For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Thursday, December 17, 2015
USDL-15-2392
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Second Quarter 2015
From June 2014 to June 2015, employment increased in 319 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 7.5 percent over the year, compared with national job
growth of 2.0 percent. Within Utah, the largest employment increase occurred in trade, transportation,
and utilities, which gained 3,540 jobs over the year (10.3 percent). Ector, Texas, had the largest overthe-year percentage decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 4.2
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 3.0 percent over the year, growing to $968 in the second
quarter of 2015. Ventura, Calif., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly
wages with a gain of 15.2 percent. Within Ventura, an average weekly wage gain of $934, or 53.8
percent, in manufacturing made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in average weekly
wages. Olmsted, Minn., experienced the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages with a
loss of 5.2 percent over the year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, June 2014-15
(U.S. average = 2.0 percent)
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
average weekly wages, second quarter 2014-15
(U.S. average = 3.0 percent)
Percent
Percent
8
16
6
12
4
8
2
4
0
0
Utah,
Utah
Lee,
Fla.
Williamson,
Tenn.
Hall,
Ga.
Brazoria,
Texas
Ventura,
Calif.
Santa Clara,
Calif.
Forsyth,
N.C.
Riverside,
Calif.
San
Francisco,
Calif.
Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2015 employment, June 2014-15 employment increase, and
June 2014-15 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
June 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.
Increase in employment,
June 2014-15
(thousands)
140,594.9
4,232.7
2,548.6
2,378.9
2,295.1
1,774.4
1,607.2
1,519.8
1,374.7
1,285.2
1,061.4
United States
Percent increase in employment,
June 2014-15
2,820.2
Los Angeles, Calif.
Dallas, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
New York, N.Y.
King, Wash.
Orange, Calif.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Harris, Texas
Cook, Ill.
San Diego, Calif.
82.8
64.1
54.8
54.5
46.7
39.8
39.2
38.7
38.4
36.7
United States
2.0
Utah, Utah
Lee, Fla.
Williamson, Tenn.
Hall, Ga.
Brazoria, Texas
Denton, Texas
Calcasieu, La.
Davis, Utah
Benton, Ark.
Manatee, Fla.
7.5
6.4
6.3
5.8
5.6
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
Large County Employment
In June 2015, national employment was 140.6 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the
year, employment increased 2.0 percent, or 2.8 million. In June 2015, the 342 U.S. counties with 75,000
or more jobs accounted for 72.1 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.2 percent of total wages. These
342 counties had a net job growth of 2.2 million over the year, accounting for 78.3 percent of the overall
U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)
Utah, Utah, had the largest percentage increase in employment (7.5 percent) among the largest U.S.
counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment levels were Los Angeles, Calif.;
Dallas, Texas; Maricopa, Ariz.; New York, N.Y.; and King, Wash. These counties had a combined overthe-year employment gain of 302,900 jobs, which was 10.7 percent of the overall job increase for the
U.S. (See table A.)
Employment declined in 20 of the largest counties from June 2014 to June 2015. Ector, Texas, had the
largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.2 percent). Within Ector, natural resources
and mining had the largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 2,352 jobs (-19.0 percent). Atlantic,
N.J., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by Gregg, Texas; Midland,
Texas; and Lafayette, La. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2015 average weekly wages, second quarter 2014-15
increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2014-15 percent increase in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2015
United States
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
San Francisco, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
Fairfax, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
Middlesex, Mass.
Increase in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2014-15
$968
$2,109
1,863
1,842
1,730
1,599
1,546
1,517
1,512
1,497
1,491
United States
Percent increase in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2014-15
$28
Santa Clara, Calif.
Ventura, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Middlesex, Mass.
Forsyth, N.C.
Davidson, Tenn.
Marin, Calif.
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Riverside, Calif.
$214
143
137
114
104
91
78
77
69
66
United States
Ventura, Calif.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Forsyth, N.C.
Riverside, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Davidson, Tenn.
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Middlesex, Mass.
Marin, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
3.0
15.2
11.3
10.9
8.7
8.6
8.1
7.8
7.5
6.6
6.5
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $968, a 3.0 percent increase, during the year ending in
the second quarter of 2015. Among the 342 largest counties, 323 had over-the-year increases in average
weekly wages. (See chart 4.) Ventura, Calif., had the largest percentage wage increase among the largest
U.S. counties (15.2 percent).
Of the 342 largest counties, 16 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Olmsted,
Minn., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, with a loss of 5.2 percent. Within
Olmsted, education and health services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage
decrease. Within this industry, average weekly wages declined by $150 (-10.5 percent) over the year.
Ector, Texas, had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by
Midland, Texas; Hillsborough, N.H.; and Lorain, Ohio. (See table 1.)
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June 2015.
Dallas, Texas, had the largest gain (4.2 percent). Within Dallas, trade, transportation, and utilities had
the largest over-the-year employment level increase, with a gain of 17,164 jobs, or 5.6 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 (4.9 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 $87, or 7.0 percent, over the year. Harris,
Texas, was the only county with unchanged average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties.
-3-
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. June 2015 employment and 2015
second quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the
ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.6 million employer reports cover 140.6 million full- and parttime workers. The QCEW program provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments,
employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by detailed industry. Data for the
second quarter of 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 third quarter 2015 is scheduled to be released on
Wednesday, March 9, 2016.
County Name Change Effective with the BLS Release of Data for the Third Quarter of 2015
On May 1st, 2015, Shannon, S.D., was officially renamed Oglala Lakota, S.D. This county is not part
of this release because it has fewer than 75,000 jobs. However, BLS does publish data for this
county. The name change will be implemented with the BLS release of data for the third quarter of
2015. Data prior to third quarter 2015 will still be available under Shannon, S.D.
-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
7.6 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
— 7 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 2014 edition of this
publication, which was published in September 2015, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on
job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter
2015 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from
the 2014 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online
are now available at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn14.htm. The
2015 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will
be available in September 2016.
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,
second quarter 2015
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second quarter
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
United States⁴..............................
9,575.3
140,594.9
2.0
-
$968
3.0
-
Jefferson, AL................................
Madison, AL.................................
Mobile, AL....................................
Montgomery, AL...........................
Shelby, AL....................................
Tuscaloosa, AL.............................
Anchorage Borough, AK...............
Maricopa, AZ................................
Pima, AZ.......................................
Benton, AR...................................
17.7
9.1
9.6
6.3
5.4
4.3
8.4
95.3
19.0
5.9
339.4
186.1
167.6
129.7
83.8
91.2
155.8
1,774.4
347.4
111.2
0.4
1.7
0.1
0.5
2.4
3.3
0.4
3.2
0.1
4.9
303
183
315
298
130
71
303
76
315
9
945
1,051
827
821
901
811
1,070
948
828
931
1.7
0.3
1.7
2.5
1.8
1.4
2.1
1.7
1.2
3.8
252
319
252
160
240
276
207
252
289
51
Pulaski, AR...................................
Washington, AR...........................
Alameda, CA................................
Butte, CA.....................................
Contra Costa, CA.........................
Fresno, CA...................................
Kern, CA.......................................
Los Angeles, CA...........................
Marin, CA.....................................
Monterey, CA...............................
14.5
5.8
59.0
7.9
30.6
32.0
17.5
452.5
12.2
13.0
244.7
100.6
730.8
78.5
348.2
372.9
309.0
4,232.7
113.4
198.7
0.8
3.8
3.1
2.2
1.9
2.4
-1.0
2.0
2.7
0.4
275
42
82
147
166
130
333
160
102
303
877
783
1,257
728
1,163
746
814
1,058
1,243
809
2.5
3.4
5.0
4.1
3.0
3.9
-1.0
3.6
6.6
2.7
160
79
19
37
114
45
333
69
9
143
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.............................
111.2
11.8
55.7
53.8
53.3
103.6
58.7
17.0
10.0
26.8
1,519.8
148.9
656.4
628.0
682.8
1,374.7
668.9
233.7
116.2
383.4
2.7
3.4
4.1
2.8
3.8
2.7
4.5
4.1
2.9
4.8
102
67
26
96
42
102
15
26
93
11
1,086
965
828
1,057
823
1,073
1,730
796
794
1,863
4.9
4.8
8.7
3.0
2.9
3.1
8.6
3.6
3.7
6.5
21
24
4
114
120
105
5
69
65
10
Santa Barbara, CA.......................
Santa Clara, CA...........................
Santa Cruz, CA............................
Solano, CA...................................
Sonoma, CA.................................
Stanislaus, CA..............................
Tulare, CA....................................
Ventura, CA..................................
Yolo, CA.......................................
Adams, CO...................................
14.8
67.7
9.3
10.5
19.2
14.6
9.4
25.3
6.3
9.9
197.4
1,018.7
105.6
132.2
197.4
179.7
160.4
316.8
99.2
194.2
1.5
4.0
2.0
3.3
2.3
2.2
1.3
0.8
2.6
4.5
207
32
160
71
138
147
226
275
113
15
957
2,109
860
998
893
808
667
1,085
990
930
7.8
11.3
3.2
3.4
4.3
5.2
3.7
15.2
2.7
1.6
7
2
96
79
35
17
65
1
143
264
Arapahoe, CO..............................
Boulder, CO..................................
Denver, CO..................................
Douglas, CO.................................
El Paso, CO..................................
Jefferson, CO...............................
Larimer, CO..................................
Weld, CO......................................
Fairfield, CT.................................
Hartford, CT..................................
20.6
14.2
29.3
10.9
17.9
18.8
11.1
6.6
34.4
26.8
319.5
174.0
481.5
115.0
259.2
230.6
149.8
101.4
431.1
513.5
3.3
2.7
4.6
3.7
2.8
2.5
3.4
1.1
1.6
1.0
71
102
14
47
96
120
67
243
202
256
1,090
1,137
1,180
1,108
864
981
845
862
1,497
1,162
1.7
3.3
4.8
-0.4
1.8
2.5
2.1
3.1
3.0
0.3
252
87
24
328
240
160
207
105
114
319
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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...............................
23.3
7.2
18.8
37.2
6.9
15.2
67.9
13.1
28.4
8.2
364.4
124.2
285.0
745.1
120.6
193.5
752.0
125.4
469.8
125.4
0.6
0.3
2.5
1.8
1.6
2.5
2.6
4.0
3.2
1.9
291
308
120
172
202
120
113
32
76
166
$1,007
960
1,110
1,599
831
865
907
846
911
763
2.0
-0.1
1.0
1.8
1.8
3.3
3.9
-0.6
1.8
2.8
220
326
298
240
240
87
45
331
240
132
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
20.7
8.4
10.3
8.3
96.7
6.3
39.7
6.4
632.1
85.7
231.9
141.2
111.5
95.3
1,061.4
79.4
754.6
82.5
3.7
3.9
6.4
1.1
4.9
1.7
3.5
0.8
3.8
4.4
47
36
2
243
9
183
59
275
42
17
922
665
775
798
750
679
931
798
849
685
2.4
3.1
3.3
1.4
1.8
1.8
2.1
3.1
2.5
3.2
180
105
87
276
240
240
207
105
160
96
Palm Beach, FL............................
Pasco, FL.....................................
Pinellas, FL...................................
Polk, FL........................................
Sarasota, FL................................
Seminole, FL................................
Volusia, FL...................................
Bibb, GA.......................................
Chatham, GA................................
Clayton, GA..................................
53.9
10.6
32.1
12.9
15.5
14.5
13.9
4.5
8.4
4.4
556.3
101.9
406.7
197.9
155.7
173.3
156.7
83.1
146.2
117.4
3.6
3.5
2.8
3.2
4.4
4.1
3.4
1.4
3.9
2.8
51
59
96
76
17
26
67
220
36
96
937
718
850
735
812
828
713
753
822
909
3.1
2.9
0.6
1.4
3.2
4.0
2.7
2.9
2.2
1.7
105
120
311
276
96
41
143
120
198
252
Cobb, GA......................................
DeKalb, GA.................................
Fulton, GA....................................
Gwinnett, GA................................
Hall, GA.......................................
Muscogee, GA..............................
Richmond, GA..............................
Honolulu, HI..................................
Ada, ID.........................................
Champaign, IL..............................
23.1
19.2
45.5
26.1
4.6
4.8
4.7
25.1
14.0
4.6
333.9
289.7
792.7
338.9
80.0
94.0
103.7
463.3
218.1
90.5
2.6
2.3
3.9
3.1
5.8
-0.4
2.2
1.3
2.9
0.7
113
138
36
82
4
325
147
226
93
284
1,016
991
1,247
936
789
758
805
910
828
839
2.6
2.0
2.0
2.4
3.1
1.9
1.6
3.8
1.6
2.9
154
220
220
180
105
235
264
51
264
120
Cook, IL........................................
DuPage, IL.................................
Kane, IL........................................
Lake, IL........................................
McHenry, IL..................................
McLean, IL....................................
Madison, IL...................................
Peoria, IL......................................
St. Clair, IL....................................
Sangamon, IL...............................
164.0
39.9
14.4
23.6
9.2
4.0
6.3
4.9
5.8
5.5
2,548.6
615.5
212.0
340.1
98.6
85.2
97.8
102.6
92.4
129.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.9
0.8
-0.4
1.0
0.5
-0.7
207
207
207
320
265
275
325
256
298
331
1,116
1,104
831
1,261
792
957
785
908
764
985
2.5
2.5
2.8
5.2
2.5
0.9
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.2
160
160
132
17
160
305
114
160
180
198
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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...........................
16.9
7.1
8.7
4.7
8.9
10.3
23.5
5.7
3.3
4.7
224.9
129.5
184.2
126.1
134.0
187.7
584.6
121.9
81.2
106.9
2.3
0.9
2.3
2.6
3.5
-0.5
1.9
3.1
1.8
1.1
138
265
138
113
59
328
166
82
172
243
$858
818
765
816
908
830
956
769
815
789
2.5
2.8
2.3
2.1
3.8
-0.1
2.9
1.3
2.1
4.1
160
132
194
207
51
326
120
285
207
37
Black Hawk, IA............................
Johnson, IA..................................
Linn, IA.........................................
Polk, IA........................................
Scott, IA........................................
Johnson, KS.................................
Sedgwick, KS...............................
Shawnee, KS................................
Wyandotte, KS.............................
Boone, KY...................................
3.9
4.0
6.6
16.6
5.5
22.0
12.5
5.0
3.3
4.2
74.8
81.9
131.6
293.1
92.6
338.4
248.8
97.4
90.2
82.3
-1.5
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.3
2.3
1.4
0.6
2.2
4.1
336
291
256
243
226
138
220
291
147
26
794
898
924
944
783
1,021
851
794
896
865
1.7
2.6
3.4
2.5
2.0
4.6
1.9
1.1
2.5
2.1
252
154
79
160
220
27
235
295
160
207
Fayette, KY...................................
Jefferson, KY................................
Caddo, LA....................................
Calcasieu, LA...............................
East Baton Rouge, LA..................
Jefferson, LA................................
Lafayette, LA................................
Orleans, LA..................................
St. Tammany, LA..........................
Cumberland, ME..........................
10.6
24.7
7.2
4.9
14.6
13.5
9.2
11.9
7.7
13.1
189.4
453.6
115.1
92.5
264.1
194.8
136.5
191.4
85.6
179.9
2.6
2.5
-0.1
5.0
0.9
-0.5
-2.8
3.7
3.9
1.0
113
120
322
7
265
328
337
47
36
256
866
954
787
827
909
862
913
908
808
870
3.8
3.0
1.5
0.0
1.8
2.5
-1.8
0.6
2.0
3.4
51
114
270
324
240
160
336
311
220
79
Anne Arundel, MD........................
Baltimore, MD...............................
Frederick, MD...............................
Harford, MD..................................
Howard, MD.................................
Montgomery, MD..........................
Prince George's, MD....................
Baltimore City, MD.......................
Barnstable, MA.............................
Bristol, MA....................................
14.9
21.2
6.3
5.8
9.8
32.7
15.6
13.6
9.3
16.9
263.1
374.1
100.1
91.3
167.2
466.6
311.1
335.0
105.0
224.9
1.4
1.3
2.4
0.9
1.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.3
220
226
130
265
172
256
275
275
265
226
1,021
952
911
959
1,175
1,287
1,002
1,094
805
900
2.8
1.2
1.2
1.7
3.5
3.2
0.8
2.4
2.0
5.4
132
289
289
252
75
96
307
180
220
13
Essex, MA....................................
Hampden, MA..............................
Middlesex, MA..............................
Norfolk, MA...................................
Plymouth, MA...............................
Suffolk, MA...................................
Worcester, MA..............................
Genesee, MI.................................
Ingham, MI...................................
Kalamazoo, MI.............................
23.5
17.1
52.9
24.5
15.0
27.0
23.5
6.9
6.0
5.0
326.2
206.2
883.0
349.5
191.8
640.8
339.2
134.4
146.2
116.1
1.5
1.4
2.4
1.6
1.9
3.0
1.7
0.3
0.3
1.0
207
220
130
202
166
88
183
308
308
256
1,025
883
1,491
1,132
929
1,512
960
796
882
873
1.6
3.3
7.5
4.6
2.5
3.1
2.5
4.6
-0.5
2.6
264
87
8
27
160
105
160
27
329
154
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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..............................
14.0
17.3
38.2
5.5
4.0
8.1
30.3
6.8
9.6
38.2
365.2
321.1
717.0
120.9
84.5
200.5
707.2
120.2
186.0
894.4
1.2
2.3
1.7
2.4
0.7
1.8
1.2
1.8
1.1
2.2
235
138
183
130
284
172
235
172
243
147
$857
954
1,067
805
754
1,030
1,059
924
948
1,196
3.4
1.4
1.7
2.5
1.5
4.0
2.7
2.1
2.8
3.8
79
276
252
160
270
41
143
207
132
51
Olmsted, MN................................
Ramsey, MN.................................
St. Louis, MN................................
Stearns, MN.................................
Washington, MN...........................
Harrison, MS................................
Hinds, MS.....................................
Boone, MO...................................
Clay, MO......................................
Greene, MO..................................
3.3
13.1
5.2
4.2
5.3
4.4
5.9
4.8
5.4
8.4
94.8
329.6
99.6
85.7
80.7
83.9
120.6
91.4
98.7
161.9
1.1
1.5
1.5
0.9
2.1
-0.2
2.0
1.7
4.8
1.7
243
207
207
265
155
323
160
183
11
183
1,007
1,079
781
800
809
688
831
750
875
739
-5.2
1.2
2.8
3.9
3.2
0.9
0.8
2.2
5.0
3.2
341
289
132
45
96
305
307
198
19
96
Jackson, MO................................
St. Charles, MO............................
St. Louis, MO................................
St. Louis City, MO........................
Yellowstone, MT...........................
Douglas, NE.................................
Lancaster, NE...............................
Clark, NV.....................................
Washoe, NV.................................
Hillsborough, NH..........................
20.7
8.9
35.3
12.3
6.4
18.6
10.0
53.6
14.3
12.2
360.7
141.2
595.5
226.8
81.7
333.4
166.4
908.9
202.1
198.3
1.5
3.5
1.2
2.3
2.5
1.7
1.7
3.6
3.4
1.9
207
59
235
138
120
183
183
51
67
166
975
788
1,015
1,016
839
889
777
845
857
1,030
5.3
1.0
2.0
2.7
4.4
4.5
2.8
2.4
3.5
-2.6
15
298
220
143
32
31
132
180
75
338
Rockingham, NH..........................
Atlantic, NJ...................................
Bergen, NJ...................................
Burlington, NJ...............................
Camden, NJ.................................
Essex, NJ....................................
Gloucester, NJ..............................
Hudson, NJ...................................
Mercer, NJ....................................
Middlesex, NJ..............................
10.8
6.5
32.9
11.0
11.9
20.3
6.2
14.3
11.1
22.1
148.0
133.5
452.4
201.5
199.4
337.6
104.3
244.7
241.1
405.9
1.8
-3.7
1.1
0.7
1.1
0.2
3.1
3.6
3.7
1.3
172
340
243
284
243
313
82
51
47
226
956
814
1,158
1,014
940
1,148
837
1,318
1,200
1,141
1.5
2.4
1.4
2.7
1.8
2.1
0.8
4.8
1.1
2.7
270
180
276
143
240
207
307
24
295
143
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
10.0
14.3
17.7
10.4
18.6
4.6
264.2
290.1
169.2
167.5
187.7
218.9
317.4
231.1
299.9
87.7
2.5
1.5
1.3
0.0
1.1
(⁵)
1.2
1.1
2.1
-1.2
120
207
226
320
243
235
243
155
335
954
1,392
783
980
1,432
1,282
828
1,013
928
774
1.5
2.7
2.4
4.4
2.9
(⁵)
1.6
2.9
2.3
2.4
270
143
180
32
120
264
120
194
180
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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..................................
8.5
24.7
60.0
18.8
53.9
129.7
5.4
13.1
10.3
51.3
111.7
468.0
663.0
384.5
626.7
2,378.9
105.3
244.2
141.5
636.5
1.1
0.8
4.4
0.9
1.2
2.3
0.7
0.1
1.2
3.8
243
275
17
265
235
138
284
315
235
42
$977
843
813
913
1,094
1,842
776
884
850
905
1.0
2.2
2.9
2.0
2.3
3.3
2.1
2.2
2.9
1.0
298
198
120
220
194
87
207
198
120
298
Richmond, NY..............................
Rockland, NY...............................
Saratoga, NY................................
Suffolk, NY...................................
Westchester, NY..........................
Buncombe, NC.............................
Catawba, NC................................
Cumberland, NC...........................
Durham, NC.................................
Forsyth, NC..................................
9.7
10.5
5.9
52.5
36.7
8.5
4.3
6.2
7.8
9.3
113.4
120.6
86.0
665.3
429.6
123.9
82.9
118.0
191.4
179.8
1.8
2.2
3.0
1.1
2.1
3.6
2.2
-0.3
2.4
0.9
172
147
88
243
155
51
147
324
130
265
853
979
918
1,025
1,274
724
739
760
1,202
928
3.0
0.2
5.4
1.4
4.1
2.7
2.5
2.0
1.3
10.9
114
323
13
276
37
143
160
220
285
3
Guilford, NC..................................
Mecklenburg, NC..........................
New Hanover, NC........................
Wake, NC.....................................
Cass, ND......................................
Butler, OH.....................................
Cuyahoga, OH..............................
Delaware, OH...............................
Franklin, OH.................................
Hamilton, OH................................
14.2
35.1
7.6
31.6
6.9
7.5
35.4
4.8
30.4
23.3
275.2
637.3
106.6
515.1
117.3
144.5
721.6
85.9
723.1
510.8
3.1
4.7
3.9
3.5
2.1
1.7
0.7
1.1
2.8
1.7
82
13
36
59
155
183
284
243
96
183
834
1,082
774
984
865
855
971
943
977
1,019
3.1
3.8
3.2
4.9
4.0
3.4
1.9
3.3
3.2
2.4
105
51
96
21
41
79
235
87
96
180
Lake, OH......................................
Lorain, OH....................................
Lucas, OH....................................
Mahoning, OH..............................
Montgomery, OH..........................
Stark, OH.....................................
Summit, OH.................................
Warren, OH.................................
Cleveland, OK..............................
Oklahoma, OK..............................
6.3
6.1
10.0
5.8
11.9
8.6
14.1
4.6
5.4
27.0
96.8
99.0
209.4
97.9
250.1
159.9
265.6
90.7
80.8
450.8
0.6
0.6
1.7
-0.7
1.7
0.4
0.7
3.0
2.7
1.3
291
291
183
331
183
303
284
88
102
226
805
755
832
679
836
720
848
856
724
900
3.6
-2.1
1.2
2.4
2.7
1.3
2.8
5.3
1.1
1.4
69
337
289
180
143
285
132
15
295
276
Tulsa, OK.....................................
Clackamas, OR............................
Jackson, OR................................
Lane, OR......................................
Marion, OR...................................
Multnomah, OR............................
Washington, OR...........................
Allegheny, PA...............................
Berks, PA.....................................
Bucks, PA.....................................
21.8
13.9
7.0
11.6
10.0
32.2
18.1
35.6
8.9
19.9
349.5
152.9
82.7
147.6
147.8
480.7
276.0
696.1
170.6
261.5
1.8
3.0
3.1
2.7
3.0
3.2
3.5
0.2
1.3
1.2
172
88
82
102
88
76
59
313
226
235
892
922
723
771
789
983
1,204
1,031
892
925
0.3
3.8
2.7
3.8
3.5
1.9
3.8
2.8
2.4
2.4
319
51
143
51
75
235
51
132
180
180
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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
15.4
6.3
7.4
14.0
7.2
5.8
13.2
8.6
7.6
86.5
246.4
131.4
180.8
219.6
126.6
97.7
231.9
185.7
142.9
0.5
0.6
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
1.7
0.9
0.4
298
291
160
256
298
315
315
183
265
303
$900
1,295
908
950
1,028
755
729
805
950
759
3.8
4.9
-1.0
3.7
3.8
3.3
2.1
3.6
0.6
2.2
51
21
333
65
51
87
207
69
311
198
Montgomery, PA...........................
Northampton, PA..........................
Philadelphia, PA...........................
Washington, PA............................
Westmoreland, PA.......................
York, PA.......................................
Providence, RI..............................
Charleston, SC.............................
Greenville, SC..............................
Horry, SC.....................................
27.5
6.7
35.1
5.5
9.3
9.1
17.5
13.4
13.5
8.4
483.6
109.1
652.7
88.5
135.4
175.5
284.3
237.1
257.8
126.5
1.5
1.9
2.1
-0.4
0.5
0.7
1.7
2.7
3.2
1.8
207
166
155
325
298
284
183
102
76
172
1,183
832
1,137
957
779
827
959
837
835
568
1.5
2.0
2.9
2.6
1.7
2.2
3.3
1.9
2.0
3.5
270
220
120
154
252
198
87
235
220
75
Lexington, SC...............................
Richland, SC................................
Spartanburg, SC...........................
York, SC.......................................
Minnehaha, SD.............................
Davidson, TN................................
Hamilton, TN................................
Knox, TN......................................
Rutherford, TN..............................
Shelby, TN....................................
6.3
9.3
5.9
5.0
6.9
20.4
9.1
11.5
5.0
19.8
111.9
211.8
127.0
85.9
125.2
457.0
192.5
230.1
115.8
485.0
3.5
1.8
2.4
4.2
2.0
4.4
2.6
2.5
3.6
1.7
59
172
130
22
160
17
113
120
51
183
737
835
849
756
825
1,038
870
828
879
956
2.5
1.2
1.7
-0.5
3.8
8.1
2.8
0.6
4.6
0.6
160
289
252
329
51
6
132
311
27
311
Williamson, TN.............................
Bell, TX.........................................
Bexar, TX.....................................
Brazoria, TX.................................
Brazos, TX....................................
Cameron, TX................................
Collin, TX......................................
Dallas, TX.....................................
Denton, TX..................................
Ector, TX.....................................
7.6
5.0
37.8
5.3
4.2
6.4
22.0
72.4
13.2
3.9
115.5
114.9
817.9
104.9
94.9
137.0
365.9
1,607.2
219.9
73.2
6.3
2.2
2.7
5.6
3.6
1.0
4.3
4.2
5.1
-4.2
3
147
102
5
51
256
21
22
6
341
1,079
782
854
996
731
586
1,145
1,154
867
1,026
2.1
1.4
2.4
4.1
1.0
0.5
3.8
2.8
3.8
-5.1
207
276
180
37
298
317
51
132
51
340
El Paso, TX..................................
Fort Bend, TX...............................
Galveston, TX...............................
Gregg, TX.....................................
Harris, TX.....................................
Hidalgo, TX...................................
Jefferson, TX................................
Lubbock, TX.................................
McLennan, TX..............................
Midland, TX..................................
14.5
11.7
5.8
4.2
110.5
11.9
5.8
7.3
5.0
5.4
291.3
170.8
104.3
76.3
2,295.1
244.8
124.8
133.4
107.2
89.3
2.5
4.2
3.6
-3.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
-3.2
120
22
51
339
183
183
183
183
202
338
674
945
865
844
1,232
614
1,001
750
791
1,233
0.3
0.6
4.0
-1.5
0.0
1.0
3.1
3.6
3.4
-3.2
319
311
41
335
324
298
105
69
79
339
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15³
Ranking by
percent
change
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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................................
10.4
8.2
3.9
6.0
40.7
36.6
5.1
9.4
7.9
41.8
164.0
164.1
79.3
100.5
845.3
690.9
97.4
152.2
120.3
645.2
3.9
1.6
0.8
4.0
2.4
4.2
2.7
4.1
5.0
3.3
36
202
275
32
130
22
102
26
7
71
$982
845
772
805
963
1,090
651
924
770
920
2.6
1.4
4.3
1.8
1.7
2.9
0.8
5.8
3.6
3.7
154
276
35
240
252
120
307
11
69
65
Utah, UT.......................................
Weber, UT....................................
Chittenden, VT.............................
Arlington, VA................................
Chesterfield, VA...........................
Fairfax, VA....................................
Henrico, VA..................................
Loudoun, VA................................
Prince William, VA........................
Alexandria City, VA......................
14.4
5.7
6.5
8.9
8.2
35.4
10.6
10.9
8.6
6.3
209.1
98.9
102.2
170.7
130.5
593.9
186.0
155.9
124.4
97.1
7.5
3.3
1.5
2.3
2.9
1.4
2.5
2.7
1.8
1.4
1
71
207
138
93
220
120
102
172
220
778
737
950
1,546
833
1,517
921
1,108
837
1,324
2.9
2.5
2.0
1.6
1.8
3.9
2.2
1.7
2.1
0.5
120
160
220
264
240
45
198
252
207
317
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...................................
5.8
3.7
5.6
7.2
11.4
5.6
13.9
84.2
6.6
21.5
97.9
98.0
139.7
149.9
178.3
89.0
145.8
1,285.2
85.6
287.9
0.6
-0.5
0.3
2.0
1.2
3.5
4.1
3.8
2.6
3.2
291
328
308
160
235
59
26
42
113
76
780
921
948
1,039
744
977
879
1,288
860
880
3.9
-0.6
1.5
2.5
2.2
3.2
2.1
3.9
2.0
2.0
45
331
270
160
198
96
207
45
220
220
Snohomish, WA............................
Spokane, WA...............................
Thurston, WA...............................
Whatcom, WA..............................
Yakima, WA.................................
Kanawha, WV...............................
Brown, WI.....................................
Dane, WI......................................
Milwaukee, WI..............................
Outagamie, WI.............................
20.1
15.4
7.9
7.1
7.8
5.9
6.6
14.6
25.7
5.1
277.6
212.2
106.8
87.7
121.6
103.8
154.4
323.8
485.0
107.0
2.7
2.5
4.0
2.8
3.6
-1.0
1.0
1.5
0.9
0.8
102
120
32
96
51
333
256
207
265
275
1,036
810
878
804
660
848
856
982
921
798
2.0
1.8
3.3
4.4
2.5
2.4
5.5
3.4
1.3
2.3
220
240
87
32
160
180
12
79
285
194
Waukesha, WI..............................
Winnebago, WI.............................
San Juan, PR...............................
12.5
3.6
10.7
239.3
90.8
245.8
1.5
0.3
-2.6
207
308
(⁶)
948
883
614
2.6
1.0
2.5
154
298
(⁶)
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 Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.
⁶ 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 72.1 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2015
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15²
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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..................................................................
9,575.3
9,276.4
138.0
767.1
342.2
1,925.3
152.6
847.1
1,727.1
1,522.6
809.6
827.9
298.8
140,594.9
119,288.6
2,120.1
6,569.2
12,372.6
26,688.8
2,761.1
7,862.3
19,644.7
20,963.7
15,658.4
4,369.9
21,306.3
2.0
2.3
-3.3
4.6
1.0
2.3
1.0
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.6
1.5
0.5
$968
959
1,053
1,045
1,181
821
1,671
1,461
1,257
879
403
658
1,017
3.0
3.1
-1.9
3.3
2.4
2.9
3.9
4.8
4.2
2.3
3.9
3.3
2.2
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..................................................................
452.5
446.6
0.5
13.5
12.4
53.4
9.7
24.7
47.6
208.1
31.4
27.8
5.9
4,232.7
3,670.0
9.0
125.7
358.9
795.8
199.6
211.5
588.2
721.4
486.9
145.6
562.7
2.0
2.0
-2.3
5.2
-1.4
1.5
1.8
0.5
0.9
2.4
2.4
0.2
2.0
1,058
1,025
1,259
1,110
1,133
888
1,871
1,665
1,312
818
591
673
1,277
3.6
3.6
0.6
5.2
1.9
3.9
2.2
4.3
5.5
2.9
7.1
5.3
3.5
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..................................................................
129.7
128.9
0.0
2.2
2.2
20.4
4.9
19.2
27.4
9.8
13.9
20.5
0.8
2,378.9
2,119.6
0.2
37.1
27.1
260.8
152.7
370.2
547.3
325.7
289.8
101.3
259.3
2.3
2.5
-5.6
6.2
0.5
0.7
1.4
1.4
4.0
2.1
2.5
1.8
0.9
1,842
1,920
2,162
1,724
1,307
1,328
2,406
3,599
2,164
1,213
815
1,091
1,211
3.3
3.3
-6.5
2.2
-0.5
2.0
-1.4
5.4
4.1
2.8
2.9
1.6
1.7
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..................................................................
164.0
162.6
0.1
13.6
6.8
32.4
2.8
16.4
35.1
17.0
14.8
18.6
1.3
2,548.6
2,247.6
1.0
74.2
187.8
469.6
54.5
187.2
464.6
432.2
274.6
96.9
301.0
1.5
1.6
12.2
6.3
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.4
1.5
1.5
2.5
-1.0
0.7
1,116
1,099
1,182
1,363
1,133
892
1,699
1,974
1,397
926
502
848
1,242
2.5
2.4
7.6
4.4
1.0
1.2
2.6
5.3
1.1
2.8
5.9
4.0
3.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15²
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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..................................................................
110.5
110.0
1.8
7.0
4.8
24.8
1.2
11.4
22.4
15.1
9.4
11.7
0.6
2,295.1
2,029.8
86.9
163.5
191.1
475.3
27.9
120.4
396.3
277.4
224.5
65.6
265.3
1.7
1.7
-6.9
5.3
-3.9
2.6
-0.5
1.4
0.8
4.5
4.3
2.3
1.8
$1,232
1,255
3,187
1,268
1,512
1,121
1,453
1,536
1,514
958
429
753
1,057
0.0
-0.4
-1.8
0.1
0.1
1.7
3.8
2.1
-0.7
2.9
2.4
1.5
2.9
Maricopa, AZ....................................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
95.3
94.5
0.5
7.2
3.2
19.9
1.6
11.1
21.9
10.8
7.6
6.3
0.7
1,774.4
1,595.0
8.5
96.1
115.5
356.3
35.3
158.8
304.5
266.6
198.0
49.7
179.5
3.2
3.5
1.9
2.0
-0.1
3.1
4.2
4.4
2.8
4.2
3.7
4.5
0.5
948
932
868
970
1,381
853
1,220
1,218
1,024
950
432
671
1,075
1.7
1.6
6.2
2.8
1.7
2.2
-2.6
5.7
2.0
-0.1
-1.1
3.1
2.0
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..................................................................
72.4
71.8
0.6
4.2
2.7
15.6
1.4
8.8
16.2
8.9
6.2
6.8
0.5
1,607.2
1,438.3
9.5
81.6
106.1
326.4
48.1
155.8
326.1
186.4
155.6
42.1
168.8
4.2
4.4
0.9
6.2
-0.3
5.6
-0.2
2.1
4.9
5.0
6.7
1.8
2.5
1,154
1,162
4,023
1,097
1,269
1,039
1,739
1,606
1,362
997
467
748
1,085
2.8
2.7
3.2
2.3
-3.7
3.2
3.1
5.2
5.0
1.6
3.8
1.1
3.4
Orange, CA......................................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
111.2
109.9
0.2
6.5
4.9
16.7
1.3
10.8
20.4
28.4
8.1
7.0
1.4
1,519.8
1,369.2
3.2
88.4
155.2
253.6
25.1
115.6
280.1
190.4
203.4
44.6
150.6
2.7
2.8
-8.2
7.0
0.4
0.9
-0.1
2.1
1.5
3.6
3.4
2.3
2.1
1,086
1,075
800
1,185
1,328
971
1,665
1,659
1,337
910
454
665
1,178
4.9
5.1
4.3
2.8
6.8
3.4
2.9
9.4
7.0
2.1
3.9
3.4
3.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15²
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second 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..................................................................
103.6
101.8
0.7
6.5
3.1
14.1
1.2
9.5
18.0
28.6
7.8
7.4
1.8
1,374.7
1,147.1
9.5
68.9
104.2
214.3
23.6
70.4
227.3
184.6
186.4
49.9
227.6
2.7
3.0
-3.0
8.5
2.8
0.9
-4.1
1.9
2.5
3.0
2.7
2.0
1.5
$1,073
1,057
672
1,103
1,601
823
1,608
1,351
1,603
900
462
582
1,158
3.1
3.4
-3.6
4.2
12.0
4.0
0.0
9.6
-0.9
0.9
6.9
4.7
2.2
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..................................................................
84.2
83.7
0.4
6.2
2.4
14.6
2.0
6.4
16.3
19.7
6.9
8.8
0.5
1,285.2
1,119.3
2.9
63.7
106.4
240.6
89.0
66.2
212.5
163.3
132.0
42.8
165.9
3.8
3.9
17.6
12.4
0.1
4.2
3.2
1.6
6.0
1.8
3.8
3.4
2.7
1,288
1,296
1,325
1,230
1,544
1,182
2,596
1,553
1,533
955
516
818
1,235
3.9
4.1
2.9
2.9
2.0
6.3
5.6
7.0
2.8
2.8
3.2
2.5
2.5
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..................................................................
96.7
96.3
0.5
5.7
2.8
27.7
1.5
10.1
20.3
10.1
7.3
8.4
0.3
1,061.4
939.7
7.4
39.0
38.9
275.5
17.7
73.3
146.4
165.5
132.9
40.5
121.7
3.5
4.0
0.7
9.3
3.2
3.1
-2.8
3.9
5.9
2.4
3.3
6.7
0.2
931
896
556
899
879
832
1,493
1,454
1,068
920
551
587
1,179
2.1
2.4
0.4
3.8
3.7
0.1
1.4
4.7
1.9
2.9
7.6
1.0
0.9
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,
second quarter 2015
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second quarter
2014-15
United States²..........................................
9,575.3
140,594.9
2.0
$968
3.0
Alabama....................................................
Alaska........................................................
Arizona......................................................
Arkansas...................................................
California...................................................
Colorado....................................................
Connecticut...............................................
Delaware...................................................
District of Columbia...................................
Florida.......................................................
118.5
22.3
151.1
88.6
1,420.0
185.4
115.4
30.5
37.2
658.3
1,899.3
346.6
2,549.9
1,184.6
16,338.9
2,517.1
1,693.1
439.1
745.1
7,907.7
1.3
0.4
2.5
1.7
2.8
3.2
0.9
2.2
1.8
3.6
819
1,028
904
762
1,131
989
1,177
991
1,599
861
1.6
2.4
1.8
2.1
5.5
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.8
2.6
Georgia......................................................
Hawaii........................................................
Idaho.........................................................
Illinois........................................................
Indiana.......................................................
Iowa...........................................................
Kansas......................................................
Kentucky....................................................
Louisiana...................................................
Maine.........................................................
289.2
39.5
55.4
428.3
159.7
100.6
86.8
121.7
126.5
50.6
4,167.8
635.9
678.5
5,925.5
2,966.0
1,561.2
1,382.1
1,850.5
1,930.6
615.8
3.4
1.6
2.9
1.5
1.7
0.9
0.7
1.7
0.5
0.8
903
876
713
1,015
811
802
819
822
850
768
2.4
3.8
2.3
2.6
3.4
2.8
2.8
3.0
0.8
2.9
Maryland....................................................
Massachusetts..........................................
Michigan....................................................
Minnesota..................................................
Mississippi.................................................
Missouri.....................................................
Montana....................................................
Nebraska...................................................
Nevada......................................................
New Hampshire.........................................
167.3
239.5
237.7
164.1
71.9
191.1
45.4
71.5
78.4
50.7
2,631.3
3,488.3
4,225.0
2,826.3
1,114.7
2,746.6
461.5
968.7
1,248.1
647.7
1.4
2.1
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.7
1.8
1.2
3.2
1.5
1,046
1,211
916
977
709
842
754
787
855
967
2.6
4.7
2.1
3.2
0.6
2.8
2.7
4.1
2.6
1.3
New Jersey...............................................
New Mexico...............................................
New York..................................................
North Carolina...........................................
North Dakota.............................................
Ohio...........................................................
Oklahoma..................................................
Oregon......................................................
Pennsylvania.............................................
Rhode Island.............................................
266.9
56.1
636.6
266.0
32.1
290.2
108.8
143.1
354.1
36.4
4,000.2
808.4
9,136.9
4,185.6
445.0
5,308.1
1,591.5
1,810.4
5,763.9
480.0
1.5
0.8
1.9
2.6
-1.8
1.4
0.6
3.4
0.8
1.5
1,126
805
1,180
850
939
865
818
899
958
925
2.6
1.4
3.1
3.9
0.3
2.4
0.5
3.0
2.7
2.9
South Carolina..........................................
South Dakota............................................
Tennessee.................................................
Texas.........................................................
Utah...........................................................
Vermont.....................................................
Virginia......................................................
Washington...............................................
West Virginia.............................................
Wisconsin..................................................
121.2
32.4
149.7
635.0
92.9
24.7
247.6
235.5
50.1
166.7
1,963.5
428.6
2,832.1
11,689.4
1,345.9
309.3
3,767.2
3,197.6
706.5
2,839.8
2.5
1.3
2.8
2.4
3.9
0.6
1.7
3.3
-0.8
1.0
782
740
863
988
821
831
1,000
1,026
803
836
2.1
3.9
3.1
1.5
3.1
2.2
2.5
3.1
1.4
2.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2015 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2015
(thousands)
June
2015
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2014-15
Second
quarter
2015
Percent
change,
second quarter
2014-15
Wyoming...................................................
26.1
291.5
-1.5
$869
-0.1
Puerto Rico...............................................
Virgin Islands............................................
46.1
3.4
884.6
37.9
-1.4
0.1
513
748
2.0
2.2
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,
June 2014-15 (U.S. average = 2.0 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, second quarter 2014-15 (U.S. average = 3.0 percent)
Largest Counties
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics