For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Thursday, December 18, 2014
USDL-14-2250
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Second Quarter 2014
From June 2013 to June 2014, employment increased in 305 of the 339 largest U.S. counties, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Weld, Colo., had the largest increase, with a gain of 8.9
percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 2.0 percent. Within Weld, the largest
employment increase occurred in natural resources and mining, which gained 2,636 jobs over the year
(27.3 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 1.6 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 2.1 percent over the year, growing to $940 in the second
quarter of 2014. Midland, Texas, had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a
gain of 9.0 percent. Within Midland, an average weekly wage gain of $142, or 7.5 percent, in natural
resources and mining made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in average weekly wages.
Williamson, Texas, experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 2.7 percent
over the year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, June 2013-14
(U.S. average = 2.0 percent)
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, second quarter 2013-14
(U.S. average = 2.1 percent)
Percent
Percent
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Weld,
Colo.
Benton,
Ark.
Lee,
Fla.
Sarasota,
Fla.
Midland,
Texas
Midland,
Texas
Douglas, Hillsborough,
Colo.
N.H.
Collier,
Fla.
San Mateo,
Calif.
Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2014 employment, June 2013-14 employment
increase, and June 2013-14 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
June 2014 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 2013-14
(thousands)
137,776.4
4,155.9
2,499.5
2,492.5
2,258.0
1,717.1
1,544.6
1,477.2
1,338.5
1,248.1
1,026.2
United States
Percent increase in employment,
June 2013-14
2,674.6
Los Angeles, Calif.
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Dallas, Texas
Cook, Ill.
King, Wash.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Clark, Nev.
Mecklenburg, N.C.
71.7
71.3
65.8
52.0
43.9
42.7
37.8
36.9
33.1
28.3
United States
2.0
Weld, Colo.
Benton, Ark.
Lee, Fla.
Sarasota, Fla.
Midland, Texas
Clark, Wash.
Charleston, S.C.
Montgomery, Texas
Mecklenburg, N.C.
Lexington, S.C.
8.9
6.8
6.3
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.9
Large County Employment
In June 2014, national employment was 137.8 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the
year, employment increased 2.0 percent, or 2.7 million. The 339 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs
accounted for 71.8 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.9 percent of total wages. These 339
counties had a net job growth of 2.0 million over the year, accounting for 73.6 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Weld, Colo., had the largest percentage increase in employment (8.9 percent) among the largest U.S.
counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Los Angeles, Calif.;
Harris, Texas; New York, N.Y.; Dallas, Texas; and Cook, Ill. These counties had a combined over-theyear employment gain of 304,700 jobs, which was 11.4 percent of the overall job increase for the U.S.
(See table A.)
Employment declined in 29 of the largest counties from June 2013 to June 2014. Atlantic, N.J., had the
largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-1.6 percent). Within Atlantic, leisure and
hospitality had the largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 2,817 jobs (-5.7 percent). Passaic,
N.J., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by McLean, Ill.; Arlington,
Va.; and Burlington, N.J. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2014 average weekly wages, second quarter 2013-14
increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2013-14 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2014
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
San Francisco, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfax, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
Middlesex, Mass.
Increase in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2013-14
$940
$1,886
1,740
1,732
1,593
1,569
1,516
1,463
1,457
1,455
1,386
United States
$19
San Mateo, Calif.
Midland, Texas
Douglas, Colo.
San Francisco, Calif.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Hillsborough, N.H.
Washington, Ore.
Collier, Fla.
Newport News City, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
$107
105
89
76
76
73
61
54
54
52
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2013-14
United States
2.1
Midland, Texas
Douglas, Colo.
Hillsborough, N.H.
Collier, Fla.
San Mateo, Calif.
Calcasieu, La.
Newport News City, Va.
Weld, Colo.
Washington, Ore.
Ingham, Mich.
9.0
8.8
7.4
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
5.8
5.5
5.4
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $940, a 2.1 percent increase, during the year ending in
the second quarter of 2014. Among the 339 largest counties, 312 had over-the-year increases in average
weekly wages. (See chart 4.) Midland, Texas, had the largest wage increase among the largest U.S.
counties (9.0 percent).
Of the 339 largest counties, 22 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages.
Williamson, Texas, had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, with a loss of 2.7
percent. Within Williamson, manufacturing had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage
decrease. Within this industry, average weekly wages declined by $168 (-9.5 percent) over the year.
Westchester, N.Y., had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by
Lake, Ind.; Bibb, Ga.; Washington, D.C.; and Chittenden, Vt. (See table 1.) The decline in average
weekly wages in Washington, D.C., was largely due to a pay period effect in federal government wages.
For more information see the concepts and methodology section of the Technical Note.
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June 2014.
Dallas, Texas, and King, Wash., had the largest gain (3.5 percent). Within Dallas, professional and
business services had the largest over-the-year employment level increase among all private industry
groups with a gain of 15,108 jobs, or 5.1 percent. Trade, transportation, and utilities had the largest
employment level increase among all private industry groups within King, with a gain of 11,204 jobs, or
5.1 percent. Cook, Ill., Orange, Calif., and Los Angeles, Calif., tied for the smallest percentage increase
in employment (1.8 percent) among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.)
Average weekly wages increased over the year in all of the 10 largest U.S. counties. Harris, Texas,
experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (3.4 percent). Within Harris, natural
-3-
resources and mining had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. Within this
industry, average weekly wages increased by $154, or 5.0 percent, over the year. San Diego, Calif., and
Maricopa, Ariz., tied for the smallest increase in average weekly wages (1.2 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 339 U.S. counties
with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2013. June 2014 employment and 2014
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 9.4 million employer reports cover 137.8 million full- and parttime workers. The QCEW program provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments,
employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by detailed industry. Data for the
second quarter of 2014 will be available electronically later at www.bls.gov/cew/. For additional
information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note. 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 www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.
The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2014 is scheduled to be released on
Thursday, March 19, 2015.
