For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, June 7, 2017
USDL-17-0769
Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/cew
Media Contact:
(202) 691-5902 • [email protected]
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
Fourth Quarter 2016
From December 2015 to December 2016, employment increased in 280 of the 344 largest U.S.
counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Williamson, Tenn., had the largest
percentage increase with a gain of 5.1 percent over the year, above the national job growth rate of 1.2
percent. Within Williamson, the largest employment increase occurred in professional and business
services, which gained 1,995 jobs over the year (6.0 percent). Lafayette, La., had the largest over-theyear percentage decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., with a loss of 5.1
percent. Within Lafayette, natural resources and mining had the largest decrease in employment, with a
loss of 2,397 jobs (-19.8 percent).
The U.S. average weekly wage decreased 1.5 percent over the year, declining to $1,067 in the fourth
quarter of 2016. This is one of only eight declines in the history of the series, which dates back to 1978.
The 1.5 percent decline in average weekly wages was the largest decline since fourth quarter 2011, when
average weekly wages decreased by 1.7 percent. The most recent decline occurred in first quarter 2016,
when the U.S. average weekly wage decreased 0.6 percent over the year. McLean, Ill., had the largest
over-the-year percentage decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 9.2 percent. Within McLean,
an average weekly wage loss of $178 (-10.9 percent) in financial activities made the largest contribution
to the county’s decrease in average weekly wages. Clayton, Ga., experienced the largest percentage
increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 11.3 percent over the year. Within Clayton, trade,
transportation, and utilities had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth with an
increase of $265 (25.3 percent) over the year.
Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in
employment, December 2015-16
(U.S. average = 1.2 percent)
Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decrease in
average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2015-16
(U.S. average = -1.5 percent)
Percent
Percent
6
-4
5
-6
4
-8
3
-10
Williamson,
Tenn.
York,
S.C.
Williamson,
Texas
Utah,
Utah
Northampton,
Pa.
McLean,
Ill.
Clay,
Mo.
Lafayette,
La.
Douglas,
Colo.
Passaic,
N.J.
County employment and wage data are from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW)
program, which provides the only detailed quarterly and annual universe count of establishments,
employment, and wages at the county, metropolitan statistical area, state, and national levels by detailed
industry. These data are published within 6 months following the end of each quarter.
Large County Employment
In December 2016, national employment was 143.7 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over
the year, employment increased 1.2 percent, or 1.8 million. In December 2016, the 344 U.S. counties
with 75,000 or more jobs accounted for 72.8 percent of total U.S. employment and 78.1 percent of total
wages. These 344 counties had a net job growth of 1.4 million over the year, accounting for 80.7 percent
of the overall U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.) The 5 counties with the largest increases in
employment levels had a combined over-the-year employment gain of 215,600 jobs, which was 12.2
percent of the overall job increase for the U.S. (See table A.)
Employment declined in 58 of the largest counties from December 2015 to December 2016. Lafayette,
La., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-5.1 percent), followed by Gregg,
Texas; Midland, Texas; Erie, Pa.; and Kanawha, W.Va. (See table 1.)
Table A. Large counties ranked by December 2016 employment, December 2015-16 employment increase, and
December 2015-16 percent increase in employment
Employment in large counties
December 2016 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.
143,749.9
4,415.7
2,590.2
2,471.6
2,272.0
1,926.9
1,688.4
1,588.8
1,427.5
1,340.4
1,132.9
Increase in employment,
December 2015-16
(thousands)
United States
Percent increase in employment,
December 2015-16
1,773.6
Los Angeles, Calif.
Dallas, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
King, Wash.
Orange, Calif.
Fulton, Ga.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Clark, Nev.
San Diego, Calif.
Orange, Fla.
50.2
45.7
45.2
42.7
31.8
30.4
25.7
23.7
21.8
21.5
United States
1.2
Williamson, Tenn.
York, S.C.
Williamson, Texas
Utah, Utah
Northampton, Pa.
Brevard, Fla.
Seminole, Fla.
Galveston, Texas
Thurston, Wash.
Benton, Wash.
5.1
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.8
Large County Average Weekly Wages
Average weekly wages for the nation declined to $1,067, a 1.5 percent decrease, during the year ending
in the fourth quarter of 2016. Among the 344 largest counties, 290 had over-the-year decreases in
average weekly wages. (See chart 4.) McLean, Ill., had the largest percentage wage decrease among the
largest U.S. counties (-9.2 percent). (See table B.)
Of the 344 largest counties, 48 experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Clayton,
Ga., had the largest percentage increase in average weekly wages (11.3 percent), followed by
Washington, Pa.; Marin, Calif.; Elkhart, Ind.; San Francisco, Calif.; and Champaign, Ill. (See table 1.)
-2-
Table B. Large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2016 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2015-16
decrease in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2015-16 percent decrease in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2016
Decrease in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2015-16
Percent decrease in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2015-16
United States
$1,067
United States
-$16
United States
-1.5
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
San Mateo, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
Fairfax, Va.
Somerset, N.J.
$2,365
2,212
2,098
2,068
1,888
1,763
1,677
1,676
1,610
1,563
McLean, Ill.
Douglas, Colo.
Clay, Mo.
Morris, N.J.
Lafayette, La.
Washington, Ore.
Passaic, N.J.
Fairfield, Conn.
Lake, Ill.
Harris, Texas
-$93
-88
-83
-80
-79
-75
-67
-66
-65
-65
McLean, Ill.
Clay, Mo.
Lafayette, La.
Douglas, Colo.
Passaic, N.J.
Washington, Ore.
Tarrant, Texas
Sedgwick, Kan.
Harford, Md.
Fort Bend, Texas
-9.2
-8.3
-8.0
-6.8
-6.0
-5.8
-5.7
-5.5
-5.4
-5.2
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Among the 10 largest counties, 9 had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in December
2016. King, Wash., had the largest gain (3.3 percent). Within King, trade, transportation, and utilities
had the largest over-the-year employment level increase, with a gain of 11,720 jobs, or 4.7 percent.
Harris, Texas, had the only percentage decrease in employment among the 10 largest counties (-1.3
percent). Within Harris, manufacturing had the largest over-the-year employment level decrease, with a
loss of 14,974 jobs, or -8.3 percent. (See table 2.)
Average weekly wages decreased over the year in 9 of the 10 largest U.S. counties. Harris, Texas,
experienced the largest percentage loss in average weekly wages (-4.7 percent). Within Harris,
professional and business services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage decline.
