.0
0.5
266
253
288
158
308
176
266
323
210
253
878
829
1,158
853
890
962
722
685
749
885
2.1
-1.2
-0.1
2.3
1.0
1.2
1.7
-0.4
1.2
2.7
96
294
243
82
170
153
120
262
153
66
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
7.8
27.5
6.6
35.4
139.8
471.9
103.6
629.4
-0.3
1.5
0.9
-0.1
298
168
222
291
711
1,111
787
1,070
2.0
2.4
1.0
4.1
101
80
170
17
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2011-12 5
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
5.6
9.5
9.1
17.3
11.9
12.1
87.3
135.7
171.3
271.6
219.9
235.8
2.4
0.7
-0.3
0.6
3.4
2.5
86
235
298
246
34
83
$887
726
781
888
773
789
7.8
0.3
-1.1
-1.0
-1.2
0.3
2
215
292
289
294
215
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
7.6
5.6
8.9
5.8
6.6
18.2
8.4
10.9
4.4
19.0
118.3
96.9
204.1
114.8
118.3
429.2
186.0
218.8
101.9
472.6
0.3
2.7
0.6
3.2
2.7
2.4
2.2
0.7
4.9
2.1
266
72
246
44
72
86
100
235
7
107
532
687
802
801
763
950
798
778
825
949
1.3
3.9
3.1
2.2
3.2
5.8
1.8
1.7
4.0
3.2
142
22
43
87
37
7
111
120
20
37
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
35.1
5.0
4.0
6.4
19.2
68.9
11.5
14.0
98.1
108.7
751.1
93.3
86.3
129.9
310.6
1,475.1
186.7
277.3
5.5
1.3
2.0
4.1
2.6
1.4
4.1
3.2
3.7
1.3
4
184
122
19
81
176
19
44
24
184
959
738
799
899
689
571
1,048
1,074
794
653
-1.4
1.0
0.1
4.2
1.5
0.2
-0.4
2.0
1.0
0.6
302
170
228
13
133
221
262
101
170
200
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 .........................
9.8
5.4
4.2
103.2
11.4
5.8
7.1
4.9
9.1
7.9
5.7
38.6
32.1
4.9
8.0
7.3
37.6
12.9
5.4
144.1
98.1
78.7
2,121.7
228.0
123.2
125.6
101.4
142.2
156.8
93.9
784.7
605.7
91.1
135.2
110.1
591.7
178.8
90.8
4.6
1.3
4.8
3.8
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.3
5.7
3.3
0.8
2.4
3.4
2.7
3.2
3.2
4.0
5.0
1.8
11
184
8
22
230
253
210
266
2
41
230
86
34
72
44
44
21
6
140
908
815
837
1,165
583
929
689
744
867
804
767
895
1,009
635
860
723
855
706
692
2.5
0.2
1.8
4.1
2.3
6.3
0.6
3.3
3.6
4.7
1.2
-0.2
3.7
3.1
-17.0
-0.6
2.6
-1.3
3.0
79
221
111
17
82
6
200
33
28
11
153
252
25
43
328
276
74
299
51
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
97.9
167.3
118.3
598.1
179.4
144.2
115.2
1.8
-0.8
2.1
2.1
2.8
3.7
3.5
140
313
107
107
64
24
33
918
1,493
813
1,422
896
1,076
812
2.9
-3.8
1.6
-0.4
1.2
2.9
1.1
53
326
128
262
153
53
163
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2011-12 5
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
6.2
5.7
3.8
95.9
96.2
94.7
1.6
0.0
-0.8
158
288
313
$1,293
741
861
2.8
4.2
1.8
61
13
111
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Benton, WA ........................
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
5.6
7.1
11.4
5.7
13.5
82.2
6.7
21.7
19.2
15.9
138.6
148.5
169.8
83.0
131.5
1,174.4
81.2
265.3
258.2
200.6
0.3
0.3
1.0
-1.7
1.8
3.0
-0.6
0.8
3.1
0.3
266
266
210
325
140
57
308
230
51
266
877
966
706
922
826
1,167
823
837
974
764
-0.1
-1.6
-1.5
-3.4
2.1
2.9
-4.2
1.7
2.2
1.2
243
308
307
324
96
53
327
120
87
153
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
14.1
23.1
5.1
12.6
3.6
11.4
97.6
81.4
110.5
105.5
149.3
308.6
473.3
104.4
231.7
90.1
264.2
-0.2
1.7
8.2
0.5
0.5
2.1
1.2
1.7
0.6
0.3
2.8
296
151
1
253
253
107
196
151
246
266
( 7)
818
777
617
814
779
871
877
752
895
839
596
-0.6
3.5
1.1
2.1
3.2
-0.1
-0.6
1.2
3.1
2.7
-0.3
276
30
163
96
37
243
276
153
43
66
( 7)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 328 U.S. counties comprise 70.9 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 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 4
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
9,224.5
8,928.1
130.2
748.7
335.3
1,883.2
143.8
809.7
1,589.9
926.8
769.1
1,375.6
296.4
132,896.0
111,708.5
2,120.8
5,726.3
11,996.6
25,240.5
2,686.3
7,540.1
17,985.5
19,330.2
14,307.6
4,552.6
21,187.6
1.8
2.4
7.1
1.7
2.0
1.7
0.0
1.3
3.7
2.0
3.5
1.7
-1.2
$903
891
996
966
1,111
768
1,437
1,320
1,153
847
374
576
964
1.3
1.9
3.8
3.3
1.6
2.1
2.8
2.6
1.7
1.4
2.5
2.1
-1.0
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 ...................................................
452.9
447.3
0.4
12.1
12.6
50.8
8.3
21.9
41.9
29.6
27.3
217.6
5.6
3,961.9
3,414.8
9.7
109.3
367.7
750.7
187.1
210.6
569.4
527.2
420.2
242.8
547.0
1.6
2.3
0.6
3.4
-0.2
1.6
-1.8
1.1
4.2
2.2
5.4
-1.3
-2.1
1,006
977
1,287
1,046
1,067
826
1,749
1,459
1,222
958
543
457
1,187
1.3
1.7
5.8
4.2
-1.5
2.7
3.3
2.7
1.2
2.0
-0.5
4.6
0.3
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 ...................................................
148.8
147.4
0.1
12.4
6.6
28.9
2.7
15.6
31.4
15.6
13.2
16.4
1.4
2,428.3
2,128.9
0.8
64.9
194.9
441.8
54.3
185.2
425.7
410.4
249.5
98.1
299.4
1.3
1.7
-5.4
-2.8
0.3
0.6
0.0
-0.5
3.6
2.2
3.2
1.1
-1.2
1,052
1,034
955
1,241
1,100
826
1,535
1,812
1,328
881
469
777
1,174
1.3
1.2
6.9
1.5
1.1
0.6
2.1
1.0
1.8
2.2
1.3
1.8
1.9
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 ...................................................
122.7
122.4
0.0
2.1
2.4
20.7
4.3
18.8
25.3
9.2
12.9
18.9
0.3
2,392.0
1,956.8
0.1
31.3
26.3
249.8
143.8
355.2
488.0
303.5
257.2
92.6
435.3
2.4
3.0
3.5
2.6
-0.6
3.1
4.1
-0.5
3.1
1.2
7.0
3.5
0.0
1,646
1,769
1,652
1,621
1,202
1,233
2,046
3,249
2,025
1,120
763
1,022
1,101
0.2
0.2
-7.7
0.0
-2.3
0.2
2.3
1.5
0.5
0.1
0.3
5.3
-1.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 4
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
103.2
102.6
1.7
6.5
4.5
23.2
1.3
10.7
20.6
11.7
8.5
13.7
0.6
2,121.7
1,869.5
87.9
139.9
189.4
441.0
28.0
114.2
357.6
251.5
195.8
62.9
252.2
3.8
4.8
9.4
5.5
7.1
3.6
-0.6
2.3
6.0
3.5
5.2
1.3
-2.7
$1,165
1,191
2,933
1,143
1,415
1,141
1,337
1,423
1,374
898
398
660
979
4.1
4.4
-4.0
4.2
2.7
13.4
4.0
3.0
2.4
0.4
1.5
3.0
0.5
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 ...................................................
95.5
94.8
0.5
8.0
3.2
21.5
1.6
10.9
22.2
10.5
7.2
6.6
0.7
1,635.4
1,456.7
7.8
86.0
113.7
338.2
28.5
141.4
270.6
243.0
175.5
47.3
178.7
2.8
3.0
-5.6
4.0
3.2
1.7
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.2
2.8
-0.5
1.5
905
890
828
941
1,329
838
1,123
1,107
953
927
419
606
1,014
2.6
2.7
10.0
5.4
-0.6
2.4
2.6
3.8
3.8
1.8
4.5
2.9
2.1
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
68.9
68.4
0.6
4.0
2.8
14.9
1.5
8.5
15.2
7.5
5.8
7.2
0.5
1,475.1
1,313.4
9.9
70.2
112.7
294.5
46.4
143.0
286.8
172.7
135.7
41.0
161.7
3.2
3.9
12.9
3.3
0.9
3.6
1.6
3.2
6.9
2.8
3.9
1.7
-1.9
1,074
1,082
3,563
1,003
1,294
992
1,615
1,446
1,188
964
446
677
1,011
2.0
2.4
15.4
4.3
6.0
2.0
0.8
3.8
1.1
-1.7
0.7
2.0
-1.0
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 ...................................................
106.6
105.3
0.2
6.0
4.8
16.1
1.2
9.6
18.7
10.6
7.2
23.1
1.4
1,416.5
1,271.5
3.5
70.7
158.6
245.1
24.0
107.6
260.2
161.5
183.9
50.1
145.0
2.4
2.9
-12.8
0.7
1.4
0.8
-1.9
2.7
5.4
1.8
5.2
2.4
-1.6
1,014
1,000
736
1,126
1,236
948
1,390
1,501
1,140
939
445
563
1,135
1.3
1.6
12.5
4.4
0.3
1.8
-1.5
2.6
0.2
3.1
4.5
5.4
-0.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12 4
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
102.8
101.4
0.7
5.8
2.9
13.5
1.1
8.4
16.1
8.7
7.1
30.2
1.4
1,283.3
1,063.1
10.9
57.6
93.6
205.4
24.5
70.0
216.4
155.7
163.7
59.5
220.2
2.1
2.7
9.0
2.9
-0.8
1.8
0.3
2.9
3.3
2.5
3.7
2.7
-0.6
$989
966
634
1,048
1,355
802
1,479
1,188
1,379
939
414
503
1,099
0.9
2.1
6.2
2.5
1.7
3.6
0.2
2.9
1.6
3.0
2.7
-1.6
-3.6
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 ...................................................
82.2
81.7
0.3
5.3
2.2
14.3
1.7
6.2
13.7
7.2
6.4
24.3
0.5
1,174.4
1,015.7
3.0
49.3
103.3
214.6
81.8
63.4
191.2
138.5
117.1
53.6
158.7
3.0
3.6
7.5
6.2
5.6
3.7
1.6
0.7
5.5
2.7
3.0
0.4
-0.3
1,167
1,171
1,372
1,143
1,417
1,019
2,243
1,383
1,434
968
444
606
1,143
2.9
3.2
-7.5
1.2
-0.3
2.9
9.4
0.9
2.0
4.5
2.8
4.7
1.2
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 ...................................................
88.9
88.5
0.5
5.0
2.6
25.8
1.5
9.1
18.6
9.9
6.8
7.9
0.4
974.6
851.4
7.5
29.6
35.6
255.4
17.1
67.3
126.0
157.6
118.4
35.7
123.2
2.3
3.1
2.1
-3.1
-2.1
3.5
0.3
5.4
2.3
2.1
5.9
4.3
-3.1
876
832
533
808
795
780
1,365
1,241
1,047
856
505
540
1,156
-0.5
-0.1
1.9
-6.6
-1.4
-0.3
-8.2
-1.7
1.7
0.8
4.8
1.5
-0.3
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.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
second quarter
2011-12
United States 4 ...................
9,224.5
132,896.0
1.8
$903
1.3
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.1
21.8
147.3
85.4
1,434.5
171.4
111.3
27.6
35.5
606.9
1,841.7
342.9
2,393.9
1,157.4
15,045.8
2,291.8
1,650.0
409.3
717.9
7,233.7
0.9
2.1
2.6
1.1
2.4
2.5
1.2
0.2
0.9
2.0
783
955
862
717
1,034
918
1,111
948
1,544
805
2.0
1.5
2.1
2.1
1.8
2.0
-0.4
2.4
0.3
0.4
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
269.5
38.4
53.5
391.4
160.5
95.2
84.6
109.8
129.2
49.4
3,854.7
603.7
626.1
5,698.0
2,832.6
1,502.7
1,334.4
1,780.7
1,877.2
601.8
1.4
2.1
1.5
1.1
2.3
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.2
848
812
673
953
763
743
763
772
806
719
1.9
1.8
0.9
1.6
1.9
2.5
1.1
1.6
1.5
1.0
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
166.9
219.0
239.4
168.7
68.6
176.9
42.4
66.7
72.6
48.9
2,550.2
3,301.5
3,984.0
2,695.1
1,087.4
2,629.1
442.0
930.9
1,141.7
623.8
1.5
1.9
2.1
1.5
0.6
0.4
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.4
992
1,109
859
907
681
791
700
719
815
891
0.7
-1.2
1.7
1.1
2.9
2.2
2.6
0.7
-0.1
0.3
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
262.3
55.1
603.3
259.0
29.2
287.4
104.4
133.1
352.3
35.3
3,884.0
791.9
8,701.2
3,919.1
420.3
5,104.0
1,543.4
1,663.9
5,645.9
463.1
1.4
0.4
1.5
1.5
9.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
0.7
0.9
1,056
783
1,096
787
854
817
768
837
893
859
0.0
2.6
0.4
0.5
11.1
2.8
2.7
2.3
2.1
-0.3
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
111.5
31.3
141.0
592.9
84.8
24.7
238.1
234.6
49.3
160.0
1,830.7
412.8
2,669.1
10,779.5
1,225.8
300.2
3,659.9
2,948.3
712.3
2,749.7
1.5
1.9
2.0
3.0
3.6
1.0
1.2
2.4
1.4
1.4
736
677
816
922
766
792
952
947
776
778
1.4
3.2
2.8
2.6
1.3
2.6
0.3
2.2
1.4
1.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2012
(thousands)
June
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2011-12
Second
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
second quarter
2011-12
Wyoming ............................
25.5
288.9
1.6
$842
2.7
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
49.2
3.5
933.3
40.2
1.8
-8.6
499
819
0.6
9.8
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
June 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
January 2013
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 or more
employees, second quarter 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.3 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
January 2013