-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 2014 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 340 counties presented in
this release were derived using 2013 preliminary annual averages of
employment. For 2014 data, five counties have been added to the
publication tables: Shelby, Ala.; Osceola, Fla.; Black Hawk, Iowa;
Washington, Minn.; and Cleveland, Okla. These counties will be included in all 2014 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
CES
Source
 Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 9.4 million establishments in first quarter of 2014
 Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by
7.5 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
 Quarterly
— 8 months after the end of each
quarter
 Monthly
— Usually first Friday of following
month
Publication fre-  Quarterly
quency
— 6 months after the end of each
quarter
Use of UI file
 Directly summarizes and publishes
each new quarter of UI data
 Links each new UI quarter to longitu-  Uses UI file as a sampling frame and to
dinal database and directly summaannually realign sample-based estimates
rizes gross job gains and losses
to population counts (benchmarking)
Principal
products
 Provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, employment, and wages at the county,
MSA, state, and national levels by
detailed industry
 Provides quarterly employer dynam-  Provides current monthly estimates of
ics data on establishment openings,
employment, hours, and earnings at the
closings, expansions, and contractions
MSA, state, and national level by indusat the national level by NAICS supertry
sectors 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
Program Web
sites
 www.bls.gov/cew/
 Major uses include:
— Business cycle analysis
— Analysis of employer dynamics
underlying economic expansions
and contractions
— Analysis of employment expansion and contraction by size of
firm
 www.bls.gov/bdm/
 Major uses include:
— Principal national economic indicator
— Official time series for employment
change measures
— Input into other major economic indicators
 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 9.2 million employer
reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in
2013. 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 2013, UI and
UCFE programs covered workers in 134.0 million jobs. The estimated
128.7 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.8 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $6.673 trillion in pay, representing
93.7 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income
and 39.8 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 overthe-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 parttime workers as well as the number of individuals in high-paying 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-theyear 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 over-theyear changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2013 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 prior-year
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 2013 edition of this
publication, which was published in September 2014, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on
job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter
2014 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from
Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2013 are now available
online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn13.htm. The 2014 edition
of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available
in September 2015.
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 establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
second quarter 2014
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
United States⁴..............................
9,360.5
137,776.4
2.0
-
$940
2.1
-
Jefferson, AL................................
Madison, AL.................................
Mobile, AL....................................
Montgomery, AL...........................
Shelby, AL....................................
Tuscaloosa, AL.............................
Anchorage Borough, AK...............
Maricopa, AZ................................
Pima, AZ.......................................
Benton, AR...................................
17.7
9.0
9.6
6.3
5.1
4.3
8.3
92.9
18.7
5.7
340.7
182.7
166.8
129.7
78.9
88.0
155.1
1,717.1
347.0
105.8
0.2
-0.3
1.0
-0.2
1.8
2.8
-0.1
2.2
0.5
6.8
297
321
244
317
152
78
311
124
281
2
931
1,047
809
798
878
800
1,056
931
815
894
1.6
1.7
0.7
1.8
2.0
0.4
4.9
1.2
0.5
-0.8
195
177
276
167
143
295
14
239
285
331
Pulaski, AR...................................
Washington, AR...........................
Alameda, CA................................
Contra Costa, CA.........................
Fresno, CA...................................
Kern, CA.......................................
Los Angeles, CA...........................
Marin, CA.....................................
Monterey, CA...............................
Orange, CA..................................
14.3
5.7
56.8
29.6
30.7
17.1
438.6
12.0
12.8
107.2
242.7
97.0
701.9
343.2
364.5
311.8
4,155.9
112.0
197.0
1,477.2
0.5
2.3
2.8
2.9
1.4
0.5
1.8
2.3
1.7
1.8
281
115
78
73
194
281
152
115
167
152
856
758
1,190
1,139
719
820
1,024
1,171
790
1,033
1.2
0.8
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.9
3.3
1.7
1.5
239
269
219
177
177
156
67
41
177
205
Placer, CA....................................
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.......................
11.3
52.7
52.1
50.6
99.9
57.0
16.6
9.7
25.8
14.5
143.2
626.9
617.8
651.4
1,338.5
638.5
219.5
112.5
372.6
195.1
3.3
4.0
3.3
3.8
2.1
4.3
1.9
3.4
4.7
2.4
57
34
57
42
129
25
141
54
13
108
918
763
1,027
802
1,044
1,593
770
770
1,740
888
2.2
0.3
1.1
1.5
1.2
5.0
1.6
1.7
6.6
0.6
123
306
249
205
239
13
195
177
5
281
Santa Clara, CA...........................
Santa Cruz, CA............................
Solano, CA...................................
Sonoma, CA.................................
Stanislaus, CA..............................
Tulare, CA....................................
Ventura, CA..................................
Yolo, CA.......................................
Adams, CO...................................
Arapahoe, CO..............................
65.5
9.1
10.2
18.8
14.2
9.1
24.8
6.0
9.2
19.3
978.4
103.6
128.3
193.2
175.2
153.8
316.1
96.3
184.9
307.7
4.0
2.5
1.8
4.5
2.6
-0.2
1.7
3.8
4.8
2.7
34
102
152
17
98
317
167
42
11
87
1,886
830
966
854
767
652
950
962
916
1,074
4.2
3.4
3.3
1.4
1.5
2.5
0.2
2.1
3.4
1.1
20
36
41
219
205
100
308
135
36
249
Boulder, CO..................................
Denver, CO..................................
Douglas, CO.................................
El Paso, CO..................................
Jefferson, CO...............................
Larimer, CO..................................
Weld, CO......................................
Fairfield, CT.................................
Hartford, CT..................................
New Haven, CT............................
13.3
27.2
10.1
16.9
17.9
10.4
6.1
33.8
26.3
23.0
169.9
459.8
109.3
251.4
224.7
144.5
98.6
425.6
506.6
362.6
2.9
4.2
3.7
2.3
2.5
3.3
8.9
1.1
0.6
0.3
73
30
45
115
102
57
1
235
273
295
1,103
1,126
1,100
849
957
828
840
1,455
1,159
986
2.6
2.9
8.8
1.9
2.4
5.2
5.8
1.5
3.6
1.8
86
67
2
156
104
11
8
205
32
167
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
New London, CT..........................
New Castle, DE............................
Washington, DC...........................
Alachua, FL..................................
Brevard, FL...................................
Broward, FL..................................
Collier, FL.....................................
Duval, FL.....................................
Escambia, FL...............................
Hillsborough, FL...........................
7.0
18.0
35.9
6.7
14.8
65.7
12.6
27.5
8.1
39.4
123.8
277.8
732.6
118.6
189.7
733.1
120.4
454.2
123.2
609.4
-0.4
2.5
1.8
1.7
1.6
3.1
4.3
1.7
2.0
2.8
324
102
152
167
177
64
25
167
135
78
$960
1,098
1,569
816
834
873
853
896
742
899
2.2
0.7
-1.1
2.1
-0.4
1.2
6.8
1.9
1.2
1.9
123
276
334
135
327
239
4
156
239
156
Lake, FL.......................................
Lee, FL.........................................
Leon, FL.......................................
Manatee, FL.................................
Marion, FL....................................
Miami-Dade, FL............................
Okaloosa, FL................................
Orange, FL...................................
Osceola, FL..................................
Palm Beach, FL............................
7.6
19.8
8.3
9.9
8.0
93.4
6.2
38.3
6.0
52.0
81.8
217.4
139.5
105.6
93.0
1,026.2
78.3
725.7
78.8
537.2
2.7
6.3
2.7
2.2
2.0
2.5
0.2
3.4
4.3
3.6
87
3
87
124
135
102
297
54
25
50
645
750
782
736
677
913
776
828
665
910
2.1
1.4
1.8
2.4
1.7
3.3
1.3
2.6
2.9
1.9
135
219
167
104
177
41
226
86
67
156
Pasco, FL.....................................
Pinellas, FL...................................
Polk, FL........................................
Sarasota, FL................................
Seminole, FL................................
Volusia, FL...................................
Bibb, GA.......................................
Chatham, GA................................
Clayton, GA..................................
Cobb, GA......................................
10.2
31.4
12.6
14.9
14.1
13.6
4.6
8.2
4.3
22.5
98.3
396.7
191.5
148.9
166.2
151.5
81.8
141.2
114.0
325.8
3.7
1.6
2.3
5.8
3.9
1.9
2.3
3.2
3.8
4.3
45
177
115
4
39
141
115
62
42
25
701
844
723
787
793
694
733
798
895
994
2.6
3.7
1.5
1.5
1.1
3.0
-1.3
3.9
2.6
1.0
86
29
205
205
249
58
336
24
86
257
De Kalb, GA.................................
Fulton, GA....................................
Gwinnett, GA................................
Muscogee, GA..............................
Richmond, GA..............................
Honolulu, HI..................................
Ada, ID.........................................
Champaign, IL..............................
Cook, IL........................................
Du Page, IL..................................
18.7
44.1
25.1
4.8
4.7
24.9
13.9
4.5
156.6
38.8
282.4
763.2
326.7
94.9
101.5
456.6
211.8
89.3
2,499.5
608.8
2.7
3.0
4.4
0.5
1.3
0.9
2.4
1.4
1.8
1.0
87
70
22
281
214
250
108
194
152
244
968
1,222
912
742
799
877
818
817
1,085
1,074
0.9
1.4
1.0
1.6
2.8
2.6
3.2
2.9
1.7
1.5
264
219
257
195
79
86
49
67
177
205
Kane, IL........................................
Lake, IL........................................
McHenry, IL..................................
McLean, IL....................................
Madison, IL...................................
Peoria, IL......................................
St. Clair, IL....................................
Sangamon, IL...............................
Will, IL..........................................
Winnebago, IL..............................
14.0
23.1
9.0
3.9
6.2
4.8
5.7
5.4
16.2
6.9
207.4
340.2
97.3
84.3
97.2
101.6
91.6
130.2
217.9
128.2
1.4
0.6
1.6
-1.4
1.8
-0.6
-0.8
2.2
1.2
1.5
194
273
177
336
152
328
331
124
222
185
809
1,226
769
947
760
890
745
959
835
797
1.4
1.7
0.5
-1.0
1.5
1.9
0.8
1.7
2.3
0.9
219
177
285
333
205
156
269
177
115
264
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Allen, IN........................................
Elkhart, IN.....................................
Hamilton, IN..................................
Lake, IN........................................
Marion, IN.....................................
St. Joseph, IN...............................
Tippecanoe, IN.............................
Vanderburgh, IN...........................
Black Hawk, IA..........................
Johnson, IA..................................
8.8
4.7
8.8
10.2
23.6
5.8
3.3
4.8
3.8
4.0
179.5
122.9
127.9
188.5
578.3
118.4
80.0
105.8
76.1
80.9
2.2
4.2
4.5
-0.8
1.1
3.3
1.4
1.4
0.3
1.1
124
30
17
331
235
57
194
194
295
235
$748
797
875
834
927
759
798
757
780
874
0.4
4.0
1.5
-1.4
0.5
0.9
1.7
0.4
2.8
3.3
295
22
205
337
285
264
177
295
79
41
Linn, IA.........................................
Polk, IA........................................
Scott, IA........................................
Johnson, KS.................................
Sedgwick, KS...............................
Shawnee, KS................................
Wyandotte, KS.............................
Boone, KY...................................
Fayette, KY...................................
Jefferson, KY................................
6.5
16.3
5.5
21.4
12.3
4.8
3.3
4.1
10.3
24.3
130.4
290.3
91.5
331.4
245.5
97.3
88.0
79.3
184.7
442.5
1.2
3.0
1.2
2.8
1.2
2.5
4.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
222
70
222
78
222
102
22
108
108
108
894
920
766
976
836
791
872
846
835
926
1.6
2.4
2.0
3.0
-0.8
0.6
4.3
1.8
1.8
2.7
195
104
143
58
331
281
19
167
167
84
Caddo, LA....................................
Calcasieu, LA...............................
East Baton Rouge, LA..................
Jefferson, LA................................
Lafayette, LA................................
Orleans, LA..................................
St. Tammany, LA..........................
Cumberland, ME..........................
Anne Arundel, MD........................
Baltimore, MD...............................
7.4
5.0
14.9
13.7
9.3
11.7
7.7
12.6
14.6
21.2
114.9
87.7
264.1
194.8
140.5
186.7
82.8
177.8
257.0
368.3
-0.2
1.7
1.4
1.4
-0.1
4.6
2.7
1.4
0.9
0.5
317
167
194
194
311
16
87
194
250
281
774
827
895
837
930
912
789
843
996
941
3.2
6.4
1.2
1.7
2.9
0.3
2.3
2.1
0.5
2.1
49
6
239
177
67
306
115
135
285
135
Frederick, MD...............................
Harford, MD..................................
Howard, MD.................................
Montgomery, MD..........................
Prince Georges, MD.....................
Baltimore City, MD.......................
Barnstable, MA.............................
Bristol, MA....................................
Essex, MA....................................
Hampden, MA..............................
6.3
5.6
9.5
32.9
15.6
13.8
9.0
16.3
22.5
16.3
96.4
89.1
164.0
462.7
308.0
333.5
103.5
222.3
320.0
202.5
-0.4
-0.7
0.1
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.8
0.6
324
330
302
222
222
261
250
235
152
273
899
939
1,118
1,244
998
1,068
789
856
1,007
856
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.0
1.5
1.6
2.9
2.0
2.9
2.8
205
285
295
313
205
195
67
143
67
79
Middlesex, MA..............................
Norfolk, MA...................................
Plymouth, MA...............................
Suffolk, MA...................................
Worcester, MA..............................
Genesee, MI.................................
Ingham, MI...................................
Kalamazoo, MI.............................
Kent, MI.......................................
Macomb, MI..................................
50.7
23.7
14.2
25.0
22.2
7.1
6.1
5.1
13.9
17.2
861.8
343.0
185.9
619.5
332.1
134.7
150.4
114.2
362.4
311.3
1.5
1.7
0.6
1.5
1.0
1.3
0.2
1.5
3.7
1.3
185
167
273
185
244
214
297
185
45
214
1,386
1,077
911
1,463
946
768
901
849
823
947
1.1
0.7
2.6
3.7
2.4
2.3
5.4
1.8
2.0
1.7
249
276
86
29
104
115
10
167
143
177
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Oakland, MI..................................
Ottawa, MI....................................
Saginaw, MI..................................
Washtenaw, MI.............................
Wayne, MI....................................
Anoka, MN....................................
Dakota, MN..................................
Hennepin, MN..............................
Olmsted, MN................................
Ramsey, MN.................................
38.1
5.5
4.1
8.1
30.5
6.8
9.5
40.2
3.3
13.1
701.9
117.1
84.0
195.8
699.2
118.0
181.9
879.2
93.4
325.6
1.4
4.0
0.1
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.7
-0.6
0.9
194
34
302
222
250
250
214
167
328
250
$1,048
787
748
997
1,031
905
924
1,151
1,065
1,067
2.8
2.6
2.2
2.4
3.3
3.0
2.9
1.0
1.2
3.8
79
86
123
104
41
58
67
257
239
27
St. Louis, MN................................
Stearns, MN.................................
Washington, MN...........................
Harrison, MS................................
Hinds, MS.....................................
Boone, MO...................................
Clay, MO......................................
Greene, MO..................................
Jackson, MO................................
St. Charles, MO............................
5.2
4.2
5.2
4.4
5.9
4.7
5.2
8.2
19.7
8.6
98.3
84.3
78.4
84.0
118.9
90.0
94.4
158.9
354.3
135.5
0.9
2.1
0.7
0.8
-0.9
1.2
3.0
2.3
0.7
2.1
250
129
267
261
333
222
70
115
267
129
757
775
784
685
826
733
837
715
925
781
0.9
3.5
2.0
1.2
1.7
1.8
0.6
0.8
0.5
3.3
264
35
143
239
177
167
281
269
285
41
St. Louis, MO................................
St. Louis City, MO........................
Yellowstone, MT...........................
Douglas, NE.................................
Lancaster, NE...............................
Clark, NV.....................................
Washoe, NV.................................
Hillsborough, NH..........................
Rockingham, NH..........................
Atlantic, NJ...................................
33.7
10.8
6.3
18.6
10.1
51.4
13.9
12.1
10.6
6.6
587.4
222.7
79.8
327.9
163.4
877.4
195.5
193.9
144.3
137.0
1.4
1.0
1.6
1.8
1.8
3.9
2.9
0.8
1.9
-1.6
194
244
177
152
152
39
73
261
141
339
992
992
802
853
758
825
827
1,059
944
794
2.2
2.1
-0.2
2.9
2.0
0.5
1.3
7.4
4.0
1.0
123
135
323
67
143
285
226
3
22
257
Bergen, NJ...................................
Burlington, NJ...............................
Camden, NJ.................................
Essex, NJ....................................
Gloucester, NJ..............................
Hudson, NJ...................................
Mercer, NJ....................................
Middlesex, NJ..............................
Monmouth, NJ..............................
Morris, NJ.....................................
32.8
11.0
11.9
20.4
6.1
14.2
11.0
21.9
20.0
17.0
445.7
201.2
200.7
334.7
100.8
237.9
236.0
395.8
257.4
285.2
1.4
-1.1
1.6
-0.3
1.1
0.4
0.2
1.1
1.4
0.6
194
335
177
321
235
289
297
235
194
273
1,147
988
909
1,124
828
1,276
1,186
1,115
943
1,343
2.0
0.5
0.4
-0.2
2.3
2.1
0.4
1.5
1.3
1.2
143
285
295
323
115
135
295
205
226
239
Ocean, NJ....................................
Passaic, NJ..................................
Somerset, NJ...............................
Union, NJ.....................................
Bernalillo, NM...............................
Albany, NY...................................
Bronx, NY.....................................
Broome, NY..................................
Dutchess, NY...............................
Erie, NY........................................
12.6
12.2
10.0
14.3
18.0
10.3
17.6
4.6
8.4
24.5
166.9
167.5
183.5
223.0
313.7
227.3
251.6
89.2
110.6
462.7
3.2
-1.5
1.4
-0.4
0.7
0.4
1.4
0.1
0.0
0.7
62
338
194
324
267
289
194
302
306
267
759
943
1,379
1,209
816
985
889
756
969
826
-0.1
1.8
0.4
-0.4
2.0
3.1
0.2
1.1
0.7
2.2
318
167
295
327
143
54
308
249
276
123
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Kings, NY.....................................
Monroe, NY..................................
Nassau, NY..................................
New York, NY...............................
Oneida, NY...................................
Onondaga, NY..............................
Orange, NY..................................
Queens, NY..................................
Richmond, NY..............................
Rockland, NY...............................
56.9
18.5
53.3
126.6
5.3
13.0
10.1
49.6
9.4
10.2
566.7
381.2
618.4
2,492.5
104.0
243.7
138.9
553.6
99.1
118.3
4.7
0.4
1.5
2.7
-0.1
-0.1
1.2
3.1
2.9
2.8
13
289
185
87
311
311
222
64
73
78
$759
889
1,061
1,732
760
866
825
884
797
1,003
1.5
2.2
1.6
3.0
2.2
1.3
-0.2
3.2
0.9
1.7
205
123
195
58
123
226
323
49
264
177
Saratoga, NY................................
Suffolk, NY...................................
Westchester, NY..........................
Buncombe, NC.............................
Catawba, NC................................
Cumberland, NC...........................
Durham, NC.................................
Forsyth, NC..................................
Guilford, NC..................................
Mecklenburg, NC..........................
5.8
51.9
36.3
8.2
4.2
6.2
7.6
9.0
14.1
33.6
83.2
656.2
421.1
119.0
81.7
118.2
189.4
178.3
267.3
606.6
-0.2
0.4
1.2
2.2
1.1
-0.9
1.9
2.1
0.9
4.9
317
289
222
124
235
333
141
129
250
9
868
1,014
1,215
702
713
746
1,208
837
809
1,040
1.3
1.7
-1.6
1.7
2.9
-0.4
0.5
0.0
-0.2
1.3
226
177
338
177
67
327
285
313
323
226
New Hanover, NC........................
Wake, NC.....................................
Cass, ND......................................
Butler, OH.....................................
Cuyahoga, OH..............................
Delaware, OH...............................
Franklin, OH.................................
Hamilton, OH................................
Lake, OH......................................
Lorain, OH....................................
7.4
30.4
6.6
7.5
35.4
4.6
30.0
23.1
6.3
6.0
102.9
494.8
115.2
143.0
715.5
83.7
705.5
504.5
96.4
98.0
3.4
4.2
4.5
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.7
1.5
0.6
0.6
54
30
17
115
306
306
87
185
273
273
752
933
832
819
954
915
945
1,011
781
775
1.8
0.4
2.8
1.9
2.4
0.8
1.3
1.3
3.9
1.7
167
295
79
156
104
269
226
226
24
177
Lucas, OH....................................
Mahoning, OH..............................
Montgomery, OH..........................
Stark, OH.....................................
Summit, OH.................................
Warren, OH.................................
Cleveland, OK..............................
Oklahoma, OK..............................
Tulsa, OK.....................................
Clackamas, OR............................
10.0
5.9
11.9
8.7
14.0
4.4
5.2
26.2
21.3
13.2
206.1
98.5
247.5
160.2
262.0
86.4
78.4
442.4
342.9
148.0
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.3
2.1
1.0
1.6
1.3
214
244
194
177
194
214
129
244
177
214
819
664
816
713
828
816
716
891
894
884
2.6
2.2
1.9
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.8
1.9
3.6
2.6
86
123
156
249
226
177
167
156
32
86
Jackson, OR................................
Lane, OR......................................
Marion, OR...................................
Multnomah, OR............................
Washington, OR...........................
Allegheny, PA...............................
Berks, PA.....................................
Bucks, PA.....................................
Butler, PA.....................................
Chester, PA..................................
6.7
11.1
9.6
30.9
17.1
35.3
8.9
19.7
5.0
15.2
80.4
143.1
143.0
467.3
265.3
695.1
167.8
257.1
85.8
244.4
2.0
1.5
3.1
3.1
2.3
0.0
2.0
1.2
0.0
1.8
135
185
64
64
115
306
135
222
306
152
707
742
764
965
1,165
1,002
872
903
866
1,231
-0.1
1.0
2.3
2.4
5.5
0.1
3.0
1.2
-0.1
1.6
318
257
115
104
9
311
58
239
318
195
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Cumberland, PA...........................
Dauphin, PA................................
Delaware, PA...............................
Erie, PA........................................
Lackawanna, PA..........................
Lancaster, PA...............................
Lehigh, PA....................................
Luzerne, PA..................................
Montgomery, PA...........................
Northampton, PA..........................
6.2
7.3
13.9
7.2
5.9
12.9
8.6
7.6
27.4
6.6
128.3
178.8
219.0
126.4
97.9
229.1
183.9
141.7
478.9
107.1
1.2
0.5
1.7
0.7
0.7
1.9
1.7
0.6
0.8
1.9
222
281
167
267
267
141
167
273
261
141
$910
920
989
731
715
777
943
744
1,163
818
3.8
1.3
1.6
-0.1
2.6
2.6
3.1
2.9
1.4
2.0
27
226
195
318
86
86
54
67
219
143
Philadelphia, PA...........................
Washington, PA............................
Westmoreland, PA.......................
York, PA.......................................
Providence, RI..............................
Charleston, SC.............................
Greenville, SC..............................
Horry, SC.....................................
Lexington, SC...............................
Richland, SC................................
35.1
5.3
9.3
9.0
17.4
12.4
12.6
7.9
5.8
9.1
638.2
88.7
134.8
174.6
279.2
232.3
250.5
124.9
107.7
208.8
0.8
1.3
0.2
1.1
1.7
5.2
4.5
3.1
4.9
2.8
261
214
297
235
167
7
17
64
9
78
1,105
934
763
811
928
822
820
548
720
823
0.4
4.5
3.2
1.1
2.2
3.4
2.2
2.0
0.8
2.6
295
17
49
249
123
36
123
143
269
86
Spartanburg, SC...........................
York, SC.......................................
Minnehaha, SD.............................
Davidson, TN................................
Hamilton, TN................................
Knox, TN......................................
Rutherford, TN..............................
Shelby, TN....................................
Williamson, TN.............................
Bell, TX.........................................
5.8
4.9
6.8
19.5
8.8
11.2
4.7
19.5
7.0
4.9
123.4
82.8
122.9
452.7
187.1
222.6
111.5
477.2
107.9
111.9
2.6
4.5
2.4
2.3
0.9
1.9
4.2
0.4
4.0
1.4
98
17
108
115
250
141
30
289
34
194
835
769
796
951
844
823
840
949
1,057
774
3.0
4.5
3.2
2.6
2.4
3.3
3.6
0.4
0.0
2.5
58
17
49
86
104
41
32
295
313
100
Bexar, TX.....................................
Brazoria, TX.................................
Brazos, TX....................................
Cameron, TX................................
Collin, TX......................................
Dallas, TX.....................................
Denton, TX..................................
El Paso, TX..................................
Fort Bend, TX...............................
Galveston, TX...............................
36.7
5.2
4.2
6.3
21.0
70.8
12.4
14.3
11.0
5.7
794.7
98.7
92.3
134.9
347.4
1,544.6
206.5
285.1
163.6
103.3
2.6
2.7
3.7
1.9
4.4
3.5
4.7
1.2
4.8
2.6
98
87
45
141
22
52
13
222
11
98
834
959
722
585
1,101
1,122
846
673
945
832
2.7
4.7
3.1
2.1
2.0
1.5
2.3
2.3
1.0
2.6
84
15
54
135
143
205
115
115
257
86
Gregg, TX.....................................
Harris, TX.....................................
Hidalgo, TX...................................
Jefferson, TX................................
Lubbock, TX.................................
McLennan, TX..............................
Midland, TX..................................
Montgomery, TX...........................
Nueces, TX..................................
Potter, TX.....................................
4.2
107.8
11.8
5.8
7.2
5.0
5.3
9.9
8.1
4.0
78.5
2,258.0
240.2
124.0
130.8
103.6
91.1
157.4
163.5
78.2
1.5
3.3
2.5
2.4
1.8
0.4
5.5
5.1
2.8
1.1
185
57
102
108
152
289
5
8
78
235
863
1,231
608
965
726
769
1,269
958
843
741
2.9
3.4
3.1
3.7
3.3
2.4
9.0
4.6
3.9
0.8
67
36
54
29
41
104
1
16
24
269
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Smith, TX.....................................
Tarrant, TX...................................
Travis, TX.....................................
Webb, TX.....................................
Williamson, TX.............................
Davis, UT.....................................
Salt Lake, UT................................
Utah, UT.......................................
Weber, UT....................................
Chittenden, VT.............................
5.9
39.7
34.9
5.0
8.8
7.7
40.2
13.7
5.6
6.3
97.6
827.5
657.8
94.4
146.5
114.9
625.2
195.1
95.7
100.7
1.5
2.0
3.9
2.7
3.6
2.8
2.7
4.0
2.0
1.4
185
135
39
87
50
78
87
34
135
194
$791
952
1,051
647
876
742
887
755
720
933
2.5
5.1
3.4
0.0
-2.7
0.5
1.4
3.0
3.0
-1.1
100
12
36
313
339
285
219
58
58
334
Arlington, VA................................
Chesterfield, VA...........................
Fairfax, VA....................................
Henrico, VA..................................
Loudoun, VA................................
Prince William, VA........................
Alexandria City, VA......................
Chesapeake City, VA...................
Newport News City, VA................
Norfolk City, VA...........................
8.8
8.1
35.1
10.4
10.6
8.3
6.3
5.7
3.7
5.6
165.4
125.7
588.4
181.0
151.9
122.4
95.8
96.4
98.9
139.8
-1.4
1.9
-0.3
1.8
1.9
1.8
0.1
-0.1
0.9
3.1
336
141
321
152
141
152
302
311
250
64
1,516
823
1,457
904
1,090
822
1,321
751
928
904
-0.6
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.4
0.1
-0.1
1.3
6.2
2.3
330
308
276
313
295
311
318
226
7
115
Richmond City, VA.......................
Virginia Beach City, VA................
Benton, WA..................................
Clark, WA.....................................
King, WA......................................
Kitsap, WA....................................
Pierce, WA...................................
Snohomish, WA............................
Spokane, WA...............................
Thurston, WA...............................
7.1
11.3
5.7
13.9
84.1
6.7
21.7
20.1
15.6
7.8
148.6
177.0
86.8
141.9
1,248.1
83.4
279.7
270.5
207.9
104.0
0.8
1.4
4.3
5.3
3.5
2.8
2.9
2.1
1.8
3.7
261
194
25
6
52
78
73
129
152
45
1,010
732
939
858
1,235
843
858
1,012
796
846
2.5
0.8
0.6
2.0
2.4
1.9
1.1
1.9
2.2
1.3
100
269
281
143
104
156
249
156
123
226
Whatcom, WA..............................
Yakima, WA.................................
Kanawha, WV...............................
Brown, WI.....................................
Dane, WI......................................
Milwaukee, WI..............................
Outagamie, WI.............................
Waukesha, WI..............................
Winnebago, WI.............................
San Juan, PR...............................
7.1
8.1
6.0
6.4
14.1
24.7
5.0
12.3
3.6
11.3
85.6
116.3
104.9
152.1
317.4
479.2
105.9
235.4
90.5
252.6
2.7
1.9
-0.1
0.9
1.4
0.5
1.6
0.5
-0.5
-1.3
87
141
311
250
194
281
177
281
327
(⁵)
768
638
830
813
952
909
779
925
875
599
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.0
3.0
2.2
2.4
2.0
4.2
0.2
195
195
226
257
58
123
104
143
20
(⁵)
¹ Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
² Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
³ Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
⁴ Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
⁵ This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE) programs. These 339 U.S. counties comprise 71.8 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2014
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14²
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14²
United States³.................................................................
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..................................................................
9,360.5
9,065.9
135.8
753.6
338.3
1,912.4
150.3
832.4
1,672.4
1,472.7
794.5
811.6
294.6
137,776.4
116,600.4
2,180.7
6,268.9
12,225.7
26,104.1
2,740.5
7,713.2
19,151.8
20,457.9
15,222.3
4,309.6
21,175.9
2.0
2.3
1.5
4.7
1.2
2.1
0.4
0.8
3.0
1.6
2.7
2.1
0.4
$940
930
1,072
1,012
1,158
799
1,603
1,394
1,203
859
389
637
995
2.1
2.3
4.8
2.7
2.8
2.4
5.0
2.5
1.5
1.9
2.6
2.4
1.5
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..................................................................
438.6
432.8
0.5
13.4
12.6
53.6
9.6
24.3
47.5
201.4
30.6
27.8
5.8
4,155.9
3,614.8
10.0
119.5
364.0
781.7
188.0
207.9
601.6
711.5
467.4
147.3
541.1
1.8
1.9
-2.0
1.9
-1.0
2.2
-3.5
-0.7
2.0
1.6
4.3
3.4
0.9
1,024
992
1,404
1,060
1,110
858
1,871
1,595
1,244
798
556
645
1,240
2.9
3.0
-3.2
0.2
2.4
2.6
10.7
7.3
2.7
2.3
1.6
1.7
3.1
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..................................................................
126.6
126.2
0.0
2.2
2.2
20.7
4.7
19.2
26.5
9.6
13.5
19.7
0.4
2,492.5
2,059.6
0.2
34.5
25.4
260.0
148.3
363.3
523.8
318.2
280.6
98.4
432.9
2.7
3.1
-1.9
2.6
-1.2
1.0
0.5
3.0
3.3
3.2
5.1
2.7
1.0
1,732
1,859
2,118
1,691
1,236
1,311
2,434
3,418
2,082
1,185
793
1,074
1,136
3.0
2.9
-13.7
2.2
3.1
2.5
9.1
2.8
2.4
1.8
4.2
1.4
3.2
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..................................................................
156.6
155.2
0.1
12.9
6.7
31.0
2.8
16.0
33.4
16.4
14.1
17.6
1.3
2,499.5
2,200.1
0.9
70.1
187.0
455.3
55.0
186.3
455.4
422.0
264.6
99.4
299.4
1.8
2.1
7.3
5.8
0.0
2.1
0.3
0.3
3.1
1.7
2.5
3.7
-0.7
1,085
1,068
1,087
1,312
1,121
875
1,649
1,876
1,368
893
475
808
1,207
1.7
2.0
7.2
1.6
4.1
2.7
3.5
2.9
2.2
0.4
-0.6
1.3
-0.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14²
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14²
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..................................................................
107.8
107.3
1.8
6.8
4.6
24.3
1.2
11.1
21.7
14.8
9.1
11.6
0.6
2,258.0
1,997.0
93.3
154.5
196.2
465.2
28.5
118.3
394.4
266.9
214.8
64.2
261.1
3.3
3.3
5.4
6.0
2.9
3.2
-1.4
2.0
2.3
2.4
5.8
2.9
2.6
$1,231
1,258
3,224
1,272
1,508
1,101
1,396
1,503
1,528
928
419
746
1,025
3.4
3.5
5.0
5.6
5.9
4.2
2.3
5.2
0.7
1.1
4.8
5.5
1.8
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..................................................................
92.9
92.2
0.5
7.3
3.2
20.0
1.5
10.9
21.7
10.7
7.3
6.3
0.7
1,717.1
1,538.7
8.4
93.5
114.4
345.8
33.8
152.0
294.1
254.8
190.6
47.6
178.5
2.2
2.3
3.3
0.4
0.6
2.5
6.6
2.6
0.7
2.3
3.6
1.8
1.4
931
915
816
944
1,364
836
1,232
1,152
1,003
948
437
654
1,053
1.2
1.2
-4.4
0.0
2.9
1.0
6.8
-1.1
2.6
0.7
3.6
-0.6
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..................................................................
70.8
70.3
0.6
4.0
2.7
15.4
1.4
8.5
15.9
8.7
6.1
6.8
0.5
1,544.6
1,379.7
9.9
77.2
107.5
309.7
49.5
149.9
308.7
178.6
147.3
41.0
164.9
3.5
3.7
2.8
8.2
-1.3
4.6
3.1
1.7
5.1
2.5
4.3
2.6
1.8
1,122
1,131
3,831
1,070
1,331
1,008
1,697
1,532
1,293
979
451
723
1,048
1.5
1.7
-8.4
4.5
1.3
0.8
-4.1
3.7
4.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.1
Orange, CA......................................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
107.2
105.9
0.2
6.5
4.9
16.7
1.3
10.6
20.7
26.7
7.9
6.8
1.3
1,477.2
1,330.8
3.4
80.9
157.6
253.4
23.7
113.9
271.8
183.5
194.8
43.0
146.4
1.8
1.8
0.7
3.3
-0.4
1.8
-4.3
0.7
1.4
2.1
3.0
2.1
1.2
1,033
1,021
804
1,144
1,275
949
1,574
1,518
1,221
889
438
647
1,141
1.5
1.6
16.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
8.6
-2.3
4.2
0.7
0.7
2.4
0.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14²
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14²
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..................................................................
