For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, September 17, 2015
USDL-15-1788
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
First Quarter 2015
From March 2014 to March 2015, employment increased in 323 of the 342 largest U.S. counties
(counties with 75,000 or more jobs in 2014), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Utah,
Utah, had the largest percentage increase, with a gain of 6.7 percent over the year, compared with
national job growth of 2.1 percent. Within Utah, the largest employment increase occurred in trade,
transportation, and utilities, which gained 2,962 jobs over the year (8.9 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 4.3 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 $1,048 in the first
quarter of 2015. Olmsted, Minn., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly
wages with a gain of 11.7 percent. Within Olmsted, an average weekly wage gain of $243, or 18.6
percent, in education and health services made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in
average weekly wages. Snohomish, Wash., experienced the largest percentage decrease in average
weekly wages with a loss of 4.8 percent over the year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, March 2014-15
(U.S. average = 2.1 percent)
Percent
Percent
12
8
10
6
8
6
4
4
2
0
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, first quarter 2014-15
(U.S. average = 2.1 percent)
2
0
Utah,
Utah
Adams,
Colo.
Denton,
Texas
Montgomery,
Texas
Lee,
Fla.
Olmsted, Washington, Riverside,
Minn.
Pa.
Calif.
Lake,
Ill.
Orange,
Calif.
Table A. Large counties ranked by March 2015 employment, March 2014-15 employment increase, and
March 2014-15 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
March 2015 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.
137,412.4
4,204.3
2,470.3
2,346.5
2,288.8
1,803.5
1,570.9
1,501.2
1,352.1
1,254.9
1,074.6
Increase in employment,
March 2014-15
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
March 2014-15
2,872.7
Los Angeles, Calif.
Harris, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Dallas, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
King, Wash.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Clark, Nev.
Orange, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
86.4
66.6
60.5
56.6
52.0
42.5
38.5
37.0
36.4
36.1
United States
2.1
Utah, Utah
Adams, Colo.
Denton, Texas
Montgomery, Texas
Lee, Fla.
Chatham, Ga.
Calcasieu, La.
Clay, Mo.
Weld, Colo.
Collier, Fla.
Williamson, Tenn.
6.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.2
Large County Employment
In March 2015, national employment was 137.4 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the
year, employment increased 2.1 percent, or 2.9 million. In March 2015, the 342 U.S. counties with
75,000 or more jobs accounted for 72.3 percent of total U.S. employment and 78.6 percent of total
wages. These 342 counties had a net job growth of 2.2 million over the year, accounting for 75.9 percent
of the overall U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Utah, Utah, had the largest percentage increase in employment (6.7 percent) among the largest U.S.
counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment levels were Los Angeles, Calif.;
Harris, Texas; New York, N.Y.; Dallas, Texas; and Maricopa, Ariz. These counties had a combined
over-the-year employment gain of 322,100 jobs, which was 11.2 percent of the overall job increase for
the U.S. (See table A.)
Employment declined in 17 of the largest counties from March 2014 to March 2015. Atlantic, N.J., had
the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.3 percent). Within Atlantic, leisure and
hospitality had the largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 6,587 jobs (-15.9 percent). New
London, Conn., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by Cumberland,
N.C.; Broome, N.Y.; and Lafayette, La. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by first quarter 2015 average weekly wages, first quarter 2014-15
increase in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2014-15 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2015
Increase in average weekly
wage, first quarter 2014-15
United States
$1,048
United States
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Somerset, N.J.
San Francisco, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Suffolk, Mass.
Washington, D.C.
Morris, N.J.
Arlington, Va.
$2,847
2,203
2,080
2,070
2,066
1,938
1,909
1,764
1,755
1,732
Lake, Ill.
Olmsted, Minn.
Washington, Pa.
San Francisco, Calif.
Morris, N.J.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Orange, Calif.
Williamson, Tenn.
Riverside, Calif.
Middlesex, Mass.
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, first
quarter 2014-15
$22
$134
120
118
115
112
111
102
82
79
77
United States
Olmsted, Minn.
Washington, Pa.
Riverside, Calif.
Lake, Ill.
Orange, Calif.
Weld, Colo.
Bristol, Mass.
Jefferson, Ala.
Williamson, Tenn.
Ottawa, Mich.
Morris, N.J.
2.1
11.7
10.7
10.1
9.2
9.1
7.5
7.4
7.1
6.9
6.8
6.8
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $1,048, a 2.1 percent increase, during the year ending
in the first quarter of 2015. Among the 342 largest counties, 297 had over-the-year increases in average
weekly wages. (See chart 4.) Olmsted, Minn., had the largest percentage wage increase among the
largest U.S. counties (11.7 percent).
Of the 342 largest counties, 39 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages.
Snohomish, Wash., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, with a loss of 4.8
percent. Within Snohomish, manufacturing had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage
decrease. Within this industry, average weekly wages declined by $290 (-13.4 percent) over the year.
Chester, Pa., had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by
Williamson, Texas; Saginaw, Mich.; and Palm Beach, Fla. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in March 2015.
Dallas, Texas, had the largest gain (3.7 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
16,702 jobs, or 5.5 percent. Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.5 percent)
among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.)
Average weekly wages increased over the year in 9 of the 10 largest U.S. counties. Orange, Calif.,
experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (9.1 percent). Within Orange,
professional and business services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth.
Within this industry, average weekly wages increased by $373, or 27.6 percent, over the year. New
-3-
York, N.Y., had the only decrease in average weekly wages (-1.3 percent) among the 10 largest
counties.
For More Information
The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 342 U.S. counties
with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2014. March 2015 employment and 2015
first 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 137.4 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
first quarter of 2015 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 second quarter 2015 is scheduled to be released
on Thursday, December 17, 2015.
County Changes for the 2015 County Employment and Wages News Releases
Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2014 are included in this release and
will be included in future 2015 releases. Three counties have been added to the publication tables:
Butte, Calif.; Hall, Ga.; and Ector, Texas.
-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 2015 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 343 counties presented in
this release were derived using 2014 preliminary annual averages of
employment. For 2015 data, three counties have been added to the
publication tables: Butte, Calif.; Hall, Ga.; and Ector, Texas. These
counties will be included in all 2015 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
Source
Coverage
BED
CES
· Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 9.5 million establishments in first quarter of 2015
· Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by
7.5 million private-sector employers
· Sample survey: 588,000 establishments
· 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 9.4 million employer
reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in
2014. 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 2014, UI and
UCFE programs covered workers in 136.6 million jobs. The estimated
131.8 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.3 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $7.017 trillion in pay, representing
93.8 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income
and 40.5 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 2014 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 343 largest counties,
first quarter 2015
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
United States⁴..............................
9,531.3
137,412.4
2.1
-
$1,048
2.1
-
Jefferson, AL................................
Madison, AL.................................
Mobile, AL....................................
Montgomery, AL...........................
Shelby, AL....................................
Tuscaloosa, AL.............................
Anchorage Borough, AK...............
Maricopa, AZ................................
Pima, AZ.......................................
Benton, AR...................................
17.6
9.1
9.6
6.3
5.4
4.3
8.3
94.7
18.9
5.9
335.5
183.8
166.9
128.0
82.3
90.8
151.6
1,803.5
355.6
107.0
0.3
1.9
1.1
0.6
2.4
3.7
0.7
3.0
0.8
3.7
309
165
243
290
135
45
282
90
267
45
1,066
1,052
834
801
991
795
1,105
986
820
1,302
7.1
0.2
1.8
1.5
2.5
-0.5
3.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
8
292
162
195
108
314
67
256
298
298
Pulaski, AR...................................
Washington, AR...........................
Alameda, CA................................
Butte, CA.....................................
Contra Costa, CA.........................
Fresno, CA...................................
Kern, CA.......................................
Los Angeles, CA...........................
Marin, CA.....................................
Monterey, CA...............................
14.4
5.7
58.3
7.9
30.3
31.6
17.4
448.7
12.1
13.0
242.3
98.6
719.4
76.9
341.1
355.1
295.9
4,204.3
110.5
168.3
0.2
3.8
3.4
2.8
1.7
2.9
1.1
2.1
2.1
3.0
314
40
64
103
186
97
243
155
155
90
890
775
1,336
726
1,296
771
871
1,120
1,241
850
0.9
-0.4
2.8
5.4
3.5
2.1
0.8
2.6
4.5
1.8
256
310
81
17
48
133
266
96
29
162
Orange, CA..................................
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.............................
110.2
11.7
55.0
53.5
52.8
102.6
58.3
16.9
9.9
26.6
1,501.2
145.6
648.7
618.6
675.7
1,352.1
660.1
224.7
113.4
375.8
2.5
3.6
3.8
3.4
4.0
2.5
4.6
4.1
3.2
4.6
127
52
40
64
31
127
15
29
76
15
1,221
990
861
1,106
811
1,130
2,070
818
806
2,066
9.1
4.0
10.1
2.6
2.0
0.2
5.9
2.4
2.9
-0.2
5
38
3
96
142
292
15
114
76
307
Santa Barbara, CA.......................
Santa Clara, CA...........................
Santa Cruz, CA............................
Solano, CA...................................
Sonoma, CA.................................
Stanislaus, CA..............................
Tulare, CA....................................
Ventura, CA..................................
Yolo, CA.......................................
Adams, CO...................................
14.7
67.2
9.3
10.4
19.1
14.6
9.3
25.2
6.3
9.8
192.4
1,001.6
95.9
128.6
193.5
174.3
149.2
317.8
94.2
188.3
1.3
4.0
3.4
2.8
2.6
3.1
1.9
0.7
3.5
5.8
223
31
64
103
119
83
165
282
58
2
936
2,203
857
1,051
925
830
687
1,039
1,015
930
3.0
5.3
2.1
1.6
6.2
3.1
5.0
-1.8
0.2
1.8
67
20
133
185
13
62
23
337
292
162
Arapahoe, CO..............................
Boulder, CO..................................
Denver, CO..................................
Douglas, CO.................................
El Paso, CO..................................
Jefferson, CO...............................
Larimer, CO..................................
Weld, CO......................................
Fairfield, CT.................................
Hartford, CT..................................
20.4
14.0
29.0
10.8
17.7
18.7
11.0
6.5
34.3
26.7
310.2
170.9
470.6
109.1
250.5
223.5
143.0
101.8
415.4
499.6
3.2
2.9
4.7
3.9
2.6
3.2
4.0
5.2
1.4
1.1
76
97
14
37
119
76
31
9
214
243
1,256
1,196
1,350
1,205
892
1,020
906
932
1,938
1,407
0.6
3.0
1.7
5.0
1.8
2.6
5.3
7.5
0.8
1.8
279
67
175
23
162
96
20
6
266
162
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
New Haven, CT............................
New London, CT..........................
New Castle, DE............................
Washington, DC...........................
Alachua, FL..................................
Brevard, FL...................................
Broward, FL..................................
Collier, FL.....................................
Duval, FL.....................................
Escambia, FL...............................
23.2
7.1
18.7
37.0
6.9
15.2
68.1
13.1
28.3
8.2
356.4
118.1
280.6
732.6
122.5
194.7
756.7
140.2
466.2
124.8
0.6
-1.4
3.0
1.4
2.3
2.5
2.8
5.2
3.0
1.9
290
341
90
214
142
127
103
9
90
165
$1,032
1,037
1,272
1,764
804
856
922
828
992
771
0.4
1.4
-1.2
3.2
2.6
0.9
1.3
0.4
1.1
4.3
286
210
330
58
96
256
223
286
239
34
Hillsborough, FL...........................
Lake, FL.......................................
Lee, FL.........................................
Leon, FL.......................................
Manatee, FL.................................
Marion, FL....................................
Miami-Dade, FL............................
Okaloosa, FL................................
Orange, FL...................................
Osceola, FL..................................
40.4
7.9
20.6
8.5
10.2
8.3
96.4
6.3
39.5
6.3
639.6
89.7
241.2
142.8
116.4
96.9
1,074.6
79.0
754.1
84.0
3.1
4.4
5.7
1.5
4.4
3.7
3.3
0.7
3.4
3.8
83
19
5
210
19
45
73
282
64
40
973
649
762
774
725
664
982
814
891
671
1.9
1.4
1.9
0.7
2.1
1.2
3.4
3.3
2.1
-1.5
150
210
150
274
133
235
54
55
133
334
Palm Beach, FL............................
Pasco, FL.....................................
Pinellas, FL...................................
Polk, FL........................................
Sarasota, FL................................
Seminole, FL................................
Volusia, FL...................................
Bibb, GA.......................................
Chatham, GA................................
Clayton, GA..................................
53.8
10.6
32.1
12.9
15.5
14.5
13.9
4.5
8.3
4.4
566.5
108.6
407.1
204.6
160.4
170.7
161.6
82.6
143.5
115.9
4.0
4.6
3.1
2.3
4.5
3.3
2.7
1.4
5.3
4.0
31
15
83
142
18
73
112
214
6
31
991
658
865
735
796
826
691
775
852
976
-2.0
1.4
2.5
1.0
0.8
2.5
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.7
338
210
108
245
266
108
245
266
195
175
Cobb, GA......................................
DeKalb, GA.................................
Fulton, GA....................................
Gwinnett, GA................................
Hall, GA.......................................
Muscogee, GA..............................
Richmond, GA..............................
Honolulu, HI..................................
Ada, ID.........................................
Champaign, IL..............................
22.9
19.1
45.3
25.8
4.5
4.8
4.7
24.9
13.9
4.5
330.1
286.9
781.8
332.9
78.0
94.0
105.0
461.9
212.7
88.5
2.4
1.9
4.2
3.7
4.0
-0.1
3.0
1.1
2.1
0.6
135
165
26
45
31
326
90
243
155
290
1,137
1,066
1,506
996
824
823
825
918
873
852
3.2
0.4
0.7
0.5
2.7
2.6
3.1
2.8
2.0
2.3
58
286
274
282
88
96
62
81
142
119
Cook, IL........................................
DuPage, IL.................................
Kane, IL........................................
Lake, IL........................................
McHenry, IL..................................
McLean, IL....................................
Madison, IL...................................
Peoria, IL......................................
St. Clair, IL....................................
Sangamon, IL...............................
161.8
39.6
14.2
23.5
9.1
4.0
6.3
4.9
5.8
5.5
2,470.3
592.4
201.2
320.7
93.0
84.1
96.0
99.2
92.1
126.8
1.5
0.8
0.3
0.4
-0.2
0.6
0.8
-0.4
1.1
0.4
210
267
309
306
328
290
267
332
243
306
1,280
1,202
856
1,585
808
1,033
803
988
766
1,001
2.2
1.3
1.3
9.2
-0.4
-1.1
1.0
2.6
0.7
0.5
127
223
223
4
310
327
245
96
274
282
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Will, IL..........................................
Winnebago, IL..............................
Allen, IN........................................
Elkhart, IN.....................................
Hamilton, IN..................................
Lake, IN........................................
Marion, IN.....................................
St. Joseph, IN...............................
Tippecanoe, IN.............................
Vanderburgh, IN...........................
16.7
7.0
8.8
4.7
8.9
10.3
23.5
5.8
3.3
4.7
214.7
124.3
177.9
122.3
128.0
183.9
575.0
117.6
81.4
105.2
1.0
0.5
2.2
3.6
3.9
0.2
1.9
1.7
2.7
1.1
254
303
150
52
37
314
165
186
112
243
$859
848
841
834
1,027
890
1,071
790
867
822
-0.7
2.3
1.1
3.0
0.9
3.6
0.8
2.1
4.8
2.2
318
119
239
67
256
45
266
133
26
127
Black Hawk, IA............................
Johnson, IA..................................
Linn, IA.........................................
Polk, IA........................................
Scott, IA........................................
Johnson, KS.................................
Sedgwick, KS...............................
Shawnee, KS................................
Wyandotte, KS.............................
Boone, KY...................................
3.8
4.0
6.6
16.5
5.5
21.9
12.5
4.8
3.3
4.2
74.1
81.0
127.8
281.9
89.0
329.2
246.3
96.0
87.6
79.1
-0.6
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.7
2.8
1.4
0.0
2.6
3.0
335
267
214
267
186
103
214
324
119
90
815
897
1,003
1,073
793
1,087
910
817
969
833
-1.5
2.7
4.8
2.7
1.5
1.6
0.7
0.0
3.2
1.3
334
88
26
88
195
185
274
298
58
223
Fayette, KY...................................
Jefferson, KY................................
Caddo, LA....................................
Calcasieu, LA...............................
East Baton Rouge, LA..................
Jefferson, LA................................
Lafayette, LA................................
Orleans, LA..................................
St. Tammany, LA..........................
Cumberland, ME..........................
10.5
24.6
7.2
4.9
14.5
13.5
9.2
11.8
7.6
12.9
184.9
442.3
115.3
91.6
268.2
194.5
139.7
189.4
84.1
169.6
2.7
2.5
0.7
5.3
2.2
0.6
-0.9
2.7
3.5
1.1
112
127
282
6
150
290
338
112
58
243
883
1,016
794
858
942
887
952
1,004
871
924
1.6
2.3
1.5
0.2
3.1
1.3
-0.5
3.0
2.6
1.3
185
119
195
292
62
223
314
67
96
223
Anne Arundel, MD........................
Baltimore, MD...............................
Frederick, MD...............................
Harford, MD..................................
Howard, MD.................................
Montgomery, MD..........................
Prince George's, MD....................
Baltimore City, MD.......................
Barnstable, MA.............................
Bristol, MA....................................
14.5
21.2
6.2
5.6
9.4
32.6
15.8
13.7
9.2
16.8
253.2
367.1
96.2
87.9
158.2
454.0
302.5
329.1
82.8
214.2
1.1
0.9
1.6
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.6
0.3
0.1
243
260
199
267
290
260
254
199
309
320
1,077
999
954
936
1,248
1,407
1,040
1,240
840
939
1.8
1.5
-0.7
2.0
1.1
2.9
3.3
3.7
1.1
7.4
162
195
318
142
239
76
55
41
239
7
Essex, MA....................................
Hampden, MA..............................
Middlesex, MA..............................
Norfolk, MA...................................
Plymouth, MA...............................
Suffolk, MA...................................
Worcester, MA..............................
Genesee, MI.................................
Ingham, MI...................................
Kalamazoo, MI.............................
23.2
16.9
52.4
24.4
14.9
26.6
23.3
6.9
6.0
5.1
311.5
199.2
857.2
332.6
180.2
626.0
329.4
131.1
144.7
113.2
1.5
1.2
2.4
0.9
0.9
2.2
1.9
-0.2
-0.2
1.2
210
234
135
260
260
150
165
328
328
234
1,057
921
1,627
1,170
904
1,909
986
822
943
954
1.0
-0.4
5.0
1.5
1.5
2.8
0.8
4.2
1.8
2.9
245
310
23
195
195
81
266
37
162
76
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Kent, MI.......................................
Macomb, MI..................................
Oakland, MI..................................
Ottawa, MI....................................
Saginaw, MI..................................
Washtenaw, MI.............................
Wayne, MI....................................
Anoka, MN....................................
Dakota, MN..................................
Hennepin, MN..............................
13.9
17.2
38.2
5.5
4.0
8.1
30.3
6.9
9.7
40.6
364.3
307.9
688.9
115.2
82.1
201.7
692.5
116.4
180.1
868.0
3.1
1.6
1.4
2.8
0.6
1.8
1.2
1.7
2.3
2.2
83
199
214
103
290
177
234
186
142
150
$879
1,001
1,147
835
787
1,033
1,141
914
1,013
1,385
1.3
1.5
3.5
6.8
-2.4
3.7
1.2
3.5
1.9
4.4
223
195
48
10
339
41
235
48
150
31
Olmsted, MN................................
Ramsey, MN.................................
St. Louis, MN................................
Stearns, MN.................................
Washington, MN...........................
Harrison, MS................................
Hinds, MS.....................................
Boone, MO...................................
Clay, MO......................................
Greene, MO..................................
3.4
13.3
5.3
4.3
5.4
4.4
5.9
4.8
5.4
8.4
91.4
321.1
95.6
82.7
75.8
82.1
119.8
90.1
95.0
159.3
0.5
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.0
0.3
1.0
1.6
5.3
1.8
303
223
199
165
163
309
254
199
6
177
1,148
1,259
830
795
870
723
844
771
886
750
11.7
5.4
2.3
5.4
3.8
2.3
1.0
3.1
1.7
1.8
1
17
119
17
39
119
245
62
175
162
Jackson, MO................................
St. Charles, MO............................
St. Louis, MO................................
St. Louis City, MO........................
Yellowstone, MT...........................
Douglas, NE.................................
Lancaster, NE...............................
Clark, NV.....................................
Washoe, NV.................................
Hillsborough, NH..........................
20.4
8.8
35.0
11.9
6.4
18.4
9.9
53.1
14.2
12.1
354.4
136.5
580.5
221.2
79.3
326.6
163.4
898.1
196.7
194.0
1.7
3.7
1.3
1.8
3.2
1.3
1.6
4.3
3.4
1.7
186
45
223
177
76
223
199
22
64
186
1,007
848
1,099
1,175
836
960
797
853
850
1,070
1.3
2.8
2.6
0.8
1.6
2.7
2.6
-0.4
-0.7
-1.4
223
81
96
266
185
88
96
310
318
332
Rockingham, NH..........................
Atlantic, NJ...................................
Bergen, NJ...................................
Burlington, NJ...............................
Camden, NJ.................................
Essex, NJ....................................
Gloucester, NJ..............................
Hudson, NJ...................................
Mercer, NJ....................................
Middlesex, NJ..............................
10.6
6.6
32.8
11.1
11.9
20.4
6.2
14.3
11.0
22.0
138.3
120.9
435.1
192.8
197.5
334.2
100.7
242.2
234.9
393.6
1.9
-4.3
1.0
1.3
2.5
0.6
2.3
3.5
2.6
0.4
165
342
254
223
127
290
142
58
119
306
983
831
1,226
1,056
946
1,359
849
1,548
1,521
1,334
3.7
2.6
-0.2
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.0
-0.9
3.5
2.5
41
96
307
185
245
210
245
323
48
108
Monmouth, NJ..............................
Morris, NJ.....................................
Ocean, NJ....................................
Passaic, NJ..................................
Somerset, NJ...............................
Union, NJ.....................................
Bernalillo, NM...............................
Albany, NY...................................
Bronx, NY.....................................
Broome, NY..................................
20.0
17.0
12.8
12.3
10.1
14.3
18.0
10.3
18.4
4.6
244.0
278.7
152.5
163.8
178.9
218.1
313.2
227.6
297.6
85.8
1.3
0.8
1.7
0.0
1.8
1.0
0.9
2.1
3.2
-1.0
223
267
186
324
177
254
260
155
76
339
992
1,755
790
971
2,080
1,327
844
1,007
901
759
-0.9
6.8
1.2
1.8
0.6
4.4
1.1
0.0
0.9
1.7
323
10
235
162
279
31
239
298
256
175
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Dutchess, NY...............................
Erie, NY........................................
Kings, NY.....................................
Monroe, NY..................................
Nassau, NY..................................
New York, NY...............................
Oneida, NY...................................
Onondaga, NY..............................
Orange, NY..................................
Queens, NY..................................
8.4
24.5
59.3
18.6
53.5
129.0
5.4
13.0
10.2
50.9
108.5
453.3
649.7
373.6
605.0
2,346.5
101.8
238.2
137.0
621.3
0.9
0.6
4.3
0.1
1.2
2.6
0.6
0.1
1.9
3.5
260
290
22
320
234
119
290
320
165
58
$961
885
818
935
1,103
2,847
763
895
805
936
1.7
1.3
3.3
1.0
1.4
-1.3
1.6
-1.5
1.0
1.4
175
223
55
245
210
331
185
334
245
210
Richmond, NY..............................
Rockland, NY...............................
Saratoga, NY................................
Suffolk, NY...................................
Westchester, NY..........................
Buncombe, NC.............................
Catawba, NC................................
Cumberland, NC...........................
Durham, NC.................................
Forsyth, NC..................................
9.7
10.4
5.9
52.0
36.5
8.5
4.3
6.2
7.8
9.3
111.3
116.0
80.6
624.0
411.8
121.5
82.1
116.0
189.3
179.0
2.1
2.7
2.5
0.7
1.6
3.5
1.7
-1.3
2.8
1.8
155
112
127
282
199
58
186
340
103
177
825
1,012
882
1,048
1,419
728
761
741
1,369
1,017
0.9
-1.4
1.5
2.4
-1.1
-0.1
4.8
1.4
2.2
-0.8
256
332
195
114
327
304
26
210
127
322
Guilford, NC..................................
Mecklenburg, NC..........................
New Hanover, NC........................
Wake, NC.....................................
Cass, ND......................................
Butler, OH.....................................
Cuyahoga, OH..............................
Delaware, OH...............................
Franklin, OH.................................
Hamilton, OH................................
14.2
34.7
7.6
31.4
6.8
7.5
35.5
4.8
30.3
23.1
273.0
627.7
103.4
500.0
113.6
141.6
699.7
81.2
703.4
495.3
2.4
4.3
3.6
3.7
2.8
1.4
0.3
0.2
2.5
1.3
135
22
52
45
103
214
309
314
127
223
901
1,397
782
1,039
914
909
1,071
1,107
1,045
1,122
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
5.3
3.6
1.8
-0.5
1.9
0.6
185
235
245
195
20
45
162
314
150
279
Lake, OH......................................
Lorain, OH....................................
Lucas, OH....................................
Mahoning, OH..............................
Montgomery, OH..........................
Stark, OH.....................................
Summit, OH.................................
Warren, OH.................................
Cleveland, OK..............................
Oklahoma, OK..............................
6.3
6.0
10.0
5.8
11.9
8.6
14.1
4.6
5.4
26.9
92.9
94.1
202.8
96.4
244.7
155.4
259.4
83.9
80.4
446.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.6
0.8
1.2
2.0
1.7
1.8
282
282
267
282
199
267
234
163
186
177
829
809
887
698
858
759
938
873
702
1,005
1.0
0.7
2.1
2.2
0.4
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.4
3.6
245
274
133
127
286
223
195
175
210
45
Tulsa, OK.....................................
Clackamas, OR............................
Jackson, OR................................
Lane, OR......................................
Marion, OR...................................
Multnomah, OR............................
Washington, OR...........................
Allegheny, PA...............................
Berks, PA.....................................
Bucks, PA.....................................
21.7
13.8
6.9
11.5
9.9
31.8
17.9
35.5
8.9
19.7
347.5
147.8
80.3
144.0
140.8
472.3
270.5
675.6
167.1
250.0
2.3
2.7
3.4
2.5
4.2
3.4
3.6
0.1
1.4
1.2
142
112
64
127
26
64
52
320
214
234
980
914
744
760
770
1,026
1,278
1,200
881
930
0.9
3.5
1.8
2.6
2.1
1.5
6.0
6.3
1.5
1.1
256
48
162
96
133
195
14
12
195
239
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Butler, PA.....................................
Chester, PA..................................
Cumberland, PA...........................
Dauphin, PA................................
Delaware, PA...............................
Erie, PA........................................
Lackawanna, PA..........................
Lancaster, PA...............................
Lehigh, PA....................................
Luzerne, PA..................................
5.0
15.2
6.2
7.4
13.9
7.2
5.8
13.1
8.5
7.5
83.3
240.1
127.7
173.7
215.4
122.6
95.8
224.3
178.7
139.9
-0.6
0.6
2.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-0.1
1.9
1.1
0.8
335
290
135
290
267
254
326
165
243
267
$919
1,363
908
1,036
1,143
770
752
818
1,006
783
1.9
-4.0
-0.5
0.0
1.9
1.4
1.3
1.9
2.9
1.4
150
341
314
298
150
210
223
150
76
210
Montgomery, PA...........................
Northampton, PA..........................
Philadelphia, PA...........................
Washington, PA............................
Westmoreland, PA.......................
York, PA.......................................
Providence, RI..............................
Charleston, SC.............................
Greenville, SC..............................
Horry, SC.....................................
27.3
6.6
35.0
5.4
9.3
9.0
17.4
13.2
13.2
8.2
468.0
105.8
646.1
86.3
129.5
171.5
276.1
230.2
252.2
113.6
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.5
0.2
0.8
1.3
3.1
2.8
3.3
267
223
199
210
314
267
223
83
103
73
1,387
882
1,214
1,219
785
854
1,077
880
858
583
3.0
1.4
2.4
10.7
1.3
1.4
1.9
1.5
0.5
2.1
67
210
114
2
223
210
150
195
282
133
Lexington, SC...............................
Richland, SC................................
Spartanburg, SC...........................
York, SC.......................................
Minnehaha, SD.............................
Davidson, TN................................
Hamilton, TN................................
Knox, TN......................................
Rutherford, TN..............................
Shelby, TN....................................
6.2
9.6
6.0
5.2
6.9
20.5
9.1
11.6
5.0
20.0
110.4
210.8
125.9
83.6
121.0
444.7
189.2
228.0
113.6
477.2
3.4
1.1
2.1
3.1
2.1
2.9
2.3
2.6
2.6
1.3
64
243
155
83
155
97
142
119
119
223
748
862
834
800
872
1,085
880
858
861
1,009
3.2
1.4
2.3
3.0
2.1
2.6
2.0
2.5
3.0
-0.7
58
210
119
67
133
96
142
108
67
318
Williamson, TN.............................
Bell, TX.........................................
Bexar, TX.....................................
Brazoria, TX.................................
Brazos, TX....................................
Cameron, TX................................
Collin, TX......................................
Dallas, TX.....................................
Denton, TX..................................
Ector, TX.....................................
7.6
5.0
37.7
5.3
4.2
6.4
21.8
72.0
13.0
3.9
111.2
113.1
810.1
102.3
99.1
135.3
357.2
1,570.9
214.3
76.1
5.2
1.8
3.2
4.3
4.2
1.4
4.1
3.7
5.8
2.3
9
177
76
22
26
214
29
45
2
142
1,262
813
937
1,073
736
593
1,244
1,303
905
1,067
6.9
-0.9
2.4
4.4
3.1
2.4
1.9
1.7
2.3
-1.1
9
323
114
31
62
114
150
175
119
327
El Paso, TX..................................
Fort Bend, TX...............................
Galveston, TX...............................
Gregg, TX.....................................
Harris, TX.....................................
Hidalgo, TX...................................
Jefferson, TX................................
Lubbock, TX.................................
McLennan, TX..............................
Midland, TX..................................
14.4
11.5
5.8
4.2
110.1
11.9
5.8
7.3
5.0
5.4
287.5
167.4
100.6
78.0
2,288.8
245.2
123.6
132.7
104.6
90.4
1.7
5.0
1.8
1.1
3.0
2.8
2.9
2.2
0.2
1.7
186
12
177
243
90
103
97
150
314
186
689
1,028
891
875
1,455
607
1,077
760
797
1,326
0.0
0.1
-0.9
0.3
3.8
1.7
5.9
1.6
3.0
-0.2
298
297
323
290
39
175
15
185
67
307
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Montgomery, TX...........................
Nueces, TX..................................
Potter, TX.....................................
Smith, TX.....................................
Tarrant, TX...................................
Travis, TX.....................................
Webb, TX.....................................
Williamson, TX.............................
Davis, UT.....................................
Salt Lake, UT................................
10.3
8.2
3.9
6.0
40.4
36.3
5.1
9.3
7.7
41.0
164.5
164.5
78.4
98.4
828.0
676.0
96.8
147.9
115.1
635.8
5.8
1.9
1.2
3.6
2.1
3.8
3.1
2.9
3.9
3.4
2
165
234
52
155
40
83
97
37
64
$1,049
888
794
802
1,028
1,153
663
1,091
785
966
1.9
2.7
2.8
0.9
2.7
3.7
2.2
-3.1
0.8
2.0
150
88
81
256
88
41
127
340
266
142
Utah, UT.......................................
Weber, UT....................................
Chittenden, VT.............................
Arlington, VA................................
Chesterfield, VA...........................
Fairfax, VA....................................
Henrico, VA..................................
Loudoun, VA................................
Prince William, VA........................
Alexandria City, VA......................
14.1
5.6
6.5
8.9
8.1
35.3
10.6
10.9
8.5
6.3
202.0
97.9
99.3
165.9
125.4
574.5
181.7
146.9
121.2
94.5
6.7
3.8
1.6
1.3
1.8
0.5
2.9
0.9
1.7
1.2
1
40
199
223
177
303
97
260
186
234
786
721
942
1,732
863
1,635
1,061
1,246
862
1,395
1.9
-0.1
0.5
2.7
1.8
2.7
0.3
0.2
-0.1
1.5
150
304
282
88
162
88
290
292
304
195
Chesapeake City, VA...................
Newport News City, VA................
Norfolk City, VA...........................
Richmond City, VA.......................
Virginia Beach City, VA................
Benton, WA..................................
Clark, WA.....................................
King, WA......................................
Kitsap, WA....................................
Pierce, WA...................................
5.7
3.7
5.6
7.1
11.3
5.7
14.0
84.6
6.7
21.8
95.5
97.0
133.1
147.4
169.4
80.4
142.5
1,254.9
82.6
280.8
-0.8
-0.4
-0.4
0.6
1.7
4.4
4.8
3.5
2.3
2.4
337
332
332
290
186
19
13
58
142
135
765
1,032
979
1,206
780
970
898
1,391
907
881
0.9
4.3
1.6
4.5
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.8
2.3
2.0
256
34
185
29
175
175
162
81
119
142
Snohomish, WA............................
Spokane, WA...............................
Thurston, WA...............................
Whatcom, WA..............................
Yakima, WA.................................
Kanawha, WV...............................
Brown, WI.....................................
Dane, WI......................................
Milwaukee, WI..............................
Outagamie, WI.............................
20.2
15.6
7.9
7.1
7.9
6.0
6.5
14.2
25.3
5.0
271.7
207.4
105.1
84.4
102.9
102.5
148.0
314.4
475.8
102.8
2.4
2.7
3.2
2.6
3.6
-0.3
0.8
1.6
0.8
1.9
135
112
76
119
52
331
267
199
267
165
1,102
848
881
811
658
860
900
1,003
1,015
845
-4.8
2.9
2.0
1.6
0.9
2.0
2.5
3.5
2.2
1.9
342
76
142
185
256
142
108
48
127
150
Waukesha, WI..............................
Winnebago, WI.............................
San Juan, PR...............................
12.2
3.5
10.8
229.5
88.7
250.4
1.2
0.2
-2.1
234
314
(⁵)
1,034
954
631
4.3
2.8
1.6
34
81
(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 342 U.S. counties comprise 72.3 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2015
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15²
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15²
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..................................................................
9,531.3
9,232.7
137.8
760.9
341.4
1,921.4
150.6
843.0
1,710.4
1,512.6
802.9
823.3
298.6
137,412.4
115,901.4
1,933.8
6,016.1
12,219.9
26,120.2
2,717.9
7,723.3
19,178.9
20,903.3
14,546.2
4,237.2
21,511.0
2.1
2.5
0.2
4.9
1.4
2.3
0.7
1.7
2.9
2.0
2.7
1.6
0.4
$1,048
1,056
1,278
1,016
1,275
860
1,959
2,161
1,391
865
400
657
1,006
2.1
2.0
2.8
1.7
1.3
2.3
2.5
2.0
2.9
1.6
3.4
2.5
2.3
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..................................................................
448.7
442.8
0.5
13.2
12.3
52.8
9.4
24.4
46.8
206.1
30.7
27.4
5.9
4,204.3
3,647.3
8.9
121.6
358.9
791.1
202.4
209.1
590.4
718.8
470.7
144.2
557.1
2.1
2.1
-7.4
3.7
-1.5
2.2
-0.2
-0.4
1.9
1.4
2.9
1.1
1.8
1,120
1,097
1,717
1,080
1,258
896
2,186
2,227
1,381
805
575
671
1,278
2.6
2.7
26.3
1.8
3.5
2.3
4.3
4.0
2.8
2.7
5.7
4.4
2.5
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..................................................................
129.0
128.1
0.0
2.2
2.2
20.5
4.9
19.2
27.1
9.8
13.8
20.4
0.8
2,346.5
2,084.4
0.1
35.0
26.9
256.8
152.0
361.9
532.3
332.7
280.0
99.0
262.1
2.6
2.8
-8.7
4.9
0.9
1.1
1.7
1.6
3.7
3.0
3.2
2.0
1.6
2,847
3,049
3,085
1,795
1,615
1,352
3,177
8,932
2,667
1,215
834
1,153
1,232
-1.3
-1.5
-22.0
5.5
-10.0
1.3
-0.8
-4.0
4.1
1.2
3.1
6.5
0.9
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..................................................................
161.8
160.5
0.1
13.4
6.7
32.0
2.8
16.3
34.7
16.9
14.6
18.4
1.3
2,470.3
2,175.2
0.9
64.3
186.3
457.1
54.0
183.9
453.5
427.3
248.5
95.5
295.2
1.5
1.6
18.2
9.7
-0.1
1.8
2.5
0.1
2.8
0.4
1.1
1.2
0.7
1,280
1,292
1,104
1,356
1,231
971
2,076
3,492
1,543
891
477
938
1,192
2.2
2.3
29.6
2.0
0.3
3.5
2.6
6.7
-0.4
1.0
5.1
-3.9
1.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15²
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15²
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..................................................................
110.1
109.6
1.9
7.0
4.8
24.8
1.1
11.3
22.2
15.0
9.3
11.8
0.6
2,288.8
2,020.0
90.4
161.2
197.4
471.8
27.3
119.9
392.5
276.1
217.4
65.0
268.8
3.0
3.1
-1.1
6.9
0.5
3.5
-2.4
2.2
2.2
4.6
4.8
3.5
2.0
$1,455
1,505
4,460
1,333
1,833
1,364
1,527
2,230
1,741
966
428
795
1,078
3.8
3.9
7.1
1.4
10.7
5.2
1.3
3.1
1.8
0.9
3.9
3.9
3.1
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..................................................................
94.7
94.0
0.5
7.3
3.2
20.0
1.6
11.2
22.1
10.8
7.5
6.4
0.7
1,803.5
1,591.6
8.6
94.4
114.0
354.4
34.1
157.5
301.2
268.5
204.3
49.7
211.9
3.0
3.2
3.1
2.6
-0.8
2.8
4.0
4.1
2.7
4.2
2.9
4.9
0.9
986
995
1,179
965
1,532
905
1,405
1,479
1,092
922
451
658
917
0.9
0.7
1.1
-1.5
2.3
1.2
-4.4
-2.2
3.2
1.9
2.5
-1.5
1.9
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..................................................................
72.0
71.5
0.6
4.1
2.7
15.6
1.4
8.7
16.2
8.9
6.2
6.8
0.5
1,570.9
1,401.7
9.6
78.0
105.1
318.4
47.9
153.8
319.3
182.8
145.9
40.4
169.2
3.7
4.0
2.4
4.7
-0.2
5.1
1.6
2.7
5.5
3.5
4.8
1.9
1.4
1,303
1,328
4,845
1,099
1,687
1,094
2,383
2,155
1,448
1,032
500
787
1,094
1.7
1.6
7.2
0.1
5.4
0.6
0.4
2.1
3.4
-3.4
4.4
1.7
2.3
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..................................................................
110.2
108.8
0.2
6.4
4.8
16.5
1.2
10.7
20.1
27.9
8.0
6.8
1.4
1,501.2
1,352.3
3.3
84.7
154.7
250.7
25.4
114.4
279.1
189.8
196.1
43.2
148.9
2.5
2.5
-12.1
4.4
0.1
1.5
-0.8
2.8
1.2
2.0
3.0
2.1
2.2
1,221
1,209
961
1,190
1,423
1,043
1,921
1,953
1,726
882
460
657
1,336
9.1
10.1
11.9
2.8
3.0
7.2
6.5
5.9
27.6
2.3
5.5
3.8
1.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15²
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15²
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..................................................................
102.6
100.9
0.7
6.3
3.0
14.0
1.1
9.4
17.7
28.4
7.7
7.3
1.7
1,352.1
1,126.3
9.3
65.8
103.4
212.5
23.1
69.1
224.4
184.6
177.0
48.2
225.9
2.5
2.7
1.4
5.8
2.7
1.2
-4.5
0.8
1.7
2.6
2.9
1.3
1.0
$1,130
1,110
624
1,092
1,681
864
1,703
1,633
1,716
881
449
572
1,230
0.2
-0.2
1.1
2.5
-6.1
-6.0
-4.8
4.4
3.7
1.7
5.2
4.4
1.7
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..................................................................
84.6
84.1
0.4
6.1
2.3
14.8
2.0
6.5
16.2
20.1
6.9
8.7
0.5
1,254.9
1,091.4
2.5
61.2
106.6
235.5
85.3
65.1
208.5
162.1
122.8
41.8
163.5
3.5
3.8
9.3
14.2
0.6
5.1
2.2
1.1
5.4
0.9
3.0
2.8
1.9
1,391
1,412
1,440
1,206
1,792
1,233
3,025
2,017
1,664
932
491
817
1,248
2.8
2.8
-6.7
3.1
-6.8
5.9
7.8
5.1
2.4
3.8
4.0
2.6
1.8
Miami-Dade, FL...............................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
96.4
96.1
0.5
5.6
2.8
27.7
1.5
10.1
20.2
10.1
7.2
8.3
0.3
1,074.6
938.7
9.8
38.3
38.2
274.5
17.8
72.8
145.6
165.6
133.6
39.8
135.9
3.3
4.0
-1.4
9.9
2.1
3.7
-0.8
4.3
5.4
2.3
2.5
5.4
-0.9
982
967
512
913
907
905
1,575
1,886
1,148
934
544
576
1,084
3.4
3.4
6.4
1.7
0.7
4.1
0.0
5.1
3.0
3.3
3.6
0.9
3.2
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 2014 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,
first quarter 2015
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15
United States²..........................................
9,531.3
137,412.4
2.1
$1,048
2.1
Alabama....................................................
Alaska........................................................
Arizona......................................................
Arkansas...................................................
California...................................................
Colorado....................................................
Connecticut...............................................
Delaware...................................................
District of Columbia...................................
Florida.......................................................
118.4
22.2
150.1
88.2
1,408.9
183.9
114.9
30.4
37.0
657.1
1,873.5
322.2
2,605.6
1,166.6
16,029.5
2,458.0
1,640.5
422.8
732.6
8,018.0
1.3
1.0
2.5
1.3
3.0
3.7
0.8
2.5
1.4
3.6
844
1,051
926
790
1,207
1,071
1,382
1,105
1,764
885
2.2
2.6
1.0
0.8
3.7
2.4
1.5
-0.5
3.2
1.8
Georgia......................................................
Hawaii........................................................
Idaho.........................................................
Illinois........................................................
Indiana.......................................................
Iowa...........................................................
Kansas......................................................
Kentucky....................................................
Louisiana...................................................
Maine.........................................................
288.1
39.4
55.0
422.9
159.4
100.4
86.4
121.5
126.2
50.1
4,107.0
633.7
650.3
5,724.6
2,894.8
1,504.3
1,357.1
1,810.3
1,927.1
571.4
3.5
1.3
3.1
1.2
1.8
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.9
989
881
736
1,130
857
848
851
823
885
793
1.7
2.8
2.2
2.4
1.4
2.9
1.4
1.5
2.0
0.9
Maryland....................................................
Massachusetts..........................................
Michigan....................................................
Minnesota..................................................
Mississippi.................................................
Missouri.....................................................
Montana....................................................
Nebraska...................................................
Nevada......................................................
New Hampshire.........................................
165.9
237.3
237.2
166.9
72.0
189.9
45.3
70.8
77.8
50.1
2,540.8
3,338.6
4,079.5
2,709.2
1,102.3
2,678.0
441.0
943.1
1,227.7
623.5
1.2
1.7
1.8
1.8
0.6
1.7
2.7
1.4
3.7
1.5
1,113
1,341
969
1,079
711
882
750
818
865
982
2.5
3.2
1.9
4.3
0.7
1.8
2.6
2.5
-0.2
1.2
New Jersey...............................................
New Mexico...............................................
New York..................................................
North Carolina...........................................
North Dakota.............................................
Ohio...........................................................
Oklahoma..................................................
Oregon......................................................
Pennsylvania.............................................
Rhode Island.............................................
266.6
56.6
631.3
264.8
31.9
290.4
108.5
141.5
351.8
36.1
3,834.6
798.7
8,865.0
4,099.4
436.0
5,144.5
1,592.7
1,748.7
5,606.9
456.1
1.4
1.4
1.9
2.5
1.6
1.4
1.3
3.5
0.9
1.4
1,288
805
1,463
930
984
922
869
919
1,031
1,008
1.9
1.5
0.2
1.9
4.2
1.4
2.0
2.9
2.4
1.2
South Carolina..........................................
South Dakota............................................
Tennessee.................................................
Texas.........................................................
Utah...........................................................
Vermont.....................................................
Virginia......................................................
Washington...............................................
West Virginia.............................................
Wisconsin..................................................
122.2
32.1
150.6
632.2
91.3
24.6
246.1
237.6
49.9
165.7
1,919.1
406.5
2,772.7
11,557.0
1,318.8
303.9
3,649.3
3,064.4
692.4
2,734.3
2.5
1.5
2.1
2.9
3.7
0.9
1.1
3.2
-0.3
1.5
801
763
886
1,089
845
824
1,068
1,087
792
877
1.8
3.0
1.4
2.5
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.4
2.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2015
(thousands)
March
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2014-15
First
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
first quarter
2014-15
Wyoming...................................................
25.9
277.8
0.8
$892
1.7
Puerto Rico...............................................
Virgin Islands............................................
46.2
3.4
904.9
38.5
-1.1
0.0
524
738
1.0
-0.7
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,
March 2014-15 (U.S. average = 2.1 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, first quarter 2014-15 (U.S. average = 2.1 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics