For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, June 17, 2015
USDL-15-1163
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Fourth Quarter 2014
From December 2013 to December 2014, employment increased in 319 of the 339 largest U.S. counties
(counties with 75,000 or more jobs in 2013), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Weld,
Colo., and Midland, Texas, had the largest percentage increases, with gains of 8.0 percent each over the
year, compared with national job growth of 2.2 percent. Within Weld, the largest employment increase
occurred in natural resources and mining, which gained 2,074 jobs over the year (19.6 percent). Within
Midland, the largest employment increase also occurred in natural resources and mining, which gained
3,135 jobs over the year (14.9 percent). Atlantic, N.J., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease
in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 5.0 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 3.5 percent over the year, growing to $1,035 in the fourth
quarter of 2014. Benton, Ark., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly
wages with a gain of 9.9 percent. Within Benton, an average weekly wage gain of $209, or 16.2 percent,
in professional and business services made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in average
weekly wages. San Mateo, Calif., experienced the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages
with a loss of 20.4 percent over the year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, December 2013-14
(U.S. average = 2.2 percent)
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2013-14
(U.S. average = 3.5 percent)
Percent
Percent
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Weld,
Colo.
Midland,
Texas
Adams,
Colo.
Lee,
Fla.
Williamson,
Tenn.
Benton,
Ark.
Washington,
Pa.
Midland,
Texas
Brazoria,
Texas
Douglas,
Colo.
Table A. Large counties ranked by December 2014 employment, December 2013-14 employment
increase, and December 2013-14 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
December 2014 employment
(thousands)
United States
139,204.8
Los Angeles, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Cook, Ill.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Orange, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
4,243.8
2,568.3
2,512.5
2,312.2
1,821.9
1,591.0
1,506.0
1,359.7
1,262.8
1,082.5
Increase in employment,
December 2013-14
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
December 2013-14
3,033.7
Harris, Texas
Los Angeles, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Dallas, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Clark, Nev.
King, Wash.
Cook, Ill.
Orange, Calif.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
87.4
68.3
66.8
64.8
48.4
41.0
40.4
39.3
38.1
35.0
United States
2.2
Weld, Colo.
Midland, Texas
Adams, Colo.
Lee, Fla.
Williamson, Tenn.
Utah, Utah
Denton, Texas
Montgomery, Texas
Benton, Ark.
Fort Bend, Texas
8.0
8.0
6.4
6.2
6.1
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.5
Large County Employment
In December 2014, national employment was 139.2 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over
the year, employment increased 2.2 percent, or 3.0 million. The 339 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more
jobs accounted for 72.1 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.4 percent of total wages. These 339
counties had a net job growth of 2.2 million over the year, accounting for 73.4 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Weld, Colo., and Midland, Texas, had the largest percentage increases in employment (8.0 percent each)
among the largest U.S. counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment levels were
Harris, Texas; Los Angeles, Calif.; New York, N.Y.; Dallas, Texas; and Maricopa, Ariz. These counties
had a combined over-the-year employment gain of 335,700 jobs, which was 11.1 percent of the overall
job increase for the U.S. (See table A.)
Employment declined in 17 of the largest counties from December 2013 to December 2014. Atlantic,
N.J., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-5.0 percent). Within Atlantic,
leisure and hospitality had the largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 7,333 jobs (-16.8 percent).
Norfolk City, Va., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by McLean, Ill.;
Peoria, Ill.; and Lake, Ill. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2014 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2013-14
increase in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2013-14 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2014
Increase in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2013-14
United States
$1,035
United States
San Mateo, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Fairfield, Conn.
Arlington, Va.
Fairfax, Va.
Somerset, N.J.
$2,166
2,138
2,114
1,856
1,850
1,696
1,674
1,613
1,584
1,543
Santa Clara, Calif.
Midland, Texas
Suffolk, Mass.
Douglas, Colo.
New York, N.Y.
Washington, Pa.
Benton, Ark.
San Francisco, Calif.
Brazoria, Texas
King, Wash.
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2013-14
$35
$134
118
108
100
91
91
90
87
86
81
United States
3.5
Benton, Ark.
Washington, Pa.
Midland, Texas
Brazoria, Texas
Douglas, Colo.
Clayton, Ga.
Jefferson, Texas
Rockingham, N.H.
Yolo, Calif.
Vanderburgh, Ind.
Atlantic, N.J.
Hamilton, Tenn.
Nueces, Texas
9.9
9.2
9.0
8.9
8.8
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $1,035, a 3.5 percent increase, during the year ending
in the fourth quarter of 2014. Among the 339 largest counties, 332 had over-the-year increases in
average weekly wages. (See chart 4.) Benton, Ark., had the largest percentage wage increase among the
largest U.S. counties (9.9 percent).
Of the 339 largest counties, 7 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. San Mateo,
Calif., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, with a loss of 20.4 percent. Within
San Mateo, information had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage decrease. Within
this industry, average weekly wages declined by $8,606 (-60.1 percent) over the year. This decline in
average weekly wages is partially due to wages returning to normal after higher levels in 2012 and 2013.
Olmsted, Minn., had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by
Morris, N.J.; Rockland, N.Y.; Camden, N.J.; and Butler, Pa. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in December 2014.
Dallas, Texas, had the largest gain (4.2 percent). Within Dallas, trade, transportation, and utilities had
the largest over-the-year employment level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of
17,303 jobs, or 5.5 percent. Cook, Ill., and Los Angeles, Calif., had the smallest percentage increases in
employment (1.6 percent each) among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.)
Average weekly wages increased over the year in all of the 10 largest U.S. counties. King, Wash.,
experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (6.2 percent). Within King,
-3-
information had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. Within this industry,
average weekly wages increased by $421, or 16.5 percent, over the year. Maricopa, Ariz., had the
smallest percentage increase in average weekly wages (2.2 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. December 2014 employment and
2014 fourth quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.5 million employer reports cover 139.2 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
fourth 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 first quarter 2015 is scheduled to be released on
Thursday, September 17, 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: 588,000 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 uni- • Provides quarterly employer dynam- • Provides current monthly estimates of
verse count of establishments, emics data on establishment openings,
employment, hours, and earnings at the
ployment, and wages at the county,
closings, expansions, and contractions
MSA, state, and national level by indusMSA, state, and national levels by
at the national level by NAICS supertry
detailed industry
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. Adjusted data account for improvements in reporting employment and wages for individual and multi-unit establishments. To accomplish this, adjustments were implemented to account for: administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start reporting
for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity (first
quarter of 2008); selected large administrative changes in employment
and wages (second quarter of 2011); and state verified improvements
in reporting of employment and wages (third quarter of 2014). These
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,
fourth quarter 2014
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
United States⁴..............................
9,479.2
139,204.8
2.2
-
$1,035
3.5
-
Jefferson, AL................................
Madison, AL.................................
Mobile, AL....................................
Montgomery, AL...........................
Shelby, AL....................................
Tuscaloosa, AL.............................
Anchorage Borough, AK...............
Maricopa, AZ................................
Pima, AZ.......................................
Benton, AR...................................
17.8
9.1
9.6
6.3
5.1
4.3
8.4
94.6
18.9
5.8
342.7
186.4
167.6
129.7
80.6
91.9
152.8
1,821.9
358.8
108.3
0.2
1.4
1.0
0.1
3.1
4.3
0.0
2.7
0.3
5.5
311
214
249
317
84
28
320
105
303
9
1,026
1,106
897
901
978
869
1,094
974
858
996
3.3
2.4
3.8
2.4
3.7
2.8
4.2
2.2
2.1
9.9
191
258
133
258
143
231
99
273
278
1
Pulaski, AR...................................
Washington, AR...........................
Alameda, CA................................
Contra Costa, CA.........................
Fresno, CA...................................
Kern, CA.......................................
Los Angeles, CA...........................
Marin, CA.....................................
Monterey, CA...............................
Orange, CA..................................
14.4
5.7
58.0
30.1
31.3
17.4
447.3
12.2
13.0
109.5
245.9
98.1
708.7
344.1
349.4
306.9
4,243.8
112.0
159.4
1,506.0
0.7
3.5
2.8
1.8
0.6
0.3
1.6
0.6
1.9
2.6
272
66
104
174
284
303
197
284
162
112
936
896
1,319
1,215
808
873
1,201
1,280
851
1,162
3.7
4.3
4.4
2.1
4.9
2.7
3.5
5.9
3.7
4.3
143
87
81
278
50
235
168
29
143
87
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.......................
11.6
54.3
53.3
52.0
102.1
58.2
16.9
9.9
26.4
14.7
144.6
641.2
620.7
682.3
1,359.7
659.1
217.7
109.4
385.0
186.5
3.4
3.5
2.2
4.4
1.9
4.4
2.5
1.8
4.8
2.5
71
66
140
25
162
25
118
174
18
118
1,034
803
1,095
852
1,138
1,850
835
837
2,166
981
5.8
4.0
2.7
3.5
2.6
4.9
2.5
3.7
-20.4
4.9
31
113
235
168
244
50
248
143
339
50
Santa Clara, CA...........................
Santa Cruz, CA............................
Solano, CA...................................
Sonoma, CA.................................
Stanislaus, CA..............................
Tulare, CA....................................
Ventura, CA..................................
Yolo, CA.......................................
Adams, CO...................................
Arapahoe, CO..............................
66.9
9.3
10.4
19.0
14.5
9.3
25.2
6.2
9.6
20.0
999.3
94.6
129.6
192.0
170.3
146.5
317.5
92.3
189.0
311.5
3.6
3.7
1.7
0.9
2.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
6.4
3.1
57
51
183
259
118
272
259
227
3
84
2,114
926
1,026
952
832
739
1,025
1,092
987
1,223
6.8
5.0
0.9
4.2
3.9
6.2
5.0
7.1
4.3
6.7
15
46
322
99
125
23
46
10
87
17
Boulder, CO..................................
Denver, CO..................................
Douglas, CO.................................
El Paso, CO..................................
Jefferson, CO...............................
Larimer, CO..................................
Weld, CO......................................
Fairfield, CT.................................
Hartford, CT..................................
New Haven, CT............................
13.8
28.4
10.5
17.4
18.3
10.8
6.4
34.2
26.6
23.1
172.2
474.3
110.3
252.9
226.2
144.3
101.6
428.4
509.0
365.5
2.9
5.0
3.6
2.5
3.5
4.3
8.0
1.7
1.2
1.1
97
13
57
118
66
28
1
183
227
236
1,213
1,247
1,240
916
1,042
962
922
1,674
1,246
1,087
3.1
1.8
8.8
3.4
4.0
6.8
6.0
1.1
2.8
4.5
208
300
5
179
113
15
27
315
231
73
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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...........................
7.1
18.4
36.8
6.9
15.1
67.4
12.8
28.0
8.2
40.0
121.2
287.7
736.9
122.6
193.1
764.4
137.8
469.1
125.2
643.8
-0.5
3.1
1.6
2.7
1.6
2.9
5.0
2.5
1.6
3.3
330
84
197
105
197
97
13
118
197
75
$1,013
1,164
1,696
888
885
960
891
988
817
979
4.3
0.7
3.0
2.7
2.0
4.0
3.1
4.3
5.3
2.1
87
326
220
235
291
113
208
87
37
278
Lake, FL.......................................
Lee, FL.........................................
Leon, FL.......................................
Manatee, FL.................................
Marion, FL....................................
Miami-Dade, FL............................
Okaloosa, FL................................
Orange, FL...................................
Osceola, FL..................................
Palm Beach, FL............................
7.8
20.3
8.4
10.1
8.2
95.2
6.3
39.0
6.1
53.3
88.2
237.9
143.6
116.4
96.6
1,082.5
77.1
751.4
83.0
565.1
3.1
6.2
1.4
3.0
3.1
3.3
0.3
3.4
2.9
3.8
84
4
214
92
84
75
303
71
97
46
691
803
842
767
707
1,008
823
895
687
1,006
3.6
2.4
2.7
3.4
2.5
2.5
4.7
3.8
3.9
1.0
157
258
235
179
248
248
60
133
125
319
Pasco, FL.....................................
Pinellas, FL...................................
Polk, FL........................................
Sarasota, FL................................
Seminole, FL................................
Volusia, FL...................................
Bibb, GA.......................................
Chatham, GA................................
Clayton, GA..................................
Cobb, GA......................................
10.4
31.8
12.8
15.3
14.4
13.8
4.5
8.3
4.4
22.9
108.6
405.0
204.3
158.6
173.1
158.9
83.7
142.4
115.6
332.6
4.6
2.1
2.2
5.1
3.7
2.6
2.3
4.6
3.8
4.1
21
151
140
12
51
112
130
21
46
36
711
928
777
860
843
729
802
871
977
1,081
2.7
1.9
3.7
3.2
3.4
4.0
4.7
2.7
7.6
3.6
235
297
143
199
179
113
60
235
7
157
De Kalb, GA.................................
Fulton, GA....................................
Gwinnett, GA................................
Muscogee, GA..............................
Richmond, GA..............................
Honolulu, HI..................................
Ada, ID.........................................
Champaign, IL..............................
Cook, IL........................................
Du Page, IL..................................
19.0
45.2
25.6
4.8
4.7
24.9
14.0
4.5
160.7
39.6
289.8
790.5
333.3
95.1
104.1
466.6
213.0
89.7
2,512.5
608.0
2.3
4.1
3.8
-0.4
2.3
0.5
1.6
0.5
1.6
1.7
130
36
46
328
130
291
197
291
197
183
1,013
1,338
991
804
834
945
950
868
1,209
1,178
2.2
3.7
3.1
2.0
1.8
4.0
5.9
5.2
3.2
0.3
273
143
208
291
300
113
29
41
199
329
Kane, IL........................................
Lake, IL........................................
McHenry, IL..................................
McLean, IL....................................
Madison, IL...................................
Peoria, IL......................................
St. Clair, IL....................................
Sangamon, IL...............................
Will, IL..........................................
Winnebago, IL..............................
14.3
23.5
9.2
4.0
6.3
4.9
5.8
5.5
16.6
7.0
205.6
331.4
95.8
84.4
97.9
100.7
93.8
129.9
219.3
127.6
0.3
-0.6
0.0
-0.9
2.1
-0.9
1.3
2.0
1.1
1.1
303
335
320
336
151
336
223
158
236
236
912
1,341
847
968
848
954
799
1,019
895
874
4.5
2.8
2.5
1.3
3.5
1.8
2.4
0.8
3.7
3.4
73
231
248
313
168
300
258
325
143
179
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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
23.5
5.8
3.3
4.8
3.8
4.0
181.1
122.6
128.3
187.9
587.9
120.0
82.5
107.3
75.5
80.8
1.8
4.3
4.4
-0.3
1.6
1.7
2.2
1.9
-0.5
0.3
174
28
25
325
197
183
140
162
330
303
$806
837
971
898
1,004
807
852
852
930
915
4.1
6.6
3.5
2.4
3.1
2.5
4.4
7.0
3.2
3.5
109
19
168
258
208
248
81
11
199
168
Linn, IA.........................................
Polk, IA........................................
Scott, IA........................................
Johnson, KS.................................
Sedgwick, KS...............................
Shawnee, KS................................
Wyandotte, KS.............................
Boone, KY...................................
Fayette, KY...................................
Jefferson, KY................................
6.6
16.5
5.5
21.8
12.4
4.9
3.3
4.2
10.5
24.6
130.0
287.5
91.0
335.9
247.7
97.2
88.5
80.4
191.3
451.5
1.4
1.6
1.0
3.4
0.6
0.7
4.3
2.3
0.8
2.5
214
197
249
71
284
272
28
130
264
118
1,018
1,029
857
1,041
921
826
940
890
881
964
6.3
3.7
2.4
2.0
1.5
2.4
4.3
2.9
4.3
3.4
21
143
258
291
306
258
87
227
87
179
Caddo, LA....................................
Calcasieu, LA...............................
East Baton Rouge, LA..................
Jefferson, LA................................
Lafayette, LA................................
Orleans, LA..................................
St. Tammany, LA..........................
Cumberland, ME..........................
Anne Arundel, MD........................
Baltimore, MD...............................
7.3
4.9
14.6
13.5
9.2
11.6
7.6
12.8
14.7
21.2
117.3
90.9
273.5
195.0
144.3
191.4
85.6
175.3
258.6
373.4
1.2
5.4
3.2
1.1
1.5
2.4
4.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
227
11
80
236
209
126
33
249
249
264
861
908
975
926
1,033
996
892
951
1,089
1,043
3.9
3.9
4.5
2.2
3.6
2.4
4.6
5.2
2.3
3.6
125
125
73
273
157
258
68
41
272
157
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
32.6
15.7
13.8
9.2
16.8
23.1
16.8
97.4
90.6
161.8
462.7
309.1
335.6
88.7
222.8
318.6
203.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.8
2.2
1.9
1.4
1.4
249
249
236
214
223
174
140
162
214
214
968
982
1,243
1,342
1,049
1,223
887
962
1,096
947
2.1
1.4
3.6
2.1
4.6
4.9
3.7
6.3
4.3
4.3
278
311
157
278
68
50
143
21
87
87
Middlesex, MA..............................
Norfolk, MA...................................
Plymouth, MA...............................
Suffolk, MA...................................
Worcester, MA..............................
Genesee, MI.................................
Ingham, MI...................................
Kalamazoo, MI.............................
Kent, MI.......................................
Macomb, MI..................................
52.2
24.3
14.7
26.2
23.1
7.0
6.1
5.1
14.0
17.3
875.4
344.3
186.3
630.4
334.7
135.8
151.4
114.6
371.3
312.7
2.6
1.9
2.6
2.4
2.1
0.9
-0.3
1.4
3.1
2.1
112
162
112
126
151
259
325
214
84
151
1,482
1,254
982
1,856
1,030
837
966
934
909
1,025
3.6
2.6
3.8
6.2
3.4
3.1
3.3
3.7
3.4
1.5
157
244
133
23
179
208
191
143
179
306
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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.................................
38.3
5.5
4.0
8.1
30.5
7.0
9.7
41.3
3.4
13.3
704.8
116.7
84.8
203.9
706.5
118.5
183.9
883.7
92.6
327.2
1.6
4.1
-0.1
1.9
2.2
1.7
1.8
1.7
-0.3
1.4
197
36
323
162
140
183
174
183
325
214
$1,164
914
818
1,069
1,119
949
984
1,259
1,021
1,137
4.0
4.7
3.0
4.2
3.0
5.3
5.4
4.1
-5.5
3.6
113
60
220
99
220
37
35
109
338
157
St. Louis, MN................................
Stearns, MN.................................
Washington, MN...........................
Harrison, MS................................
Hinds, MS.....................................
Boone, MO...................................
Clay, MO......................................
Greene, MO..................................
Jackson, MO................................
St. Charles, MO............................
5.3
4.3
5.3
4.5
6.0
4.8
5.3
8.3
20.2
8.7
96.7
84.1
77.8
82.9
121.1
91.6
95.2
161.4
354.4
135.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
-0.4
0.8
2.3
4.5
2.6
0.9
0.3
291
272
259
328
264
130
23
112
259
303
824
835
834
714
871
791
930
773
1,031
811
3.1
2.2
3.5
2.9
1.0
3.3
5.2
5.0
3.0
5.3
208
273
168
227
319
191
41
46
220
37
St. Louis, MO................................
St. Louis City, MO........................
Yellowstone, MT...........................
Douglas, NE.................................
Lancaster, NE...............................
Clark, NV.....................................
Washoe, NV.................................
Hillsborough, NH..........................
Rockingham, NH..........................
Atlantic, NJ...................................
34.6
11.6
6.3
18.4
9.9
52.6
14.1
12.2
10.7
6.6
590.9
224.4
79.6
332.4
164.9
895.5
199.0
199.1
142.6
124.1
1.2
1.9
1.6
1.7
0.8
4.8
3.1
1.6
1.7
-5.0
227
162
197
183
264
18
84
197
183
339
1,121
1,067
900
932
819
885
923
1,210
1,060
872
2.5
3.5
5.0
4.7
3.8
1.1
3.2
6.7
7.4
7.0
248
168
46
60
133
315
199
17
9
11
Bergen, NJ...................................
Burlington, NJ...............................
Camden, NJ.................................
Essex, NJ....................................
Gloucester, NJ..............................
Hudson, NJ...................................
Mercer, NJ....................................
Middlesex, NJ..............................
Monmouth, NJ..............................
Morris, NJ.....................................
32.8
11.1
11.9
20.4
6.2
14.3
11.0
21.9
20.0
17.0
448.4
200.8
200.7
338.7
103.1
244.1
243.8
401.6
252.1
284.6
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.4
2.3
1.7
3.7
1.0
2.5
0.2
272
284
236
297
130
183
51
249
118
311
1,291
1,060
1,017
1,234
909
1,335
1,306
1,217
1,053
1,512
4.2
2.4
-0.8
0.2
1.5
3.9
1.1
2.4
1.7
-2.9
99
258
334
331
306
125
315
258
303
337
Ocean, NJ....................................
Passaic, NJ..................................
Somerset, NJ...............................
Union, NJ.....................................
Bernalillo, NM...............................
Albany, NY...................................
Bronx, NY.....................................
Broome, NY..................................
Dutchess, NY...............................
Erie, NY........................................
12.7
12.3
10.0
14.3
17.8
10.3
17.8
4.6
8.5
24.6
157.6
170.6
183.4
223.5
317.6
230.4
257.1
88.7
111.4
466.3
2.0
-0.5
2.2
0.5
0.7
1.8
3.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
158
330
140
291
272
174
80
264
272
272
845
1,016
1,543
1,341
873
1,062
958
786
1,000
898
2.1
2.4
3.6
4.5
4.4
4.8
2.5
3.1
4.6
4.8
278
258
157
73
81
57
248
208
68
57
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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...............................