99.9
98.5
0.7
6.4
3.0
14.2
1.2
9.3
18.1
27.5
7.7
7.3
1.4
1,338.5
1,117.3
10.6
63.2
96.4
211.6
24.3
70.0
226.8
181.8
179.7
48.7
221.2
2.1
2.4
-3.9
3.3
1.4
1.5
-1.6
-2.2
2.4
3.0
3.8
4.2
0.6
$1,044
1,025
692
1,060
1,428
795
1,620
1,308
1,603
891
432
559
1,136
1.2
1.0
5.3
0.9
-1.9
0.8
6.8
0.2
2.6
1.9
2.4
0.5
1.9
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
83.6
0.4
6.0
2.3
14.8
2.0
6.4
15.7
20.9
6.8
8.4
0.5
1,248.1
1,086.5
2.7
57.5
105.8
232.5
85.9
65.9
205.5
160.8
128.0
41.9
161.6
3.5
3.9
-8.2
9.6
0.1
5.1
4.1
1.8
3.8
4.0
3.7
5.1
1.1
1,235
1,239
1,233
1,171
1,508
1,109
2,435
1,441
1,501
920
496
796
1,207
2.4
2.4
-10.2
1.4
1.5
3.6
4.5
-0.4
2.0
1.3
9.0
1.4
2.3
Miami-Dade, FL...............................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
93.4
93.0
0.5
5.3
2.7
27.2
1.5
9.8
19.7
10.0
7.1
8.1
0.3
1,026.2
904.8
7.4
35.9
37.3
267.5
18.3
71.0
139.6
160.5
128.3
37.9
121.4
2.5
3.0
2.6
11.2
2.1
2.4
4.4
4.4
3.1
0.9
2.8
4.2
-0.7
913
875
556
863
854
831
1,462
1,380
1,050
894
512
582
1,169
3.3
3.8
2.8
3.7
3.6
4.5
0.6
5.7
2.4
3.0
4.7
3.2
1.2
¹ Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
² Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note.
³ Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Note: Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2013 annual average employment. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance
(UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2014
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14
United States²..........................................
9,360.5
137,776.4
2.0
$940
2.1
Alabama....................................................
Alaska........................................................
Arizona......................................................
Arkansas...................................................
California...................................................
Colorado....................................................
Connecticut...............................................
Delaware...................................................
District of Columbia...................................
Florida.......................................................
117.7
21.9
146.0
87.1
1,371.9
178.8
113.9
29.6
35.9
636.0
1,872.9
344.9
2,486.0
1,168.1
15,905.6
2,439.3
1,676.6
429.0
732.6
7,628.6
0.7
0.5
1.9
1.5
2.8
3.4
0.6
2.5
1.0
3.1
806
1,014
888
745
1,072
960
1,155
976
1,569
839
1.6
4.6
1.3
1.5
2.4
2.9
2.5
1.2
-0.5
2.1
Georgia......................................................
Hawaii........................................................
Idaho.........................................................
Illinois........................................................
Indiana.......................................................
Iowa...........................................................
Kansas......................................................
Kentucky....................................................
Louisiana...................................................
Maine.........................................................
281.5
38.9
54.4
413.4
159.0
99.5
85.5
120.6
129.3
49.1
4,036.3
624.6
659.2
5,836.9
2,916.9
1,547.8
1,372.8
1,820.8
1,921.6
610.4
3.1
1.1
2.5
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.4
0.8
882
845
697
988
784
780
797
798
843
746
1.7
2.7
2.2
1.9
1.2
3.0
2.3
2.0
2.4
2.1
Maryland....................................................
Massachusetts..........................................
Michigan....................................................
Minnesota..................................................
Mississippi.................................................
Missouri.....................................................
Montana....................................................
Nebraska...................................................
Nevada......................................................
New Hampshire.........................................
166.6
228.3
236.2
163.6
70.9
183.5
43.9
71.3
75.8
49.8
2,594.4
3,407.0
4,164.7
2,782.0
1,101.1
2,703.2
453.4
956.2
1,210.1
637.2
0.9
1.4
2.3
1.3
0.5
1.3
1.1
1.4
3.4
1.2
1,020
1,158
897
947
705
818
734
756
833
955
1.6
2.4
2.3
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.4
2.7
0.6
4.3
New Jersey...............................................
New Mexico...............................................
New York..................................................
North Carolina...........................................
North Dakota.............................................
Ohio...........................................................
Oklahoma..................................................
Oregon......................................................
Pennsylvania.............................................
Rhode Island.............................................
264.9
56.6
624.8
259.6
31.5
288.3
106.9
136.2
351.2
35.8
3,944.8
801.0
8,965.2
4,080.7
453.0
5,233.8
1,578.0
1,748.4
5,719.8
472.9
0.8
0.6
1.8
2.4
4.4
1.4
1.0
2.4
1.0
1.6
1,097
794
1,146
818
936
846
816
874
933
898
1.2
1.7
2.4
1.2
5.5
2.1
2.6
2.9
1.6
2.0
South Carolina..........................................
South Dakota............................................
Tennessee.................................................
Texas.........................................................
Utah...........................................................
Vermont.....................................................
Virginia......................................................
Washington...............................................
West Virginia.............................................
Wisconsin..................................................
116.1
31.9
145.3
618.3
89.9
24.4
242.9
236.4
49.8
164.4
1,916.4
422.9
2,755.7
11,402.8
1,297.5
307.0
3,710.8
3,109.6
711.3
2,809.1
2.7
1.4
1.8
3.0
2.9
1.0
0.7
3.2
-0.3
1.3
765
712
836
973
796
813
976
990
792
816
2.5
3.3
2.0
3.1
1.7
0.7
0.8
2.1
1.4
2.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2014
(thousands)
June
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2013-14
Second
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
second quarter
2013-14
Wyoming...................................................
25.5
295.3
1.6
$871
3.1
Puerto Rico...............................................
Virgin Islands............................................
48.6
3.4
897.0
37.8
-2.0
-2.2
504
728
0.6
2.8
¹ Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
² Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for
Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
June 2013-14 (U.S. average = 2.0 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, second quarter 2013-14 (U.S. average = 2.1 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics