For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, June 27, 2013
USDL-13-1244
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Fourth Quarter 2012
From December 2011 to December 2012, employment increased in 287 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 7.4 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.9 percent. Within
Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 5,479 jobs over the
year (11.6 percent). Sangamon, Ill., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the
largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 2.5 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 increased over the year by 4.7 percent to $1,000 in the fourth quarter of
2012. San Mateo, Calif., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of
107.3 percent. Within San Mateo, a total wage gain of $6.9 billion (379.6 percent) in professional and
business services had the largest contribution to the increase in average weekly wages. Lake, Ohio,
experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 3.2 percent over the year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, December 2011-12
(U.S. average = 1.9 percent)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2011-12
(U.S. average = 4.7 percent)
120
7.4
6.9
100
6.4
6.0
5.7
107.3
80
60
40
20
0
Elkhart,
Ind.
Lexington,
S.C.
Rutherford,
Tenn.
Utah,
Utah
Montgomery,
Texas
48.0
13.3
12.0
11.5
11.5
San Mateo, Douglas,
Virginia Rockingham,New York, Washington,
Calif.
Colo.
Beach City,
N.H.
N.Y.
Pa.
Va.
Table A. Large counties ranked by December 2012 employment, December 2011-12 employment
increase, and December 2011-12 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
December 2012 employment
(thousands)
United States
133,726.8
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.
4,082.2
2,441.2
2,437.9
2,160.8
1,721.1
1,499.2
1,436.6
1,302.0
1,185.3
1,020.6
Increase in employment,
December 2011-12
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
December 2011-12
2,440.6
Harris, Texas
Los Angeles, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Dallas, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Orange, Calif.
King, Wash.
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
82.2
74.2
50.2
49.6
46.0
37.9
34.5
33.0
29.2
28.9
United States
1.9
Elkhart, Ind.
Lexington, S.C.
Rutherford, Tenn.
Utah, Utah
Montgomery, Texas
Fort Bend, Texas
Douglas, Colo.
Collin, Texas
Brazos, Texas
Travis, Texas
Salt Lake, Utah
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.7
5.3
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.3
4.3
Large County Employment
In December 2012, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 133.7 million, up by
1.9 percent or 2.4 million from December 2011. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs
accounted for 71.3 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.0 percent of total wages. These 328
counties had a net job growth of 1.8 million over the year, accounting for 73.3 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Elkhart, Ind., had the largest percentage increase in employment (7.4 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 employment gain of 302,200, which was 12.4 percent of the overall job increase for the
U.S. (See table A.)
Employment declined in 38 of the large counties from December 2011 to December 2012. Sangamon,
Ill., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-2.5 percent). Within Sangamon,
public administration within state government had the largest decrease in employment with a loss of
1,067 jobs (-2.9 percent). Caddo, La., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment,
followed by Jefferson, Texas. Two counties, Vanderburgh, Ind., and Benton, Wash., tied for the fourth
largest percentage decrease. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2012 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2011-12
increase in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2011-12 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2012
Increase in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2011-12
United States
$1,000
United States
San Mateo, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
Washington, D.C.
San Francisco, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Douglas, Colo.
Fairfax, Va.
$3,240
2,107
1,906
1,724
1,704
1,703
1,694
1,625
1,591
1,588
San Mateo, Calif.
Douglas, Colo.
New York, N.Y.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
Rockingham, N.H.
Fairfield, Conn.
Washington, Pa.
Virginia Beach City, Va.
Santa Clara, Calif.
McHenry, Ill.
Harris, Texas
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2011-12
$45
$1,677
516
217
127
119
111
109
105
101
91
91
91
United States
San Mateo, Calif.
Douglas, Colo.
Virginia Beach City, Va.
Rockingham, N.H.
New York, N.Y.
Washington, Pa.
McHenry, Ill.
Utah, Utah
Elkhart, Ind.
Yolo, Calif.
4.7
107.3
48.0
13.3
12.0
11.5
11.5
11.2
9.4
8.9
8.6
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 4.7 percent during the year ending in the fourth
quarter of 2012. Among the 328 largest counties, 316 had over-the-year increases in average weekly
wages. (See chart 4.) San Mateo, Calif., had the largest wage increase among the largest U.S. counties
(107.3 percent).
Of the 328 largest counties, 10 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Lake,
Ohio, had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 3.2 percent. Within Lake, total wages
in manufacturing declined by $45.3 million (-12.3 percent) over the year. Passaic, N.J., had the second
largest decrease in average weekly wages, followed by Genesee, Mich.; Atlantic, N.J.; and Benton,
Wash. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in December 2012.
Harris, Texas, had the largest gain (4.0 percent). Within Harris, professional and business services had
the largest over-the-year employment level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of
20,112 jobs (5.9 percent). Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.2 percent)
among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.)
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York,
N.Y., experienced the largest gain in average weekly wages (11.5 percent). Within New York, financial
activities had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. Within this industry,
employment declined by 2,288 (-0.6 percent) while total wages increased by $4.8 billion (25.6 percent).
-3-
Maricopa, Ariz., had the smallest average weekly wage increase (3.4 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. December 2012 employment and
2012 fourth quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 133.7 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the fourth quarter of 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 first quarter 2013 is scheduled to be released on
Thursday, September 26, 2013.
Hurricane Sandy
Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the United States on October 29, 2012, during the QCEW
fourth quarter reference period. 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.
Wages measured by QCEW may be subject to periodic and sometimes large fluctuations. This variability may be due to calendar
effects resulting from some quarters having more pay dates than
others. The effect is most visible in counties with a dominant employer. In particular, this effect has been observed in counties where
government employers represent a large fraction of overall employment. Similar calendar effects can result from private sector pay
practices. However, these effects are typically less pronounced for
two reasons: employment is less concentrated in a single private
employer, and private employers use a variety of pay period types
(weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly).
For example, the effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be
pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result, in some quarters federal wages
include six pay dates, while in other quarters there are seven pay
dates. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may also
reflect this calendar effect. Growth in average weekly wages may be
attributed, in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current
year, which include seven pay dates, with year-ago wages that reflect
only six pay dates. An opposite effect will occur when wages in the
current quarter reflecting six pay dates are compared with year-ago
wages for a quarter including seven pay dates.
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 3-year cycle.
Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this
process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of
the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also
are introduced in the first quarter.
QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are
simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the
number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point
in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry
for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic events, others
reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change
would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative
change would come from a company correcting its county designation.
The over-the-year changes of employment and wages presented in
this release have been adjusted to account for most of the administrative corrections made to the underlying establishment reports. This is
done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the overthe-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted
version of the final 2011 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted
prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year percent change
in employment and wages are not published. These adjusted prioryear levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS
Web site. Over-the-year change calculations based on data from the
Web site, or from data published in prior BLS news releases, may
differ substantially from the over-the-year changes presented in this
news release.
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change
measures presented in this release account for most of the administrative changes—those occurring when employers update the industry, location, and ownership information of their establishments. The
most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of
updated information about the county location of individual establishments. Included in these adjustments are administrative changes
involving the classification of establishments that were previously
reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry
categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, adjusted data
account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers
who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a
single entity.
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change
measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news
release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending
points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured
in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data.
County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information
Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by
the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties include those designated as independent cities in some jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where counties
have not been created. County data also are presented for the New
England states for comparative purposes even though townships are
the more common designation used in New England (and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined as census
regions.
Additional statistics and other information
Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 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,
fourth quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
9,205.6
133,726.8
1.9
–
$1,000
4.7
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
17.8
9.0
9.7
6.4
4.3
8.3
95.2
19.0
5.6
14.5
339.3
181.4
165.3
128.4
86.4
153.1
1,721.1
353.5
99.2
246.3
0.9
1.4
0.1
1.0
2.3
0.6
2.7
1.5
1.9
1.0
223
181
280
213
94
244
69
172
134
213
1,011
1,077
881
883
848
1,046
964
839
900
927
5.0
1.5
0.6
0.3
2.3
3.9
3.4
2.1
3.9
6.9
71
265
301
306
219
119
150
234
119
24
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.6
54.7
29.0
29.2
17.0
421.5
11.7
12.4
104.2
10.9
94.6
670.7
331.8
335.2
295.3
4,082.2
109.0
152.4
1,436.6
132.5
3.7
4.0
2.9
1.8
3.0
1.9
3.8
3.2
2.7
2.8
23
17
59
143
52
134
20
41
69
65
837
1,265
1,168
777
842
1,185
1,225
809
1,131
979
0.8
3.9
2.9
2.9
2.1
6.6
3.4
1.4
4.4
4.5
294
119
183
183
234
29
150
271
91
85
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 .................
49.2
50.1
48.6
100.5
54.7
16.3
9.5
24.8
14.3
63.0
585.6
595.1
629.4
1,302.0
603.3
205.2
103.9
349.2
180.5
928.0
3.4
2.7
2.2
2.3
4.2
1.5
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.7
33
69
106
94
12
172
15
25
25
23
765
1,056
830
1,099
1,694
810
809
3,240
961
1,906
1.5
1.3
2.6
5.5
7.6
1.6
1.3
107.3
7.4
5.0
265
276
202
45
15
261
276
1
17
71
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.9
9.7
18.3
13.8
8.9
23.9
6.0
9.0
19.2
13.3
90.4
123.9
179.8
162.3
139.8
311.0
89.4
162.3
292.3
163.5
3.5
3.3
3.2
2.5
0.4
3.1
1.2
3.3
3.5
2.5
29
39
41
80
265
48
194
39
29
80
849
998
918
793
697
984
997
886
1,159
1,134
0.1
7.4
2.6
2.3
3.6
3.3
8.6
3.1
4.5
2.0
313
17
202
219
139
157
10
166
85
246
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
17.0
18.0
10.3
5.9
33.1
25.8
22.6
7.0
443.1
98.5
241.2
215.8
134.0
86.9
416.4
499.9
361.7
123.3
4.2
5.1
1.9
2.6
2.7
4.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
-0.6
12
7
134
76
69
12
213
194
194
308
1,222
1,591
884
1,010
887
831
1,704
1,210
1,034
971
4.6
48.0
0.8
5.1
4.1
2.8
6.8
5.1
2.9
1.5
81
2
294
64
104
189
26
64
183
265
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth 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
36.8
6.6
14.5
64.5
12.1
27.5
8.0
38.7
7.4
272.7
721.5
117.9
188.7
720.5
125.6
449.6
120.6
604.4
83.9
1.0
1.7
1.0
-1.1
2.3
2.0
2.0
0.6
2.5
3.5
213
154
213
316
94
123
123
244
80
29
$1,178
1,703
843
874
920
839
953
787
953
653
7.0
2.2
2.1
1.0
3.4
4.1
5.0
2.7
3.5
1.1
21
227
234
290
150
104
71
193
146
287
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
19.1
8.3
9.5
8.0
91.3
6.1
36.9
50.6
10.1
31.1
210.6
140.2
110.2
92.5
1,020.6
75.4
698.7
522.9
102.2
389.9
2.7
0.8
2.8
2.6
2.3
-0.1
3.2
2.1
2.1
1.6
69
236
65
76
94
291
41
114
114
162
774
810
733
688
976
779
860
1,003
681
901
2.2
0.2
-0.1
2.1
4.1
2.6
3.9
7.6
2.6
1.7
227
308
319
234
104
202
119
15
202
256
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.4
14.7
14.0
13.4
4.6
7.8
4.3
21.8
18.2
42.4
194.6
142.5
162.0
150.8
81.4
134.2
112.0
306.0
278.8
738.0
1.4
3.2
1.8
0.8
1.2
2.0
-0.1
1.1
-0.1
3.1
181
41
143
236
194
123
291
207
291
48
740
824
818
709
760
828
914
1,033
1,026
1,317
3.1
3.1
5.1
4.9
2.3
2.3
1.4
4.3
4.4
7.2
166
166
64
76
219
219
271
94
91
20
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
24.5
4.7
4.7
24.8
13.6
4.3
150.3
37.4
13.4
22.3
312.0
94.6
99.3
455.0
202.4
88.1
2,441.2
578.3
195.7
326.3
1.6
0.1
0.2
1.8
2.7
0.6
1.2
2.1
1.2
2.1
162
280
274
143
69
244
194
114
194
114
968
783
826
908
843
806
1,184
1,168
874
1,272
4.8
3.2
3.0
3.1
1.0
2.5
5.3
4.5
2.0
6.7
78
161
173
166
290
209
60
85
246
28
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
Elkhart, IN ..........................
8.7
3.8
6.0
4.7
5.6
5.3
15.4
6.8
9.0
4.8
93.6
87.3
94.7
103.7
94.0
126.8
204.8
124.6
177.8
112.6
0.8
1.5
-0.4
0.6
-1.2
-2.5
0.7
-0.9
1.8
7.4
236
172
305
244
318
328
242
315
143
1
907
948
804
936
781
986
847
824
774
782
11.2
1.2
1.5
1.1
0.4
3.0
2.8
1.2
-0.3
8.9
7
281
265
287
303
173
189
281
322
9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
8.6
10.4
24.1
6.0
3.3
4.8
3.7
6.3
15.3
5.3
115.3
191.3
570.6
117.2
79.7
105.3
79.1
127.3
274.1
89.0
1.7
1.3
2.3
-0.6
1.9
-1.5
2.3
0.1
1.6
1.2
154
186
94
308
134
324
94
280
162
194
$921
902
992
786
809
792
854
948
981
845
5.3
3.9
4.2
4.4
0.1
0.9
3.5
0.7
4.1
5.5
60
119
100
91
313
293
146
298
104
45
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
21.3
12.4
4.8
3.2
9.8
23.2
7.5
4.9
14.7
13.7
316.2
243.5
95.4
84.2
183.7
436.8
119.2
84.6
262.3
195.5
2.7
1.4
0.4
1.6
2.2
3.8
-2.4
2.9
2.1
-0.3
69
181
265
162
106
20
327
59
114
301
1,046
915
856
874
852
936
818
846
948
916
6.1
4.1
8.5
0.3
2.0
2.3
0.2
3.4
6.9
2.6
38
104
11
306
246
219
308
150
24
202
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
St. Tammany, LA ...............
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
9.1
11.2
7.5
12.7
14.8
21.4
6.3
5.7
9.4
33.8
139.1
180.7
80.9
172.4
244.7
371.0
94.5
89.1
161.8
456.9
1.9
2.2
2.0
0.9
2.6
1.2
1.9
2.2
2.3
0.6
134
106
123
223
76
194
134
106
94
244
989
992
843
890
1,050
1,014
963
974
1,212
1,345
4.0
1.2
4.5
2.9
1.9
2.7
2.3
4.8
3.5
1.9
115
281
85
183
251
193
219
78
146
251
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
15.9
14.2
8.9
16.0
21.7
15.5
49.4
23.4
14.0
23.6
304.4
333.0
85.3
213.4
309.3
197.4
841.1
328.3
179.0
602.9
-0.2
0.2
2.5
0.4
1.5
0.2
1.9
1.5
2.5
1.6
295
274
80
265
172
274
134
172
80
162
1,019
1,180
842
901
1,056
898
1,434
1,212
924
1,724
0.2
6.1
2.1
5.5
2.2
3.9
4.5
4.6
2.3
8.0
308
38
234
45
227
119
85
81
219
12
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
21.4
7.3
6.4
5.4
14.2
17.4
38.8
5.6
4.2
8.2
319.2
131.9
155.8
110.9
341.8
294.7
675.6
110.1
84.6
198.6
-0.3
0.9
0.1
0.9
3.0
1.7
3.4
3.8
0.5
2.3
301
223
280
223
52
154
33
20
257
94
964
816
924
892
879
1,012
1,141
831
789
1,030
-0.1
-1.7
1.7
4.0
2.9
1.2
3.4
0.1
0.8
3.6
319
326
256
115
183
281
150
313
294
139
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
31.9
7.2
10.0
42.4
3.4
14.0
5.6
4.4
4.4
6.0
696.3
112.7
174.8
857.2
92.4
321.0
94.9
81.7
82.5
120.9
1.1
2.1
1.8
1.9
3.2
0.6
1.7
1.2
-0.2
-1.3
207
114
143
134
41
244
154
194
295
319
$1,083
900
943
1,236
1,047
1,071
776
799
693
856
0.6
3.0
4.9
6.5
1.7
4.1
0.1
5.5
1.0
3.8
301
173
76
31
256
104
313
45
290
128
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
4.6
5.2
8.1
19.0
8.4
32.6
9.5
6.1
17.8
9.5
87.7
86.3
156.0
351.3
129.8
574.9
218.1
78.7
321.6
160.1
2.4
-1.4
2.9
1.2
3.4
0.6
-0.5
1.7
2.0
2.5
91
320
59
194
33
244
307
154
123
80
762
879
737
1,026
763
1,088
1,059
846
905
792
4.0
1.9
3.8
6.2
2.6
7.0
2.7
5.4
5.5
3.8
115
251
128
36
202
21
193
55
45
128
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
49.3
13.7
12.1
10.6
6.7
33.1
11.0
12.1
20.6
6.1
827.6
186.7
192.2
137.1
131.7
435.0
198.1
195.2
343.5
98.6
2.3
0.9
0.5
1.0
-0.2
0.3
2.8
-0.2
-0.3
0.5
94
223
257
213
295
272
65
295
301
257
867
886
1,137
1,034
816
1,272
1,035
1,002
1,221
873
3.1
3.0
3.7
12.0
-1.4
6.2
1.8
1.4
3.6
2.3
166
173
136
4
325
36
255
271
139
219
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
14.1
11.0
21.8
20.0
17.3
12.3
12.2
10.1
14.4
17.9
238.6
233.0
393.4
243.6
276.1
147.3
175.1
174.1
222.2
313.9
2.0
1.5
1.9
0.2
0.9
1.2
0.3
0.9
0.5
1.3
123
172
134
274
223
194
272
223
257
186
1,285
1,312
1,162
1,031
1,476
835
998
1,429
1,228
836
1.3
3.6
1.6
2.6
5.4
4.6
-2.1
2.2
0.2
0.7
276
139
261
202
55
81
327
227
308
298
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
10.0
17.2
4.5
8.2
24.0
54.0
18.3
53.0
123.7
5.3
222.6
239.7
90.2
112.3
461.8
529.5
380.0
609.0
2,437.9
105.4
0.9
1.8
-0.8
-0.8
0.5
2.0
0.1
1.8
2.1
-1.4
223
143
313
313
257
123
280
143
114
320
976
932
764
975
853
821
890
1,134
2,107
777
2.0
2.5
2.1
2.2
3.0
2.8
0.2
2.0
11.5
3.7
246
209
234
227
173
189
308
246
5
136
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
13.0
9.9
47.9
9.1
9.9
5.6
50.9
36.1
8.1
4.4
244.7
134.2
533.4
95.3
116.6
78.8
630.9
413.1
116.2
79.3
0.5
0.4
2.9
1.6
-0.2
2.0
1.1
0.6
2.5
0.1
257
265
59
162
295
123
207
244
80
280
$929
820
938
843
1,054
876
1,056
1,346
752
733
5.9
1.9
2.2
3.8
6.3
3.8
0.0
5.4
2.7
0.4
41
251
227
128
35
128
317
55
193
303
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
6.3
7.5
9.0
14.2
33.5
7.5
30.1
6.3
7.4
35.7
118.5
188.2
177.3
266.9
584.2
97.1
464.2
108.7
140.6
711.1
-1.4
2.6
1.7
1.1
3.0
1.6
3.4
3.6
-0.2
2.0
320
76
154
207
52
162
33
25
295
123
770
1,225
883
863
1,103
797
967
883
844
1,020
-0.1
1.6
3.3
5.5
5.1
2.4
2.4
6.6
2.8
5.4
319
261
157
45
64
214
214
29
189
55
Delaware, OH ....................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
4.4
29.8
23.2
6.4
6.0
10.1
5.9
12.1
8.8
14.2
81.4
687.2
491.7
94.7
94.5
203.3
98.8
245.6
155.6
258.8
4.1
2.5
0.4
0.0
-0.7
0.8
1.3
0.6
0.8
1.1
15
80
265
288
310
236
186
244
236
207
950
970
1,092
813
816
866
718
864
752
893
3.9
1.6
6.0
-3.2
2.5
2.1
3.8
2.7
3.0
4.3
119
261
40
328
209
234
128
193
173
94
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
25.2
20.7
12.9
10.9
9.5
30.4
16.8
35.8
9.0
19.8
434.9
341.5
142.2
138.1
129.9
447.5
252.7
689.7
166.3
250.5
1.6
1.8
2.2
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.2
0.7
1.3
0.4
162
143
106
213
257
123
194
242
186
265
947
962
893
758
760
988
1,101
1,058
869
957
5.3
0.0
4.2
2.7
3.4
2.1
1.4
5.0
2.1
2.9
60
317
100
193
150
234
271
71
234
183
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
4.9
15.1
6.2
7.5
14.0
7.6
5.9
12.8
8.7
7.7
82.9
238.7
125.7
174.5
215.7
124.6
98.1
221.7
177.8
139.5
-0.3
0.1
0.6
0.5
1.3
-0.7
-0.4
0.9
-0.1
-1.4
301
280
244
257
186
310
305
223
291
320
895
1,283
866
955
1,076
775
726
816
964
746
3.6
0.7
3.0
4.3
6.4
1.7
1.4
3.7
3.0
3.2
139
298
173
94
33
256
271
136
173
161
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
27.5
6.6
36.5
5.6
9.5
9.1
17.5
12.1
12.3
7.7
473.9
104.9
638.0
86.3
133.8
172.6
272.7
219.0
238.5
104.7
1.0
2.0
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.4
1.4
2.5
2.3
2.5
213
123
207
236
223
265
181
80
94
80
$1,250
842
1,180
1,016
795
837
992
837
838
576
5.9
1.3
4.1
11.5
-0.7
3.6
3.0
1.5
2.7
1.2
41
276
104
5
323
139
173
265
193
281
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Williamson, TN ...................
5.7
9.0
5.8
6.7
18.5
8.5
10.9
4.4
19.1
6.4
105.1
206.5
117.4
118.1
441.6
188.0
222.5
107.4
481.9
100.6
6.9
1.4
2.4
2.5
3.0
2.2
0.6
6.4
1.7
4.0
2
181
91
80
52
106
244
3
154
17
732
843
832
850
1,090
897
875
877
1,023
1,121
2.4
2.4
2.1
4.3
6.5
3.8
3.9
4.2
5.5
6.4
214
214
234
94
31
128
119
100
45
33
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
4.9
35.7
5.1
4.0
6.4
19.7
70.1
11.7
14.2
10.0
109.4
765.3
94.2
90.3
131.7
318.7
1,499.2
189.8
282.0
149.5
1.7
2.9
3.6
4.4
2.1
4.8
3.4
3.1
2.2
5.3
154
59
25
9
114
8
33
48
106
6
783
877
934
735
609
1,158
1,209
877
697
1,007
1.7
1.5
4.1
3.5
2.7
5.5
5.5
5.0
3.4
5.1
256
265
104
146
193
45
45
71
150
64
Galveston, TX ....................
Gregg, TX ..........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
5.5
4.2
104.3
11.5
5.8
7.1
4.9
9.3
7.9
5.7
97.3
78.1
2,160.8
235.2
121.3
128.2
103.2
146.4
157.6
94.6
1.3
0.6
4.0
2.3
-2.3
1.8
2.1
5.7
3.2
0.1
186
244
17
94
326
143
114
5
41
280
903
913
1,331
612
1,006
772
813
985
885
867
4.0
3.8
7.3
2.2
4.1
8.0
5.4
7.7
5.1
6.8
115
128
19
227
104
12
55
14
64
26
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
39.0
32.7
4.9
8.1
7.5
38.8
13.3
5.5
6.1
8.7
800.8
619.4
92.6
136.2
108.7
606.5
183.9
91.8
99.0
165.9
3.0
4.3
1.3
3.5
2.4
4.3
6.0
2.2
0.2
-1.1
52
10
186
29
91
10
4
106
274
316
974
1,114
683
934
778
947
834
721
981
1,625
4.5
3.1
5.1
2.5
0.8
5.5
9.4
2.4
4.1
2.1
85
166
64
209
294
45
8
214
104
234
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2011-12 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
8.0
35.3
10.3
10.2
8.1
6.3
5.8
3.7
5.7
7.2
121.2
597.8
181.9
144.2
115.9
97.2
96.8
98.3
138.7
149.1
3.1
0.9
2.9
3.2
3.4
1.6
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.6
48
223
59
41
33
162
288
143
288
244
$881
1,588
949
1,171
863
1,460
775
912
972
1,066
3.2
4.3
1.3
2.7
2.1
2.5
3.3
3.1
4.2
4.1
161
94
276
193
234
209
157
166
100
104
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Benton, WA ........................
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
11.5
5.9
14.0
84.1
6.8
22.1
19.6
16.2
7.7
7.0
165.4
76.4
132.3
1,185.3
80.7
266.8
261.7
200.1
97.8
81.0
1.8
-1.5
3.0
3.0
0.2
1.2
2.8
1.0
1.5
2.3
143
324
52
52
274
194
65
213
172
94
862
969
894
1,276
860
869
1,005
809
839
801
13.3
-1.0
5.8
4.7
3.2
3.2
0.4
3.3
1.1
3.6
3
324
44
80
161
161
303
157
287
139
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
9.0
6.0
6.6
14.3
23.8
5.1
12.7
3.6
11.0
95.1
105.5
148.3
310.5
476.8
104.1
229.5
90.2
275.6
1.5
-0.7
1.0
1.5
0.9
1.6
0.9
1.3
1.5
172
310
213
172
223
162
223
186
( 7)
679
843
892
957
969
830
1,004
924
661
4.6
1.2
5.2
5.9
3.0
4.3
7.0
3.9
0.8
81
281
63
41
173
94
21
119
( 7)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 328 U.S. counties comprise 71.3 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,
fourth quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 4
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
9,205.6
8,911.3
131.9
750.2
335.7
1,894.7
143.9
815.1
1,617.5
942.0
776.6
1,280.2
294.2
133,726.8
112,271.7
1,888.3
5,627.0
11,950.0
26,179.3
2,696.7
7,595.9
18,205.1
19,708.0
13,631.9
4,575.7
21,455.1
1.9
2.3
2.0
2.8
1.4
1.5
0.4
1.7
3.3
2.0
3.7
3.4
-0.2
$1,000
1,008
1,148
1,102
1,207
827
1,620
1,629
1,370
928
416
604
960
4.7
5.3
6.1
5.0
3.2
3.9
8.0
11.4
8.2
2.7
3.0
1.0
1.6
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 ...................................................
421.5
415.8
0.5
12.2
12.5
51.3
8.5
22.2
43.1
30.0
27.9
182.1
5.7
4,082.2
3,546.4
10.0
110.9
364.8
792.1
203.9
213.7
584.3
541.1
421.3
284.5
535.8
1.9
2.5
1.4
3.6
0.2
2.0
5.3
1.4
3.7
2.4
4.7
-2.4
-2.5
1,185
1,179
1,731
1,160
1,182
907
2,224
1,841
1,483
1,096
985
418
1,221
6.6
6.9
19.5
4.2
3.6
4.3
6.3
19.4
5.1
4.3
6.5
9.4
4.3
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 ...................................................
150.3
148.9
0.1
12.4
6.6
29.2
2.7
15.6
31.8
15.8
13.3
16.7
1.4
2,441.2
2,144.5
0.7
61.7
194.1
462.5
54.1
184.1
432.2
414.1
241.5
95.8
296.7
1.2
1.4
-6.1
0.1
0.4
1.2
0.1
-0.2
2.4
1.1
3.6
-0.3
-0.4
1,184
1,189
1,088
1,482
1,255
899
1,627
2,350
1,565
968
473
843
1,149
5.3
5.6
-1.0
5.8
4.6
4.2
3.4
16.6
5.0
1.0
2.8
4.1
3.6
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
123.5
0.0
2.1
2.4
20.9
4.4
18.8
25.7
9.4
13.1
19.2
0.3
2,437.9
1,999.2
0.1
32.5
26.6
267.0
142.9
353.5
500.5
314.8
259.9
94.5
438.7
2.1
2.5
5.0
8.5
1.0
2.6
1.7
-0.5
3.8
1.5
3.2
3.7
0.4
2,107
2,331
1,862
2,003
1,552
1,529
2,447
5,186
2,430
1,226
907
1,094
1,100
11.5
12.5
18.1
2.1
-7.1
13.0
5.5
26.4
6.3
3.2
2.4
2.1
1.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 4
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
104.3
103.8
1.7
6.5
4.6
23.4
1.2
10.7
20.8
11.9
8.6
13.7
0.5
2,160.8
1,904.6
91.3
142.3
192.7
459.4
27.2
116.0
362.7
256.5
192.7
62.6
256.2
4.0
4.4
6.9
5.3
5.0
3.0
-2.9
2.9
5.9
3.4
5.9
3.1
0.8
$1,331
1,372
3,544
1,335
1,704
1,196
1,463
1,708
1,639
1,021
430
718
1,026
7.3
7.6
9.5
7.9
9.8
8.4
5.3
10.7
4.5
6.4
3.6
5.4
3.0
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
95.2
94.5
0.5
7.6
3.2
21.2
1.6
10.9
22.0
10.6
7.2
6.5
0.7
1,721.1
1,512.0
8.5
88.3
113.7
357.3
28.5
146.2
285.1
252.8
180.6
46.9
209.1
2.7
3.0
3.7
7.2
1.8
1.7
2.3
3.0
3.5
2.4
2.7
1.1
1.1
964
967
918
1,049
1,290
917
1,253
1,194
1,086
1,001
444
634
946
3.4
3.8
0.7
7.7
0.8
2.5
5.4
5.7
5.6
1.5
3.3
4.1
1.4
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
70.1
69.6
0.6
4.0
2.8
15.2
1.5
8.6
15.5
7.9
5.9
7.3
0.5
1,499.2
1,335.4
10.1
71.0
111.8
305.9
47.6
145.1
292.6
176.8
133.2
40.4
163.8
3.4
3.8
8.5
6.4
-0.1
3.3
3.6
2.6
5.6
3.9
4.6
1.4
0.2
1,209
1,228
3,980
1,171
1,398
1,065
1,640
1,663
1,451
1,068
528
756
1,059
5.5
5.8
-9.0
6.1
7.0
5.7
1.9
12.1
4.8
3.1
6.5
8.2
3.6
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
104.2
102.8
0.2
6.0
4.8
16.2
1.2
9.6
19.1
10.7
7.4
19.6
1.4
1,436.6
1,300.9
3.0
73.2
158.6
258.9
24.2
111.6
264.5
165.4
182.5
52.9
135.7
2.7
3.1
-5.3
5.3
0.5
1.8
-0.4
4.3
4.3
2.1
4.2
4.2
-1.3
1,131
1,138
746
1,269
1,352
1,002
1,692
2,030
1,329
1,064
431
534
1,064
4.4
4.5
7.8
7.2
3.8
2.3
11.8
6.8
5.1
2.7
4.6
-1.1
3.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12 4
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
100.5
99.1
0.7
5.8
2.9
13.6
1.1
8.5
16.6
8.8
7.2
26.6
1.4
1,302.0
1,084.0
9.0
57.5
93.7
219.0
24.9
71.5
221.5
157.7
160.2
63.5
218.1
2.3
2.6
1.1
3.6
-0.6
2.1
1.7
3.4
2.7
1.4
3.3
5.2
0.7
$1,099
1,090
665
1,133
1,534
843
1,580
1,381
1,670
1,044
439
503
1,143
5.5
5.7
4.2
0.7
5.6
6.7
-1.8
12.3
8.8
3.0
0.5
2.2
4.4
King, WA ............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
84.1
83.5
0.4
5.3
2.2
14.4
1.8
6.2
14.1
7.3
6.5
25.2
0.5
1,185.3
1,028.2
2.5
50.4
103.6
223.0
80.9
64.2
195.1
140.3
115.6
52.7
157.1
3.0
3.4
-8.0
9.5
3.5
3.6
0.7
2.5
4.8
2.3
4.0
-0.7
0.5
1,276
1,291
2,021
1,248
1,482
1,086
2,489
1,587
1,689
1,007
485
627
1,177
4.7
5.1
35.5
-1.3
-2.8
6.2
11.8
8.3
6.7
2.2
1.7
6.8
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 ...................................................
91.3
90.9
0.5
5.0
2.7
26.4
1.5
9.3
19.1
10.1
7.0
8.0
0.4
1,020.6
882.1
8.9
30.8
35.7
266.5
17.7
69.2
134.1
159.0
122.8
35.7
138.5
2.3
2.8
-2.7
2.8
-1.2
1.9
1.3
3.8
4.2
1.0
6.0
2.8
-1.2
976
957
609
1,017
930
852
1,489
1,483
1,342
929
554
586
1,092
4.1
5.4
2.5
10.8
3.8
4.8
10.9
8.4
8.8
0.7
3.2
3.9
-2.3
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,
fourth quarter 2012 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2011-12
United States 4 ...................
9,205.6
133,726.8
1.9
$1,000
4.7
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
117.0
21.9
147.5
85.1
1,337.1
173.6
111.9
27.8
36.8
618.3
1,847.3
314.8
2,509.2
1,160.3
15,216.3
2,311.4
1,657.6
411.0
721.5
7,535.5
1.1
1.1
2.4
0.2
3.3
2.7
1.0
1.2
1.7
2.3
854
1,007
912
767
1,186
1,032
1,253
1,044
1,703
880
2.6
2.7
3.3
4.2
7.8
5.8
5.3
6.1
2.2
3.9
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
273.7
38.6
53.4
396.4
160.4
96.0
84.9
113.2
127.1
49.7
3,889.9
620.7
618.4
5,697.9
2,850.5
1,486.6
1,339.2
1,796.0
1,891.9
582.2
1.7
2.1
2.0
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.0
0.2
927
868
732
1,058
816
821
835
801
884
773
4.7
2.7
2.1
4.4
3.4
3.7
4.4
1.8
4.1
2.4
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
169.1
221.0
238.9
170.1
69.4
179.3
42.8
68.0
73.5
49.5
2,544.1
3,279.3
3,988.9
2,677.2
1,096.5
2,641.9
434.6
931.3
1,145.8
620.8
1.2
1.3
1.9
1.6
1.1
0.9
1.9
2.2
1.9
0.8
1,086
1,248
954
985
720
863
757
797
877
1,023
2.5
4.8
2.3
5.1
3.2
4.6
4.1
4.6
2.9
5.5
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
263.8
55.7
608.4
259.9
30.1
287.1
104.9
134.8
354.4
35.4
3,846.4
796.8
8,741.9
3,963.9
421.0
5,098.0
1,565.3
1,654.1
5,629.8
456.4
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.9
6.1
1.3
1.9
1.4
0.5
1.0
1,172
802
1,280
854
944
887
847
871
972
945
2.9
0.4
6.9
3.6
8.4
3.6
3.9
2.5
3.8
2.7
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
113.9
31.6
142.1
599.6
87.2
24.5
242.5
239.6
49.6
162.9
1,832.2
401.7
2,710.4
10,956.4
1,246.6
306.1
3,663.7
2,902.0
714.3
2,723.6
2.0
1.2
2.1
3.2
3.7
0.7
1.1
2.1
0.0
1.2
784
749
903
1,027
844
829
1,042
1,017
788
855
2.8
3.5
5.2
5.5
4.5
2.5
3.7
4.0
1.5
4.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2012
(thousands)
December
2012
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2011-12
Fourth
quarter
2012
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2011-12
Wyoming ............................
25.6
277.6
0.2
$908
3.7
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
47.3
3.4
978.6
39.8
1.6
-7.9
550
738
-0.4
-3.9
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
December 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.9 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
June 2013
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, fourth quarter 2011-12 (U.S. average = 4.7 percent)
Largest Counties
U.S. average or lower
Higher than U.S. average
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
June 2013