For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Wednesday, December 18, 2013
USDL-13-2392
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Second Quarter 2013
From June 2012 to June 2013, employment increased in 288 of the 334 largest U.S. counties, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Fort Bend, Texas, had the largest increase, with a gain of 7.0
percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.6 percent. Within Fort Bend, the largest
employment increase occurred in construction, which gained 2,285 jobs over the year (21.0 percent).
Atlantic, N.J., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the largest counties in the
U.S. with a loss of 4.5 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 6 months after the end of each quarter.
The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 2.1 percent to $921 in the second quarter of
2013. Union, N.J., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 8.1
percent. Within Union, an average weekly wage gain of $377, or 28.5 percent, in professional and
business services made the largest contribution to the increase in average weekly wages. Davidson,
Tenn., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 2.2 percent over the
year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, June 2012-13
(U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, second quarter 2012-13
(U.S. average = 2.1 percent)
10
8
7.0
6.0
5.8
8.1
5.1
8.0
6
4.9
7.8
6.9
6.0
4
2
0
Fort Bend,
Texas
Midland,
Texas
Douglas,
Colo.
Elkhart,
Ind.
Placer,
Calif.
Union,
N.J.
San Mateo,
Calif.
Williamson, Rockingham,
Tenn.
N.H.
Dane,
Wis.
Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2013 employment, June 2012-13 employment
increase, and June 2012-13 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
June 2013 employment
(thousands)
United States
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.
Increase in employment,
June 2012-13
(thousands)
135,094.0
4,070.9
2,452.3
2,434.0
2,189.9
1,678.7
1,495.5
1,448.0
1,310.5
1,205.5
999.8
United States
Percent increase in employment,
June 2012-13
2,088.2
Los Angeles, Calif.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Orange, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
King, Wash.
Travis, Texas
Cook, Ill.
80.6
67.4
42.3
39.1
37.5
35.9
33.7
33.2
29.1
28.0
United States
1.6
Fort Bend, Texas
Midland, Texas
Douglas, Colo.
Elkhart, Ind.
Placer, Calif.
Weld, Colo.
Travis, Texas
Utah, Utah
Hamilton, Ind.
Williamson, Tenn.
7.0
6.0
5.8
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.2
Large County Employment
In June 2013, national employment was 135.1 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the
year, employment increased 1.6 percent, or 2.1 million. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs
accounted for 71.4 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.6 percent of total wages. These 334
counties had a net job growth of 1.6 million over the year, accounting for 78.3 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Fort Bend, Texas, had the largest percentage increase in employment (7.0 percent) among the largest
U.S. counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Los Angeles,
Calif.; Harris, Texas; Maricopa, Ariz.; Dallas, Texas; and Orange, Calif. These counties had a combined
over-the-year employment gain of 266,900 jobs, which was 12.8 percent of the overall job increase for
the U.S. (See table A.)
Employment declined in 36 of the large counties from June 2012 to June 2013. Atlantic, N.J., had the
largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.5 percent). Within Atlantic, natural
resources and mining had the largest decrease in employment with a loss of 4,199 (-53.9 percent).
Caddo, La., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by Oneida, N.Y., and
Peoria, Ill. Three counties, Winnebago, Ill., Broome, N.Y., and Jefferson, Texas, tied for the fifth largest
percentage decrease. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2013 average weekly wages, second quarter 2012-13
increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2012-13 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2013
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
San Mateo, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
Suffolk, Mass.
Middlesex, Mass.
Increase in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2012-13
$921
$1,810
1,675
1,632
1,575
1,525
1,512
1,459
1,435
1,410
1,371
United States
$19
San Mateo, Calif.
Union, N.J.
Williamson, Tenn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Rockingham, N.H.
Lake, Ill.
Midland, Texas
Chester, Pa.
Morris, N.J.
Dane, Wis.
$121
91
76
73
59
56
56
53
52
52
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2012-13
United States
2.1
Union, N.J.
San Mateo, Calif.
Williamson, Tenn.
Rockingham, N.H.
Dane, Wis.
Clayton, Ga.
Saratoga, N.Y.
Fort Bend, Texas
Midland, Texas
Lake, Ill.
Montgomery, Texas
8.1
8.0
7.8
6.9
6.0
5.6
5.5
5.1
5.1
4.9
4.9
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased 2.1 percent during the year ending in the second quarter
of 2013. Among the 334 largest counties, 304 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages.
(See chart 4.) Union, N.J., had the largest wage increase among the largest U.S. counties (8.1 percent).
Of the 334 largest counties, 18 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Davidson,
Tenn., had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 2.2 percent. Within Davidson,
financial activities had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage decrease. Within this
industry, average weekly wages declined by $254 (-16.2 percent) over the year. Whatcom, Wash., had
the second largest decrease in average weekly wages, followed by Washington, Ore., and Shelby, Tenn.,
which tied for the third largest percentage decrease. Two counties, El Paso, Colo., and Wyandotte, Kan.,
tied for the fifth largest percentage decrease. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June 2013.
Harris, Texas, had the largest gain (3.2 percent). Within Harris, trade, transportation, and utilities had the
largest over-the-year employment level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of
13,618, or 3.1 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. San Diego,
Calif., experienced the largest gain in average weekly wages (4.0 percent). Within San Diego,
professional and business services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth.
Within this industry, average weekly wages increased by $130, or 9.2 percent, over the year. Los
-3-
Angeles and Orange, Calif., tied for the smallest average weekly wage increase (0.4 percent each)
among the 10 largest counties.
For More Information
The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 334 U.S. counties
with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2012. June 2013 employment and 2013
second quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 135.1 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read
the Technical Note. Data for the second quarter of 2013 will be available later at
http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling
(202) 691-6567.
Several BLS regional offices are issuing QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. For links to
these releases, see http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.
The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2013 is scheduled to be released on
Wednesday, March 19, 2014.
-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 2013 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 335 counties
presented in this release were derived using 2012 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2013 data, six counties have been
added to the publication tables: Boone, Ky.; Warren, Ohio; Jackson,
Ore.; York, S.C.; Midland, Texas; and Potter, Texas. These counties
will be included in all 2013 quarterly releases. 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
Source
· Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2013
Coverage
· UI and UCFE coverage, including all · UI coverage, excluding government,
employers subject to state and federprivate households, and establishal UI laws
ments with zero employment
· Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative records submitted by
7.3 million private-sector employers
CES
· Sample survey: 557,000 establishments
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
— 6 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 a quarterly and annual
· Provides quarterly employer dynamics · Provides current monthly estimates of
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 industhe national level by NAICS
ty, MSA, state, and national levels by
try
supersectors and by size of firm, and
detailed industry
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 2012. 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 2012,
UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 131.7 million jobs. The
estimated 126.9 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for
multiple jobholders) represented 95.5 percent of civilian wage and
salary employment. Covered workers received $6.491 trillion in pay,
representing 93.7 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 40.0 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 workforce 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 2012 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. Beginning with the second quarter of 2011, adjusted
data account for selected large administrative changes in employment and wages. These new adjustments allow QCEW to include
county employment and wage growth rates in this news release that
would otherwise not meet publication standards.
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 2012 edition
of this publication, which was published in September 2013, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics
(BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first
quarter 2013 version of this news release. Tables and additional
content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2012 are
now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn12.htm.
The 2013 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages
Online will be available in September 2014.
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. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2013²
Average weekly wage ⁴
Employment
County³
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
United States⁶..............................
9,248.7
135,094.0
1.6
-
$921
2.1
-
Jefferson, AL................................
Madison, AL.................................
Mobile, AL....................................
Montgomery, AL...........................
Tuscaloosa, AL.............................
Anchorage Borough, AK...............
Maricopa, AZ................................
Pima, AZ.......................................
Benton, AR...................................
Pulaski, AR...................................
17.5
8.9
9.5
6.3
4.2
8.4
93.4
18.7
5.7
14.6
340.1
182.9
164.8
129.7
85.5
155.4
1,678.7
343.6
98.7
242.7
1.0
2.2
0.3
1.1
0.9
0.0
2.6
-0.1
2.8
-0.6
203
99
266
191
216
289
69
298
50
314
917
1,030
804
784
797
1,009
919
812
900
844
0.3
1.7
1.8
0.0
0.9
1.3
1.5
2.3
3.0
2.4
297
170
159
305
254
218
197
98
59
95
Washington, AR...........................
Alameda, CA................................
Contra Costa, CA.........................
Fresno, CA...................................
Kern, CA.......................................
Los Angeles, CA...........................
Marin, CA.....................................
Monterey, CA...............................
Orange, CA..................................
Placer, CA....................................
5.7
55.3
29.1
29.5
17.0
425.8
11.8
12.6
104.9
11.0
95.3
682.8
334.4
361.3
309.3
4,070.9
110.2
192.2
1,448.0
138.7
2.7
2.8
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.0
3.0
2.1
2.7
4.9
62
50
106
99
91
114
42
106
62
5
751
1,175
1,123
706
803
1,002
1,136
779
1,019
895
3.3
0.3
3.3
1.0
-0.6
0.4
2.1
1.6
0.4
1.5
43
297
43
248
320
290
123
183
290
197
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...........................
50.5
50.5
49.3
98.6
55.3
16.4
9.6
24.9
14.4
63.4
597.9
603.2
628.5
1,310.5
611.2
215.2
109.2
355.5
191.3
939.4
2.8
1.3
2.0
1.6
3.5
-1.8
1.6
3.4
2.1
3.7
50
172
114
150
22
326
150
23
106
18
761
1,016
791
1,031
1,512
757
760
1,632
885
1,810
2.4
0.3
0.5
4.0
2.2
0.3
1.7
8.0
2.5
4.2
95
297
286
20
111
297
170
2
85
16
Santa Cruz, CA............................
Solano, CA...................................
Sonoma, CA.................................
Stanislaus, CA..............................
Tulare, CA....................................
Ventura, CA..................................
Yolo, CA.......................................
Adams, CO...................................
Arapahoe, CO..............................
Boulder, CO..................................
9.0
9.8
18.5
13.9
9.0
24.2
5.9
9.0
19.3
13.3
102.0
126.0
184.0
170.7
154.0
311.5
92.7
175.8
298.6
165.7
1.8
2.1
3.2
1.6
2.4
1.3
0.3
4.0
3.3
2.8
131
106
28
150
84
172
266
12
24
50
830
933
842
754
639
951
944
886
1,061
1,074
0.5
3.9
1.0
-0.3
0.9
3.5
1.4
2.3
2.8
2.7
286
21
248
316
254
34
209
98
69
76
Denver, CO..................................
Douglas, CO.................................
El Paso, CO..................................
Jefferson, CO...............................
Larimer, CO..................................
Weld, CO......................................
Fairfield, CT.................................
Hartford, CT..................................
New Haven, CT............................
New London, CT..........................
27.0
10.0
17.0
17.9
10.3
5.9
33.3
26.0
22.8
7.0
441.4
105.2
245.7
219.5
140.1
90.3
419.7
502.2
361.9
124.3
3.3
5.8
2.2
2.8
3.0
4.8
1.3
1.1
0.8
-1.1
24
3
99
50
42
6
172
191
226
320
1,093
1,014
835
937
786
791
1,435
1,120
968
939
1.1
1.0
-1.1
3.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
2.2
1.8
1.4
237
248
326
36
290
281
267
111
159
209
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ⁴
Employment
County³
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
New Castle, DE............................
Washington, DC...........................
Alachua, FL..................................
Brevard, FL...................................
Broward, FL..................................
Collier, FL.....................................
Duval, FL.....................................
Escambia, FL...............................
Hillsborough, FL...........................
Lake, FL.......................................
16.9
34.9
6.6
14.6
65.0
12.3
27.6
8.0
39.0
7.4
269.9
725.0
116.0
186.7
710.2
114.9
447.0
120.9
594.9
79.2
1.6
0.9
0.2
-0.5
2.6
3.8
1.6
2.3
2.6
3.2
150
216
276
311
69
16
150
91
69
28
$1,093
1,575
799
839
861
798
878
728
884
633
2.3
2.1
1.9
0.6
3.4
2.2
2.0
0.0
1.7
2.8
98
123
143
281
36
111
133
305
170
69
Lee, FL.........................................
Leon, FL.......................................
Manatee, FL.................................
Marion, FL....................................
Miami-Dade, FL............................
Okaloosa, FL................................
Orange, FL...................................
Palm Beach, FL............................
Pasco, FL.....................................
Pinellas, FL...................................
19.4
8.3
9.6
8.0
92.6
6.1
37.4
50.9
10.1
31.2
204.2
135.4
103.9
90.7
999.8
77.4
699.4
517.0
94.4
390.2
3.6
0.4
3.0
0.7
2.5
0.8
3.6
2.8
3.0
2.0
20
254
42
233
78
226
20
50
42
114
739
768
721
668
885
766
806
892
687
809
1.2
0.0
2.0
2.0
1.1
0.7
2.0
2.3
3.3
0.5
227
305
133
133
237
267
133
98
43
286
Polk, FL........................................
Sarasota, FL................................
Seminole, FL................................
Volusia, FL...................................
Bibb, GA.......................................
Chatham, GA................................
Clayton, GA..................................
Cobb, GA......................................
De Kalb, GA.................................
Fulton, GA....................................
12.5
14.7
14.0
13.5
4.5
7.9
4.3
22.1
18.2
42.7
188.2
139.8
159.9
148.6
79.9
137.0
111.0
312.8
274.6
743.4
1.9
3.7
2.3
0.8
0.2
2.2
0.3
1.9
0.4
2.6
124
18
91
226
276
99
266
124
254
69
712
777
784
675
743
763
871
985
957
1,204
1.9
2.9
3.7
1.4
(⁷)
0.8
5.6
2.5
2.1
1.9
143
62
29
209
262
6
85
123
143
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
4.4
152.6
38.0
13.7
22.6
311.2
94.3
98.7
451.5
206.3
87.8
2,452.3
597.6
203.5
335.2
2.5
0.0
1.2
1.7
3.2
0.4
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.3
78
289
183
143
28
254
183
143
164
172
900
730
782
856
793
795
1,067
1,065
801
1,206
1.9
2.1
-0.1
1.5
1.4
0.8
1.3
1.4
1.6
4.9
143
123
314
197
209
262
218
209
183
10
McHenry, IL..................................
McLean, IL....................................
Madison, IL...................................
Peoria, IL......................................
St. Clair, IL....................................
Sangamon, IL...............................
Will, IL..........................................
Winnebago, IL..............................
Allen, IN........................................
Elkhart, IN.....................................
8.8
3.9
6.1
4.7
5.7
5.3
15.7
6.9
8.9
4.8
95.9
85.4
95.0
102.9
91.8
126.5
213.2
124.3
176.0
117.7
0.1
0.2
-0.6
-2.0
-1.3
-1.4
2.7
-1.9
0.6
5.1
282
276
314
330
321
323
62
327
241
4
766
955
753
871
737
941
810
793
745
767
3.1
3.1
1.1
1.0
0.0
2.1
1.4
2.5
1.5
3.0
53
53
237
248
305
123
209
85
197
59
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ⁴
Employment
County³
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁵
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........................................
8.7
10.4
24.0
5.9
3.3
4.8
3.8
6.4
15.6
5.4
122.0
189.2
572.6
114.1
78.4
103.8
79.7
129.7
281.8
90.2
4.6
-0.1
1.1
0.0
-0.7
-1.5
2.0
0.5
2.7
0.5
9
298
191
289
316
325
114
244
62
244
$860
847
923
752
786
753
848
876
897
750
2.0
0.4
2.1
-0.5
1.2
3.6
2.5
3.5
1.5
1.8
133
290
123
319
227
30
85
34
197
159
Johnson, KS.................................
Sedgwick, KS...............................
Shawnee, KS................................
Wyandotte, KS.............................
Boone, KY...................................
Fayette, KY...................................
Jefferson, KY................................
Caddo, LA....................................
Calcasieu, LA...............................
East Baton Rouge, LA..................
21.1
12.1
4.7
3.2
4.0
10.1
23.8
7.4
4.9
14.7
323.6
242.3
95.6
83.9
77.4
180.3
432.1
115.2
86.1
259.4
2.6
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.2
-3.1
1.4
1.8
69
216
191
191
244
203
183
332
164
131
950
843
784
832
835
821
905
751
778
882
2.7
3.1
1.7
-1.1
1.6
1.6
1.2
0.7
1.8
3.3
76
53
170
326
183
183
227
267
159
43
Jefferson, LA................................
Lafayette, LA................................
Orleans, LA..................................
St. Tammany, LA..........................
Cumberland, ME..........................
Anne Arundel, MD........................
Baltimore, MD...............................
Frederick, MD...............................
Harford, MD..................................
Howard, MD.................................
13.6
9.2
11.3
7.6
12.7
14.9
21.5
6.3
5.7
9.5
194.6
140.9
177.1
80.7
175.5
255.8
364.5
96.5
90.1
162.7
1.5
1.3
2.3
2.6
0.8
2.1
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.3
158
172
91
69
226
106
203
216
191
266
828
900
910
770
825
981
920
880
900
1,114
1.3
1.8
0.8
3.9
2.2
0.6
1.0
-0.9
(⁷)
1.9
218
159
262
21
111
281
248
324
143
Montgomery, MD..........................
Prince Georges, MD.....................
Baltimore City, MD.......................
Barnstable, MA.............................
Bristol, MA....................................
Essex, MA....................................
Hampden, MA..............................
Middlesex, MA..............................
Norfolk, MA...................................
Plymouth, MA...............................
33.7
15.9
14.1
9.0
16.3
22.1
15.9
49.8
23.6
14.2
458.2
303.3
332.2
102.3
217.5
315.0
201.1
847.7
335.1
184.1
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.3
-0.3
1.9
1.8
1.5
244
244
266
226
233
266
306
124
131
158
1,246
979
1,049
768
842
979
832
1,371
1,066
889
2.0
0.0
2.5
1.2
2.1
2.8
0.0
2.2
1.1
2.5
133
305
85
227
123
69
305
111
237
85
Suffolk, MA...................................
Worcester, MA..............................
Genesee, MI.................................
Ingham, MI...................................
Kalamazoo, MI.............................
Kent, MI.......................................
Macomb, MI..................................
Oakland, MI..................................
Ottawa, MI....................................
Saginaw, MI..................................
24.3
21.9
7.2
6.3
5.3
14.1
17.4
38.4
5.6
4.2
608.1
328.3
132.8
150.5
112.3
349.5
305.9
686.8
111.9
83.6
1.7
1.2
1.4
0.9
1.3
2.8
3.2
2.4
2.9
0.5
143
183
164
216
172
50
28
84
48
244
1,410
926
751
855
842
809
928
1,015
762
733
1.8
1.3
1.1
1.1
3.2
0.7
1.9
1.4
2.3
0.7
159
218
237
237
49
267
143
209
98
267
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ⁴
Employment
County³
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Washtenaw, MI.............................
Wayne, MI....................................
Anoka, MN....................................
Dakota, MN..................................
Hennepin, MN..............................
Olmsted, MN................................
Ramsey, MN.................................
St. Louis, MN................................
Stearns, MN.................................
Harrison, MS................................
8.3
31.5
7.2
10.1
41.0
3.5
14.0
5.6
4.4
4.5
194.9
691.1
116.8
180.3
866.7
93.8
322.3
97.3
82.5
83.7
1.1
0.9
3.8
1.7
2.4
1.1
1.2
1.7
1.4
-0.4
191
216
16
143
84
191
183
143
164
310
$979
998
881
900
1,141
1,053
1,029
750
750
677
1.3
2.3
1.4
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.2
3.2
3.3
1.7
218
98
209
82
170
98
111
49
43
170
Hinds, MS.....................................
Boone, MO...................................
Clay, MO......................................
Greene, MO..................................
Jackson, MO................................
St. Charles, MO............................
St. Louis, MO................................
St. Louis City, MO........................
Yellowstone, MT...........................
Douglas, NE.................................
6.0
4.6
5.2
8.1
19.1
8.4
32.7
9.8
6.2
18.3
120.3
89.1
91.2
155.1
351.5
132.8
575.9
221.4
78.5
321.0
-0.1
2.8
2.4
1.0
1.0
3.3
1.5
0.1
1.0
0.7
298
50
84
203
203
24
158
282
203
233
811
719
839
708
920
756
971
972
806
831
1.8
0.8
3.2
1.9
0.0
1.6
1.6
3.1
4.8
2.6
159
262
49
143
305
183
183
53
12
82
Lancaster, NE...............................
Clark, NV.....................................
Washoe, NV.................................
Hillsborough, NH..........................
Rockingham, NH..........................
Atlantic, NJ...................................
Bergen, NJ...................................
Burlington, NJ...............................
Camden, NJ.................................
Essex, NJ....................................
9.8
49.9
13.7
12.1
10.5
6.6
32.9
11.0
12.0
20.4
160.2
842.7
190.0
192.0
141.2
138.8
440.1
201.4
197.4
336.5
1.3
2.5
2.1
0.4
1.3
-4.5
1.8
1.4
0.0
0.2
172
78
106
254
172
333
131
164
289
276
743
822
814
987
908
785
1,124
975
904
1,129
1.6
1.9
0.7
0.9
6.9
2.5
-0.4
1.5
1.2
3.4
183
143
267
254
4
85
317
197
227
36
Gloucester, NJ..............................
Hudson, NJ...................................
Mercer, NJ....................................
Middlesex, NJ..............................
Monmouth, NJ..............................
Morris, NJ.....................................
Ocean, NJ....................................
Passaic, NJ..................................
Somerset, NJ...............................
Union, NJ.....................................
6.1
14.0
11.0
21.8
20.0
17.1
12.4
12.2
10.1
14.3
99.7
236.3
235.9
392.5
253.9
282.3
161.9
171.1
181.2
225.2
0.2
0.9
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.7
1.4
-0.2
1.8
0.8
276
216
191
244
203
143
164
304
131
226
809
1,248
1,179
1,095
932
1,323
761
934
1,370
1,217
2.5
1.1
2.3
2.7
2.3
4.1
2.4
0.4
1.5
8.1
85
237
98
76
98
19
95
290
197
1
Bernalillo, NM...............................
Albany, NY...................................
Bronx, NY.....................................
Broome, NY..................................
Dutchess, NY...............................
Erie, NY........................................
Kings, NY.....................................
Monroe, NY..................................
Nassau, NY..................................
New York, NY...............................
17.7
10.1
17.4
4.6
8.4
24.1
55.3
18.4
53.3
125.0
310.4
224.5
244.4
90.0
112.4
459.3
537.5
380.2
609.5
2,434.0
0.4
0.5
2.4
-1.9
0.7
-0.2
2.4
0.0
1.8
1.5
254
244
84
327
233
304
84
289
131
158
802
965
888
745
961
807
744
869
1,046
1,675
0.0
3.9
1.8
1.5
-0.1
1.6
1.1
0.9
0.1
1.8
305
21
159
197
314
183
237
254
302
159
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ⁴
Employment
County³
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Oneida, NY...................................
Onondaga, NY..............................
Orange, NY..................................
Queens, NY..................................
Richmond, NY..............................
Rockland, NY...............................
Saratoga, NY................................
Suffolk, NY...................................
Westchester, NY..........................
Buncombe, NC.............................
5.3
13.0
9.9
48.6
9.2
10.1
5.7
51.6
36.2
8.0
105.1
243.6
134.6
537.1
95.0
118.6
82.5
652.8
416.2
116.4
-2.3
-0.1
0.3
2.6
3.1
0.7
1.7
1.3
0.4
2.6
331
298
266
69
37
233
143
172
254
69
$761
856
820
852
787
995
859
996
1,244
690
2.8
0.7
1.7
0.7
2.2
0.7
5.5
2.2
4.2
1.3
69
267
170
267
111
267
7
111
16
218
Catawba, NC................................
Cumberland, NC...........................
Durham, NC.................................
Forsyth, NC..................................
Guilford, NC..................................
Mecklenburg, NC..........................
New Hanover, NC........................
Wake, NC.....................................
Cass, ND......................................
Butler, OH.....................................
4.3
6.1
7.3
9.0
14.0
32.8
7.3
29.6
6.3
7.4
80.5
119.4
185.0
175.0
265.7
578.7
99.5
475.3
110.2
139.8
0.7
-0.1
2.0
1.8
1.9
3.1
1.6
2.5
2.3
1.4
233
298
114
131
124
37
150
78
91
164
694
748
1,202
834
809
1,026
738
929
810
805
1.9
0.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
2.2
0.4
3.3
2.9
2.2
143
286
36
30
30
111
290
43
62
111
Cuyahoga, OH..............................
Delaware, OH...............................
Franklin, OH.................................
Hamilton, OH................................
Lake, OH......................................
Lorain, OH....................................
Lucas, OH....................................
Mahoning, OH..............................
Montgomery, OH..........................
Stark, OH.....................................
35.7
4.5
29.7
23.1
6.3
6.0
10.1
6.0
11.9
8.8
715.5
83.0
689.6
498.6
95.3
97.0
203.1
97.5
243.8
157.0
1.2
2.2
2.2
0.6
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.1
-0.5
0.9
183
99
99
241
289
298
282
282
311
216
931
908
935
999
754
764
800
656
801
706
1.7
2.7
0.2
3.0
-0.7
1.9
-0.6
1.2
1.6
2.8
170
76
301
59
323
143
320
227
183
69
Summit, OH.................................
Warren, OH.................................
Oklahoma, OK..............................
Tulsa, OK.....................................
Clackamas, OR............................
Jackson, OR................................
Lane, OR......................................
Marion, OR...................................
Multnomah, OR............................
Washington, OR...........................
14.1
4.3
25.5
21.0
12.9
6.7
10.9
9.5
30.3
16.8
258.9
84.5
436.7
336.7
145.7
78.8
140.8
139.0
454.7
258.6
0.5
2.8
1.0
0.7
2.7
3.1
1.3
3.2
2.6
2.5
244
50
203
233
62
37
172
28
69
78
816
800
875
862
861
708
735
745
943
1,105
1.6
4.7
4.2
3.4
1.3
3.8
3.4
2.1
2.5
-1.3
183
13
16
36
218
27
36
123
85
328
Allegheny, PA...............................
Berks, PA.....................................
Bucks, PA.....................................
Butler, PA.....................................
Chester, PA..................................
Cumberland, PA...........................
Dauphin, PA................................
Delaware, PA...............................
Erie, PA........................................
Lackawanna, PA..........................
34.8
8.8
19.5
4.9
15.0
6.1
7.3
13.7
7.1
5.8
695.4
164.8
254.1
85.6
240.7
126.4
179.6
215.1
125.5
96.9
0.3
0.4
0.7
-0.3
0.3
0.8
0.4
1.3
-0.8
0.2
266
254
233
306
266
226
254
172
317
276
1,001
846
891
865
1,213
877
903
973
731
696
3.9
3.9
1.4
3.2
4.6
2.7
1.7
1.6
1.1
1.2
21
21
209
49
14
76
170
183
237
227
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ⁴
Employment
County³
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Lancaster, PA...............................
Lehigh, PA....................................
Luzerne, PA..................................
Montgomery, PA...........................
Northampton, PA..........................
Philadelphia, PA...........................
Washington, PA............................
Westmoreland, PA.......................
York, PA.......................................
Providence, RI..............................
12.8
8.6
7.6
27.0
6.5
34.7
5.3
9.3
8.9
17.4
224.5
181.2
139.8
475.1
105.2
633.7
87.1
134.4
172.5
273.2
0.4
1.6
0.1
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.1
-1.3
1.1
1.0
254
150
282
241
191
244
282
321
191
203
$758
912
723
1,145
802
1,100
895
740
805
908
1.3
3.1
1.7
2.9
3.1
2.9
1.9
1.9
2.8
2.0
218
53
170
62
53
62
143
143
69
133
Charleston, SC.............................
Greenville, SC..............................
Horry, SC.....................................
Lexington, SC...............................
Richland, SC................................
Spartanburg, SC...........................
York, SC.......................................
Minnehaha, SD.............................
Davidson, TN................................
Hamilton, TN................................
12.3
12.6
7.9
5.9
9.1
5.8
4.7
6.7
18.8
8.6
218.7
239.1
121.0
101.7
206.4
120.0
78.5
120.1
441.2
187.3
1.0
3.2
1.9
2.3
1.8
3.3
3.1
1.8
2.8
1.2
203
28
124
91
131
24
37
131
50
183
799
796
537
707
804
811
722
772
928
819
3.6
0.1
0.9
2.6
0.6
1.5
-0.6
1.2
-2.2
1.9
30
302
254
82
281
197
320
227
331
143
Knox, TN......................................
Rutherford, TN..............................
Shelby, TN....................................
Williamson, TN.............................
Bell, TX.........................................
Bexar, TX.....................................
Brazoria, TX.................................
Brazos, TX....................................
Cameron, TX................................
Collin, TX......................................
11.0
4.6
19.2
6.7
4.9
36.0
5.1
4.1
6.3
20.0
219.0
109.0
473.7
103.2
110.1
773.2
95.2
88.9
132.7
328.0
0.0
(⁷)
0.0
4.2
1.0
3.0
1.5
1.9
1.6
3.9
289
289
10
203
42
158
124
150
14
795
799
945
1,055
755
812
916
701
572
1,076
2.3
(⁷)
-1.3
7.8
2.0
1.6
1.7
2.2
0.7
1.5
98
328
3
133
183
170
111
267
197
Dallas, TX.....................................
Denton, TX..................................
El Paso, TX..................................
Fort Bend, TX...............................
Galveston, TX...............................
Gregg, TX.....................................
Harris, TX.....................................
Hidalgo, TX...................................
Jefferson, TX................................
Lubbock, TX.................................
70.1
12.0
14.2
10.3
5.6
4.2
105.6
11.6
5.8
7.2
1,495.5
196.2
281.4
158.1
100.4
77.7
2,189.9
234.4
119.6
128.5
2.7
4.1
0.9
7.0
2.2
1.4
3.2
2.8
-1.9
2.3
62
11
216
1
99
164
28
50
327
91
1,106
822
658
951
808
838
1,190
592
925
702
2.9
3.9
0.9
5.1
-0.9
2.9
2.1
1.2
0.1
1.9
62
21
254
8
324
62
123
227
302
143
McLennan, TX..............................
Midland, TX..................................
Montgomery, TX...........................
Nueces, TX..................................
Potter, TX.....................................
Smith, TX.....................................
Tarrant, TX...................................
Travis, TX.....................................
Webb, TX.....................................
Williamson, TX.............................
4.9
5.1
9.5
8.0
3.9
5.8
39.3
33.3
5.0
8.3
103.3
85.4
149.3
161.1
77.7
96.0
809.4
639.7
92.8
140.3
1.8
6.0
3.9
2.4
1.9
1.8
2.7
4.8
2.1
3.2
131
2
14
84
124
131
62
6
106
28
751
1,150
917
809
736
769
908
1,008
647
896
1.1
5.1
4.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.8
0.0
1.7
3.8
237
8
10
281
262
254
159
305
170
27
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ⁴
Employment
County³
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁵
Ranking by
percent
change
Davis, UT.....................................
Salt Lake, UT................................
Utah, UT.......................................
Weber, UT....................................
Chittenden, VT.............................
Arlington, VA................................
Chesterfield, VA...........................
Fairfax, VA....................................
Henrico, VA..................................
Loudoun, VA................................
7.5
38.8
13.3
5.5
6.2
8.8
7.9
35.2
10.2
10.2
111.9
609.5
187.1
93.3
98.8
166.0
123.9
595.9
180.4
149.0
2.0
3.2
4.7
2.0
0.4
-1.0
3.0
0.4
0.3
2.0
114
28
8
114
254
319
42
254
266
114
$737
875
735
700
945
1,525
821
1,459
918
1,090
1.7
2.3
4.3
0.7
3.4
1.5
1.9
2.7
2.5
0.7
170
98
15
267
36
197
143
76
85
267
Prince William, VA........................
Alexandria City, VA......................
Chesapeake City, VA...................
Newport News City, VA................
Norfolk City, VA...........................
Richmond City, VA.......................
Virginia Beach City, VA................
Benton, WA..................................
Clark, WA.....................................
King, WA......................................
8.1
6.3
5.7
3.7
5.6
7.1
11.3
5.9
14.3
85.2
119.5
95.5
96.3
97.7
136.8
147.8
175.2
83.3
134.8
1,205.5
2.9
-0.3
1.0
4.0
-0.9
0.4
2.0
0.1
2.3
2.8
48
306
203
12
318
254
114
282
91
50
819
1,323
740
873
888
987
725
932
842
1,202
0.4
2.3
-0.4
0.9
1.3
2.0
2.0
1.1
1.9
2.9
290
98
317
254
218
133
133
237
143
62
Kitsap, WA....................................
Pierce, WA...................................
Snohomish, WA............................
Spokane, WA...............................
Thurston, WA...............................
Whatcom, WA..............................
Yakima, WA.................................
Kanawha, WV...............................
Brown, WI.....................................
Dane, WI......................................
6.9
22.6
20.2
16.5
7.9
7.2
9.3
6.0
6.6
14.4
80.9
271.6
265.3
204.3
100.4
83.5
114.0
105.1
150.4
311.3
-0.3
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.8
2.1
3.1
-0.5
1.0
1.1
306
114
78
158
131
106
37
311
203
191
829
850
992
779
834
763
629
819
805
925
0.7
1.6
1.6
2.1
2.2
-1.5
2.3
0.7
2.8
6.0
267
183
183
123
111
330
98
267
69
5
Milwaukee, WI..............................
Outagamie, WI.............................
Waukesha, WI..............................
Winnebago, WI.............................
San Juan, PR...............................
24.1
5.0
12.6
3.6
11.3
474.5
104.1
233.7
90.4
258.3
0.0
1.2
0.9
-1.4
-2.0
289
183
216
323
(⁸)
892
761
905
842
601
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.8
159
197
227
248
(⁸)
¹ Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. These
334 U.S. counties comprise 71.4 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
² Data are preliminary.
³ Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
⁴ Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
⁵ Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
⁶ Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
⁷ Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.
⁸ This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2013²
Average weekly wage ³
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁴
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁴
United States⁵.................................................................
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..................................................................
9,248.7
8,954.6
132.9
747.6
335.9
1,905.5
145.0
819.5
1,635.6
1,444.8
781.8
795.3
294.1
135,094.0
113,985.0
2,151.6
5,967.8
12,061.7
25,608.9
2,713.2
7,661.7
18,540.3
20,098.1
14,776.7
4,217.3
21,108.9
1.6
1.9
1.3
3.9
0.4
1.5
0.6
1.8
2.6
1.6
2.9
0.7
-0.4
$921
910
1,033
986
1,130
781
1,527
1,360
1,183
844
379
621
979
2.1
2.2
3.4
2.3
1.9
2.1
5.1
3.1
2.4
1.4
1.3
2.8
1.7
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..................................................................
425.8
420.0
0.5
12.3
12.5
52.1
8.4
22.6
43.7
187.1
28.0
25.3
5.8
4,070.9
3,534.9
10.2
115.9
367.2
766.3
192.5
211.9
586.8
682.3
443.0
141.2
536.0
2.0
2.7
10.2
5.4
-0.4
1.7
5.6
0.7
3.0
2.4
5.1
-0.9
-2.2
1,002
971
1,457
1,053
1,087
833
1,727
1,497
1,217
801
542
637
1,203
0.4
0.3
10.0
0.7
2.1
1.3
-3.0
2.6
-1.1
0.9
-1.8
3.6
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..................................................................
152.6
151.2
0.1
12.6
6.6
30.2
2.8
15.8
32.4
16.1
13.6
16.9
1.3
2,452.3
2,150.6
0.9
65.7
188.8
447.9
54.5
185.6
433.5
416.9
258.2
95.6
301.8
1.2
1.2
-2.7
2.1
-1.9
1.2
-1.2
0.2
2.1
1.4
3.2
-1.6
1.1
1,067
1,048
998
1,287
1,083
849
1,582
1,819
1,351
891
480
798
1,199
1.3
1.2
6.2
3.8
-1.5
2.9
3.0
0.3
1.0
1.4
2.3
2.6
2.2
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..................................................................
125.0
124.7
0.0
2.2
2.3
21.0
4.5
19.1
26.3
9.5
13.4
19.5
0.3
2,434.0
1,998.2
0.2
33.4
25.9
256.9
143.9
351.9
505.1
313.5
265.8
95.3
435.9
1.5
1.8
4.0
4.0
0.5
1.5
0.8
-1.2
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.2
0.0
1,675
1,802
2,366
1,668
1,194
1,289
2,230
3,321
2,040
1,145
760
1,061
1,100
1.8
2.0
49.7
3.2
0.7
5.0
8.5
2.5
0.9
2.5
-0.3
4.3
-0.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ³
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁴
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁴
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..................................................................
105.6
105.0
1.7
6.5
4.6
23.8
1.2
10.8
21.2
14.5
8.7
11.4
0.6
2,189.9
1,935.5
95.1
146.6
195.1
451.5
28.6
116.5
375.6
260.3
203.2
61.8
254.5
3.2
3.5
7.4
5.7
3.1
3.1
-1.2
2.3
3.1
2.6
4.1
3.6
0.9
$1,190
1,214
3,103
1,208
1,450
1,057
1,371
1,428
1,459
921
398
697
1,006
2.1
1.9
1.3
4.7
3.4
-4.9
5.0
0.5
6.4
3.6
-0.3
2.2
2.8
Maricopa, AZ....................................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
93.4
92.7
0.5
7.4
3.1
20.6
1.6
10.8
21.8
10.7
7.3
6.5
0.7
1,678.7
1,502.8
8.3
92.4
113.6
337.6
31.6
148.6
290.1
248.2
182.4
47.4
175.9
2.6
3.1
7.5
6.2
0.0
1.6
2.1
5.5
4.4
2.0
3.8
-0.4
-1.6
919
903
846
947
1,329
824
1,160
1,163
978
941
424
631
1,038
1.5
1.5
3.0
1.3
0.1
-0.2
1.8
4.2
2.3
1.4
1.2
4.3
2.4
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
2.7
15.2
1.5
8.6
15.6
8.5
6.0
6.7
0.5
1,495.5
1,332.6
9.3
72.2
109.1
300.1
47.4
148.3
288.3
174.9
142.3
40.1
162.9
2.7
2.9
7.3
4.5
-3.0
2.9
4.5
4.4
2.8
3.1
5.1
1.5
0.7
1,106
1,113
4,333
1,027
1,314
1,012
1,772
1,476
1,234
967
451
714
1,045
2.9
2.8
12.1
2.8
1.3
2.2
7.7
2.5
3.4
1.3
0.9
1.9
3.4
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..................................................................
104.9
103.5
0.2
6.1
4.8
16.4
1.2
9.8
19.3
24.7
7.5
6.2
1.4
1,448.0
1,303.3
3.4
77.4
157.2
251.5
25.1
113.3
260.8
178.4
190.4
41.1
144.7
2.7
3.0
-2.8
9.7
-0.8
2.2
3.3
4.8
2.7
2.9
3.7
0.7
-0.2
1,019
1,006
694
1,129
1,246
932
1,446
1,566
1,173
883
438
632
1,136
0.4
0.5
-5.4
1.3
1.0
-1.1
2.7
4.1
0.7
-0.3
-1.8
-1.1
0.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ³
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13⁴
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13⁴
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..................................................................
98.6
97.2
0.7
5.9
2.9
13.9
1.1
8.6
16.7
26.9
7.3
6.6
1.4
1,310.5
1,090.4
10.9
61.2
94.0
209.6
24.2
71.3
221.5
175.8
171.5
46.3
220.1
1.6
1.9
-0.5
5.3
-1.1
1.4
-1.8
2.2
2.1
1.2
3.5
1.6
0.0
$1,031
1,014
658
1,048
1,448
798
1,515
1,306
1,549
876
423
559
1,114
4.0
4.8
4.9
0.4
6.8
0.3
2.3
9.7
9.2
1.2
1.9
2.8
1.0
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..................................................................
85.2
84.6
0.4
5.3
2.2
14.4
1.8
6.3
14.3
25.6
6.5
7.9
0.5
1,205.5
1,045.7
3.0
52.5
105.5
220.5
82.5
65.1
198.0
155.1
123.4
40.1
159.8
2.8
3.2
1.4
6.7
2.5
3.7
1.0
3.0
3.2
1.4
5.4
2.3
0.7
1,202
1,208
1,355
1,153
1,484
1,064
2,328
1,445
1,471
906
456
789
1,164
2.9
3.1
-1.4
1.3
4.6
4.3
3.7
4.5
2.4
1.0
2.9
5.1
1.8
Miami-Dade, FL...............................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
92.6
92.3
0.5
5.2
2.6
27.5
1.6
9.5
19.5
10.2
7.0
8.1
0.3
999.8
877.5
7.5
32.3
36.2
261.2
17.4
67.8
135.8
158.3
123.9
36.6
122.3
2.5
2.9
-0.9
8.8
1.8
2.6
3.2
3.8
4.2
0.5
4.0
1.7
-0.7
885
844
542
831
824
796
1,444
1,316
1,026
869
489
565
1,154
1.1
1.6
3.6
3.2
3.6
2.2
5.2
3.9
-0.6
1.5
-2.6
3.9
-0.2
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 2012 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. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2013²
Average weekly wage ³
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13
United States⁴..........................................
9,248.7
135,094.0
1.6
$921
2.1
Alabama....................................................
Alaska........................................................
Arizona......................................................
Arkansas...................................................
California...................................................
Colorado....................................................
Connecticut...............................................
Delaware...................................................
District of Columbia...................................
Florida.......................................................
115.8
22.1
145.8
87.2
1,347.4
174.3
112.8
28.0
34.9
623.7
1,859.5
342.6
2,438.1
1,150.4
15,485.8
2,359.4
1,666.3
417.8
725.0
7,402.0
0.9
-0.1
1.8
-0.6
2.4
2.9
1.0
1.8
0.9
2.4
794
970
877
734
1,048
933
1,128
966
1,575
822
1.4
1.6
1.7
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.0
Georgia......................................................
Hawaii........................................................
Idaho.........................................................
Illinois........................................................
Indiana.......................................................
Iowa...........................................................
Kansas......................................................
Kentucky....................................................
Louisiana...................................................
Maine.........................................................
274.6
38.7
53.5
401.9
160.1
97.4
84.6
117.1
128.1
49.4
3,917.2
617.0
642.7
5,750.0
2,863.4
1,523.9
1,350.0
1,790.6
1,894.7
604.4
1.7
1.9
2.7
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.6
0.9
0.4
867
823
683
971
776
757
779
782
824
732
2.2
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.7
2.0
2.1
1.3
2.4
1.8
Maryland....................................................
Massachusetts..........................................
Michigan....................................................
Minnesota..................................................
Mississippi.................................................
Missouri.....................................................
Montana....................................................
Nebraska...................................................
Nevada......................................................
New Hampshire.........................................
169.6
225.0
238.9
171.0
70.3
180.0
43.2
69.8
74.2
49.3
2,570.3
3,352.7
4,073.7
2,745.2
1,094.9
2,668.2
448.4
941.0
1,168.3
629.1
0.9
1.3
2.2
1.9
0.7
1.2
1.5
0.9
2.3
0.8
1,005
1,131
875
929
691
803
717
737
829
916
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.4
1.5
1.6
2.4
2.6
1.7
2.9
New Jersey...............................................
New Mexico...............................................
New York..................................................
North Carolina...........................................
North Dakota.............................................
Ohio...........................................................
Oklahoma..................................................
Oregon......................................................
Pennsylvania.............................................
Rhode Island.............................................
263.6
55.1
615.1
256.4
30.6
287.7
105.6
134.6
346.0
35.5
3,917.5
795.0
8,804.9
3,985.1
433.7
5,162.3
1,560.7
1,708.0
5,665.9
465.5
1.0
0.4
1.1
1.7
3.2
1.1
0.9
2.5
0.3
1.0
1,084
781
1,118
808
887
830
794
848
918
880
2.6
-0.3
2.0
2.5
3.7
1.7
3.5
1.3
2.8
2.3
South Carolina..........................................
South Dakota............................................
Tennessee.................................................
Texas.........................................................
Utah...........................................................
Vermont.....................................................
Virginia......................................................
Washington...............................................
West Virginia.............................................
Wisconsin..................................................
116.5
31.7
143.4
606.1
87.0
24.5
239.6
243.6
49.8
162.1
1,864.9
417.0
2,709.3
11,078.8
1,259.7
303.1
3,685.4
3,013.3
713.1
2,768.2
1.8
1.0
1.5
2.7
2.8
0.3
0.7
2.2
-0.1
0.6
747
689
820
944
783
808
968
969
781
801
1.5
1.8
0.5
2.4
2.2
2.7
1.7
2.4
0.6
3.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered¹ establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2013² - Continued
Average weekly wage ³
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2013
(thousands)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2012-13
Second
quarter
2013
Percent
change,
second quarter
2012-13
Wyoming...................................................
25.5
290.4
0.4
$845
0.5
Puerto Rico...............................................
Virgin Islands............................................
48.9
3.4
926.1
38.9
-1.1
-3.0
503
706
1.0
-13.8
¹ Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
² Data are preliminary.
³ Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
⁴ Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
June 2012-13 (U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
December 2013
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, second quarter 2012-13 (U.S. average = 2.1 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
December 2013