Within professional and business services, average weekly wages decreased by $92, or -5.2 percent,
over the year. King, Wash., had the only percentage gain in average weekly wages among the 10 largest
counties (3.5 percent). Within King, trade, transportation, and utilities had the largest impact on the
county’s average weekly wage growth with an increase of $249 (20.2 percent) over the year.
-3-
For More Information
The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 344 U.S. counties
with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2015. December 2016 employment and
2016 fourth quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.
The data are derived from reports submitted by employers who are subject to unemployment insurance
(UI) laws. The 9.9 million employer reports cover 143.7 million full- and part-time workers. Data for the
fourth quarter of 2016 will be available later at www.bls.gov/cew. Additional information about the
quarterly employment and wages data is available in the Technical Note. More information about
QCEW data may be obtained by calling (202) 691-6567.
The most current news release on quarterly measures of gross job flows is available from QCEW
Business Employment Dynamics at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf.
Several BLS regional offices issue QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. Links to these
releases are available at www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.
The County Employment and Wages release for first quarter 2017 is scheduled to be released on
Wednesday, September 6, 2017.
Upcoming Industry Changes to QCEW Data
Beginning with the release of first quarter 2017 data, the program will switch to the 2017 version of
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as the basis for the assignment and
tabulation of economic data by industry. For more information on the change, please see the Federal
Register notice at www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/federal_register_notices/notices/fr08au16.pdf.
-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 (NAICS). Data for 2016 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 345 counties
presented in this release were derived using 2015 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2016 data, four counties have
been added to the publication tables: Merced, Calif.; Napa, Calif.;
Bay, Fla.; and Merrimack, N.H. These counties will be included in
all 2016 quarterly releases. Two counties, Black Hawk, Iowa, and
Ector, Texas, which were published in the 2015 releases, will be
excluded from this and future 2016 releases because their 2015 annual average employment levels were less than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each year based on the annual
average employment from the preceding year.
Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures
QCEW
BED
CES
Source
· Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 9.7 million establishments in first quarter of 2016
· Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by
7.7 million private-sector employers
· Sample survey: 634,000 establishments
Coverage
· UI and UCFE coverage, including
all employers subject to state and
federal UI laws
· UI coverage, excluding government,
private households, and establishments with zero employment
Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:
· UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private
households, and self-employed workers
· Other employment, including railroads,
religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs
· Quarterly
— 7 months after the end of each
quarter
· Monthly
— Usually first Friday of following
month
Publication fre- · Quarterly
quency
— Within 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 indusmetropolitan statistical area (MSA),
at the national level by NAICS supertry
state, and national levels by detailed
sectors and by size of firm, and at the
industry
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 9.5 million employer
reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in
2015. 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 2015, UI and
UCFE programs covered workers in 139.5 million jobs. The estimated
134.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.5 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $7.385 trillion in pay, representing
94.0 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income
and 40.9 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 2015 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 2015 edition of this
publication, which was published in September 2016, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on
job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter
2016 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from
the 2015 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online
are now available at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn15.htm. The 2016
edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be
available in September 2017.
News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are
available from BED at www.bls.gov/bdm, (202) 691-6467, or
[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: (800) 877-8339.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
United States⁴..............................
9,869.9
143,749.9
1.2
-
$1,067
-1.5
-
Jefferson, AL................................
Madison, AL.................................
Mobile, AL....................................
Montgomery, AL...........................
Shelby, AL....................................
Tuscaloosa, AL.............................
Anchorage, AK.............................
Maricopa, AZ................................
Pima, AZ.......................................
Benton, AR...................................
18.5
9.5
10.0
6.4
5.8
4.5
8.4
96.5
18.8
6.2
343.9
195.2
169.7
132.6
84.4
92.5
149.2
1,926.9
367.2
117.5
0.5
1.8
-0.4
1.2
-0.4
-0.3
-2.1
2.4
1.3
3.1
242
114
308
172
308
302
338
76
164
32
1,043
1,098
938
942
998
873
1,082
994
860
1,017
-0.7
-4.0
-0.5
-0.6
-2.2
-1.0
-4.9
-2.3
-3.4
-2.5
95
311
76
84
223
120
327
233
288
242
Pulaski, AR...................................
Washington, AR...........................
Alameda, CA................................
Butte, CA.....................................
Contra Costa, CA.........................
Fresno, CA...................................
Kern, CA.......................................
Los Angeles, CA...........................
Marin, CA.....................................
Merced, CA.................................
14.5
5.9
61.4
8.2
31.7
33.6
18.1
472.0
12.5
6.4
250.7
104.7
760.6
81.3
364.3
371.4
310.3
4,415.7
115.3
75.9
0.6
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.8
0.8
1.1
1.2
3.2
230
114
105
114
105
114
211
184
172
28
949
950
1,377
790
1,289
857
868
1,256
1,378
807
-2.6
-0.2
-1.9
-1.3
0.2
1.2
-2.0
-0.6
4.3
1.3
252
60
191
144
39
16
198
84
3
15
Monterey, CA...............................
Napa, CA.....................................
Orange, CA..................................
Placer, CA....................................
Riverside, CA...............................
Sacramento, CA...........................
San Bernardino, CA.....................
San Diego, CA..............................
San Francisco, CA.......................
San Joaquin, CA..........................
13.4
5.8
116.3
12.5
60.1
55.8
56.1
107.8
59.9
17.4
170.2
73.2
1,588.8
157.4
707.1
643.7
725.7
1,427.5
715.5
242.6
2.4
0.4
2.0
2.9
3.1
2.0
-0.1
1.6
2.7
3.4
76
250
105
48
32
105
287
139
58
20
915
1,065
1,200
1,083
835
1,132
890
1,170
2,068
893
-0.2
-0.2
-0.6
2.0
-0.5
-0.4
0.5
-1.5
3.7
-0.3
60
60
84
10
76
70
33
164
5
67
San Luis Obispo, CA....................
San Mateo, CA.............................
Santa Barbara, CA.......................
Santa Clara, CA...........................
Santa Cruz, CA............................
Solano, CA...................................
Sonoma, CA.................................
Stanislaus, CA..............................
Tulare, CA....................................
Ventura, CA..................................
10.3
27.6
15.3
70.9
9.5
11.0
19.6
14.9
10.0
26.4
113.7
398.8
192.0
1,064.0
99.4
138.2
203.5
182.3
160.0
322.2
1.9
1.7
0.0
2.5
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.5
3.1
-0.1
110
130
281
71
139
110
146
146
32
287
884
2,098
1,025
2,365
933
1,074
1,018
884
772
1,044
-2.5
-1.5
-1.2
0.9
-2.0
-0.9
-2.5
0.0
0.9
-1.6
242
164
138
18
198
110
242
49
18
168
Yolo, CA.......................................