57.9
18.7
53.6
128.0
5.4
13.2
10.2
50.0
9.6
10.3
590.9
383.3
623.6
2,568.3
105.1
246.2
140.6
569.4
101.4
120.2
5.0
0.7
1.1
2.7
0.2
0.2
2.2
3.9
0.8
2.3
13
272
236
105
311
311
140
42
264
130
$849
935
1,158
2,138
793
938
847
974
888
1,052
3.9
4.2
3.4
4.4
3.4
3.0
3.4
1.7
4.6
-1.3
125
99
179
81
179
220
179
303
68
336
Saratoga, NY................................
Suffolk, NY...................................
Westchester, NY..........................
Buncombe, NC.............................
Catawba, NC................................
Cumberland, NC...........................
Durham, NC.................................
Forsyth, NC..................................
Guilford, NC..................................
Mecklenburg, NC..........................
5.9
52.0
36.5
8.3
4.3
6.2
7.7
9.2
14.1
34.0
82.6
646.4
423.2
122.9
83.2
118.6
192.2
181.6
275.2
630.4
1.9
0.5
1.9
3.4
1.7
0.1
2.2
2.0
1.5
3.8
162
291
162
71
183
317
140
158
209
46
908
1,125
1,407
797
760
771
1,271
933
890
1,125
2.5
4.7
4.5
4.9
4.0
0.7
1.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
248
60
73
50
113
326
319
99
168
248
New Hanover, NC........................
Wake, NC.....................................
Cass, ND......................................
Butler, OH.....................................
Cuyahoga, OH..............................
Delaware, OH...............................
Franklin, OH.................................
Hamilton, OH................................
Lake, OH......................................
Lorain, OH....................................
7.5
30.9
6.8
7.6
35.4
4.7
30.3
23.2
6.3
6.0
104.9
503.3
115.9
146.9
717.9
82.8
727.9
505.9
95.4
96.8
3.5
3.9
3.7
2.9
0.4
0.4
2.9
1.8
0.8
0.6
66
42
51
97
297
297
97
174
264
284
828
1,008
935
875
1,050
968
998
1,139
861
816
3.8
2.4
4.5
3.1
3.7
0.9
2.9
6.1
5.5
2.1
133
258
73
208
143
322
227
26
33
278
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
4.5
5.3
26.7
21.5
13.5
208.1
99.8
250.5
160.3
264.6
82.5
81.5
452.2
350.6
148.3
0.6
1.0
1.9
1.5
1.2
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.7
3.0
284
249
162
209
227
151
151
130
105
92
896
734
879
789
914
880
762
981
952
939
5.4
3.8
2.1
4.0
4.2
5.3
4.7
2.0
0.3
2.6
35
133
278
113
99
37
60
291
329
244
Jackson, OR................................
Lane, OR......................................
Marion, OR...................................
Multnomah, OR............................
Washington, OR...........................
Allegheny, PA...............................
Berks, PA.....................................
Bucks, PA.....................................
Butler, PA.....................................
Chester, PA..................................
6.9
11.4
9.9
31.8
17.5
35.3
8.9
19.7
5.0
15.2
82.6
145.4
140.6
476.8
271.0
688.8
169.5
254.9
85.0
243.9
3.6
2.7
3.7
3.6
2.6
-0.1
1.7
1.7
0.7
1.2
57
105
51
57
112
323
183
183
272
227
747
796
811
1,030
1,231
1,096
913
1,001
937
1,333
3.3
3.2
4.2
2.4
6.0
2.5
4.6
4.2
-0.8
3.3
191
199
99
258
27
248
68
99
334
191
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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
13.0
8.6
7.5
27.4
6.6
129.7
177.2
221.1
125.2
98.5
230.2
184.2
141.5
481.4
107.8
2.5
1.2
1.7
1.0
0.3
3.0
0.4
0.7
1.1
2.0
118
227
183
249
303
92
297
272
236
158
$922
996
1,084
806
765
853
1,033
781
1,262
881
3.6
2.6
1.1
4.1
3.2
3.0
7.8
2.9
3.8
3.6
157
244
315
109
199
220
6
227
133
157
Philadelphia, PA...........................
Washington, PA............................
Westmoreland, PA.......................
York, PA.......................................
Providence, RI..............................
Charleston, SC.............................
Greenville, SC..............................
Horry, SC.....................................
Lexington, SC...............................
Richland, SC................................
34.8
5.4
9.3
9.0
17.4
12.9
13.1
8.1
6.0
9.4
652.5
87.7
133.4
174.2
283.5
232.2
254.6
111.3
114.4
213.2
2.2
1.5
1.0
0.7
2.1
4.3
5.0
3.6
2.4
3.2
140
209
249
272
151
28
13
57
126
80
1,210
1,085
829
875
1,062
880
880
610
765
862
2.2
9.2
4.1
4.5
4.4
4.3
2.7
3.7
5.2
1.9
273
2
109
73
81
87
235
143
41
297
Spartanburg, SC...........................
York, SC.......................................
Minnehaha, SD.............................
Davidson, TN................................
Hamilton, TN................................
Knox, TN......................................
Rutherford, TN..............................
Shelby, TN....................................
Williamson, TN.............................
Bell, TX.........................................
5.9
5.1
6.8
20.1
9.0
11.4
4.9
19.8
7.4
5.0
126.5
83.1
122.7
467.8
189.7
230.2
115.7
489.7
112.1
112.9
2.9
4.9
2.2
3.6
1.1
3.0
3.9
1.4
6.1
0.5
97
17
140
57
236
92
42
214
5
291
862
806
878
1,076
974
923
908
1,041
1,231
812
4.5
0.9
3.8
1.5
7.0
5.2
3.2
2.1
4.9
2.7
73
322
133
306
11
41
199
278
50
235
Bexar, TX.....................................
Brazoria, TX.................................
Brazos, TX....................................
Cameron, TX................................
Collin, TX......................................
Dallas, TX.....................................
Denton, TX..................................
El Paso, TX..................................
Fort Bend, TX...............................
Galveston, TX...............................
37.4
5.3
4.2
6.4
21.6
71.8
12.8
14.4
11.3
5.7
811.5
101.2
99.0
135.6
354.7
1,591.0
211.4
289.1
170.3
102.5
3.2
4.1
4.8
1.6
3.6
4.2
5.7
1.2
5.5
2.3
80
36
18
197
57
33
7
227
9
130
910
1,047
772
621
1,186
1,233
938
707
1,048
918
3.4
8.9
4.0
3.8
3.2
3.1
6.6
3.2
3.5
4.7
179
4
113
133
199
208
19
199
168
60
Gregg, TX.....................................
Harris, TX.....................................
Hidalgo, TX...................................
Jefferson, TX................................
Lubbock, TX.................................
McLennan, TX..............................
Midland, TX..................................
Montgomery, TX...........................
Nueces, TX..................................
Potter, TX.....................................
4.2
109.5
11.9
5.8
7.3
5.0
5.4
10.1
8.2
4.0
80.5
2,312.2
246.5
126.4
133.6
106.7
94.7
164.6
166.7
79.1
3.3
3.9
2.3
4.5
1.9
1.7
8.0
5.7
3.6
1.2
75
42
130
23
162
183
1
7
57
227
940
1,373
641
1,079
803
832
1,425
1,044
936
830
2.8
4.3
3.6
7.6
4.4
4.0
9.0
3.9
7.0
3.5
231
87
157
7
81
113
3
125
11
168
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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.............................
6.0
40.3
35.8
5.0
9.1
7.9
41.6
14.3
5.7
6.4
100.4
842.8
669.4
97.8
148.3
115.7
639.7
202.3
97.3
101.6
3.8
3.1
4.2
3.6
2.7
3.5
2.4
5.8
3.0
1.3
46
84
33
57
105
66
126
6
92
223
$872
1,019
1,170
696
960
802
983
810
750
1,032
2.0
3.3
4.7
4.2
0.7
4.3
5.5
-0.5
4.0
3.9
291
191
60
99
326
87
33
333
113
125
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...........................
8.6
8.0
34.6
10.3
10.5
8.3
6.1
5.6
3.6
5.4
165.7
129.6
586.8
182.3
150.1
120.5
95.9
97.0
99.0
135.0
0.0
1.1
0.2
2.7
1.1
1.3
0.3
0.1
-0.5
-1.1
320
236
311
105
236
223
303
317
330
338
1,613
876
1,584
977
1,204
891
1,464
792
960
1,001
1.5
0.2
2.0
3.3
1.3
3.0
3.7
2.1
3.4
5.6
306
331
291
191
313
220
143
278
179
32
Richmond City, VA.......................
Virginia Beach City, VA................
Benton, WA..................................
Clark, WA.....................................
King, WA......................................
Kitsap, WA....................................
Pierce, WA...................................
Snohomish, WA............................
Spokane, WA...............................
Thurston, WA...............................
7.0
11.1
5.7
14.0
84.9
6.7
21.8
20.4
15.8
7.9
149.1
171.2
79.7
142.9
1,262.8
83.5
284.1
271.9
208.5
105.2
0.4
1.1
3.7
4.1
3.3
1.8
2.9
1.9
2.2
3.3
297
236
51
36
75
174
97
162
140
75
1,101
809
997
927
1,384
870
887
1,071
839
876
3.5
3.3
1.9
3.7
6.2
3.1
2.1
4.8
2.1
2.1
168
191
297
143
23
208
278
57
278
278
Whatcom, WA..............................
Yakima, WA.................................
Kanawha, WV...............................
Brown, WI.....................................
Dane, WI......................................
Milwaukee, WI..............................
Outagamie, WI.............................
Waukesha, WI..............................
Winnebago, WI.............................
San Juan, PR...............................
7.1
8.0
6.0
6.4
14.1
25.2
4.9
12.3
3.5
11.4
84.6
99.7
105.0
150.3
319.5
484.6
104.7
234.0
90.1
262.7
1.8
4.0
0.2
0.4
1.5
0.6
1.1
0.8
-0.5
-1.6
174
41
311
297
209
284
236
264
330
(⁵)
805
708
868
931
1,020
1,010
865
1,026
974
659
2.4
3.1
2.7
4.0
1.6
4.9
3.8
3.1
1.4
0.2
258
208
235
113
305
50
133
208
311
(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 72.1 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14²
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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..................................................................
9,479.2
9,184.9
137.6
760.5
339.9
1,920.3
153.7
841.8
1,702.8
1,498.4
800.1
820.2
294.3
139,204.8
117,701.2
1,989.9
6,192.9
12,255.7
27,247.3
2,756.5
7,759.4
19,532.8
20,926.8
14,502.5
4,255.2
21,503.6
2.2
2.6
3.4
5.6
1.5
2.2
0.7
1.2
3.3
2.0
2.6
2.0
0.5
$1,035
1,042
1,215
1,174
1,268
863
1,755
1,664
1,377
941
438
688
997
3.5
3.6
5.0
5.0
4.1
4.0
0.0
4.7
3.1
3.1
3.8
3.8
3.2
Los Angeles, CA..............................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
447.3
441.5
0.5
13.4
12.5
53.6
9.7
24.7
48.1
204.0
31.0
27.9
5.7
4,243.8
3,698.0
9.5
119.4
358.2
820.4
198.9
209.7
612.8
724.0
469.8
146.6
545.8
1.6
1.6
-4.4
1.0
-2.5
1.3
0.2
-0.8
-0.1
2.4
3.3
2.3
1.6
1,201
1,189
1,472
1,218
1,228
938
2,285
1,850
1,536
898
964
704
1,283
3.5
3.5
-15.8
4.4
4.0
2.6
4.4
5.5
6.7
2.4
0.2
4.1
4.1
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..................................................................
128.0
127.6
0.0
2.2
2.2
20.6
4.8
19.3
27.1
9.8
13.7
20.3
0.4
2,568.3
2,127.8
0.2
35.2
25.9
279.1
153.8
363.6
537.0
334.2
289.6
101.7
440.4
2.7
3.1
-0.7
4.2
-0.8
2.1
1.9
1.8
3.2
3.7
3.9
3.4
0.8
2,138
2,337
1,976
2,230
1,577
1,439
2,715
4,984
2,550
1,301
981
1,142
1,184
4.4
4.2
0.2
7.1
2.4
2.9
7.4
4.9
4.4
2.6
6.1
2.4
4.7
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..................................................................
160.7
159.4
0.1
13.3
6.8
31.8
2.9
16.3
34.3
16.8
14.5
18.2
1.3
2,512.5
2,215.9
0.9
68.9
186.3
478.6
55.0
185.0
460.2
428.2
251.6
97.5
296.6
1.6
1.8
11.5
10.1
-0.1
2.0
2.3
0.3
1.4
1.6
2.2
1.9
0.3
1,209
1,212
1,294
1,606
1,307
937
1,663
2,215
1,594
1,006
496
897
1,187
3.2
3.4
17.5
6.0
5.7
2.2
-1.5
1.7
4.3
5.1
2.3
3.8
1.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14²
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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..................................................................
109.5
108.9
1.8
6.9
4.7
24.7
1.2
11.3
22.1
14.9
9.2
11.7
0.6
2,312.2
2,045.5
95.0
159.6
201.7
488.4
28.3
119.8
399.9
275.9
211.4
64.6
266.7
3.9
4.2
4.5
9.6
4.4
4.0
-3.3
1.7
3.2
3.9
5.0
4.9
1.8
$1,373
1,412
3,321
1,465
1,673
1,210
1,518
1,758
1,788
1,056
454
816
1,077
4.3
4.2
-1.7
7.8
6.8
4.5
5.9
5.3
4.4
4.6
3.4
6.5
4.3
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..................................................................
94.6
93.9
0.5
7.3
3.2
20.1
1.6
11.2
22.2
10.8
7.5
6.4
0.7
1,821.9
1,609.5
8.5
93.5
114.8
369.1
34.2
157.0
314.5
268.6
197.9
48.4
212.5
2.7
2.9
3.5
0.4
0.7
2.4
5.5
3.2
3.4
3.8
3.0
1.7
1.2
974
973
918
1,072
1,375
873
1,261
1,229
1,090
1,007
463
687
986
2.2
2.2
-1.8
3.5
5.5
1.9
2.0
3.1
1.3
-0.2
5.7
2.2
2.8
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..................................................................
71.8
71.3
0.6
4.1
2.7
15.5
1.4
8.6
16.2
8.8
6.2
6.8
0.5
1,591.0
1,421.2
10.1
78.6
107.8
331.2
49.6
153.8
319.1
184.4
145.6
40.5
169.8
4.2
4.5
4.6
7.6
1.1
5.5
0.0
2.7
5.7
4.1
5.2
2.1
2.2
1,233
1,250
3,902
1,243
1,445
1,066
1,780
1,694
1,496
1,071
510
793
1,090
3.1
3.1
5.5
6.9
5.1
1.1
0.5
6.9
3.0
3.0
-1.0
2.9
2.5
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..................................................................
109.5
108.1
0.2
6.5
4.9
16.7
1.2
10.8
20.7
27.5
7.9
6.8
1.3
1,506.0
1,367.6
3.0
83.2
158.8
266.9
23.5
114.6
282.3
188.8
193.7
42.8
138.4
2.6
2.6
-2.0
5.2
-0.1
2.0
-4.4
1.4
2.2
2.3
2.8
2.1
2.5
1,162
1,167
887
1,288
1,482
1,030
1,825
1,958
1,384
990
469
710
1,109
4.3
4.4
22.2
4.0
10.1
3.7
9.0
2.6
4.4
1.6
7.8
3.3
3.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14²
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth 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..................................................................
102.1
100.7
0.7
6.4
3.0
14.1
1.2
9.5
18.3
28.2
7.6
7.3
1.4
1,359.7
1,139.0
9.5
64.6
97.4
223.9
23.9
70.5
231.2
185.9
175.4
48.7
220.7
1.9
2.2
2.6
3.0
0.9
0.8
-3.9
-0.9
1.3
3.0
2.6
3.7
0.6
$1,138
1,127
695
1,185
1,589
838
1,677
1,493
1,784
979
460
606
1,193
2.6
2.1
5.1
5.8
4.7
3.8
-1.5
8.7
-1.1
2.6
4.3
4.1
5.5
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..................................................................
84.9
84.4
0.4
6.1
2.3
14.9
2.0
6.5
16.1
20.5
6.9
8.6
0.6
1,262.8
1,100.7
2.5
60.6
105.8
241.7
85.0
65.9
211.6
162.6
123.7
41.3
162.1
3.3
3.6
2.5
13.1
0.2
4.3
2.0
1.3
4.8
2.9
2.5
2.7
1.4
1,384
1,402
1,417
1,315
1,640
1,170
2,974
1,766
1,766
970
544
822
1,267
6.2
6.4
4.6
3.7
6.8
5.1
16.5
10.8
3.3
2.1
2.1
2.9
5.0
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..................................................................
95.2
94.9
0.5
5.5
2.7
27.5
1.6
10.0
20.0
10.1
7.2
8.2
0.3
1,082.5
946.2
9.3
37.8
37.5
284.2
18.3
73.8
147.7
164.7
132.1
38.8
136.3
3.3
4.0
0.2
11.1
2.2
3.4
0.5
5.1
5.3
2.4
3.4
4.5
-1.2
1,008
986
593
986
989
884
1,532
1,583
1,312
980
569
616
1,162
2.5
2.4
8.2
4.4
3.9
-0.6
3.0
4.4
2.3
4.0
2.5
2.8
4.5
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,
fourth quarter 2014
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2013-14
United States²..........................................
9,479.2
139,204.8
2.2
$1,035
3.5
Alabama....................................................
Alaska........................................................
Arizona......................................................
Arkansas...................................................
California...................................................
Colorado....................................................
Connecticut...............................................
Delaware...................................................
District of Columbia...................................
Florida.......................................................
118.0
22.4
148.9
87.4
1,403.6
180.7
114.7
30.0
36.8
649.0
1,891.4
317.6
2,630.8
1,180.5
16,068.5
2,478.0
1,681.2
433.0
736.9
8,009.6
1.3
0.8
2.2
2.2
2.6
3.9
1.2
2.9
0.9
3.5
881
1,063
926
807
1,209
1,066
1,278
1,049
1,696
911
3.5
4.0
2.3
4.5
2.9
4.1
2.7
1.5
3.7
3.1
Georgia......................................................
Hawaii........................................................
Idaho.........................................................
Illinois........................................................
Indiana.......................................................
Iowa...........................................................
Kansas......................................................
Kentucky....................................................
Louisiana...................................................
Maine.........................................................
286.3
39.3
55.2
421.9
159.2
100.3
86.2
121.6
126.5
49.6
4,131.9
638.3
650.7
5,844.1
2,946.5
1,527.6
1,377.2
1,852.2
1,954.0
592.7
3.7
0.7
2.5
1.4
1.7
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.1
0.9
958
908
782
1,089
846
870
855
836
923
826
3.8
4.2
4.0
2.8
3.9
4.3
2.6
4.1
3.8
5.1
Maryland....................................................
Massachusetts..........................................
Michigan....................................................
Minnesota..................................................
Mississippi.................................................
Missouri.....................................................
Montana....................................................
Nebraska...................................................
Nevada......................................................
New Hampshire.........................................
166.1
236.1
237.6
167.0
72.1
187.9
44.5
70.4
77.2
50.8
2,590.3
3,415.6
4,158.9
2,762.9
1,118.6
2,709.8
442.2
958.1
1,229.6
638.0
1.3
2.2
2.1
1.4
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.4
4.2
1.4
1,113
1,315
984
1,024
747
891
794
837
899
1,081
3.5
4.5
3.3
3.6
2.3
3.4
4.5
5.2
1.6
6.3
New Jersey...............................................
New Mexico...............................................
New York..................................................
North Carolina...........................................
North Dakota.............................................
Ohio...........................................................
Oklahoma..................................................
Oregon......................................................
Pennsylvania.............................................
Rhode Island.............................................
266.1
56.1
627.6
261.7
32.1
289.4
107.9
140.0
351.2
36.0
3,933.6
808.4
9,067.6
4,141.8
454.8
5,264.3
1,614.3
1,755.4
5,716.5
471.5
1.3
1.3
2.0
2.4
4.5
1.6
2.1
3.2
1.2
1.9
1,211
850
1,321
890
1,050
922
876
928
1,013
1,003
2.0
4.4
4.3
3.4
7.1
3.9
2.8
3.8
3.7
4.5
South Carolina..........................................
South Dakota............................................
Tennessee.................................................
Texas.........................................................
Utah...........................................................
Vermont.....................................................
Virginia......................................................
Washington...............................................
West Virginia.............................................
Wisconsin..................................................
120.1
32.2
147.9
627.9
92.6
24.6
237.5
238.1
50.0
167.5
1,931.4
412.5
2,822.1
11,662.7
1,324.2
311.0
3,691.4
3,069.7
712.0
2,789.3
2.9
1.3
2.4
3.7
3.0
0.7
0.6
3.2
0.1
1.3
817
791
927
1,070
872
882
1,057
1,082
818
894
3.2
4.2
3.5
4.3
4.3
4.1
2.8
4.5
3.3
3.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 2014 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2014
(thousands)
December
2014
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2013-14
Fourth
quarter
2014
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2013-14
Wyoming...................................................
25.5
283.6
1.5
$952
3.9
Puerto Rico...............................................
Virgin Islands............................................
49.0
3.5
944.2
38.5
-1.5
-0.3
556
746
0.7
-1.2
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,
December 2013-14 (U.S. average = 2.2 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, fourth quarter 2013-14 (U.S. average = 3.5 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics