Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 04-6 http://www.bls.gov/cew/ For release: 10:00 A.M. EST Media contact: (202) 691-5902 Wednesday, January 7, 2004 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2003 In June 2003, Loudoun County, Va., had the biggest over-the-year per- centage increase in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Loudoun County, Va., experi- enced an over-the-year employment gain of 5.2 percent, compared with a na- tional decline of 0.5 percent. Kent County, R.I., had the biggest over- the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2003, with an increase of 7.9 percent. U.S. average weekly wages increased by 2.2 percent over the same timespan. Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 184 had rates of over- the-year employment growth above the national average in June 2003, and 119 experienced declines in employment greater than the national average. Aver- age weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 181 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 119 counties. The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (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. These more than 8.2 million employer reports covered 129.2 million full- and part- time workers in June 2003. The attached tables contain data for the nation and for the 315 U.S. counties with employment levels of 75,000 or more. In addition, data for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. averages. (See Technical Note.) June 2003 employment and 2003 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, MSAs, counties, and the nation through the first quarter of 2003 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the second quarter of 2003 and revised data for the first quarter of 2003 will be available later in January on the BLS Web site. Large County Employment The national employment total in June 2003 was 129.2 million, which was 0.5 percent lower than in June 2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.3 percent of total U.S. covered employment, 76.2 percent of total wages, and 86.2 percent of the net over-the-year em- ployment decline from June 2002. (San Juan, P.R., is not included in this grouping of U.S. counties.) The biggest gains in employment from June 2002 to June 2003 were recorded in the counties of Clark, Nev. (26,500), Riverside, Calif. (22,500), Orange, Calif. (21,300), San Bernardino, Calif. (11,500), and Orange, Fla. (10,900). (See table A.) Loudoun County, Va., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (5.2 percent), followed by the counties of Yakima, Wash. (4.8 percent), Lee, Fla. (4.6 percent), St. Charles, Mo. (4.3 percent), and Placer, Calif. (4.2 percent). (See table 1). - 2 - Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by June 2003 employment, June 2002-03 employment change, and June 2002-03 percent change in employment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | June 2003 employment | Net change in employment, | Percent change (thousands) | June 2002-03 | in employment, | (thousands) | June 2002-03 ---------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------- U.S. 129,169.4|U.S. -628.3|U.S. -0.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles, Calif. 4,060.4|Clark, Nev. 26.5|Loudoun, Va. 5.2 Cook, Ill. 2,543.0|Riverside, Calif. 22.5|Yakima, Wash. 4.8 New York, N.Y. 2,214.1|Orange, Calif. 21.3|Lee, Fla. 4.6 Harris, Texas 1,837.2|San Bernardino, Calif. 11.5|St. Charles, Mo. 4.3 Maricopa, Ariz. 1,547.0|Orange, Fla. 10.9|Placer, Calif. 4.2 Dallas, Texas 1,442.7|Maricopa, Ariz. 10.1|Rutherford, Tenn. 4.1 Orange, Calif. 1,433.5|San Joaquin, Calif. 9.1|Pasco, Fla. 3.9 San Diego, Calif. 1,263.1|Lee, Fla. 8.9|Thurston, Wash. 3.7 King, Wash. 1,090.7|San Diego, Calif. 8.7|Hidalgo, Texas 3.6 Miami-Dade, Fla. 966.5|Sacramento, Calif. 7.4|Clark, Nev. 3.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment declined in 167 counties from June 2002 to June 2003. The largest percentage decline in employment was in Sangamon County, Ill. (-5.9 percent), followed by the counties of Catawba, N.C. (-5.3 percent), Santa Clara, Calif., and Tulsa, Okla. (-5.1 percent each), and Wyandotte, Kan. (-4.4 percent). The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in New York County, N.Y. (-54,600), followed by the counties of Santa Clara, Calif. (-52,500), Cook, Ill. (-47,600), Dallas, Texas (-45,200), and Los Angeles, Calif. (-30,800). Large County Average Weekly Wages The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2003 was $702, which was 2.2 percent higher than in the second quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 114 of the largest 315 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., comprised entirely of the borough of Manhattan, held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,250. Santa Clara County, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,224, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,150), San Mateo County, Calif. ($1,127), and Arlington County, Va. ($1,092). (See table B.) Kent County, R.I., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 7.9 percent. Norfolk City, Va., and Pasco County, Fla., were second with 7.1 percent growth each, followed by the counties of Williamson, Texas (6.6 percent), and San Mateo, Calif. (6.3 percent). - 3 - Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by second quarter 2003 average weekly wages, second quarter 2002-03 change in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2002-03 percent change in average weekly wages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weekly wages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Average weekly wages, | Change in average weekly | Percent change in second quarter 2003 | wages, second quarter | average weekly wages, | 2002-03 | second quarter 2002-03 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. $702|U.S. $15|U.S. 2.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New York, N.Y. $1,250|San Mateo, Calif. $67|Kent, R.I. 7.9 Santa Clara, Calif. 1,224|Washington, D.C. 55|Norfolk City, Va. 7.1 Washington, D.C. 1,150|Kent, R.I. 49|Pasco, Fla. 7.1 San Mateo, Calif. 1,127|Norfolk City, Va. 46|Williamson, Texas 6.6 Arlington, Va. 1,092|Williamson, Texas 46|San Mateo, Calif. 6.3 Fairfield, Conn. 1,074|Chester, Pa. 44|Oklahoma, Okla. 5.5 San Francisco, Calif. 1,051|King, Wash. 38|Prince William, Va. 5.4 Fairfax, Va. 1,044|Ventura, Calif. 38|Ventura, Calif. 5.4 Suffolk, Mass. 1,039|Clayton, Ga. 36|Chester, Pa. 5.2 Morris, N.J. 1,023|Morris, N.J. 36|Dane, Wis. 5.2 |Pasco, Fla. 36|Marion, Fla. 5.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There were 193 large counties with average weekly wages below the national average. The lowest average weekly wage (excluding San Juan, P.R.) was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($443), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($444), Horry, S.C. ($472), Yakima, Wash. ($481), and Tulare, Calif. ($501). (See table 1.) Seven large counties showed over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Brazoria County, Texas, had the largest decrease, registering a 3.6 percent decline. Shawnee, Kan., was second with a 2.7 percent decline, followed by the counties of Elkhart, Ind. (-1.9 percent), Rockingham, N.H. (-0.7 percent), and El Paso, Texas, Erie, Pa., and Sedgwick, Kan. (-0.2 per- cent each). Ten Largest U.S. Counties Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 employment levels), 3 experienced increases in employment and 7 experienced declines in employ- ment from June 2002 to June 2003. Orange County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a 0.9 percent increase. Orange County's growth was due to employment increases in every private industry supersector except natural resources and mining, manufacturing, and information. Government employment in Orange County declined by 4.5 percent. (See table 2.) Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest increase with employment rising by 0.7 percent, followed by San Diego County, Calif., which experienced a 0.4 percent increase in employment over this period. The largest declines in employment for the 10 largest counties were in Dallas County, Texas, and New York County, N.Y., which both decreased by 2.4 percent. The next largest decline in employment was recorded in Cook County, Ill., where employment fell by 1.6 percent. - 4 - All of the 10 largest U.S. counties experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. King County, Wash., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 4.2 percent rate. King County's fastest growing supersectors were natural resources and mining, where wages rose by 14.0 percent, and information with a 12.3 percent increase. Orange County, Calif., experienced growth in wages of 3.5 percent, followed by Miami-Dade County, Fla., with a 3.1 percent increase. New York County, N.Y., experienced the smallest increase in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, rising by only 0.6 percent. This was primarily due to wage decreases in the financial activities supersector. This was followed by Dallas County, Texas, and Cook County, Ill., with increases in average weekly wages of 0.8 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively. Largest County by State Table 3 shows the June 2003 employment and 2003 second-quarter average weekly wages in the largest county for each state. This table includes two counties that have employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in June 2003 ranged from approximately 4 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 40,000 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wages of these counties were in New York, N.Y. ($1,250), while the lowest average weekly wages were in Laramie, Wyo. ($553). - 5 - 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 to- tal pay of workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs). 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. Data for 2003 are preliminary and subject to revision. 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 pro- cedure, and publication product. Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in somewhat different measures of over-the-quarter employment change. It is important to understand program differences and the intended uses of the program products. (See table below.) Additional information on each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table below. Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | QCEW | BED | CES -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------- Source |--Count of UI admini-|--Count of longitudi- |--Sample survey: | strative records | nally-linked UI ad- | 400,000 employers | submitted by 8.2 | ministrative records| | million employers | submitted by 6.4 | | | million private sec-| | | tor employers | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------- Coverage |--UI and UCFE cover- |--UI coverage, exclud-|Nonfarm wage and sal- | age, including all | ing government, pri-| ary jobs: | employers subject | vate households, and|--UI coverage, exclud- | to state and fed- | establishments with | ing agriculture, pri- | eral UI laws | zero employment | vate households, and | | | self-employed | | |--Other employment, in- | | | cluding railroads, | | | religious organiza- | | | tions, and other non- | | | UI-covered jobs -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------- Publication|--Quarterly |--Quarterly |--Monthly frequency | -7 months after the| -8 months after the | -Usually first Friday | end of each quar- | end of each quarter| of following month | ter | | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------- Use of UI |--Directly summarizes|--Links each new UI |--Uses UI file as a sam- file | and publishes each | quarter to longitu- | pling frame and annu- | new quarter of UI | dinal database and | ally realigns (bench- | data | directly summarizes | marks) sample esti- | | gross job gains and | mates to first quar- | | losses | ter UI levels -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------- Principal |--Provides a quarter-|--Provides quarterly |--Provides current month- products | ly and annual uni- | employer dynamics | ly estimates of employ- | verse count of es- | data on establish- | ment, hours, and earn- | tablishments, em- | ment openings, clos-| ings at the MSA, state, | ployment, and wages| ings, expansions, | and national level by | at the county, MSA,| and contractions at | industry | state, and national| the national level | | levels by detailed |--Future expansions | | industry | will include data at| | | the county, MSA, and| | | state level by in- | | | dustry and size of | | | establishment | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------- Principal |--Major uses include:|--Major uses include: |--Major uses include: uses | -Detailed locality | -Business cycle | -Principal national | data | analysis | economic indicator | -Periodic universe | -Analysis of employ-| -Official time series | counts for bench- | er dynamics under- | for employment change | marking sample | lying economic ex- | measures | survey estimates | pansions and con- | -Input into other ma- | -Sample frame for | tractions | jor economic indi- | BLS establishment | -Future: employment | cators | surveys | expansion and con- | | | traction by size | | | of establishment | |---------------------|----------------------|------------------------- Program |--www.bls.gov/cew/ |--www.bls.gov/bdm/ |--www.bls.gov/ces/ Web sites | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 6 - Coverage Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws and for federal civilian workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the SESAs by employers. 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. The employment and wages data included in this release are derived from microdata summaries of more than 8 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS. These re- ports are based on place of employment rather than place of residence. UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable from state to state. In 2002, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 128.2 million jobs. The estimated 123.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjust- ment for multiple jobholders) represented 99.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $4.713 trillion in pay, representing 94.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 45.1 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 domes- tic workers, most student workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 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 pro- duction 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 from unrounded employment and wage values so the average wage values that can be calculated from data from this database may differ from the averages reported, due to rounding. 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. Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time to part- time workers as well as the number of individuals in high-paying and low- paying occupations. When comparing average weekly wage levels between industries and/or states, these factors should be taken into consideration. Percent changes are calculated using the final 2002 quarterly data as the base data. Final data for 2002 may differ from preliminary data published earlier. - 7 - In order to insure the highest possible quality of data, SESAs verify with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, and own- ership classification of all establishments on a 3-year cycle. Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from the verification 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. For these reasons, some data, especi- ally at more detailed industry levels, may not be strictly comparable with earlier years. The 2002 second quarter data used to calculate the over-the- year changes presented in this release were adjusted for changes in county classification to make them comparable with data for the second quarter of 2003. As a result, the adjusted 2002 second quarter data differ to some extent from the data available on the BLS Web site. 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 re- ferred to in this release are defined as census regions. Change in industry classification systems Beginning with the release of data for 2001 in 2002, publications pre- senting data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program use the 2002 version of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as the basis for the assignment and tabulation of economic data by industry. NAICS is the product of a cooperative effort on the part of the statistical agencies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The NAICS structure is significantly different from that of the 1987 Standard Indus- trial Classification (SIC) system, which had been used for industry classification purposes until 2002. Due to the differences in NAICS and SIC structures, industry data for 2001 are not comparable with the SIC- based data for earlier years. NAICS uses a production-oriented approach to categorize economic units. Units with similar production processes are classified in the same industry. NAICS focuses on how products and services are created, as opposed to the SIC focus on what is produced. This approach yields significantly different industry groupings than those produced by the SIC approach. Data users will be able to work with new NAICS industrial groupings that better reflect the workings of the U.S. economy. For example, a new industry sector called Information brings together units which turn infor- mation into a commodity with units which distribute that commodity. Infor- mation's major components are publishing, broadcasting, telecommunications, information services, and data processing. Under the SIC system, these units were spread across the manufacturing, communications, business services, and amusement services groups. Another new sector of interest is Professional and technical services. This sector is comprised of establishments engaged in activities where human capital is the major input. - 8 - Users interested in more information about NAICS can access the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web page (http://www.bls.gov/bls/naics.htm) and the U.S. Census Bureau Web page (http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html). The NAICS 2002 manual is available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Web page (http://www.ntis.gov/). Additional statistics and other information An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive infor- mation by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2002 is available for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The bulletin is now available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn02.htm. 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: BDMInfo@bls.gov). 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(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties, second quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wages(5) Establishments, second quarter Percent Percent County(3) 2003 June change, Ranking Average change, Ranking (thousands) 2003 June by weekly second by (thousands) 2002-03 percent wages quarter percent (4) change 2002-03 change (4) United States(6)......... 8,232.5 129,169.4 -0.5 - $702 2.2 - Jefferson, AL............ 18.1 369.4 -1.2 232 700 2.2 183 Madison, AL.............. 7.5 159.7 2.7 18 766 2.7 132 Mobile, AL............... 9.5 162.8 -1.1 226 574 2.5 159 Montgomery, AL........... 6.4 129.8 0.1 139 609 3.0 96 Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.0 76.0 -0.2 162 589 2.4 170 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.5 143.6 1.8 36 757 2.0 200 Maricopa, AZ............. 79.4 1,547.0 0.7 89 710 2.9 108 Pima, AZ................. 17.3 317.2 -0.1 149 631 4.3 29 Benton, AR............... 3.9 82.3 1.9 32 621 3.2 79 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.1 240.2 0.5 107 634 1.8 221 Washington, AR........... 4.8 84.2 1.1 65 556 3.9 38 Alameda, CA.............. 47.2 684.4 -2.5 287 916 1.7 231 Contra Costa, CA......... 27.2 341.4 -0.8 205 870 1.3 258 Fresno, CA............... 28.1 344.1 1.7 40 555 2.6 148 Kern, CA................. 15.3 257.6 3.2 11 610 3.0 96 Los Angeles, CA.......... 340.7 4,060.4 -0.3 171 789 2.9 108 Marin, CA................ 11.7 111.9 -0.4 178 888 4.0 36 Monterey, CA............. 11.7 181.6 0.6 98 629 3.5 60 Orange, CA............... 87.1 1,433.5 0.9 80 800 3.5 60 Placer, CA............... 9.1 124.7 4.2 5 713 3.9 38 Riverside, CA............ 35.5 546.5 3.0 13 609 3.4 64 Sacramento, CA........... 44.4 605.6 1.6 43 782 2.5 159 San Bernardino, CA....... 38.8 575.8 1.5 50 634 3.3 69 San Diego, CA............ 83.1 1,263.1 0.4 116 757 1.9 212 San Francisco, CA........ 42.6 530.9 -3.1 299 1,051 0.1 299 San Joaquin, CA.......... 15.0 226.0 2.9 15 607 2.0 200 San Luis Obispo, CA...... 8.5 102.7 -0.1 149 578 2.8 122 San Mateo, CA............ 23.1 334.5 -3.4 302 1,127 6.3 5 Santa Barbara, CA........ 12.9 188.5 0.7 89 654 3.0 96 Santa Clara, CA.......... 50.7 864.2 -5.1 309 1,224 2.7 132 Santa Cruz, CA........... 8.2 103.3 -1.5 245 650 0.5 294 Solano, CA............... 9.0 128.7 1.0 70 655 2.2 183 Sonoma, CA............... 16.7 192.8 -2.4 283 699 0.7 287 Stanislaus, CA........... 12.6 171.8 1.0 70 594 2.8 122 Tulare, CA............... 8.7 142.8 -0.1 149 501 4.6 22 Ventura, CA.............. 20.1 307.2 0.8 85 747 5.4 7 Yolo, CA................. 4.9 91.7 1.3 54 (7) (7) - Adams, CO................ 8.5 142.4 -4.2 307 673 2.0 200 Arapahoe, CO............. 18.7 273.2 -2.7 293 860 2.9 108 Boulder, CO.............. 11.7 152.5 -3.6 305 846 2.8 122 Denver, CO............... 24.2 428.2 -2.9 295 850 2.9 108 El Paso, CO.............. 15.5 235.9 -1.6 253 664 1.7 231 Jefferson, CO............ 17.7 206.8 -1.1 226 729 1.8 221 Larimer, CO.............. 9.0 123.5 -1.5 245 654 1.4 255 Fairfield, CT............ 31.8 418.1 -0.9 211 1,074 3.4 64 Hartford, CT............. 24.2 485.2 -2.2 278 864 1.9 212 New Haven, CT............ 21.8 361.2 -2.4 283 774 3.3 69 New London, CT........... 6.5 131.5 1.8 36 748 2.6 148 New Castle, DE........... 17.7 279.2 1.0 70 833 3.3 69 Washington, DC........... 29.4 651.6 -0.6 193 1,150 5.0 13 Alachua, FL.............. 5.6 120.0 1.6 43 560 4.7 19 Brevard, FL.............. 11.9 185.5 1.1 65 (7) (7) - Broward, FL.............. 55.4 678.9 0.6 98 681 4.4 25 Collier, FL.............. 10.0 108.4 1.1 65 621 3.0 96 Duval, FL................ 21.4 426.3 -0.3 171 687 3.9 38 Escambia, FL............. 7.0 119.9 2.3 24 558 3.7 50 Hillsborough, FL......... 29.9 584.8 1.3 54 664 4.1 34 Lee, FL.................. 14.3 180.9 4.6 3 590 2.6 148 Leon, FL................. 7.1 139.2 1.3 54 609 2.7 132 Manatee, FL.............. 6.5 (7) (7) - 558 0.9 277 Marion, FL............... 6.0 84.5 1.1 65 530 5.2 10 Miami-Dade, FL........... 78.9 966.5 -1.2 232 689 3.1 84 Okaloosa, FL............. 4.8 79.5 0.4 116 (7) (7) - Orange, FL............... 28.3 596.7 2.3 24 649 1.7 231 Palm Beach, FL........... 41.5 499.8 0.5 107 703 1.3 258 Pasco, FL................ 7.2 75.7 3.9 7 542 7.1 2 Pinellas, FL............. 27.5 424.8 2.2 27 619 2.5 159 Polk, FL................. 10.0 176.0 -0.7 196 570 3.6 54 Sarasota, FL............. 12.4 144.0 -0.3 171 596 3.8 47 Seminole, FL............. 11.4 145.4 0.6 98 635 2.4 170 Volusia, FL.............. (7) (7) (7) - (7) (7) - Bibb, GA................. 4.7 85.5 -0.1 149 600 2.2 183 Chatham, GA.............. 6.9 122.9 -0.3 171 596 3.1 84 Clayton, GA.............. 4.4 108.5 -3.5 304 779 4.8 15 Cobb, GA................. 19.5 294.3 -1.9 266 781 1.7 231 De Kalb, GA.............. 16.9 292.6 -1.2 232 782 2.9 108 Fulton, GA............... 37.2 718.4 -2.0 270 916 1.8 221 Gwinnett, GA............. 20.9 289.6 -1.0 218 760 2.2 183 Muscogee, GA............. 4.7 96.0 0.7 89 571 0.9 277 Richmond, GA............. 4.8 102.9 -0.3 171 604 3.1 84 Honolulu, HI............. 24.1 417.9 0.6 98 658 3.3 69 Ada, ID.................. 13.2 184.0 0.1 139 647 1.6 242 Champaign, IL............ 3.9 89.6 -0.1 149 604 1.3 258 Cook, IL................. 125.8 2,543.0 -1.6 253 836 1.2 267 Du Page, IL.............. 32.0 571.8 -0.7 196 853 1.7 231 Kane, IL................. 10.6 198.2 -0.5 185 647 2.7 132 Lake, IL................. 18.5 327.3 0.5 107 847 3.2 79 McHenry, IL.............. 7.2 94.7 0.6 98 633 2.1 191 McLean, IL............... 3.3 84.9 -0.4 178 727 2.8 122 Madison, IL.............. 5.6 96.4 -0.3 171 589 2.8 122 Peoria, IL............... 4.5 97.2 -3.4 302 660 1.7 231 Rock Island, IL.......... 3.3 78.7 -1.1 226 667 3.9 38 St. Clair, IL............ 5.0 92.7 1.9 32 569 2.7 132 Sangamon, IL............. 5.0 137.0 -5.9 312 709 1.4 255 Will, IL................. 10.2 155.0 1.9 32 664 0.9 277 Winnebago, IL............ 6.6 136.1 -2.9 295 624 1.8 221 Allen, IN................ 8.6 175.3 -2.1 275 638 0.8 284 Elkhart, IN.............. 4.8 117.4 1.0 70 621 -1.9 307 Hamilton, IN............. 5.9 86.2 2.9 15 717 1.3 258 Lake, IN................. 9.8 194.5 2.7 18 635 3.4 64 Marion, IN............... 23.4 575.7 -1.2 232 727 2.0 200 St. Joseph, IN........... 6.0 123.6 -0.5 185 620 1.8 221 Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.8 109.0 -0.1 149 599 1.0 273 Linn, IA................. 5.9 116.1 -2.1 275 672 2.4 170 Polk, IA................. 13.6 262.8 -0.7 196 695 3.9 38 Scott, IA................ 4.9 85.2 -0.2 162 580 2.5 159 Johnson, KS.............. 18.5 291.8 -0.1 149 735 2.9 108 Sedgwick, KS............. 11.6 239.2 -3.8 306 649 -0.2 303 Shawnee, KS.............. 4.8 97.1 -2.5 287 602 -2.7 308 Wyandotte, KS............ 3.1 75.3 -4.4 308 691 0.1 299 Fayette, KY.............. 8.7 164.5 -1.0 218 651 2.5 159 Jefferson, KY............ 21.4 421.1 -0.2 162 688 2.7 132 Caddo, LA................ 7.1 119.6 -0.5 185 601 3.1 84 Calcasieu, LA............ 4.6 82.4 -0.9 211 572 1.4 255 East Baton Rouge, LA..... 13.2 243.1 1.4 52 614 2.5 159 Jefferson, LA............ 14.1 212.3 -1.2 232 584 2.8 122 Lafayette, LA............ 7.5 119.9 0.0 145 615 2.2 183 Orleans, LA.............. 12.9 253.3 0.3 124 659 3.3 69 Cumberland, ME........... 11.0 170.2 -0.1 149 639 2.7 132 Anne Arundel, MD......... 12.9 208.0 -0.2 162 737 3.9 38 Baltimore, MD............ 20.0 360.2 -0.2 162 721 2.3 179 Frederick, MD............ 5.2 87.7 2.2 27 678 2.6 148 Howard, MD............... 7.6 137.0 1.0 70 797 3.2 79 Montgomery, MD........... 30.7 456.9 0.7 89 917 2.7 132 Prince Georges, MD....... 14.5 312.3 0.8 85 775 3.3 69 Baltimore City, MD....... 13.9 369.2 -0.6 193 803 3.1 84 Barnstable, MA........... 9.0 101.3 0.7 89 616 3.7 50 Bristol, MA.............. 14.6 220.6 -0.7 196 645 0.9 277 Essex, MA................ 20.1 301.0 -2.2 278 765 2.8 122 Hampden, MA.............. 13.3 202.8 -1.9 266 657 3.1 84 Middlesex, MA............ 46.8 797.6 -3.2 300 984 1.9 212 Norfolk, MA.............. 21.4 323.0 -1.7 259 857 2.5 159 Plymouth, MA............. 13.1 173.8 0.0 145 712 5.0 13 Suffolk, MA.............. 21.9 563.8 -3.2 300 1,039 0.3 297 Worcester, MA............ 19.7 319.1 -0.7 196 737 2.6 148 Genesee, MI.............. 8.6 155.6 -2.6 291 681 0.7 287 Ingham, MI............... 7.1 171.6 -1.4 242 693 1.2 267 Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.5 117.4 -0.2 162 664 4.4 25 Kent, MI................. 14.4 332.6 -1.7 259 675 3.1 84 Macomb, MI............... 18.0 326.2 -0.9 211 792 0.1 299 Oakland, MI.............. 41.7 739.7 -1.5 245 874 2.1 191 Ottawa, MI............... 5.7 111.9 -1.3 239 655 3.5 60 Saginaw, MI.............. 4.6 92.6 -0.2 162 661 0.6 291 Washtenaw, MI............ 8.1 192.5 -1.4 242 819 2.4 170 Wayne, MI................ 35.4 816.6 -1.8 265 824 1.7 231 Anoka, MN................ 7.3 112.8 0.1 139 724 3.9 38 Dakota, MN............... 9.6 169.0 3.0 13 713 1.9 212 Hennepin, MN............. 41.1 827.8 -1.2 232 891 3.1 84 Olmsted, MN.............. 3.3 87.6 0.9 80 779 3.0 96 Ramsey, MN............... 15.1 330.0 -0.1 149 812 3.2 79 St. Louis, MN............ 5.7 95.4 0.4 116 595 0.7 287 Stearns, MN.............. 4.1 76.8 -0.1 149 584 1.6 242 Harrison, MS............. 4.5 89.9 1.6 43 522 2.8 122 Hinds, MS................ 6.6 130.5 -1.9 266 627 3.6 54 Boone, MO................ 4.2 76.7 -0.4 178 561 1.3 258 Clay, MO................. 4.8 87.0 -0.8 205 670 3.1 84 Greene, MO............... 7.9 144.3 1.5 50 559 2.0 200 Jackson, MO.............. 18.8 368.8 -2.9 295 730 2.0 200 St. Charles, MO.......... 7.0 108.9 4.3 4 611 2.3 179 St. Louis, MO............ 33.8 630.4 -1.5 245 770 3.1 84 St. Louis City, MO....... 8.4 229.6 -2.9 295 792 2.2 183 Douglas, NE.............. 14.7 313.3 -1.2 232 657 4.6 22 Lancaster, NE............ 7.3 150.6 0.3 124 588 2.1 191 Clark, NV................ 34.5 750.3 3.5 10 655 3.6 54 Washoe, NV............... 11.7 195.7 1.6 43 665 3.3 69 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.1 192.5 1.3 54 769 4.8 15 Rockingham, NH........... 10.5 133.4 -0.3 171 694 -0.7 306 Atlantic, NJ............. 6.5 147.5 1.2 63 647 3.0 96 Bergen, NJ............... 34.2 455.7 0.9 80 898 2.4 170 Burlington, NJ........... (7) (7) (7) - (7) (7) - Camden, NJ............... 13.1 207.0 1.0 70 727 4.6 22 Essex, NJ................ 21.2 362.9 -0.4 178 895 2.3 179 Gloucester, NJ........... 5.9 97.6 2.7 18 647 2.5 159 Hudson, NJ............... 13.7 234.6 -1.1 226 900 2.9 108 Mercer, NJ............... 10.4 222.8 1.6 43 881 1.1 271 Middlesex, NJ............ 20.5 395.9 -2.0 270 889 1.7 231 Monmouth, NJ............. 19.6 252.7 0.1 139 779 2.8 122 Morris, NJ............... 17.5 281.2 -0.5 185 1,023 3.6 54 Ocean, NJ................ 11.4 148.7 2.1 30 609 2.7 132 Passaic, NJ.............. 12.4 177.7 -0.5 185 765 1.5 250 Somerset, NJ............. (7) (7) (7) - (7) (7) - Union, NJ................ 14.9 242.4 2.5 21 899 2.7 132 Bernalillo, NM........... 17.0 310.8 0.2 134 634 2.9 108 Albany, NY............... 9.4 228.5 -0.5 185 744 3.0 96 Bronx, NY................ 15.1 214.9 -0.7 196 693 2.7 132 Broome, NY............... 4.4 95.8 -2.6 291 604 3.1 84 Dutchess, NY............. 7.5 117.1 1.7 40 738 1.2 267 Erie, NY................. 23.2 457.6 -0.5 185 625 1.6 242 Kings, NY................ 41.1 442.1 0.3 124 626 3.3 69 Monroe, NY............... 17.5 387.0 -1.0 218 730 4.4 25 Nassau, NY............... 49.7 603.8 0.8 85 805 3.7 50 New York, NY............. 111.8 2,214.1 -2.4 283 1,250 0.6 291 Oneida, NY............... 5.3 110.1 0.7 89 560 2.6 148 Onondaga, NY............. 12.4 248.6 -0.1 149 670 2.3 179 Orange, NY............... 8.9 126.1 1.3 54 (7) (7) - Queens, NY............... 39.2 477.5 0.1 139 725 3.0 96 Richmond, NY............. 7.7 88.7 0.0 145 645 1.7 231 Rockland, NY............. 9.1 112.2 0.3 124 775 2.6 148 Suffolk, NY.............. 46.3 603.9 0.6 98 757 2.9 108 Westchester, NY.......... 34.7 410.5 0.1 139 919 2.5 159 Buncombe, NC............. 6.6 104.5 1.7 40 549 1.9 212 Catawba, NC.............. 4.3 85.6 -5.3 311 556 0.0 302 Cumberland, NC........... 5.5 109.2 -0.1 149 548 2.0 200 Durham, NC............... 6.1 160.2 -2.1 275 899 2.0 200 Forsyth, NC.............. 8.3 174.1 -1.5 245 672 2.0 200 Guilford, NC............. 13.6 266.5 -0.7 196 644 1.6 242 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 26.9 504.9 -1.0 218 807 1.1 271 New Hanover, NC.......... 6.2 88.3 0.3 124 568 0.4 295 Wake, NC................. 22.5 381.8 0.5 107 716 0.7 287 Cass, ND................. 5.1 86.6 3.2 11 568 2.5 159 Butler, OH............... 6.8 130.7 1.6 43 630 1.6 242 Cuyahoga, OH............. 38.8 772.3 -0.4 178 731 2.7 132 Franklin, OH............. 29.8 687.3 -1.5 245 714 2.4 170 Hamilton, OH............. 25.3 552.3 0.4 116 753 1.8 221 Lake, OH................. 6.7 98.7 -0.9 211 617 4.8 15 Lorain, OH............... 6.2 102.8 0.4 116 621 1.5 250 Lucas, OH................ 11.0 226.9 -1.6 253 662 2.6 148 Mahoning, OH............. 6.5 106.4 -0.7 196 534 2.5 159 Montgomery, OH........... 13.4 289.7 -1.0 218 682 2.1 191 Stark, OH................ 9.1 169.2 -2.0 270 574 1.8 221 Summit, OH............... 14.8 259.3 -0.8 205 664 2.9 108 Trumbull, OH............. 4.9 87.6 -2.2 278 637 1.8 221 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.5 398.8 -2.7 293 618 5.5 6 Tulsa, OK................ 18.1 317.8 -5.1 309 642 4.2 32 Clackamas, OR............ 10.9 133.9 -1.7 259 675 3.2 79 Lane, OR................. 10.1 138.1 -1.4 242 579 3.6 54 Marion, OR............... 8.2 132.2 0.7 89 575 2.1 191 Multnomah, OR............ 25.1 419.4 -2.5 287 732 1.0 273 Washington, OR........... 13.8 221.5 -1.9 266 793 0.6 291 Allegheny, PA............ 35.6 701.5 -1.6 253 738 2.2 183 Berks, PA................ 8.7 160.9 -2.3 282 669 3.9 38 Bucks, PA................ 19.7 256.0 1.9 32 696 3.7 50 Chester, PA.............. 14.5 219.4 1.0 70 895 5.2 10 Cumberland, PA........... 5.5 125.0 0.2 134 687 3.8 47 Dauphin, PA.............. 6.8 177.6 -0.2 162 694 3.4 64 Delaware, PA............. 13.7 210.4 -1.7 259 772 4.7 19 Erie, PA................. 7.1 126.6 -1.0 218 565 -0.2 303 Lackawanna, PA........... 5.6 98.3 0.3 124 551 2.0 200 Lancaster, PA............ 11.4 223.3 0.3 124 625 3.3 69 Lehigh, PA............... 8.1 172.6 1.0 70 706 0.4 295 Luzerne, PA.............. 7.8 141.9 0.5 107 576 2.7 132 Montgomery, PA........... 26.9 479.8 -0.9 211 849 3.0 96 Northampton, PA.......... 5.9 92.6 1.1 65 627 1.5 250 Philadelphia, PA......... 27.3 646.9 -1.6 253 813 3.8 47 Westmoreland, PA......... 9.2 133.3 -2.0 270 575 2.1 191 York, PA................. 8.4 164.4 -0.4 178 622 2.0 200 Kent, RI................. 5.4 79.8 2.5 21 672 7.9 1 Providence, RI........... 17.3 289.7 0.2 134 681 2.6 148 Charleston, SC........... 12.9 188.7 1.8 36 591 4.4 25 Greenville, SC........... 13.3 223.5 0.4 116 628 0.3 297 Horry, SC................ 8.6 108.3 2.3 24 472 1.7 231 Lexington, SC............ 6.1 83.7 0.5 107 546 1.5 250 Richland, SC............. 10.5 203.6 -0.1 149 612 2.7 132 Spartanburg, SC.......... 6.9 115.4 -0.7 196 629 1.3 258 Minnehaha, SD............ 5.8 109.6 0.5 107 586 3.9 38 Davidson, TN............. 17.9 424.3 1.3 54 696 0.9 277 Hamilton, TN............. 8.2 187.3 0.8 85 629 3.3 69 Knox, TN................. 10.2 211.0 1.3 54 611 2.9 108 Rutherford, TN........... 3.5 83.1 4.1 6 674 2.9 108 Shelby, TN............... 19.9 497.4 0.9 80 710 2.2 183 Bell, TX................. 4.1 88.9 -0.6 193 543 4.8 15 Bexar, TX................ 29.1 657.8 0.3 124 604 2.7 132 Brazoria, TX............. 4.0 75.8 0.3 124 665 -3.6 309 Brazos, TX............... 3.4 73.7 0.5 107 511 4.3 29 Cameron, TX.............. 6.0 114.5 -0.8 205 443 3.0 96 Collin, TX............... 11.5 192.8 1.4 52 783 0.8 284 Dallas, TX............... 67.3 1,442.7 -2.4 283 853 0.8 284 Denton, TX............... 7.9 127.5 0.4 116 601 2.4 170 El Paso, TX.............. 12.3 248.8 -1.3 239 510 -0.2 303 Fort Bend, TX............ 6.0 97.2 -1.0 218 699 1.0 273 Galveston, TX............ 4.7 90.7 1.3 54 614 1.3 258 Harris, TX............... 87.7 1,837.2 -1.1 226 818 2.0 200 Hidalgo, TX.............. 8.9 180.4 3.6 9 444 2.8 122 Jefferson, TX............ 5.8 117.2 -1.0 218 642 4.7 19 Lubbock, TX.............. 6.4 114.4 -1.3 239 531 2.9 108 McLennan, TX............. 4.6 98.3 0.2 134 558 4.1 34 Montgomery, TX........... 6.0 86.8 2.8 17 628 1.9 212 Nueces, TX............... 7.9 143.4 -0.5 185 571 2.1 191 Smith, TX................ 4.8 84.8 0.4 116 593 0.9 277 Tarrant, TX.............. 33.1 692.9 -1.7 259 726 1.0 273 Travis, TX............... 24.0 509.3 -2.0 270 792 2.9 108 Williamson, TX........... 4.7 82.8 2.2 27 741 6.6 4 Davis, UT................ 5.8 91.4 0.6 98 576 4.3 29 Salt Lake, UT............ 32.9 514.3 -0.8 205 646 1.3 258 Utah, UT................. 10.1 142.7 0.0 145 550 2.6 148 Weber, UT................ 5.0 86.0 0.5 107 540 1.9 212 Chittenden, VT........... 5.6 95.2 -0.8 205 702 3.5 60 Arlington, VA............ 6.8 150.7 -1.7 259 1,092 1.6 242 Chesterfield, VA......... 6.5 111.3 -0.2 162 640 0.9 277 Fairfax, VA.............. 29.5 538.5 0.9 80 1,044 3.1 84 Henrico, VA.............. 7.9 167.8 -0.4 178 737 1.5 250 Loudoun, VA.............. 5.7 106.1 5.2 1 924 1.3 258 Prince William, VA....... 5.5 90.8 2.1 30 626 5.4 7 Alexandria City, VA...... 5.5 92.4 1.2 63 903 2.7 132 Chesapeake City, VA...... 4.6 90.4 2.4 23 552 3.4 64 Newport News City, VA.... 3.6 96.3 0.6 98 642 1.9 212 Norfolk City, VA......... 5.5 144.6 -1.5 245 691 7.1 2 Richmond City, VA........ 6.9 159.4 -2.2 278 782 1.2 267 Virginia Beach City, VA.. 10.3 168.5 0.7 89 543 3.6 54 Clark, WA................ 11.1 116.5 1.3 54 657 1.7 231 King, WA................. 86.3 1,090.7 -1.5 245 950 4.2 32 Kitsap, WA............... 6.6 77.7 1.0 70 638 2.1 191 Pierce, WA............... 21.3 244.7 1.6 43 642 3.0 96 Snohomish, WA............ 17.1 209.3 0.3 124 725 2.4 170 Spokane, WA.............. 15.7 193.0 1.0 70 573 1.6 242 Thurston, WA............. 6.8 90.1 3.7 8 653 1.9 212 Yakima, WA............... 9.5 102.8 4.8 2 481 2.1 191 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.1 109.6 -0.9 211 624 1.8 221 Brown, WI................ 6.7 144.9 0.6 98 650 3.0 96 Dane, WI................. 13.4 283.9 0.7 89 707 5.2 10 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.4 504.1 -1.1 226 701 1.6 242 Outagamie, WI............ 4.9 99.6 1.8 36 619 1.8 221 Racine, WI............... 4.3 76.9 -1.6 253 676 4.0 36 Waukesha, WI............. 13.2 227.1 0.2 134 722 2.6 148 Winnebago, WI............ 3.9 87.8 -2.5 287 671 2.4 170 San Juan, PR............. 11.4 306.7 -0.9 211 460 5.3 9 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.3 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. Table 2. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties, second quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wages(4) Establishments, County by NAICS supersector second quarter Percent Percent 2003 June change, Average change, (thousands) 2003 June weekly second (thousands) 2002-03 wages quarter (3) 2002-03 (3) United States(5).................................. 8,232.5 129,169.4 -0.5 $702 2.2 Private industry................................ 7,966.5 108,223.1 -0.7 691 2.1 Natural resources and mining.................. 124.3 1,798.8 0.2 617 2.2 Construction.................................. 801.8 6,855.5 -0.4 733 1.1 Manufacturing................................. 380.4 14,546.7 -5.2 851 2.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 1,856.9 25,042.2 -1.0 617 2.0 Information................................... 146.9 3,187.6 -6.0 1,069 3.0 Financial activities.......................... 759.0 7,884.4 1.8 996 3.5 Professional and business services............ 1,317.2 15,946.2 -0.9 829 2.0 Education and health services................. 723.5 15,714.0 2.5 654 3.2 Leisure and hospitality....................... 663.9 12,657.0 0.9 299 1.7 Other services................................ 1,047.4 4,344.2 0.2 458 2.2 Government...................................... 266.0 20,946.3 0.5 761 3.3 Los Angeles, CA................................... 340.7 4,060.4 -0.3 789 2.9 Private industry................................ 336.9 3,461.0 0.1 768 2.7 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.6 12.1 0.9 865 11.9 Construction.................................. 12.8 134.8 1.2 775 -1.9 Manufacturing................................. 18.1 503.7 -6.8 787 1.8 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 53.5 767.1 -0.5 686 3.2 Information................................... 9.2 199.3 -4.2 1,298 3.8 Financial activities.......................... 22.7 236.1 1.3 1,151 2.0 Professional and business services............ 39.6 568.1 1.4 896 5.7 Education and health services................. 26.1 446.9 3.6 716 3.6 Leisure and hospitality....................... 24.9 372.5 3.4 462 3.1 Other services................................ 129.0 219.2 5.1 394 1.5 Government...................................... 3.9 599.4 -2.1 905 3.5 Cook, IL.......................................... 125.8 2,543.0 -1.6 836 1.2 Private industry................................ 124.7 2,213.0 -1.9 826 1.3 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.1 1.6 0.4 880 1.7 Construction.................................. 10.3 99.6 -0.8 1,027 2.6 Manufacturing................................. 7.9 269.1 -6.0 858 2.6 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 26.6 480.7 -1.6 693 0.6 Information................................... 2.5 66.6 -6.9 1,094 1.1 Financial activities.......................... 13.6 220.2 -0.3 1,283 0.9 Professional and business services............ 25.9 404.5 -3.7 1,034 1.5 Education and health services................. 12.1 343.6 0.0 709 3.8 Leisure and hospitality....................... 10.4 225.4 2.8 357 1.7 Other services................................ 12.7 97.2 -1.7 605 2.7 Government...................................... 1.1 330.0 -0.2 902 -0.3 New York, NY...................................... 111.8 2,214.1 -2.4 1,250 0.6 Private industry................................ 111.6 1,762.3 -2.2 1,343 0.1 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.0 0.1 12.7 1,052 -7.1 Construction.................................. 2.2 31.3 -3.4 1,270 0.8 Manufacturing................................. 3.6 47.7 -10.5 985 10.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 22.5 235.2 -0.3 967 1.0 Information................................... 4.5 130.2 -8.3 1,576 3.5 Financial activities.......................... 17.0 352.4 -3.3 2,284 -2.8 Professional and business services............ 22.8 426.7 -3.8 1,510 3.2 Education and health services................. 7.8 267.3 1.5 821 2.8 Leisure and hospitality....................... 10.1 180.0 0.6 623 1.3 Other services................................ 16.0 82.0 0.6 742 3.1 Government...................................... 0.2 451.8 -2.9 889 4.2 Harris, TX........................................ 87.7 1,837.2 -1.1 818 2.0 Private industry................................ 87.3 1,596.6 -1.8 830 1.7 Natural resources and mining.................. 1.2 60.8 4.4 1,870 2.4 Construction.................................. 6.3 142.8 -2.2 789 -0.6 Manufacturing................................. 4.7 167.9 -5.5 1,051 3.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 20.9 390.5 -3.7 779 3.7 Information................................... 1.4 34.5 -4.6 1,025 0.6 Financial activities.......................... 9.2 112.0 0.3 1,016 1.3 Professional and business services............ 16.7 278.8 -3.0 904 1.1 Education and health services................. 8.6 185.8 1.7 721 1.7 Leisure and hospitality....................... 6.4 161.5 2.3 315 -2.2 Other services................................ 10.3 58.2 -3.4 502 1.8 Government...................................... 0.4 240.6 3.6 738 4.2 Maricopa, AZ...................................... 79.4 1,547.0 0.7 710 2.9 Private industry................................ 78.9 1,354.9 0.2 694 3.0 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.5 10.4 -1.4 456 0.9 Construction.................................. 8.4 127.5 1.6 712 3.5 Manufacturing................................. 3.3 126.0 -7.3 972 4.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 18.7 315.7 -0.4 684 2.2 Information................................... 1.6 37.5 -2.6 858 3.0 Financial activities.......................... 9.3 131.3 2.5 882 6.4 Professional and business services............ 17.8 253.7 1.0 683 2.4 Education and health services................. 7.4 154.5 5.2 729 3.0 Leisure and hospitality....................... 5.5 151.8 0.8 334 0.9 Other services................................ 5.6 44.9 -2.9 481 2.6 Government...................................... 0.5 192.2 4.0 816 3.2 Dallas, TX........................................ 67.3 1,442.7 -2.4 853 0.8 Private industry................................ 66.9 1,285.9 -3.1 862 0.8 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.5 6.4 (6) 2,421 (6) Construction.................................. 4.5 75.4 -5.4 808 4.0 Manufacturing................................. 3.4 146.5 -6.6 988 -3.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 15.6 319.6 -3.6 835 2.0 Information................................... 1.8 64.9 -9.4 1,156 -2.0 Financial activities.......................... 8.4 139.1 0.5 1,087 2.9 Professional and business services............ 13.8 232.2 -3.5 954 2.0 Education and health services................. 6.1 129.8 3.5 767 1.9 Leisure and hospitality....................... 5.0 127.2 -1.6 383 1.1 Other services................................ 6.7 42.4 -3.1 535 0.9 Government...................................... 0.4 156.8 4.2 780 1.8 Orange, CA........................................ 87.1 1,433.5 0.9 800 3.5 Private industry................................ 85.7 1,283.4 1.6 789 3.3 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.2 8.3 -8.3 494 1.6 Construction.................................. 6.4 84.4 6.4 851 2.3 Manufacturing................................. 6.1 183.3 -6.1 919 5.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 17.3 265.5 0.3 751 0.0 Information................................... 1.5 34.3 -7.5 1,092 3.1 Financial activities.......................... 9.5 123.7 11.7 1,228 10.8 Professional and business services............ 17.2 253.2 3.0 829 -0.1 Education and health services................. 8.9 123.9 6.5 728 -0.3 Leisure and hospitality....................... 6.6 160.4 0.0 352 5.7 Other services................................ 11.8 46.0 3.8 480 0.8 Government...................................... 1.4 150.1 -4.5 891 6.2 San Diego, CA..................................... 83.1 1,263.1 0.4 757 1.9 Private industry................................ 81.8 1,040.5 0.4 737 1.2 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.9 12.0 -1.6 469 1.1 Construction.................................. 6.3 80.0 1.5 785 1.6 Manufacturing................................. 3.6 107.2 -6.9 1,007 5.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 14.1 206.2 0.9 635 1.4 Information................................... 1.4 37.0 -2.6 1,328 -6.3 Financial activities.......................... 8.7 81.0 6.2 1,002 5.5 Professional and business services............ 14.6 201.2 -0.6 883 -0.5 Education and health services................. 7.5 120.7 2.3 677 4.0 Leisure and hospitality....................... 6.4 142.1 1.3 330 3.8 Other services................................ 18.1 52.9 5.4 426 1.7 Government...................................... 1.4 222.6 0.0 849 4.9 King, WA.......................................... 86.3 1,090.7 -1.5 950 4.2 Private industry................................ 85.7 936.5 -1.8 966 4.4 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.5 3.1 -12.9 1,187 14.0 Construction.................................. 6.9 54.5 -2.3 866 -0.6 Manufacturing................................. 2.8 104.4 -10.7 1,097 2.6 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 15.9 216.0 -1.7 759 0.3 Information................................... 1.7 67.3 -2.2 2,794 12.3 Financial activities.......................... 6.3 76.6 2.3 1,082 8.6 Professional and business services............ 12.8 155.1 -1.6 1,076 6.1 Education and health services................. 6.1 107.9 1.2 700 3.1 Leisure and hospitality....................... 5.6 101.9 0.6 374 0.5 Other services................................ 27.1 49.7 2.4 435 -2.2 Government...................................... 0.6 154.1 0.7 855 3.0 Miami-Dade, FL.................................... 78.9 966.5 -1.2 689 3.1 Private industry................................ 78.6 814.3 -1.6 659 2.6 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.5 8.8 4.3 381 -7.5 Construction.................................. 4.8 40.1 0.8 704 -1.3 Manufacturing................................. 2.8 51.4 -7.9 622 3.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 23.2 239.3 -2.2 630 1.4 Information................................... 1.7 27.4 -9.2 946 3.6 Financial activities.......................... 8.1 64.8 1.9 933 1.5 Professional and business services............ 15.5 130.8 -5.8 782 5.7 Education and health services................. 7.7 123.0 2.4 681 5.1 Leisure and hospitality....................... 5.2 91.1 1.4 377 3.3 Other services................................ 7.4 34.9 -1.4 424 2.4 Government...................................... 0.3 152.1 1.0 851 4.8 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. Table 3. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by state, second quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wages(5) Establishments, County(3) second quarter Percent Percent 2003 June change, Average change, (thousands) 2003 June weekly second (thousands) 2002-03 wages quarter (4) 2002-03 (4) United States(6)......... 8,232.5 129,169.4 -0.5 $702 2.2 Jefferson, AL............ 18.1 369.4 -1.2 700 2.2 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.5 143.6 1.8 757 2.0 Maricopa, AZ............. 79.4 1,547.0 0.7 710 2.9 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.1 240.2 0.5 634 1.8 Los Angeles, CA.......... 340.7 4,060.4 -0.3 789 2.9 Denver, CO............... 24.2 428.2 -2.9 850 2.9 Hartford, CT............. 24.2 485.2 -2.2 864 1.9 New Castle, DE........... 17.7 279.2 1.0 833 3.3 Washington, DC........... 29.4 651.6 -0.6 1,150 5.0 Miami-Dade, FL........... 78.9 966.5 -1.2 689 3.1 Fulton, GA............... 37.2 718.4 -2.0 916 1.8 Honolulu, HI............. 24.1 417.9 0.6 658 3.3 Ada, ID.................. 13.2 184.0 0.1 647 1.6 Cook, IL................. 125.8 2,543.0 -1.6 836 1.2 Marion, IN............... 23.4 575.7 -1.2 727 2.0 Polk, IA................. 13.6 262.8 -0.7 695 3.9 Johnson, KS.............. 18.5 291.8 -0.1 735 2.9 Jefferson, KY............ 21.4 421.1 -0.2 688 2.7 Orleans, LA.............. 12.9 253.3 0.3 659 3.3 Cumberland, ME........... 11.0 170.2 -0.1 639 2.7 Montgomery, MD........... 30.7 456.9 0.7 917 2.7 Middlesex, MA............ 46.8 797.6 -3.2 984 1.9 Wayne, MI................ 35.4 816.6 -1.8 824 1.7 Hennepin, MN............. 41.1 827.8 -1.2 891 3.1 Hinds, MS................ 6.6 130.5 -1.9 627 3.6 St. Louis, MO............ 33.8 630.4 -1.5 770 3.1 Yellowstone, MT.......... 5.7 69.9 0.6 572 4.2 Douglas, NE.............. 14.7 313.3 -1.2 657 4.6 Clark, NV................ 34.5 750.3 3.5 655 3.6 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.1 192.5 1.3 769 4.8 Bergen, NJ............... 34.2 455.7 0.9 898 2.4 Bernalillo, NM........... 17.0 310.8 0.2 634 2.9 New York, NY............. 111.8 2,214.1 -2.4 1,250 0.6 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 26.9 504.9 -1.0 807 1.1 Cass, ND................. 5.1 86.6 3.2 568 2.5 Cuyahoga, OH............. 38.8 772.3 -0.4 731 2.7 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.5 398.8 -2.7 618 5.5 Multnomah, OR............ 25.1 419.4 -2.5 732 1.0 Allegheny, PA............ 35.6 701.5 -1.6 738 2.2 Providence, RI........... 17.3 289.7 0.2 681 2.6 Greenville, SC........... 13.3 223.5 0.4 628 0.3 Minnehaha, SD............ 5.8 109.6 0.5 586 3.9 Shelby, TN............... 19.9 497.4 0.9 710 2.2 Harris, TX............... 87.7 1,837.2 -1.1 818 2.0 Salt Lake, UT............ 32.9 514.3 -0.8 646 1.3 Chittenden, VT........... 5.6 95.2 -0.8 702 3.5 Fairfax, VA.............. 29.5 538.5 0.9 1,044 3.1 King, WA................. 86.3 1,090.7 -1.5 950 4.2 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.1 109.6 -0.9 624 1.8 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.4 504.1 -1.1 701 1.6 Laramie, WY.............. 2.8 40.0 3.0 553 3.6 San Juan, PR............. 11.4 306.7 -0.9 460 5.3 St. Thomas, VI........... 1.7 22.9 0.1 577 8.9 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. Table 4. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages by state, second quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wages(3) Establishments, second quarter State 2003 Percent Percent (thousands) June change, Average change, 2003 June weekly second (thousands) 2002-03 wages quarter 2002-03 United States(4)......... 8,232.5 129,169.4 -0.5 $702 2.2 Alabama.................. 110.4 1,828.1 -0.6 602 2.7 Alaska................... 19.4 305.7 1.9 723 2.3 Arizona.................. 123.8 2,221.9 0.7 673 3.2 Arkansas................. 74.8 1,123.3 -0.9 546 2.1 California............... 1,145.6 15,065.0 -0.1 790 2.3 Colorado................. 159.7 2,144.6 -2.2 724 2.3 Connecticut.............. 108.8 1,652.3 -1.6 874 2.7 Delaware................. 26.5 408.9 0.4 748 2.9 District of Columbia..... 29.4 651.6 -0.6 1,150 5.0 Florida.................. 494.0 7,181.1 1.2 630 2.9 Georgia.................. 242.1 3,790.5 -1.0 684 2.1 Hawaii................... 36.8 569.6 0.9 635 3.6 Idaho.................... 49.2 590.5 0.7 538 2.1 Illinois................. 323.7 5,773.8 -1.4 751 1.5 Indiana.................. 152.0 2,839.7 -0.5 623 1.6 Iowa..................... 89.7 1,428.3 -1.1 572 2.7 Kansas................... 82.0 1,298.4 -2.2 591 1.2 Kentucky................. 106.0 1,727.5 -0.5 608 2.7 Louisiana................ 116.6 1,867.2 0.0 579 2.1 Maine.................... 46.9 605.5 -0.7 569 3.1 Maryland................. 149.9 2,470.0 0.3 761 3.1 Massachusetts............ 203.2 3,200.1 -2.2 849 1.6 Michigan................. 251.4 4,399.7 -1.5 728 2.0 Minnesota................ 157.6 2,631.6 -0.1 723 2.7 Mississippi.............. 64.9 1,095.5 -1.7 521 3.0 Missouri................. 165.8 2,655.3 -0.4 639 2.1 Montana.................. 42.0 404.9 1.1 521 3.8 Nebraska................. 54.9 887.5 -0.4 565 3.5 Nevada................... 57.3 1,077.2 2.8 658 3.6 New Hampshire............ 46.3 614.7 0.1 692 2.2 New Jersey............... 263.2 3,935.7 -0.1 850 2.7 New Mexico............... 50.8 755.2 1.1 579 1.6 New York................. 549.8 8,347.6 -0.7 851 1.8 North Carolina........... 224.6 3,728.6 -1.1 621 1.0 North Dakota............. 23.8 319.1 0.6 516 3.4 Ohio..................... 292.6 5,348.4 -0.9 654 2.2 Oklahoma................. 91.5 1,404.4 -3.1 566 4.2 Oregon................... 116.1 1,586.4 -1.1 651 1.4 Pennsylvania............. 324.2 5,548.3 -0.6 689 2.8 Rhode Island............. 34.5 482.2 0.8 671 3.4 South Carolina........... 123.5 1,786.8 -0.3 578 1.9 South Dakota............. 27.8 374.9 0.1 507 3.3 Tennessee................ 127.8 2,611.7 -0.2 628 1.9 Texas.................... 498.5 9,250.4 -0.7 686 1.6 Utah..................... 71.5 1,047.9 -0.1 588 1.9 Vermont.................. 24.0 297.8 -0.9 609 3.2 Virginia................. 200.2 3,453.2 -0.1 719 2.7 Washington............... 233.2 2,701.1 0.6 747 2.9 West Virginia............ 46.9 685.7 -0.6 573 3.1 Wisconsin................ 155.0 2,741.3 -0.3 628 2.3 Wyoming.................. 21.9 252.7 0.9 563 2.9 Puerto Rico.............. 43.6 977.0 -1.1 400 5.0 Virgin Islands........... 3.2 41.5 -3.7 602 2.0 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.