Adams, CO...................................
Arapahoe, CO..............................
Boulder, CO..................................
Denver, CO..................................
Douglas, CO.................................
El Paso, CO..................................
Jefferson, CO...............................
Larimer, CO..................................
Weld, CO......................................
6.6
10.5
21.6
14.7
30.7
11.6
18.5
21.5
11.6
6.8
98.2
202.0
324.6
179.9
501.7
118.9
268.0
234.4
154.0
100.4
0.9
3.6
1.6
3.0
2.8
1.8
2.7
0.7
2.5
0.2
205
14
139
39
50
114
58
223
71
264
1,106
1,022
1,227
1,237
1,287
1,204
943
1,072
980
900
-3.7
-1.3
-1.8
-2.4
-0.4
-6.8
-1.4
-0.9
-0.6
-2.9
301
144
183
237
70
341
149
110
84
268
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fairfield, CT.................................
Hartford, CT..................................
New Haven, CT............................
New London, CT..........................
New Castle, DE............................
Washington, DC...........................
Alachua, FL..................................
Bay, FL.........................................
Brevard, FL...................................
Broward, FL..................................
35.2
27.6
23.8
7.4
19.5
39.5
7.1
5.5
15.5
68.7
426.8
512.3
368.5
123.3
291.3
760.9
130.3
76.1
206.1
802.5
-0.9
0.3
0.4
0.8
-0.8
0.5
3.0
0.3
4.2
1.8
322
257
250
211
318
242
39
257
6
114
$1,676
1,264
1,094
1,023
1,166
1,763
864
783
941
1,000
-3.8
-3.2
-2.8
-3.3
-2.6
0.1
-5.1
-0.6
-1.6
-1.9
306
282
266
286
252
40
333
84
168
191
Collier, FL.....................................
Duval, FL.....................................
Escambia, FL...............................
Hillsborough, FL...........................
Lake, FL.......................................
Lee, FL.........................................
Leon, FL.......................................
Manatee, FL.................................
Marion, FL....................................
Miami-Dade, FL............................
13.7
29.0
8.2
41.5
8.0
21.7
8.7
10.6
8.2
97.5
150.2
499.0
131.7
686.9
96.0
259.8
148.3
122.7
102.7
1,132.9
3.6
2.6
2.8
2.3
3.2
2.5
2.1
1.2
3.5
1.3
14
65
50
89
28
71
98
172
19
164
915
1,001
830
1,010
721
844
860
809
750
1,029
-4.5
-1.2
-3.3
-2.6
-2.4
0.4
-2.6
-0.9
-0.1
-2.5
323
138
286
252
237
37
252
110
55
242
Okaloosa, FL................................
Orange, FL...................................
Osceola, FL..................................
Palm Beach, FL............................
Pasco, FL.....................................
Pinellas, FL...................................
Polk, FL........................................
Sarasota, FL................................
Seminole, FL................................
Volusia, FL...................................
6.3
41.2
6.7
55.5
10.7
32.6
13.0
15.7
14.8
14.1
81.4
813.7
90.1
602.8
117.1
428.2
215.0
169.1
188.1
170.9
1.9
2.7
2.1
2.4
3.0
2.4
2.1
2.9
4.2
3.7
110
58
98
76
39
76
98
48
6
11
869
940
724
1,055
738
965
799
902
897
761
-1.0
-0.5
-0.5
-2.4
-1.5
-1.6
-2.2
-1.0
0.0
0.1
120
76
76
237
164
168
223
120
49
40
Bibb, GA.......................................
Chatham, GA................................
Clayton, GA..................................
Cobb, GA......................................
DeKalb, GA.................................
Fulton, GA....................................
Gwinnett, GA................................
Hall, GA.......................................
Muscogee, GA..............................
Richmond, GA..............................
4.6
8.8
4.5
24.2
20.0
47.9
27.4
4.7
5.0
4.8
83.0
150.4
124.1
353.4
298.7
845.7
350.2
84.4
94.0
105.5
1.4
1.7
2.2
2.6
1.2
3.7
2.6
2.4
0.7
0.6
156
130
90
65
172
11
65
76
223
230
816
886
1,006
1,094
1,067
1,387
1,022
929
841
869
-2.6
-3.7
11.3
-1.9
0.5
-2.0
-1.2
0.1
-3.7
-1.8
252
301
1
191
33
198
138
40
301
183
Honolulu, HI..................................
Ada, ID.........................................
Champaign, IL..............................
Cook, IL........................................
DuPage, IL.................................
Kane, IL........................................
Lake, IL........................................
McHenry, IL..................................
McLean, IL....................................
Madison, IL...................................
25.7
15.1
4.3
152.6
37.9
13.7
22.3
8.7
3.8
6.0
478.7
230.0
89.9
2,590.2
616.7
209.9
332.4
96.7
83.8
100.5
0.3
3.6
-0.8
0.6
-0.1
0.2
-0.3
0.1
-0.7
1.7
257
14
318
230
287
264
302
268
316
130
994
937
946
1,250
1,209
963
1,376
891
918
838
-1.0
-0.4
3.7
-1.6
-2.6
-0.9
-4.5
-2.0
-9.2
-3.8
120
70
5
168
252
110
323
198
344
306
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Peoria, IL......................................
St. Clair, IL....................................
Sangamon, IL...............................
Will, IL..........................................
Winnebago, IL..............................
Allen, IN........................................
Elkhart, IN.....................................
Hamilton, IN..................................
Lake, IN........................................
Marion, IN.....................................
4.5
5.4
5.2
16.1
6.6
8.8
4.7
9.2
10.4
23.9
100.2
94.4
127.6
236.8
128.0
185.5
130.3
138.0
188.5
598.0
-2.1
-0.1
-1.3
3.1
-1.4
0.6
3.3
2.0
-0.1
0.7
338
287
327
32
330
230
24
105
287
223
$990
830
1,024
938
875
848
918
1,018
910
1,053
-2.3
-2.0
-3.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.3
4.0
0.1
0.1
-0.8
233
198
289
242
242
233
4
40
40
104
St. Joseph, IN...............................
Tippecanoe, IN.............................
Vanderburgh, IN...........................
Johnson, IA..................................
Linn, IA.........................................
Polk, IA........................................
Scott, IA........................................
Johnson, KS.................................
Sedgwick, KS...............................
Shawnee, KS................................
5.7
3.4
4.8
4.2
6.7
17.2
5.6
23.7
12.8
5.2
124.3
83.6
108.1
84.3
129.9
296.5
91.5
344.2
250.1
98.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
2.8
-0.7
1.8
0.2
1.4
0.0
1.2
211
223
230
50
316
114
264
156
281
172
861
895
873
951
1,057
1,089
876
1,065
903
843
0.6
-1.1
-1.4
0.1
-1.1
-0.7
-3.1
-2.9
-5.5
-1.4
29
127
149
40
127
95
275
268
337
149
Wyandotte, KS.............................
Boone, KY...................................
Fayette, KY...................................
Jefferson, KY................................
Caddo, LA....................................
Calcasieu, LA...............................
East Baton Rouge, LA..................
Jefferson, LA................................
Lafayette, LA................................
Orleans, LA..................................
3.6
4.4
10.9
25.4
7.3
5.2
15.4
13.8
9.4
12.4
91.9
87.4
196.5
469.7
114.6
94.7
269.1
194.8
129.8
194.5
2.2
2.4
-0.3
1.9
-1.2
1.0
-0.2
-0.8
-5.1
-0.2
90
76
302
110
324
194
296
318
344
296
1,035
905
968
1,026
859
922
1,005
957
913
996
-0.3
-2.0
3.5
-2.2
-1.9
-4.2
-1.0
-2.2
-8.0
-2.1
67
198
7
223
191
317
120
223
342
213
St. Tammany, LA..........................
Cumberland, ME..........................
Anne Arundel, MD........................
Baltimore, MD...............................
Frederick, MD...............................
Harford, MD..................................
Howard, MD.................................
Montgomery, MD..........................
Prince George's, MD....................
Baltimore City, MD.......................
8.1
13.9
15.1
21.3
6.4
5.8
10.0
32.9
16.0
13.7
88.8
180.4
271.8
380.8
101.0
93.6
169.1
471.7
322.1
341.0
-0.2
1.1
1.4
0.0
0.3
-0.4
0.7
0.8
2.4
0.6
296
184
156
281
257
308
223
211
76
230
906
981
1,159
1,085
971
982
1,298
1,422
1,094
1,307
-2.2
-2.3
0.9
-0.6
-3.6
-5.4
-1.6
-0.8
-1.1
0.5
223
233
18
84
294
336
168
104
127
33
Barnstable, MA.............................
Bristol, MA....................................
Essex, MA....................................
Hampden, MA..............................
Middlesex, MA..............................
Norfolk, MA...................................
Plymouth, MA...............................
Suffolk, MA...................................
Worcester, MA..............................
Genesee, MI.................................
9.5
17.5
24.8
18.1
54.3
25.2
15.7
28.9
24.8
6.9
91.0
228.3
324.4
210.2
900.3
354.2
190.9
669.9
344.8
135.4
0.9
1.6
0.4
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.5
2.1
0.8
0.6
205
139
250
194
172
184
146
98
211
230
940
941
1,124
952
1,529
1,307
1,013
1,888
1,046
889
-1.8
-4.4
-2.5
-4.1
-2.0
-1.4
-2.1
-3.2
-3.6
-3.6
183
319
242
315
198
149
213
282
294
294
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Ingham, MI...................................
Kalamazoo, MI.............................
Kent, MI.......................................
Macomb, MI..................................
Oakland, MI..................................
Ottawa, MI....................................
Saginaw, MI..................................
Washtenaw, MI.............................
Wayne, MI....................................
Anoka, MN....................................
6.0
5.0
14.3
17.6
39.2
5.6
3.9
8.1
30.5
6.8
151.9
118.2
398.0
322.8
731.9
122.5
85.7
211.3
722.7
121.9
2.2
1.4
1.6
1.0
1.5
1.7
-0.3
1.5
1.7
1.3
90
156
139
194
146
130
302
146
130
164
$1,032
985
936
1,069
1,201
952
865
1,100
1,188
988
0.1
-1.4
-1.4
-2.7
-1.7
0.4
-0.9
-1.4
-1.8
-4.6
40
149
149
259
181
37
110
149
183
325
Dakota, MN..................................
Hennepin, MN..............................
Olmsted, MN................................
Ramsey, MN.................................
St. Louis, MN................................
Stearns, MN.................................
Washington, MN...........................
Harrison, MS................................
Hinds, MS.....................................
Boone, MO...................................
9.5
41.1
3.3
12.8
5.1
4.2
5.2
4.6
5.9
4.9
188.3
920.7
96.1
328.5
96.9
86.1
82.1
84.9
121.9
93.5
1.0
2.2
1.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
-0.2
0.6
194
90
184
287
287
242
242
268
296
230
1,010
1,290
1,073
1,166
870
868
899
731
870
841
-3.9
-1.1
0.9
-1.6
0.1
-1.8
-0.2
0.0
-2.1
1.9
309
127
18
168
40
183
60
49
213
11
Clay, MO......................................
Greene, MO..................................
Jackson, MO................................
St. Charles, MO............................
St. Louis, MO................................
St. Louis City, MO........................
Yellowstone, MT...........................
Douglas, NE.................................
Lancaster, NE...............................
Clark, NV.....................................
5.6
8.6
21.2
9.1
36.9
13.5
6.5
19.6
10.5
56.4
104.0
165.7
367.4
145.6
604.3
225.2
81.0
340.7
169.5
952.7
3.4
1.0
1.8
1.3
0.1
0.0
-0.5
0.7
0.1
2.6
20
194
114
164
268
281
312
223
268
65
921
807
1,070
839
1,131
1,124
916
986
853
909
-8.3
-1.1
-2.2
-3.6
-1.6
-1.6
-0.8
-0.8
0.0
-1.2
343
127
223
294
168
168
104
104
49
138
Washoe, NV.................................
Hillsborough, NH..........................
Merrimack, NH.............................
Rockingham, NH..........................
Atlantic, NJ...................................
Bergen, NJ...................................
Burlington, NJ...............................
Camden, NJ.................................
Essex, NJ....................................
Gloucester, NJ..............................
15.0
12.3
5.1
10.9
6.6
33.2
11.1
12.2
20.7
6.4
215.3
204.2
77.5
149.1
122.7
458.7
208.1
205.5
343.9
109.6
3.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
-1.7
0.8
3.0
1.7
0.9
3.0
20
194
194
172
335
211
39
130
205
39
942
1,202
1,017
1,064
885
1,289
1,077
1,076
1,297
918
-1.4
-4.9
-2.7
-4.9
-1.3
-2.7
-4.2
-1.1
-0.2
-2.4
149
327
259
327
144
259
317
127
60
237
Hudson, NJ...................................
Mercer, NJ....................................
Middlesex, NJ..............................
Monmouth, NJ..............................
Morris, NJ.....................................
Ocean, NJ....................................
Passaic, NJ..................................
Somerset, NJ...............................
Union, NJ.....................................
Bernalillo, NM...............................
15.2
11.2
22.4
20.2
17.1
13.1
12.6
10.2
14.5
18.3
260.6
252.0
430.4
260.2
290.9
162.5
170.1
187.6
221.9
327.8
3.3
0.4
3.0
0.6
0.1
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.2
24
250
39
230
268
156
184
164
184
172
1,355
1,346
1,240
1,068
1,524
871
1,042
1,563
1,362
895
-1.6
-0.1
-2.2
-2.1
-5.0
-3.1
-6.0
-0.7
-0.4
-1.4
168
55
223
213
332
275
340
95
70
149
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Albany, NY...................................
Bronx, NY.....................................
Broome, NY..................................
Dutchess, NY...............................
Erie, NY........................................
Kings, NY.....................................
Monroe, NY..................................
Nassau, NY..................................
New York, NY...............................
Oneida, NY...................................
10.4
18.8
4.6
8.5
24.9
62.3
19.1
54.5
129.8
5.4
237.1
302.7
88.0
112.7
473.8
705.6
390.0
640.4
2,471.6
105.7
1.2
-0.3
0.1
-0.2
0.2
3.0
0.5
1.7
0.7
1.6
172
302
268
296
264
39
242
130
223
139
$1,094
1,007
799
1,010
941
906
973
1,220
2,212
811
-1.5
0.6
-4.1
-2.7
-2.1
-1.4
-3.5
-1.4
-1.1
-3.0
164
29
315
259
213
149
289
149
127
272
Onondaga, NY..............................
Orange, NY..................................
Queens, NY..................................
Richmond, NY..............................
Rockland, NY...............................
Saratoga, NY................................
Suffolk, NY...................................
Westchester, NY..........................
Buncombe, NC.............................
Catawba, NC................................
13.1
10.5
53.0
9.8
10.9
6.0
53.3
36.8
9.1
4.4
248.1
144.1
664.0
118.3
124.1
84.5
661.4
431.1
130.3
87.3
0.5
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.8
-0.1
0.9
1.2
3.1
3.1
242
114
76
90
50
287
205
172
32
32
972
886
1,019
940
1,037
945
1,147
1,395
837
818
-2.1
-2.5
-0.9
-2.4
-3.2
-2.9
-3.5
-3.7
-0.7
-1.3
213
242
110
237
282
268
289
301
95
144
Cumberland, NC...........................
Durham, NC.................................
Forsyth, NC..................................
Guilford, NC..................................
Mecklenburg, NC..........................
New Hanover, NC........................
Wake, NC.....................................
Cass, ND......................................
Butler, OH.....................................
Cuyahoga, OH..............................
6.2
8.2
9.2
14.3
37.3
8.0
33.7
7.2
7.6
35.8
120.4
198.7
184.8
283.9
674.2
110.5
541.5
117.8
154.1
723.3
0.1
1.2
0.4
0.8
2.1
2.7
3.2
0.6
1.1
0.1
268
172
250
211
98
58
28
230
184
268
799
1,254
953
898
1,193
865
1,085
961
925
1,088
-1.8
-1.6
-2.2
-3.1
-0.7
-0.2
0.7
-1.7
-2.5
-0.7
183
168
223
275
95
60
25
181
242
95
Delaware, OH...............................
Franklin, OH.................................
Hamilton, OH................................
Lake, OH......................................
Lorain, OH....................................
Lucas, OH....................................
Mahoning, OH..............................
Montgomery, OH..........................
Stark, OH.....................................
Summit, OH.................................
5.1
31.7
23.8
6.3
6.2
10.1
5.9
11.9
8.6
14.3
86.2
759.2
514.8
94.2
97.8
211.0
98.7
255.6
158.7
268.6
2.6
2.8
1.4
-1.0
0.8
-0.4
-0.5
0.3
0.1
0.6
65
50
156
323
211
308
312
257
268
230
996
1,023
1,119
865
825
903
746
896
795
944
-0.6
-4.4
-2.0
-2.9
-2.5
-4.0
-2.2
-3.0
-3.2
-1.4
84
319
198
268
242
311
223
272
282
149
Warren, OH.................................
Cleveland, OK..............................
Oklahoma, OK..............................
Tulsa, OK.....................................
Clackamas, OR............................
Jackson, OR................................
Lane, OR......................................
Marion, OR...................................
Multnomah, OR............................
Washington, OR...........................
4.8
5.6
27.8
22.1
14.6
7.3
11.9
10.4
34.2
19.0
89.8
80.5
449.7
353.4
159.6
87.3
153.9
149.4
498.8
288.2
1.5
-1.2
-1.4
-0.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.8
1.8
2.8
146
324
330
314
76
76
76
50
114
50
946
766
975
942
987
803
845
861
1,099
1,209
-1.3
-1.9
-4.9
-3.6
-1.0
1.5
0.8
0.7
-0.1
-5.8
144
191
327
294
120
12
24
25
55
339
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Allegheny, PA...............................
Berks, PA.....................................
Bucks, PA.....................................
Butler, PA.....................................
Chester, PA..................................
Cumberland, PA...........................
Dauphin, PA................................
Delaware, PA...............................
Erie, PA........................................
Lackawanna, PA..........................
35.8
9.0
20.0
5.0
15.5
6.5
7.5
14.1
7.0
5.8
693.9
172.6
263.1
85.3
251.2
134.0
180.6
224.1
121.8
99.1
0.3
0.5
1.5
-0.3
0.8
0.5
0.4
1.1
-2.2
1.0
257
242
146
302
211
242
250
184
340
194
$1,140
941
1,021
1,004
1,308
921
1,030
1,111
809
797
-1.1
-3.1
-1.8
0.7
-3.5
-3.6
-4.9
-3.0
-4.0
-1.6
127
275
183
25
289
294
327
272
311
168
Lancaster, PA...............................
Lehigh, PA....................................
Luzerne, PA..................................
Montgomery, PA...........................
Northampton, PA..........................
Philadelphia, PA...........................
Washington, PA............................
Westmoreland, PA.......................
York, PA.......................................
Providence, RI..............................
13.4
8.8
7.5
27.7
6.8
35.1
5.5
9.3
9.1
18.0
237.2
189.1
144.6
493.5
115.4
676.1
85.3
133.3
178.5
287.7
1.5
-0.2
-1.9
1.3
4.4
2.1
-1.3
-1.6
0.8
0.1
146
296
337
164
5
98
327
334
211
268
877
1,051
816
1,288
896
1,235
1,110
833
909
1,077
-3.1
-2.1
-0.5
-3.1
-3.7
-3.9
4.9
-4.0
-2.0
-2.2
275
213
76
275
301
309
2
311
198
223
Charleston, SC.............................
Greenville, SC..............................
Horry, SC.....................................
Lexington, SC...............................
Richland, SC................................
Spartanburg, SC...........................
York, SC.......................................
Minnehaha, SD.............................
Davidson, TN................................
Hamilton, TN................................
14.9
13.9
8.7
6.3
10.1
6.1
5.4
7.2
21.8
9.4
245.0
266.6
117.9
119.3
219.7
136.7
91.7
126.1
481.3
199.6
1.7
1.3
3.1
1.8
0.9
3.3
4.6
1.8
3.0
1.3
130
164
32
114
205
24
2
114
39
164
937
932
654
794
885
877
851
921
1,163
1,004
0.9
-0.5
0.0
-0.4
-2.6
-2.1
0.5
-0.9
-0.9
-2.7
18
76
49
70
252
213
33
110
110
259
Knox, TN......................................
Rutherford, TN..............................
Shelby, TN....................................
Williamson, TN.............................
Bell, TX.........................................
Bexar, TX.....................................
Brazoria, TX.................................
Brazos, TX....................................
Cameron, TX................................
Collin, TX......................................
12.0
5.4
20.3
8.5
5.2
40.4
5.6
4.5
6.5
23.9
239.6
121.0
500.3
127.8
118.0
855.8
107.3
102.5
140.4
389.5
1.5
2.6
0.0
5.1
0.1
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.2
3.4
146
65
281
1
268
90
130
146
172
20
959
947
1,087
1,208
883
956
1,049
785
640
1,222
-2.0
-0.6
-0.8
-2.0
-0.5
-1.1
-3.8
0.9
-2.0
-0.7
198
84
104
198
76
127
306
18
198
95
Dallas, TX.....................................
Denton, TX..................................
El Paso, TX..................................
Fort Bend, TX...............................
Galveston, TX...............................
Gregg, TX.....................................
Harris, TX.....................................
Hidalgo, TX...................................
Jefferson, TX................................
Lubbock, TX.................................
75.6
14.4
14.8
12.7
6.2
4.3
113.7
12.2
5.8
7.5
1,688.4
232.4
302.3
177.2
110.0
74.1
2,272.0
256.1
121.4
140.1
2.8
3.7
1.8
1.8
4.0
-3.5
-1.3
3.0
-1.5
2.2
50
11
114
114
8
343
327
39
332
90
1,279
969
729
976
918
862
1,319
648
1,081
835
-0.9
-0.9
-2.0
-5.2
-1.6
-5.1
-4.7
-2.0
-2.8
-0.4
110
110
198
335
168
333
326
198
266
70
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ²
Employment
County¹
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16³
Ranking by
percent
change
McLennan, TX..............................
Midland, TX..................................
Montgomery, TX...........................
Nueces, TX..................................
Potter, TX.....................................
Smith, TX.....................................
Tarrant, TX...................................
Travis, TX.....................................
Webb, TX.....................................
Williamson, TX.............................
5.2
5.4
10.9
8.3
4.0
6.1
42.3
39.5
5.3
10.2
112.8
84.8
171.3
162.6
79.8
103.1
876.2
717.2
100.0
162.5
2.1
-2.9
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.8
2.5
2.4
1.4
4.5
98
342
184
268
281
211
71
76
156
3
$859
1,297
1,024
901
874
865
1,027
1,244
683
1,007
-1.0
2.4
-1.8
-2.7
0.0
-2.0
-5.7
1.1
-3.5
-0.7
120
9
183
259
49
198
338
17
289
95
Davis, UT.....................................
Salt Lake, UT................................
Utah, UT.......................................
Weber, UT....................................
Chittenden, VT.............................
Arlington, VA................................
Chesterfield, VA...........................
Fairfax, VA....................................
Henrico, VA..................................
Loudoun, VA................................
8.3
44.3
15.6
5.9
6.8
9.4
9.1
37.9
11.7
12.2
122.8
682.1
225.1
103.2
102.0
174.3
138.7
604.5
192.6
161.8
3.6
2.7
4.5
1.4
-0.6
0.8
-1.5
1.0
0.6
2.2
14
58
3
156
314
211
332
194
230
90
862
1,028
858
791
1,033
1,677
901
1,610
1,009
1,233
-0.2
-0.7
-1.2
0.6
-3.6
-1.4
0.7
-0.6
-1.1
-0.1
60
95
138
29
294
149
25
84
127
55
Prince William, VA........................
Alexandria City, VA......................
Chesapeake City, VA...................
Newport News City, VA................
Norfolk City, VA...........................
Richmond City, VA.......................
Virginia Beach City, VA................
Benton, WA..................................
Clark, WA.....................................
King, WA......................................
9.4
6.6
6.1
3.9
5.9
7.8
12.3
5.7
14.5
86.4
128.4
94.9
100.2
97.3
141.8
155.1
176.2
84.3
151.5
1,340.4
1.8
-1.2
1.0
-1.7
-0.8
2.4
0.3
3.8
3.2
3.3
114
324
194
335
318
76
257
10
28
24
931
1,497
808
1,017
1,072
1,139
836
1,013
985
1,479
-0.5
-0.8
-2.1
0.6
-3.1
-1.1
-1.9
-4.4
1.4
3.5
76
104
213
29
275
127
191
319
13
7
Kitsap, WA....................................
Pierce, WA...................................
Snohomish, WA............................
Spokane, WA...............................
Thurston, WA...............................
Whatcom, WA..............................
Yakima, WA.................................
Kanawha, WV...............................
Brown, WI.....................................
Dane, WI......................................
6.6
21.9
20.8
15.7
8.2
7.3
7.8
5.8
6.8
15.2
87.1
301.3
285.1
217.6
111.8
88.4
102.3
101.7
155.7
334.0
0.9
3.6
1.1
2.7
4.0
2.5
2.7
-2.2
1.0
1.8
205
14
184
58
8
71
58
340
194
114
969
932
1,114
882
934
852
736
881
956
1,033
-1.4
-1.2
-1.9
-0.3
1.4
0.1
-0.1
-1.6
-2.1
-4.4
149
138
191
67
13
40
55
168
213
319
Milwaukee, WI..............................
Outagamie, WI.............................
Waukesha, WI..............................
Winnebago, WI.............................
San Juan, PR...............................
26.1
5.2
12.9
3.7
10.7
487.8
107.3
239.6
93.9
255.8
-0.1
0.4
0.1
1.6
-0.2
287
250
268
139
(⁵)
1,041
920
1,073
1,005
672
-0.6
-0.6
-1.4
-2.7
-0.7
84
84
149
259
(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 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 344 U.S. counties comprise 72.8 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16²
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16²
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..................................................................
9,869.9
9,570.8
138.1
784.5
345.7
1,924.2
159.2
865.0
1,779.7
1,626.7
827.9
840.2
299.1
143,749.9
121,881.5
1,741.7
6,677.4
12,298.6
27,968.1
2,809.0
8,034.0
20,259.2
21,994.4
15,365.3
4,387.5
21,868.4
1.2
1.3
-4.7
2.0
-0.4
1.1
0.0
1.5
1.0
2.2
1.8
1.1
0.8
$1,067
1,070
1,106
1,234
1,285
880
1,884
1,706
1,419
973
461
719
1,049
-1.5
-1.7
-5.1
0.1
-3.1
-2.2
-1.5
-0.4
-1.4
-2.0
-0.2
-0.7
-0.2
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..................................................................
472.0
465.8
0.5
13.9
12.3
53.3
9.6
25.3
47.9
218.5
32.6
26.8
6.2
4,415.7
3,838.1
8.7
133.2
350.9
844.4
225.9
219.9
605.5
758.7
512.7
148.0
577.6
1.1
1.1
0.3
1.5
-3.3
0.9
-0.3
0.5
-0.1
1.9
2.8
0.8
1.6
1,256
1,246
1,411
1,276
1,385
961
2,306
1,932
1,631
929
986
736
1,325
-0.6
-0.8
-7.0
0.7
1.2
-0.1
-8.5
0.8
0.9
-0.1
0.4
-0.1
0.1
Cook, IL...........................................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
152.6
151.3
0.1
12.2
6.3
29.7
2.7
15.1
32.4
16.3
14.2
17.3
1.3
2,590.2
2,289.0
1.0
71.5
185.5
491.9
55.7
193.2
473.4
441.1
273.5
96.3
301.3
0.6
0.6
-7.9
0.4
-1.0
0.6
4.6
0.4
-0.3
1.2
0.9
-0.4
0.8
1,250
1,255
1,324
1,625
1,355
980
1,705
2,284
1,669
1,028
526
955
1,207
-1.6
-1.7
-1.3
-0.1
-3.6
0.4
-5.3
-0.8
-1.6
-2.0
-2.6
-1.1
-1.1
New York, NY..................................................................
Private industry.............................................................
Natural resources and mining....................................
Construction...............................................................
Manufacturing............................................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities..............................
Information.................................................................
Financial activities......................................................
Professional and business services...........................
Education and health services...................................
Leisure and hospitality...............................................
Other services............................................................
Government..................................................................
129.8
128.9
0.0
2.2
2.1
19.3
4.8
19.2
27.4
9.9
13.7
20.3
0.8
2,471.6
2,202.4
0.2
40.2
26.3
265.9
162.9
371.5
564.9
346.8
303.8
103.3
269.2
0.7
0.8
9.1
-1.0
-5.0
-1.7
0.4
-0.2
1.4
0.3
1.4
0.5
0.5
2,212
2,319
2,094
2,343
1,649
1,474
2,808
4,587
2,599
1,390
1,014
1,195
1,335
-1.1
-1.4
4.8
1.1
-1.1
-1.3
0.5
-0.4
-3.3
0.8
-1.6
-1.0
2.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16²
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16²
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..................................................................
113.7
113.2
1.8
7.2
4.8
25.0
1.2
11.9
23.2
15.9
9.8
11.7
0.6
2,272.0
1,993.6
72.9
155.9
166.3
477.2
27.3
124.5
384.1
292.3
226.8
64.8
278.4
-1.3
-1.8
-13.4
-4.1
-8.3
-0.8
0.7
1.4
-3.7
2.7
2.1
-0.5
2.4
$1,319
1,344
3,416
1,477
1,652
1,121
1,478
1,768
1,693
1,080
470
822
1,142
-4.7
-5.1
-3.3
-2.6
-2.3
-5.5
-2.4
-3.3
-5.2
-1.3
-0.6
-1.8
-0.5
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..................................................................
96.5
95.7
0.4
6.9
3.1
18.5
1.5
10.8
20.9
10.7
7.6
6.0
0.7
1,926.9
1,713.5
8.3
103.1
115.7
386.8
34.4
173.2
331.7
289.8
207.9
49.6
213.4
2.4
2.6
0.4
4.0
-1.3
2.5
-1.1
5.7
1.0
3.0
2.0
-0.5
0.7
994
995
935
1,116
1,375
893
1,386
1,316
1,108
993
477
722
985
-2.3
-2.1
-1.6
-0.7
-5.0
-2.3
1.5
0.5
-1.3
-4.2
-2.3
0.7
-4.1
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..................................................................
75.6
75.0
0.6
4.5
2.7
16.0
1.4
9.3
17.0
9.4
6.7
7.0
0.6
1,688.4
1,514.5
8.6
86.3
110.0
355.8
48.9
161.1
342.1
197.5
160.3
42.7
174.0
2.8
3.1
-6.4
5.1
1.1
3.2
0.9
4.4
2.7
2.5
4.3
2.1
0.3
1,279
1,290
4,042
1,368
1,420
1,079
1,821
1,759
1,574
1,153
542
808
1,184
-0.9
-1.3
13.5
2.5
-6.2
-3.1
-0.1
-0.7
0.2
-1.1
-1.8
-1.3
2.7
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..................................................................
116.3
114.9
0.2
6.7
4.9
16.8
1.3
10.9
20.6
30.5
8.5
6.8
1.5
1,588.8
1,442.2
2.7
96.5
157.1
265.6
25.8
118.1
304.7
204.6
210.9
46.5
146.6
2.0
2.2
3.8
1.7
-0.1
-0.6
2.8
0.9
4.0
3.1
2.1
2.7
1.0
1,200
1,201
965
1,390
1,493
1,044
2,069
2,038
1,407
996
529
734
1,189
-0.6
-0.8
4.2
0.9
-0.9
-0.5
1.6
1.8
-3.8
-3.7
7.5
0.1
1.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16²
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16²
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..................................................................
107.8
105.9
0.6
6.7
3.2
14.1
1.1
9.7
18.0
30.0
8.1
7.3
1.9
1,427.5
1,194.0
7.9
77.1
106.5
229.0
23.5
72.8
232.9
195.1
190.2
50.5
233.5
1.6
1.5
-8.3
5.4
-0.9
0.3
-1.5
1.7
-0.7
2.0
3.6
1.0
1.8
$1,170
1,145
744
1,272
1,586
846
1,759
1,548
1,764
1,007
513
647
1,295
-1.5
-2.2
1.6
0.7
-10.4
-2.5
0.6
0.2
0.3
-2.8
3.2
1.6
1.3
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..................................................................
86.4
85.9
0.4
6.5
2.5
14.5
2.2
6.6
17.5
19.5
7.2
9.1
0.5
1,340.4
1,171.5
2.9
68.2
102.0
261.7
99.8
67.9
220.5
169.7
134.5
44.4
168.9
3.3
3.4
-3.0
6.2
-3.9
4.7
9.2
3.0
1.7
4.1
3.8
3.6
2.4
1,479
1,501
1,208
1,386
1,662
1,484
2,865
1,773
1,828
1,055
572
858
1,326
3.5
3.9
-9.3
0.3
0.0
20.2
-1.7
2.0
0.2
-0.3
0.5
1.7
0.8
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..................................................................
97.5
97.2
0.5
6.4
2.9
26.4
1.5
10.6
21.5
10.4
7.2
8.3
0.3
1,132.9
993.1
9.0
44.6
40.5
289.3
18.1
75.3
158.1
176.0
141.0
40.1
139.8
1.3
1.2
-6.7
7.0
1.2
-0.1
2.1
0.5
1.8
2.4
0.5
1.3
1.8
1,029
1,016
684
986
968
911
1,682
1,636
1,314
1,036
606
634
1,119
-2.5
-1.7
4.7
-1.9
-2.0
-2.4
0.2
-1.2
-1.2
-2.1
-2.1
-2.3
-7.3
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 2015 annual average employment. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance
(UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 2016
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16
United States²..........................................
9,869.9
143,749.9
1.2
$1,067
-1.5
Alabama....................................................
Alaska........................................................
Arizona......................................................
Arkansas...................................................
California...................................................
Colorado....................................................
Connecticut...............................................
Delaware...................................................
District of Columbia...................................
Florida.......................................................
123.6
22.3
156.9
89.4
1,509.9
192.6
117.7
31.5
39.5
673.4
1,932.6
310.0
2,760.1
1,205.4
16,923.3
2,588.6
1,685.5
441.2
760.9
8,538.9
0.7
-1.9
2.1
0.4
1.9
2.0
0.0
-0.1
0.5
2.7
901
1,038
945
827
1,271
1,086
1,289
1,055
1,763
942
-1.3
-5.2
-2.2
-1.4
-0.3
-1.5
-3.4
-2.9
0.6
-1.8
Georgia......................................................
Hawaii........................................................
Idaho.........................................................
Illinois........................................................
Indiana.......................................................
Iowa...........................................................
Kansas......................................................
Kentucky....................................................
Louisiana...................................................
Maine.........................................................
305.5
40.7
59.7
404.3
162.7
101.7
90.8
123.8
129.7
54.1
4,349.3
658.3
691.6
5,947.6
3,021.7
1,542.0
1,384.5
1,894.2
1,907.4
602.6
2.4
0.7
3.2
0.4
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.6
-1.6
0.8
993
954
800
1,122
883
911
877
874
914
855
-0.9
-0.3
-0.4
-2.0
-0.9
-1.0
-2.2
-1.4
-2.9
-2.1
Maryland....................................................
Massachusetts..........................................
Michigan....................................................
Minnesota..................................................
Mississippi.................................................
Missouri.....................................................
Montana....................................................
Nebraska...................................................
Nevada......................................................
New Hampshire.........................................
170.5
249.2
242.0
164.2
74.4
196.4
46.6
74.2
82.7
52.3
2,666.7
3,530.4
4,283.0
2,839.7
1,134.0
2,783.2
456.5
972.4
1,307.8
656.9
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.2
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.0
2.7
1.3
1,169
1,352
1,026
1,062
756
918
822
876
924
1,092
-0.4
-2.4
-1.6
-1.1
-1.8
-1.7
0.5
-0.5
-1.2
-4.1
New Jersey...............................................
New Mexico...............................................
New York..................................................
North Carolina...........................................
North Dakota.............................................
Ohio...........................................................
Oklahoma..................................................
Oregon......................................................
Pennsylvania.............................................
Rhode Island.............................................
271.6
58.3
647.2
269.9
32.2
294.0
109.7
149.2
356.9
37.1
4,042.1
811.4
9,332.5
4,326.3
414.4
5,365.6
1,587.7
1,860.7
5,799.8
478.3
1.4
0.0
1.2
1.8
-3.2
0.7
-1.2
2.4
0.7
0.0
1,239
844
1,342
932
978
943
864
970
1,039
1,027
-1.9
-2.5
-2.3
-0.7
-4.2
-2.3
-3.5
-1.0
-2.3
-1.6
South Carolina..........................................
South Dakota............................................
Tennessee.................................................
Texas.........................................................
Utah...........................................................
Vermont.....................................................
Virginia......................................................
Washington...............................................
West Virginia.............................................
Wisconsin..................................................
126.7
33.2
155.5
662.5
98.4
25.3
270.2
240.2
50.7
172.7
2,024.3
419.9
2,947.5
11,974.7
1,415.1
312.6
3,831.6
3,227.9
693.1
2,842.4
1.8
0.5
1.8
1.2
2.9
0.1
0.6
2.8
-1.6
0.5
855
828
970
1,072
910
897
1,091
1,150
809
924
-0.6
-0.5
-1.1
-2.5
-0.3
-2.4
-0.3
1.7
-2.5
-2.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 2016 - Continued
Average weekly wage ¹
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2016
(thousands)
December
2016
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2015-16
Fourth
quarter
2016
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2015-16
Wyoming...................................................
26.1
265.8
-3.9
$894
-4.7
Puerto Rico...............................................
Virgin Islands............................................
45.7
3.4
928.2
38.5
-0.3
0.2
555
769
-1.9
-1.8
¹ Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
² Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for
Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
December 2015-16 (U.S. average = 1.2 percent)
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 or more
employees, fourth quarter 2015-16 (U.S. average = -1.5 percent)
Higher than U.S. average
U.S. average or lower
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics