Employment in Rockingham County rose 1.5 percent from September 2011 to September 2012, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Hillsborough, New Hampshire’s other large county, saw an
employment gain of 1.0 percent. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or
more as measured by 2011 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Deborah A. Brown
noted that employment growth in both counties was below the 1.6-percent national average.

Nationwide, employment increased in 276 of the 328 largest U.S. counties. The largest over-the-year
percentage increase in employment was recorded in Elkhart, Ind. (6.9 percent); Benton, Wash.,
experienced the largest over-the-year decrease (-5.2 percent).

Among New Hampshire’s two large counties, employment was higher in Hillsborough County
(189,100) in September 2012. Together, both large counties accounted for 52.7 percent of total
employment within the state. Nationwide, the 328 largest counties made up 71.0 percent of total U.S.
employment.

The average weekly wage in Rockingham fell 6.9 percent to $843 from the third quarter of 2011 to the
third quarter of 2012. While average weekly wages were higher in Hillsborough, at $970, it experienced
a wage decrease of 3.0 percent. (See table 1.) Nationally, the average weekly wage decreased 1.1
percent over the year to $906.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the eight counties in
New Hampshire with employment below 75,000. All of these smaller counties had average weekly
wages below the national average. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

The 6.9-percent wage drop in Rockingham County ranked 325th among the 328 largest U.S. counties. Hillsborough’s 3.0-percent wage decrease ranked 276th. Rockingham County joined two others (Lake, Ohio and Benton, Wash.) which reported a similar decline in average weekly wages and tying for the second-largest decrease among the largest counties. Nationwide,Yolo, Calif, had the largest over-theyear decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 7.0 percent in the third quarter of 2012. Across the country, 274 large counties experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages.

Of the 328 largest counties, 46 experienced increases in average weekly wages. San Mateo, Calif., had the largest average weekly wage increase with a gain of 7.3 percent. Douglas, Colo., had the second largest increase in average weekly wages, followed by Pinellas, Fla.

Large county average weekly wages

Hillsborough County’s average weekly wage of $970 placed 71st in the national ranking putting it in the top quarter of all large counties. Rockingham County’s $843 weekly wage was in the bottom half of large counties (166th) and was below the U.S. average of $906.

Among the 225 counties with average weekly wages below the national average, Horry, S.C. ($554), reported the lowest wage, followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($580), Hidalgo, Texas ($584), Yakima, Wash. ($620) and Marion, Fla., ($621).

Nationally, average weekly wages were equal to or greater than the national average in 103 of the largest U.S. counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,800. New York, N.Y., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,626, followed by San Mateo, Calif. ($1,537), and Washington, D.C. ($1,514).

Average weekly wages in New Hampshire's smaller counties

All eight of the counties in New Hampshire with employment below 75,000 had average weekly wages lower than the national average of $906. Among these counties, Grafton reported the highest average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2012 at $893, while Carroll reported the lowest at $573.

When all 10 counties in New Hampshire were considered, all but 1 had wages below the national average. Three reported average weekly wages at or below $699, 2 reported wages from $700 to $799, and 4 had wages from $800 to $899. One county had wages above $900. The lowest-paid counties were generally located in the northeastern part of the state. (See chart 1.)

Additional statistics and other Information

QCEW data for states has been included in this release in table 3. For additional information about quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note or visit the QCEW Web site at www.bls.gov/cew/. QCEW data in the release are based on the 2012 North American Industrial Classification System.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2011 edition of this bulletin, which was published in October 2012, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2012 version of the news release. Tables and additional content from the 2011 Employment and Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn11.htm. The 2012 edition of
Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in 2013.

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.

Technical Note

Average weekly wage data by county are compiled under 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 9.2 million employer reports cover 132.9 million full- and part-time workers. The average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels of those covered by UI programs. The result is then divided by 13, the number of weeks in a quarter. It is to be noted, therefore, that over-the-year wage changes for geographic areas may reflect shifts in the composition of employment by industry, occupation, and such other factors as hours of work. Thus, wages may vary among counties, metropolitan areas, or states for reasons other than changes in the average wage level. Data for all states, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), counties, and the nation are available on the BLS Web site at www.bls.gov/cew/; however, data in QCEW press releases have been revised and may not match the data contained on the Bureau’s Web site.

QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are simply the sums of individual establishment records reflecting 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.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ from data released by the individual states as well as from the data presented on the BLS Web site. These potential differences result from the states’ continuing receipt, review and editing of UI data over time. On the other hand, differences between data in this release and the data found on the BLS Web site are the result of adjustments made to improve over-the-year comparisons. Specifically, these adjustments account for administrative (noneconomic) changes such as a correction to a previously reported location or industry classification. Adjusting for these administrative changes allows users to more accurately assess changes of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county to another or changing its primary economic activity) over a 12-month period. Currently, adjusted data are available only from BLS press releases.