For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, March 28, 2013
USDL-13-0542
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Third Quarter 2012
From September 2011 to September 2012, employment increased in 276 of the 328 largest U.S.
counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart, Ind., posted the largest increase,
with a gain of 6.9 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.6 percent. Within
Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 4,734 jobs over the
year (10.1 percent). Benton, Wash., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the
largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 5.2 percent. County employment and wage data are compiled
under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, which produces detailed
information on county employment and wages within 7 months after the end of each quarter.
The U.S. average weekly wage decreased over the year by 1.1 percent to $906 in the third quarter of
2012. This is one of only six over-the-year average weekly wage declines dating back to 1978, when the
first comparable quarterly data are available. (See Technical Note.) Average weekly wages declined in
every industry except for information, in which wages increased by 1.3 percent. Wage declines were
also widespread across states, with the notable exception of a 6.3 percent increase in North Dakota.
Yolo, Calif., had the largest over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 7.0 percent.
Within Yolo, a total wage decline of $102.9 million (-19.1 percent) in government had the largest
contribution to the decrease in average weekly wages. San Mateo, Calif., experienced the largest
increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 7.3 percent over the year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, September 2011-12
(U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6.9
6.8
5.9
Elkhart,
Ind.
Rutherford,
Tenn.
Kern,
Calif.
5.5
Montgomery,
Texas
5.3
Utah,
Utah
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decrease in
average weekly wages, third quarter 2011-12
(U.S. average = -1.1 percent)
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-5.9
-7.0
-6.9
-6.9
-6.9
Yolo,
Calif.
Rockingham,
N.H.
Lake,
Ohio
Benton,
Wash.
Montgomery,
Ala.
Table A. Large counties ranked by September 2012 employment, September 2011-12 employment
increase, and September 2011-12 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
September 2012 employment
(thousands)
United States
132,624.7
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Orange, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
3,983.5
2,424.6
2,385.9
2,128.2
1,674.5
1,478.5
1,407.6
1,283.3
1,171.9
990.7
Increase in employment,
September 2011-12
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
September 2011-12
2,024.9
Los Angeles, Calif.
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Santa Clara, Calif.
Orange, Calif.
King, Wash.
Cook, Ill.
San Diego, Calif.
81.6
78.6
52.4
40.0
38.3
28.9
28.6
27.7
24.6
22.8
United States
1.6
Elkhart, Ind.
Rutherford, Tenn.
Kern, Calif.
Montgomery, Texas
Utah, Utah
Fort Bend, Texas
Lexington, S.C.
Cass, N.D.
Travis, Texas
Washington, Ark.
Denver, Colo.
Delaware, Ohio
Harris, Texas
6.9
6.8
5.9
5.5
5.3
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Large County Employment
In September 2012, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 132.6 million, up
by 1.6 percent or 2.0 million, from September 2011. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs
accounted for 71.0 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.3 percent of total wages. These 328
counties had a net job growth of 1.5 million over the year, accounting for 74.3 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Elkhart, Ind., had the largest percentage increase in employment (6.9 percent) among the largest U.S.
counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Los Angeles, Calif.;
Harris, Texas; New York, N.Y.; Maricopa, Ariz.; and Dallas, Texas. These counties had a combined
over-the-year employment gain of 290,900, or 14.4 percent of the overall job increase for the U.S. (See
table A.)
Employment declined in 49 of the large counties from September 2011 to September 2012. Benton,
Wash., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-5.2 percent). Within Benton,
professional and business services was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss
of 3,677 jobs (-15.8 percent). Jefferson, Texas, had the second largest percentage decrease in
employment, followed by Vanderburgh, Ind.; Sangamon, Ill.; and Hinds, Miss. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by third quarter 2012 average weekly wages, third quarter 2011-12
decrease in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2011-12 percent decrease in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
third quarter 2012
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
San Mateo, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
King, Wash.
Decrease in average weekly
wage, third quarter 2011-12
$906
$1,800
1,626
1,537
1,514
1,488
1,473
1,410
1,397
1,371
1,354
Percent decrease in average
weekly wage, third
quarter 2011-12
United States
-$10
United States
-1.1
Benton, Wash.
Yolo, Calif.
Rockingham, N.H.
Fairfield, Conn.
Lake, Ohio
Arlington, Va.
Hudson, N.J.
Brevard, Fla.
Montgomery, Ala.
York, Pa.
-$68
-66
-62
-58
-58
-57
-52
-49
-48
-48
Yolo, Calif.
Rockingham, N.H.
Lake, Ohio
Benton, Wash.
Montgomery, Ala.
York, Pa.
Brevard, Fla.
Brown, Wis.
Erie, Pa.
Winnebago, Ill.
Monmouth, N.J.
-7.0
-6.9
-6.9
-6.9
-5.9
-5.6
-5.5
-5.1
-4.6
-4.5
-4.5
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation decreased by 1.1 percent during the year ending in the third
quarter of 2012. Among the 328 largest counties, 274 had over-the-year declines in average weekly
wages. (See chart 4.) Yolo, Calif., had the largest wage decline among the largest U.S. counties (-7.0
percent).
Of the 328 largest counties, 46 experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. San
Mateo, Calif., had the largest average weekly wage increase with a gain of 7.3 percent. Within San
Mateo, total wages in professional and business services grew by $439.3 million (25.7 percent) over the
year. Douglas, Colo., had the second largest increase in average weekly wages, followed by Pinellas,
Fla. Two counties, Clayton, Ga., and King, Wash., tied for the fourth largest percentage increase. (See
table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in September
2012. Harris, Texas, had 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 19,152 jobs
(5.6 percent). Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.0 percent) among the 10
largest counties. (See table 2.)
Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties had over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Maricopa,
Ariz., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages (-2.1 percent). Within Maricopa,
education and health services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage decline.
Within this industry, employment grew by 5,374 (2.2 percent) while total wages paid to those workers
-3-
decreased by $59.9 million (-2.1 percent). King, Wash., had the only average weekly wage increase (2.3
percent) among the 10 largest counties.
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. September 2012 employment and
2012 third quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 132.6 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the third quarter of 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 fourth quarter 2012 is scheduled to be released
on Thursday, June 27, 2013.
Hurricane Sandy
Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the United States on October 29, 2012, after the
QCEW third quarter reference period. Any impact will be reflected in the fourth quarter release.
This event did not warrant changes to QCEW methodology.
-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: 557,000 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 to
annually realign sample-based estimates
to population counts (benchmarking)
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 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,
third quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,165.4
132,624.7
1.6
–
$906
-1.1
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.7
8.9
9.7
6.3
4.2
8.3
96.1
19.1
5.5
14.4
336.3
178.6
164.2
128.1
85.6
157.0
1,674.5
346.8
97.1
243.1
1.0
0.1
-0.7
1.5
1.5
1.1
2.4
1.3
0.9
0.3
186
273
307
140
140
177
54
161
200
256
910
1,005
802
765
792
1,010
886
787
885
819
-1.4
-3.0
-4.3
-5.9
-0.6
-0.6
-2.1
-1.1
1.7
-2.3
147
276
316
324
86
86
213
116
9
228
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.6
53.8
28.6
28.7
16.8
412.7
11.6
12.3
102.8
10.7
93.8
664.1
326.0
351.9
312.7
3,983.5
107.0
186.5
1,407.6
131.2
3.8
3.1
2.4
1.1
5.9
2.1
3.5
2.3
2.1
2.4
10
30
54
177
3
89
22
67
89
54
728
1,188
1,126
710
783
1,002
1,069
783
1,024
906
-2.5
-2.9
2.2
-1.5
-2.7
-1.7
-0.6
-0.8
-1.4
0.4
250
271
6
155
262
173
86
102
147
32
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 .................
48.1
49.5
47.6
101.0
53.8
16.1
9.4
24.4
14.1
62.0
569.4
591.4
612.5
1,283.3
593.9
208.9
107.3
342.9
188.1
907.7
2.8
1.8
1.9
1.8
3.6
0.2
3.5
3.6
2.2
3.3
40
117
110
117
17
261
22
17
79
26
726
1,007
771
993
1,473
786
738
1,537
850
1,800
-3.7
-1.5
-2.8
-2.0
1.0
-1.8
-2.0
7.3
-3.4
-1.5
304
155
265
202
19
186
202
1
300
155
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.8
9.5
18.1
13.6
8.8
23.6
6.2
9.1
19.2
13.3
98.0
122.6
181.0
170.0
146.6
303.1
99.2
161.0
288.3
161.5
2.5
2.4
2.6
1.5
-1.4
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.9
1.7
49
54
47
140
317
67
67
97
36
123
851
910
856
776
636
936
882
839
1,052
1,072
1.4
-1.2
-3.1
-0.9
0.0
0.2
-7.0
-2.6
-3.0
0.4
14
127
283
108
47
41
328
255
276
32
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
26.5
9.9
17.1
18.1
10.3
5.9
33.0
25.7
22.5
7.0
438.2
96.0
239.1
214.4
134.7
86.7
409.5
494.7
356.5
123.6
3.8
3.6
0.7
2.2
2.2
3.7
0.8
1.0
0.8
-1.1
10
17
221
79
79
14
209
186
209
315
1,111
1,030
846
919
813
798
1,371
1,079
956
902
-1.8
5.4
-1.6
-1.4
-1.1
0.0
-4.1
-1.7
-1.6
-3.3
186
2
165
147
116
47
311
173
165
296
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third 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 .............................
17.1
36.1
6.6
14.4
63.6
11.9
27.2
8.0
38.3
7.3
265.7
714.9
116.9
186.6
701.1
112.7
442.7
120.0
582.9
81.1
-0.2
0.6
0.7
-0.3
2.3
2.4
2.0
1.0
1.7
2.3
285
233
221
290
67
54
97
186
123
67
$1,039
1,514
749
836
838
776
862
702
863
630
-1.7
-0.7
-1.7
-5.5
-2.4
-1.1
-1.3
-3.8
-2.3
-0.6
173
96
173
322
240
116
140
306
228
86
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.8
8.2
9.3
7.9
89.6
6.0
36.4
49.8
10.0
30.8
199.1
137.7
101.6
90.2
990.7
76.0
682.0
498.7
99.2
381.8
1.4
-0.1
2.0
1.6
2.0
-0.9
2.4
2.1
1.7
0.9
151
280
97
134
97
312
54
89
123
200
728
755
692
621
857
744
795
862
624
842
-1.2
-0.5
-3.8
-2.1
-1.7
-2.1
-1.9
-1.6
-1.4
4.3
127
83
306
213
173
213
194
165
147
3
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.4
14.5
13.9
13.4
4.6
7.8
4.3
21.6
17.9
41.9
188.4
136.4
158.1
149.8
80.3
133.9
110.6
300.2
275.2
724.3
1.2
2.7
1.4
0.7
0.7
2.3
-0.7
1.1
-0.6
2.4
171
45
151
221
221
67
307
177
303
54
708
733
747
644
708
777
894
959
944
1,165
-0.6
-1.2
-0.7
-1.1
-3.8
-2.0
2.3
0.2
-1.7
-2.5
86
127
96
116
306
202
4
41
173
250
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
24.3
4.7
4.7
24.6
13.6
4.3
149.3
37.3
13.3
22.2
308.5
93.7
98.3
443.7
202.0
88.4
2,424.6
572.5
196.9
326.9
1.0
-0.6
0.4
1.6
2.1
0.6
1.0
1.8
1.5
1.3
186
303
253
134
89
233
186
117
140
161
892
727
791
862
790
816
1,032
1,056
810
1,148
-3.3
-0.4
-1.2
-0.9
-1.1
1.6
-1.5
-0.2
-2.3
1.5
296
76
127
108
116
10
155
62
228
11
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
15.3
6.8
9.0
94.5
86.8
95.0
104.0
93.7
127.7
205.0
126.0
176.9
0.5
1.3
-1.0
1.7
-1.8
-2.1
0.9
0.8
1.0
241
161
314
123
323
325
200
209
186
757
878
752
853
753
944
796
761
743
-3.1
-3.3
-2.8
-2.5
-3.2
0.0
-2.0
-4.5
-3.1
283
296
265
250
291
47
202
318
283
Elkhart, IN ..........................
4.8
112.1
6.9
1
737
-0.3
68
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third 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 ..............................
8.5
10.4
24.0
6.0
3.3
4.8
3.6
6.3
15.1
115.5
191.9
569.4
117.4
79.8
104.6
78.3
126.6
273.7
1.2
1.8
2.6
0.0
2.9
-2.2
0.9
0.5
1.9
171
117
47
277
36
326
200
241
110
$843
858
931
750
762
722
856
874
905
-2.4
1.4
-1.6
-0.7
-2.3
-2.4
0.4
-1.4
-1.0
240
14
165
96
228
240
32
147
113
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
5.3
21.1
12.3
4.8
3.2
9.6
22.7
7.6
4.9
15.0
88.8
311.2
239.4
94.6
85.6
180.7
429.5
119.5
84.4
259.2
0.9
2.3
0.5
-0.7
2.9
2.2
2.8
-1.6
1.9
1.5
200
67
241
307
36
79
40
321
110
140
746
917
809
764
854
816
882
741
785
850
-1.3
-1.8
-2.2
-3.0
-1.6
-1.9
-0.6
-4.1
-1.9
-0.2
140
186
220
276
165
194
86
311
194
62
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
21.3
6.2
5.6
9.2
188.8
136.5
174.5
79.1
172.4
241.9
364.5
93.8
87.8
159.8
-1.6
0.9
0.8
2.1
0.6
3.5
1.5
1.6
2.3
2.0
321
200
209
89
233
22
140
134
67
97
847
878
895
769
799
978
930
879
891
1,111
-3.1
-3.1
-3.1
-2.9
-1.6
-2.7
-2.6
-2.4
-2.7
-1.7
283
283
283
271
165
262
255
240
262
173
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
33.5
15.6
14.0
9.0
16.1
21.6
15.5
49.2
23.4
14.0
452.4
301.0
332.5
96.1
212.9
308.3
197.9
829.8
323.0
178.4
0.7
0.2
0.7
2.0
0.1
1.4
-0.3
1.7
1.3
2.2
221
261
221
97
273
151
290
123
161
79
1,236
981
1,072
746
816
946
831
1,318
1,033
838
-0.2
-2.4
-0.4
-1.5
-1.1
-1.8
-1.2
-0.3
-2.2
-0.5
62
240
76
155
116
186
127
68
220
83
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
23.6
21.4
7.2
6.4
5.4
14.1
17.3
38.4
5.6
4.2
598.7
317.8
129.4
154.1
110.2
337.1
292.8
666.4
111.4
83.5
1.3
0.2
0.0
-0.7
0.7
2.9
1.7
3.2
2.3
-0.5
161
261
277
307
221
36
123
29
67
297
1,397
910
744
850
838
799
902
997
738
741
-2.1
-1.9
-4.1
-1.0
-1.2
-2.3
-2.4
-1.4
-1.2
-2.2
213
194
311
113
127
228
240
147
127
220
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
8.1
31.7
194.6
690.3
2.4
1.2
54
171
977
984
0.8
-2.0
23
202
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third 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
43.1
3.4
14.0
5.6
4.4
4.4
111.9
172.8
850.1
91.3
323.1
94.7
81.4
82.6
1.7
1.1
2.0
1.9
0.3
0.1
1.4
-0.1
123
177
97
110
256
273
151
280
$874
882
1,133
954
990
778
726
668
-0.1
-0.1
0.4
0.7
-3.3
-1.1
-3.2
-2.8
55
55
32
25
296
116
291
265
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
8.1
18.8
8.3
32.3
9.5
6.1
17.7
119.7
87.5
87.6
154.7
348.7
127.6
568.5
218.1
79.2
316.7
-1.9
3.3
-0.8
3.0
1.5
2.3
0.3
-0.5
2.3
1.7
324
26
311
32
140
67
256
297
67
123
783
736
804
693
914
713
963
1,001
755
853
-1.1
0.4
-2.2
-2.8
-1.7
-2.6
-0.8
-1.2
-1.9
-0.9
116
32
220
265
173
255
102
127
194
108
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
9.4
48.9
13.6
12.0
10.6
6.6
32.8
10.9
12.0
20.3
158.6
821.0
186.1
189.1
138.1
136.4
428.5
195.2
192.0
335.9
2.5
1.9
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.6
0.9
2.1
0.2
0.2
49
110
253
186
140
233
200
89
261
261
742
804
827
970
843
761
1,079
949
893
1,118
-0.5
-3.5
-2.6
-3.0
-6.9
-3.2
-0.6
-2.4
-1.2
-1.9
83
302
255
276
325
291
86
240
127
194
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
6.1
13.8
10.8
21.6
19.7
17.1
12.2
12.2
10.0
14.2
97.2
233.0
228.9
387.3
243.6
271.9
152.2
170.0
171.7
219.0
0.2
1.2
0.8
2.0
0.6
0.8
1.3
0.2
1.0
1.1
261
171
209
97
233
209
161
261
186
177
798
1,236
1,207
1,069
887
1,299
721
890
1,327
1,140
-2.1
-4.0
-0.8
-3.2
-4.5
0.2
-2.0
-2.9
-1.3
-0.6
213
310
102
291
318
41
202
271
140
86
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
17.8
10.1
17.2
4.6
8.3
24.0
53.7
18.4
53.0
123.7
309.9
219.9
237.2
89.8
110.8
457.3
519.6
373.9
594.7
2,385.9
-0.3
0.5
1.0
-0.2
-0.3
-0.1
2.4
-0.2
2.0
2.2
290
241
186
285
290
280
54
285
97
79
809
953
878
720
900
786
747
877
980
1,626
-3.0
-1.7
-1.2
-2.0
-2.6
-3.6
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-1.3
276
173
127
202
255
303
165
127
102
140
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
5.3
13.0
9.9
104.9
242.6
131.3
-1.5
0.2
-0.2
319
261
285
713
832
751
-1.7
-1.3
-3.1
173
140
283
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
47.7
9.1
10.0
5.6
51.1
36.2
8.0
526.4
92.7
114.5
78.2
622.7
405.6
115.3
2.4
1.1
0.2
1.6
0.5
-0.1
3.1
54
177
261
134
241
280
30
$852
784
986
804
1,022
1,160
699
-2.2
-2.5
1.0
0.4
-0.3
1.0
-1.8
220
250
19
32
68
19
186
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
6.2
7.4
79.4
117.2
185.3
174.8
263.0
570.9
97.9
457.1
108.4
139.5
2.0
-1.5
2.4
1.8
0.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
4.1
0.2
97
319
54
117
241
49
49
32
8
261
682
747
1,220
838
810
1,055
727
899
828
800
-2.3
-2.2
-2.9
-1.8
0.0
0.7
-2.3
0.7
0.7
-1.7
228
220
271
186
47
25
228
25
25
173
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Delaware, OH ....................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
35.7
4.4
29.8
23.2
6.4
6.0
10.1
5.9
12.1
8.8
703.4
80.3
672.2
492.3
94.0
94.4
202.4
98.6
243.6
154.5
1.5
3.8
1.4
1.4
-0.6
0.8
1.7
1.0
0.7
1.0
140
10
151
151
303
209
123
186
221
186
934
874
917
1,028
782
753
789
666
799
700
0.8
-2.0
-3.4
1.8
-6.9
-2.2
-2.1
-2.6
-2.0
-2.4
23
202
300
7
325
220
213
255
202
240
Summit, OH .......................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
14.3
25.0
20.6
12.8
10.9
9.5
30.2
16.6
35.7
9.0
256.4
429.9
336.0
141.1
137.9
135.7
442.8
251.0
684.5
164.7
0.6
1.4
1.3
2.0
1.2
-0.5
2.0
2.2
0.8
1.1
233
151
161
97
171
297
97
79
209
177
822
880
855
834
716
711
938
1,111
988
844
-0.1
-2.3
-1.6
-0.4
0.0
-0.6
0.1
-0.8
1.5
1.0
55
228
165
76
47
86
45
102
11
19
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
12.8
8.7
246.6
83.0
236.0
124.6
174.8
209.9
125.7
97.1
220.5
176.8
-0.6
-0.5
0.1
1.4
1.0
0.6
-0.4
-0.9
0.7
0.5
303
297
273
151
186
233
294
312
221
241
869
834
1,128
829
898
954
734
697
756
868
-0.9
-2.3
0.3
-3.2
-1.5
-2.2
-4.6
-2.0
-2.3
-2.9
108
228
38
291
155
220
320
202
228
271
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
7.7
27.4
6.6
36.1
139.8
465.8
103.7
631.9
0.2
1.2
1.4
0.9
261
171
151
200
716
1,109
799
1,085
-2.1
-0.4
-1.5
-2.4
213
76
155
240
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
5.6
9.5
9.1
17.5
12.0
12.1
85.8
133.5
172.3
272.0
217.7
234.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.7
2.5
1.5
261
241
241
221
49
140
$873
737
806
889
800
805
-0.3
-4.2
-5.6
-2.6
-0.7
-0.2
68
314
323
255
96
62
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
7.7
5.7
8.9
5.8
6.6
18.5
8.5
10.9
4.4
19.1
111.6
98.9
203.5
115.1
117.4
434.1
185.7
219.6
104.5
469.8
0.6
4.2
1.1
1.8
2.8
2.2
1.5
-0.4
6.8
1.0
233
7
177
117
40
79
140
294
2
186
554
697
786
766
776
945
803
793
798
954
-1.1
-1.4
-2.8
-2.0
0.0
-0.2
-1.7
1.1
-1.1
0.2
116
147
265
202
47
62
173
18
116
41
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
6.3
4.9
35.3
5.0
4.0
6.4
19.4
69.4
11.6
14.1
98.2
108.9
752.6
92.8
88.7
128.2
309.7
1,478.5
185.2
277.2
3.7
1.7
2.2
1.9
3.6
1.3
3.7
2.7
3.0
0.7
14
123
79
110
17
161
14
45
32
221
969
749
818
876
721
580
1,057
1,085
824
654
1.5
-0.9
-0.6
-1.9
-0.1
-1.4
0.3
-1.3
0.6
-2.5
11
108
86
194
55
147
38
140
30
250
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 .........................
9.9
5.5
4.2
103.7
11.5
5.9
7.1
4.9
9.2
7.9
5.7
38.8
32.4
4.9
8.0
7.3
38.2
13.1
5.5
144.2
95.7
78.3
2,128.2
225.6
120.2
126.1
102.0
143.2
156.0
92.2
786.1
607.3
91.0
132.7
109.1
594.9
181.3
90.5
4.3
0.5
2.1
3.8
0.8
-2.9
1.6
0.8
5.5
2.8
-0.4
2.3
3.9
2.1
1.6
1.9
3.6
5.3
1.3
6
241
89
10
209
327
134
209
4
40
294
67
9
89
134
110
17
5
161
928
804
834
1,154
584
913
716
735
868
801
780
909
1,003
637
914
741
858
704
672
-0.3
-4.4
-0.4
-0.3
-2.3
-0.7
1.8
-2.8
-0.3
0.3
-1.5
-1.0
-0.8
1.4
-1.8
-3.0
-1.5
-1.7
-2.3
68
317
76
68
228
96
7
265
68
38
155
113
102
14
186
276
155
173
228
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
6.1
8.6
7.9
35.3
10.3
10.2
8.1
98.9
165.1
116.5
590.1
178.9
142.0
113.0
1.4
-1.4
2.2
0.8
2.4
3.0
3.3
151
317
79
209
54
32
26
870
1,488
826
1,410
898
1,077
828
-1.9
-3.7
-0.1
-2.4
-1.5
-3.1
-1.8
194
304
55
240
155
283
186
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
6.3
5.8
3.8
96.3
94.5
96.6
0.9
-1.2
0.7
200
316
221
$1,266
725
871
-0.2
-1.2
-1.2
62
127
127
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
7.2
11.5
5.8
13.8
83.2
6.7
21.9
19.4
16.1
137.6
148.9
165.0
79.1
131.0
1,171.9
80.3
266.0
259.7
200.9
-0.5
0.5
1.3
-5.2
2.0
2.4
-0.5
0.5
2.8
0.8
297
241
161
328
97
54
297
241
40
209
908
1,001
723
913
849
1,354
885
840
996
780
0.6
-1.1
-0.1
-6.9
1.2
2.3
-0.7
-0.4
0.7
-0.3
30
116
55
325
17
4
96
76
25
68
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
7.6
7.0
8.9
6.0
6.6
14.2
23.4
5.1
12.7
3.6
11.3
96.9
80.7
113.7
104.9
148.6
306.5
473.7
102.3
227.9
89.4
264.0
1.0
0.3
3.4
-0.1
1.7
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.0
-0.2
2.0
186
256
25
280
123
177
256
253
277
285
( 7)
847
758
620
781
779
842
879
771
887
829
601
-0.4
0.0
0.0
-3.0
-5.1
-3.9
-4.2
0.1
-1.3
-0.1
-0.5
76
47
47
276
321
309
314
45
140
55
( 7)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 328 U.S. counties comprise 71.0 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,
third quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 4
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
9,165.4
8,869.4
130.9
750.0
335.6
1,889.4
143.6
811.0
1,601.6
935.4
773.0
1,273.7
296.0
132,624.7
111,530.4
2,105.2
5,795.2
11,990.0
25,186.9
2,661.8
7,519.8
18,046.0
19,438.8
14,012.3
4,548.6
21,094.2
1.6
1.9
3.7
1.0
1.5
1.3
-0.4
1.1
2.9
1.7
2.9
2.9
-0.5
$906
897
984
982
1,108
772
1,540
1,314
1,146
867
381
571
954
-1.1
-1.1
-0.2
-0.8
-1.7
-0.9
1.3
-0.7
-0.2
-1.7
-1.8
-2.7
-1.2
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 ...................................................
412.7
407.0
0.4
12.1
12.5
50.9
8.3
21.9
42.1
29.6
27.4
176.6
5.7
3,983.5
3,457.5
9.6
110.3
366.3
754.3
190.4
211.1
573.7
529.5
419.1
274.2
525.9
2.1
2.2
0.3
1.6
0.1
1.4
-0.7
1.7
3.6
1.8
3.8
2.5
1.2
1,002
976
2,194
1,044
1,128
822
1,734
1,460
1,208
954
546
433
1,180
-1.7
-1.7
-4.4
0.0
1.8
-0.8
1.4
-0.8
-3.8
-3.1
-4.4
-2.5
-1.3
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 ...................................................
149.3
148.0
0.1
12.4
6.6
29.1
2.7
15.6
31.5
15.8
13.3
16.5
1.4
2,424.6
2,128.2
0.9
65.4
194.3
441.8
53.7
184.2
430.7
411.2
246.4
96.1
296.5
1.0
1.2
-8.7
-3.5
0.3
0.5
-0.7
-0.6
2.8
1.8
2.2
0.4
-0.3
1,032
1,021
1,012
1,291
1,075
837
1,513
1,705
1,278
902
474
784
1,114
-1.5
-1.7
1.3
0.1
-1.6
0.4
-1.6
-2.1
-2.0
-2.6
-1.7
0.0
0.2
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 ...................................................
123.7
123.4
0.0
2.1
2.4
20.8
4.4
18.8
25.5
9.3
13.0
19.1
0.3
2,385.9
1,951.2
0.2
32.0
26.6
250.7
143.5
351.9
488.7
305.4
251.6
92.2
434.7
2.2
2.8
7.9
2.9
0.7
3.0
3.6
-1.1
3.5
1.9
5.1
3.2
0.0
1,626
1,737
1,428
1,627
1,104
1,226
2,153
3,020
1,951
1,211
769
996
1,126
-1.3
-1.8
-6.7
-1.2
-5.6
3.6
2.0
-2.6
-2.3
0.7
-0.1
-0.3
0.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 4
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
103.7
103.1
1.7
6.4
4.5
23.4
1.3
10.6
20.7
11.8
8.5
13.7
0.6
2,128.2
1,878.9
89.4
142.2
191.1
442.0
27.9
114.1
360.7
253.9
193.6
63.1
249.3
3.8
4.6
8.3
5.0
6.3
3.4
-1.5
1.3
5.6
3.8
5.6
2.7
-1.3
$1,154
1,169
2,869
1,143
1,429
1,028
1,378
1,447
1,354
936
401
656
1,042
-0.3
-0.3
-4.7
0.4
0.5
0.2
2.7
2.9
-0.8
-1.8
-2.9
-0.5
-0.6
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
96.1
95.4
0.5
7.9
3.2
21.5
1.6
10.9
22.3
10.6
7.3
6.6
0.7
1,674.5
1,466.5
6.8
89.1
113.6
339.1
28.0
142.4
273.0
248.2
176.1
46.0
208.0
2.4
2.7
3.4
5.6
2.9
1.6
1.7
2.8
2.9
2.2
2.5
-1.1
0.6
886
879
901
937
1,278
829
1,138
1,110
931
899
426
604
940
-2.1
-2.0
2.0
-0.1
-3.8
-2.0
-2.4
1.2
-1.4
-4.4
-1.8
-0.3
-3.0
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 ...................................................
69.4
68.9
0.6
3.9
2.8
15.1
1.5
8.6
15.2
7.6
5.9
7.3
0.5
1,478.5
1,314.8
10.0
70.8
112.4
295.3
46.8
143.1
287.5
174.0
134.2
40.0
163.7
2.7
3.1
16.1
3.6
0.4
2.9
2.8
2.2
4.6
2.5
4.0
-1.5
-0.5
1,085
1,090
3,171
1,019
1,229
1,011
1,635
1,409
1,198
1,011
492
675
1,050
-1.3
-1.3
-3.0
-1.2
0.2
-1.2
-1.6
-1.4
-2.4
-0.1
-4.1
-0.4
-1.1
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 ...................................................
102.8
101.5
0.2
6.0
4.8
16.1
1.2
9.5
18.7
10.6
7.3
19.0
1.4
1,407.6
1,276.7
3.0
73.6
158.2
246.3
23.9
108.8
258.4
162.2
184.2
51.6
131.0
2.1
2.4
-10.3
3.3
0.2
1.0
-1.0
2.8
3.4
1.5
3.8
1.9
-0.6
1,024
1,013
712
1,155
1,275
942
1,629
1,554
1,133
932
469
532
1,136
-1.4
-1.2
-0.7
1.8
-4.0
-2.4
3.9
1.1
-1.1
-3.7
6.8
0.0
-3.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12 4
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
101.0
99.6
0.7
5.8
2.9
13.5
1.1
8.4
16.3
8.7
7.2
27.9
1.4
1,283.3
1,068.5
10.4
57.3
93.9
206.0
24.6
70.3
216.7
155.6
164.7
63.5
214.8
1.8
2.3
7.4
1.8
-0.2
0.9
0.6
2.8
2.4
1.3
3.4
5.4
-0.4
$993
960
599
1,033
1,495
789
1,573
1,202
1,286
947
436
506
1,168
-2.0
-1.2
-4.9
-4.5
7.4
-0.1
-2.7
2.2
-1.7
-4.7
-2.5
-10.0
-4.3
King, WA ............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
83.2
82.7
0.4
5.3
2.2
14.4
1.8
6.2
13.9
7.3
6.4
24.8
0.5
1,171.9
1,018.7
3.0
51.5
104.3
215.4
81.0
63.6
192.6
137.3
116.6
53.3
153.2
2.4
2.8
5.5
5.9
4.2
3.3
0.1
1.3
4.2
1.6
2.2
0.3
0.2
1,354
1,381
1,372
1,151
1,468
1,041
4,549
1,437
1,475
959
489
604
1,174
2.3
2.5
6.8
-2.5
-2.5
3.0
9.0
4.1
2.5
-3.0
1.2
0.2
0.3
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 ...................................................
89.6
89.2
0.5
5.0
2.6
26.0
1.5
9.2
18.7
9.9
6.8
7.9
0.4
990.7
852.2
7.5
30.8
35.6
254.9
17.2
67.5
126.9
157.9
117.9
34.7
138.4
2.0
2.6
1.8
1.0
-1.4
2.1
0.3
3.3
2.5
1.9
5.4
2.4
-1.7
857
840
552
835
808
784
1,322
1,232
1,021
879
537
543
966
-1.7
-1.8
3.2
-4.4
-7.0
-0.9
-2.8
-3.4
-1.3
-2.4
4.1
-1.8
-1.2
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,
third quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third quarter
2011-12
United States 4 ...................
9,165.4
132,624.7
1.6
$906
-1.1
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.1
22.0
148.5
85.8
1,328.5
174.4
111.6
27.8
36.1
611.5
1,833.5
343.6
2,437.5
1,156.7
15,109.1
2,284.6
1,638.9
407.3
714.9
7,307.9
0.6
0.6
2.2
0.3
2.8
2.2
0.8
0.1
0.6
1.9
784
961
846
708
1,036
936
1,087
925
1,514
800
-2.4
-0.2
-2.0
-1.0
-1.2
-1.3
-2.8
-2.5
-0.7
-1.4
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
271.2
38.5
53.3
393.5
160.4
95.4
84.7
111.3
129.1
49.6
3,841.2
605.5
630.4
5,688.6
2,849.9
1,486.7
1,325.5
1,779.5
1,864.3
597.0
1.1
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.3
0.2
854
827
687
945
772
756
761
751
805
722
-1.5
-1.0
-1.4
-1.4
-1.7
-0.5
-1.4
-1.7
-1.8
-1.6
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
167.5
221.2
239.5
170.2
68.7
178.2
42.7
67.9
73.1
49.2
2,533.3
3,271.6
3,984.2
2,675.4
1,089.4
2,628.8
441.6
924.4
1,140.1
620.6
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.6
0.7
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.1
1,007
1,102
862
915
672
793
689
742
820
874
-1.6
-1.2
-1.5
0.0
-1.2
-1.2
0.3
-0.5
-3.0
-3.1
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
260.9
55.5
608.8
258.8
29.7
288.0
104.7
134.2
353.0
35.5
3,811.2
788.7
8,616.8
3,934.1
422.2
5,073.0
1,545.6
1,667.3
5,598.4
460.5
1.1
0.0
1.2
1.6
7.8
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.8
1,053
761
1,088
806
872
828
779
834
899
855
-1.8
-2.3
-1.1
-0.2
6.3
-0.7
-0.5
0.0
-1.3
-1.9
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
112.7
31.4
141.8
596.1
86.0
24.5
241.9
237.3
49.6
161.6
1,814.7
405.3
2,674.3
10,773.4
1,231.0
302.0
3,631.1
2,944.6
715.4
2,718.7
1.3
1.6
1.7
2.7
3.3
1.2
0.9
1.5
0.5
0.7
738
683
814
930
766
763
960
1,024
724
770
-1.1
-0.1
-0.6
-0.2
-1.8
-1.8
-1.5
1.3
-2.4
-2.7
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2012
(thousands)
September
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2011-12
Third
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
third quarter
2011-12
Wyoming ............................
25.6
284.7
0.0
$828
-0.5
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
48.8
3.5
933.4
38.6
2.1
-9.8
506
711
0.0
-1.1
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
September 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
March 2013
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, third quarter 2011-12 (U.S. average = -1.1 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
March 2013