Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 03-654 http://www.bls.gov/cew/ For release: 10:00 A.M. EST Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, October 31, 2003 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2003 In March 2003, Placer County in California had the biggest over-the- year percentage 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. Placer County experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 4.9 percent, compared with a national decline of 0.3 percent. Marin County, Calif., had the biggest over-the- year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2003, with an increase of 10.7 percent. U.S. average weekly wages increased by 1.5 percent. Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 167 had rates of over- the-year employment growth above the national average in March 2003, and 145 experienced declines in employment greater than the national average. Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 208 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 99 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. More than 8.2 million employer reports cover 126.9 million full- and part-time workers. The at- tached tables and charts 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 are not used in calculating U.S. averages. (See Technical Note.) Data for all counties regardless of size through the fourth quarter of 2002 are available on the BLS Web site http://www.bls.gov/cew/; data for all U.S. counties for the first quarter of 2003 will be available in November. Large County Employment The national employment total in March 2003 was 126.9 million, which was 0.3 percent lower than in March 2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.6 percent of total U.S. employ- ment covered under UI laws, 77.1 percent of total covered wages, and 77.9 percent of the over-the-year employment decline since March 2002. (San Juan, P.R., is not included in the grouping of U.S. counties.) The biggest gains in employment from March 2002 to March 2003 were recorded in the counties of Clark, Nev. (27,500), San Diego, Calif. (20,900), Riverside, Calif. (20,400), and Maricopa, Ariz., and Pinellas, Fla., (18,500 each). (See table A.) Placer County, Calif., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (4.9 percent), followed by the counties of Lee, Fla., and St. Charles, Mo. (4.6 percent each), Rutherford, Tenn. (4.5 percent), and Pinellas, Fla. (4.3 percent). (See table 1.) - 2 - Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by March 2003 employment, March 2002-03 employment change, and March 2002-03 percent change in employment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Employment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | March 2003 employment | Net change in employment,| Percent change (thousands) | March 2002-03 | in employment, | (thousands) | March 2002-03 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. 126,860.3|U.S. -443.4|U.S. -0.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Los Angeles, Calif. 4,050.1|Clark, Nev. 27.5|Placer, Calif. 4.9 Cook, Ill. 2,496.5|San Diego, Calif. 20.9|Lee, Fla. 4.6 New York, N.Y. 2,210.3|Riverside, Calif. 20.4|St. Charles, Mo. 4.6 Harris, Texas 1,830.8|Maricopa, Ariz. 18.5|Rutherford, Tenn. 4.5 Maricopa, Ariz. 1,569.5|Pinellas, Fla. 18.5|Pinellas, Fla. 4.3 Dallas, Texas 1,436.5|Orange, Calif. 14.1|Thurston, Wash. 4.1 Orange, Calif. 1,421.1|Orange, Fla. 11.8|Riverside, Calif. 4.0 San Diego, Calif. 1,250.5|Honolulu, Hawaii 9.1|Clark, Nev. 3.8 King, Wash. 1,080.7|San Bernardino, Calif. 8.9|Yakima, Wash. 3.6 Miami-Dade, Fla. 984.0|Lee, Fla. 8.2|Gloucester, N.J. 3.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Employment declined in 163 counties from March 2002 to March 2003. The largest percentage decline in employment was in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-5.9 percent), followed by the counties of Sangamon, Ill. (-5.4 percent), Catawba, N.C. (-4.2 percent), and Boulder, Colo., and Tulsa, Okla. (-4.1 percent each). The largest numerical declines in employment occurred in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-53,400), followed by the counties of Dallas, Texas (-43,900), New York, N.Y. (-41,200), Cook, Ill. (-39,200), and Middlesex, Mass. (-32,000). Large County Average Weekly Wages The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2003 was $729, which was 1.5 percent higher than the first quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 111 of the largest 315 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., comprised entirely of the borough of Manhattan, had the highest pay among the large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,648. Fairfield County, Conn., followed with an average weekly wage of $1,376. Somerset County, N.J., was third with an average weekly wage of $1,299. Suffolk County, Mass., was fourth with $1,238, followed by Santa Clara County, Calif., at $1,235. (See table B.) Marin County, Calif., led the nation in over-the-year growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 10.7 percent. Galveston County, Texas, was second with 7.4 percent growth, followed by the counties of Providence, R.I. (7.3 percent), Macomb, Mich. (6.7 percent), and Okaloosa, Fla., and Trumbull, Ohio (6.5 percent each). There were 201 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 ($438), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($445), Horry, S.C. ($487), Pasco, Fla. ($488), and Brazos, Texas ($503). (See table 1.) Thirty-one large counties showed over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Hudson County, N.J., had the largest decrease, registering a 9.1 per- cent decline. Loudoun County, Va., was second with a 7.9 percent decline, fol- lowed by the counties of New York, N.Y. (-5.9 percent), and Calcasieu, La., and Richmond, N.Y. (-4.0 percent each). - 3 - Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by first quarter 2003 average weekly wages, first quarter 2002-03 change in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2002-03 percent change in average weekly wages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weekly wages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Average weekly wages, | Change in average weekly | Percent change in first quarter 2003 | wages, first quarter | average weekly wages, | 2002-03 | first quarter 2002-03 | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. $729|U.S. $11|U.S. 1.5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | New York, N.Y. $1,648|Marin, Calif. $90|Marin, Calif. 10.7 Fairfield, Conn. 1,376|Somerset, N.J. 68|Galveston, Texas 7.4 Somerset, N.J. 1,299|Macomb, Mich. 52|Providence, R.I. 7.3 Suffolk, Mass. 1,238|Providence, R.I. 51|Macomb, Mich. 6.7 Santa Clara, Calif. 1,235|Chester, Pa. 47|Okaloosa, Fla. 6.5 San Francisco, Calif. 1,234|Clayton, Ga. 46|Trumbull, Ohio 6.5 Arlington, Va. 1,138|Johnson, Kan. 45|Clayton, Ga. 6.3 Washington, D.C. 1,135|Galveston, Texas 44|Sangamon, Ill. 6.3 Morris, N.J. 1,106|Sangamon, Ill. 44|Summit, Ohio 6.3 Fairfax, Va. 1,091|Williamson, Texas 43|Johnson, Kan. 6.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ten Largest U.S. Counties Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 annual employment levels), 3 experienced increases in employment, 1 had no change in employment, and 6 experienced declines in employment from March 2002 to March 2003. San Diego County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a 1.7 percent increase. San Diego's growth was spread across most industry supersectors, with the largest exception in manufacturing, where employment declined by 6.3 percent. (See table 2.) Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest increase, with employment rising by 1.2 percent, followed by Orange County Calif., which experienced a 1.0 percent increase in employment. The biggest decline in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, a decrease of 3.0 percent. This was primarily at- tributable to an 8.0 percent decrease in manufacturing of 11,600 jobs. The next largest declines in employment were recorded in New York County, N.Y., and Cook County, Ill., where employment fell by 1.8 and 1.5 percent, respectively. Seven of the 10 largest U.S. counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages, and 3 had declines. Orange County, Calif., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 3.6 percent rate. Orange County's fastest growing industry for wages was financial activities, up by 8.9 percent. Miami-Dade County, Fla., experienced growth in wages of 2.7 percent, followed by San Diego County, Calif., with a 2.6 percent increase. New York County, N.Y., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, falling by 5.9 per- cent. This was primarily attributable to a 12.7 percent decrease in aver- age weekly wages in financial activities. This was followed by King County, Wash., with a decline in average weekly wages of 1.1 percent, and Harris County, Texas, where average weekly wages declined by 0.5 percent. - 4 - Largest County by State Table 3 shows employment and average weekly wages in the largest county for each state. This table includes two counties that had employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont. and Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in March 2003 ranged from over 4 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to about 38,000 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest aver- age weekly wages of these counties were $1,648 in New York, N.Y., while the lowest average weekly wages were in Yellowstone, Mont. ($532). --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | QCEW Employment Totals and the CES Benchmark | | | | QCEW employment totals, adjusted for coverage differences, are | | used each year by the CES program to adjust monthly nonfarm payroll | | employment estimates to the employment census totals. This CES | | adjustment is commonly referred to as the annual benchmark. The | | QCEW totals presented in this release will differ to some extent | | from the adjusted totals used in the benchmark process. For details | | on how the latest QCEW data may affect the CES benchmark and on how | | QCEW employment totals are adjusted as part of this process, please | | see http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesbmkqa.htm. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 byproduct of the administration of state unemployment insur- ance programs that require most employers to pay quarterly taxes based on the employment and wages of workers covered by UI. Data for 2003 are pre- liminary and subject to revision. Differences between QCEW and CES employment measures. The employment and wage universe totals from the QCEW differ from the official Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates of employment and earnings produced by the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program due to differences in scope and coverage. The preliminary universe totals released by BLS are based on establishment reports including more than 95 percent of the employees within the scope of the QCEW program. Estimates are used to impute employment and wages for the remaining establishments. Please see http://www.bls.gov/ces/ for more detailed technical information on the CES program concepts, coverage, and methodology. 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. 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. 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 agri- cultural workers on small farms, all members of the Armed Forces, elected of- ficials in most states, most employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit or- ganizations. - 2 - 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. In- cluded 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 pub- lished earlier. 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, espe- cially at more detailed industry levels, may not be strictly comparable with earlier years. The 2002 first 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 first quarter of 2003. As a result, the adjusted 2002 first quarter data differ to some extent from the data available on the BLS Web site. County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information Pro- cessing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the National In- stitute 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 refer- red to in this release are defined as census regions. - 3 - 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 clas- sification 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 information into a commodity with units which distribute that commodity. Information's major components are publishing, broadcasting, telecommunications, information ser- vices, 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 techni- cal services. This sector is comprised of establishments engaged in activi- ties where human capital is the major input. 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, 2001 is avail- able for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The 2002 annual bulletin will be pub- lished in November 2003. News releases on 2002 quarterly employment and pay data are avail- able upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics and Labor Turnover, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20212; telephone 202-691-6567; (http://www.bls.gov/cew/); (e-mail: CEWInfo@bls.gov). News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows are also avail- able 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, first quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wages(5) Establishments, first quarter Percent Percent County(3) 2003 March change, Ranking Average change, Ranking (thousands) 2003 March by weekly first by (thousands) 2002-03 percent wages quarter percent (4) change 2002-03 change (4) United States(6)......... 8,250.6 126,860.3 -0.3 - $729 1.5 - Jefferson, AL............ 18.2 368.0 -1.7 260 742 4.7 28 Madison, AL.............. 7.6 158.0 2.6 17 760 4.8 27 Mobile, AL............... 9.5 162.6 -0.9 203 581 1.9 185 Montgomery, AL........... 6.5 128.2 -0.5 180 602 4.7 28 Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.0 77.2 1.2 72 584 3.5 64 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.4 136.7 2.6 17 740 0.4 265 Maricopa, AZ............. 79.0 1,569.5 1.2 72 699 1.2 231 Pima, AZ................. 17.3 327.9 0.1 138 616 2.7 130 Benton, AR............... 3.9 80.5 2.7 16 751 1.5 210 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.1 237.0 0.4 114 636 2.3 161 Washington, AR........... 4.8 82.5 -0.2 159 544 3.4 69 Alameda, CA.............. 48.1 685.1 -1.3 234 922 1.3 225 Contra Costa, CA......... 27.9 337.6 0.0 143 913 0.7 257 Fresno, CA............... 29.2 312.7 2.1 33 579 3.0 101 Kern, CA................. 15.8 235.2 2.8 15 655 2.7 130 Los Angeles, CA.......... 347.1 4,050.1 0.0 143 817 1.2 231 Marin, CA................ 11.9 108.8 -1.5 247 931 10.7 1 Monterey, CA............. 11.9 157.3 2.2 27 670 2.9 112 Orange, CA............... 87.6 1,421.1 1.0 83 832 3.6 58 Placer, CA............... 9.1 123.5 4.9 1 701 2.6 139 Riverside, CA............ 35.8 534.2 4.0 7 617 2.8 115 Sacramento, CA........... 45.0 592.7 0.7 100 819 3.5 64 San Bernardino, CA....... 39.0 565.8 1.6 48 627 3.8 51 San Diego, CA............ 83.8 1,250.5 1.7 45 777 2.6 139 San Francisco, CA........ 44.0 533.0 -2.7 296 1,234 -2.2 305 San Joaquin, CA.......... 15.2 210.4 3.0 12 623 3.1 95 San Luis Obispo, CA...... 8.6 98.8 -0.5 180 596 4.4 34 San Mateo, CA............ 23.3 333.3 -3.3 307 1,089 -1.2 301 Santa Barbara, CA........ 13.0 178.3 1.9 40 686 3.3 78 Santa Clara, CA.......... 51.2 858.0 -5.9 315 1,235 -1.8 304 Santa Cruz, CA........... 8.3 92.2 -1.8 266 704 3.5 64 Solano, CA............... 9.1 125.6 2.2 27 667 1.1 236 Sonoma, CA............... 16.9 187.2 -2.4 290 702 2.0 179 Stanislaus, CA........... 12.9 162.3 1.7 45 617 4.0 42 Tulare, CA............... 9.0 129.4 1.5 54 $506 3.7 57 Ventura, CA.............. 20.3 303.1 0.5 109 773 5.2 17 Yolo, CA................. 4.9 88.2 2.3 24 700 3.2 88 Adams, CO................ 8.5 138.1 -3.3 307 671 1.5 210 Arapahoe, CO............. 18.7 267.4 -2.7 296 918 0.1 280 Boulder, CO.............. 11.6 149.8 -4.1 311 869 2.6 139 Denver, CO............... 24.0 424.9 -1.9 273 882 1.0 243 El Paso, CO.............. 15.4 229.4 -1.7 260 674 1.7 202 Jefferson, CO............ 17.6 200.2 -1.4 241 754 1.1 236 Larimer, CO.............. 9.0 116.5 -1.5 247 643 0.2 276 Fairfield, CT............ 31.6 406.5 -1.8 266 1,376 2.1 170 Hartford, CT............. 24.0 475.1 -2.7 296 938 3.9 46 New Haven, CT............ 21.7 357.7 -0.7 194 777 1.6 206 New London, CT........... 6.5 127.0 -0.2 159 750 2.6 139 New Castle, DE........... 17.3 271.4 -0.5 180 932 0.4 265 Washington, DC........... 29.3 651.8 1.1 79 1,135 2.8 115 Alachua, FL.............. 5.6 121.2 1.5 54 527 3.9 46 Brevard, FL.............. 11.9 184.3 0.6 107 662 2.5 148 Broward, FL.............. 55.0 682.8 0.9 88 671 2.8 115 Collier, FL.............. 10.0 122.4 2.1 33 605 2.0 179 Duval, FL................ 21.3 428.6 0.3 122 713 4.7 28 Escambia, FL............. 7.1 122.8 1.7 45 558 1.5 210 Hillsborough, FL......... 29.6 614.3 1.1 79 677 3.0 101 Lee, FL.................. 14.2 187.8 4.6 2 584 1.9 185 Leon, FL................. 8.1 142.3 1.8 42 592 3.0 101 Manatee, FL.............. 6.4 (7) (7) - 553 2.6 139 Marion, FL............... 5.9 85.1 1.2 72 514 3.4 69 Miami-Dade, FL........... 78.0 984.0 -0.2 159 692 2.7 130 Okaloosa, FL............. 4.8 78.5 3.0 12 541 6.5 5 Orange, FL............... 28.0 601.7 2.0 37 652 2.0 179 Palm Beach, FL........... 41.2 518.6 1.5 54 712 1.9 185 Pasco, FL................ 7.1 81.2 2.5 20 488 5.4 14 Pinellas, FL............. 27.3 444.0 4.3 5 616 -0.5 292 Polk, FL................. 10.1 187.2 -0.6 187 562 3.3 78 Sarasota, FL............. 12.5 142.8 -0.2 159 586 2.6 139 Seminole, FL............. 11.3 149.3 1.3 64 632 -0.3 288 Volusia, FL.............. 11.2 150.0 1.8 42 $517 4.4 34 Bibb, GA................. 4.8 84.0 -0.9 203 606 -3.3 310 Chatham, GA.............. 7.1 123.1 0.7 100 609 2.9 112 Clayton, GA.............. 4.5 110.2 -1.3 234 775 6.3 7 Cobb, GA................. 19.8 299.1 1.6 48 805 1.0 243 De Kalb, GA.............. 17.1 299.9 0.2 131 808 4.4 34 Fulton, GA............... 37.7 728.8 -0.9 203 1,010 2.1 170 Gwinnett, GA............. 20.9 290.0 -0.1 152 776 0.5 261 Muscogee, GA............. 4.7 97.0 0.8 95 589 2.8 115 Richmond, GA............. 4.9 102.9 -0.3 167 602 4.9 23 Honolulu, HI............. 24.0 416.7 2.2 27 660 2.0 179 Ada, ID.................. 12.8 179.3 0.4 114 648 0.3 271 Champaign, IL............ 3.9 89.4 0.9 88 605 1.0 243 Cook, IL................. 125.5 2,496.5 -1.5 247 905 1.3 225 Du Page, IL.............. 31.9 556.1 -0.8 200 863 2.4 153 Kane, IL................. 10.5 190.3 -0.6 187 655 2.7 130 Lake, IL................. 18.5 311.2 0.9 88 906 -2.5 307 McHenry, IL.............. 7.1 89.4 -0.1 152 633 2.3 161 McLean, IL............... 3.3 84.4 -0.3 167 708 2.8 115 Madison, IL.............. 5.5 93.6 -1.6 256 587 2.1 170 Peoria, IL............... 4.5 95.5 -2.8 301 667 2.3 161 Rock Island, IL.......... 3.3 76.8 -1.1 224 658 -0.2 285 St. Clair, IL............ 4.9 90.8 0.7 100 566 1.3 225 Sangamon, IL............. 5.0 135.1 -5.4 314 746 6.3 7 Will, IL................. 10.0 146.4 1.2 72 668 0.1 280 Winnebago, IL............ 6.6 133.9 -1.9 273 638 1.8 193 Allen, IN................ 8.6 176.1 -1.3 234 659 1.4 218 Elkhart, IN.............. 4.8 113.7 2.6 17 617 3.4 69 Hamilton, IN............. 5.9 81.9 2.3 24 780 1.6 206 Lake, IN................. 9.8 189.8 1.5 54 635 5.0 21 Marion, IN............... 23.6 565.5 -1.0 216 769 0.4 265 St. Joseph, IN........... 6.0 121.5 0.6 107 624 3.3 78 Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.8 108.0 0.1 138 615 1.2 231 Linn, IA................. 5.9 114.4 -1.3 234 678 2.4 153 Polk, IA................. 13.6 254.2 -0.8 200 752 4.3 37 Scott, IA................ 4.9 82.4 -0.1 152 $576 0.9 249 Johnson, KS.............. 18.3 284.1 0.0 143 791 6.0 10 Sedgwick, KS............. 11.5 239.8 -2.1 280 666 0.5 261 Shawnee, KS.............. 4.7 95.8 -2.3 286 609 -0.8 296 Wyandotte, KS............ 3.1 74.4 -3.5 309 716 1.0 243 Fayette, KY.............. 8.7 163.3 0.1 138 670 4.9 23 Jefferson, KY............ 21.6 412.9 -0.9 203 708 3.4 69 Caddo, LA................ 7.1 117.5 -1.4 241 588 4.3 37 Calcasieu, LA............ 4.6 81.9 -2.9 302 575 -4.0 311 East Baton Rouge, LA..... 13.1 239.8 1.0 83 624 3.8 51 Jefferson, LA............ 13.9 210.8 -0.6 187 591 2.4 153 Lafayette, LA............ 7.5 118.7 1.3 64 622 -0.3 288 Orleans, LA.............. 12.7 248.6 -0.9 203 674 1.2 231 Cumberland, ME........... 11.2 162.8 -0.1 152 663 3.0 101 Anne Arundel, MD......... 12.9 201.8 0.0 143 729 0.3 271 Baltimore, MD............ 19.9 351.9 -1.3 234 745 3.5 64 Frederick, MD............ 5.2 84.7 0.7 100 695 3.9 46 Howard, MD............... 7.6 133.3 0.0 143 818 2.6 139 Montgomery, MD........... 30.6 445.9 0.0 143 940 2.7 130 Prince Georges, MD....... 14.5 307.0 -0.2 159 767 1.3 225 Baltimore City, MD....... 14.0 364.0 -1.5 247 826 1.8 193 Barnstable, MA........... 8.9 82.2 1.3 64 632 1.8 193 Bristol, MA.............. 14.5 213.9 -0.9 203 640 2.4 153 Essex, MA................ 19.9 291.2 -2.3 286 773 2.7 130 Hampden, MA.............. 13.1 196.0 -2.1 280 694 3.0 101 Middlesex, MA............ 46.6 782.5 -3.9 310 1,003 1.5 210 Norfolk, MA.............. 21.3 313.5 -1.9 273 892 3.1 95 Plymouth, MA............. 13.0 164.8 -0.7 194 690 3.4 69 Suffolk, MA.............. 21.7 565.5 -3.0 304 1,238 0.4 265 Worcester, MA............ 19.6 311.7 -0.9 203 730 2.2 166 Genesee, MI.............. 8.6 153.7 -2.6 295 722 4.0 42 Ingham, MI............... 7.1 168.6 -2.2 283 725 1.1 236 Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.6 115.1 -1.2 228 714 3.8 51 Kent, MI................. 14.4 325.7 -1.6 256 682 2.6 139 Macomb, MI............... 18.1 316.8 -0.3 167 832 6.7 4 Oakland, MI.............. 41.8 724.0 -1.2 228 $919 4.7 28 Ottawa, MI............... 5.7 108.2 -1.2 228 638 3.4 69 Saginaw, MI.............. 4.7 89.5 -1.0 216 695 5.3 15 Washtenaw, MI............ 8.2 194.2 -0.6 187 827 3.4 69 Wayne, MI................ 35.5 804.8 -1.8 266 857 4.9 23 Anoka, MN................ 7.1 107.3 -0.6 187 690 3.3 78 Dakota, MN............... 9.4 160.7 2.2 27 735 2.8 115 Hennepin, MN............. 40.8 812.8 -1.5 247 923 1.1 236 Olmsted, MN.............. 3.2 85.2 1.3 64 757 2.3 161 Ramsey, MN............... 14.5 322.1 -1.2 228 831 3.6 58 St. Louis, MN............ 5.6 91.8 0.5 109 615 3.2 88 Stearns, MN.............. 4.1 74.9 -1.5 247 562 3.5 64 Harrison, MS............. 4.4 88.1 2.0 37 537 3.3 78 Hinds, MS................ 6.6 129.6 -1.8 266 621 5.3 15 Boone, MO................ 4.2 75.9 -0.7 194 545 -0.2 285 Clay, MO................. 4.9 85.3 1.3 64 664 2.6 139 Greene, MO............... 8.0 144.0 2.4 21 545 1.9 185 Jackson, MO.............. 18.9 364.4 -2.5 293 752 -0.8 296 St. Charles, MO.......... 7.0 105.9 4.6 2 626 3.1 95 St. Louis, MO............ 34.1 618.7 -0.6 187 785 2.2 166 St. Louis City, MO....... 8.4 230.5 -2.7 296 861 1.1 236 Douglas, NE.............. 14.7 304.9 -1.7 260 695 3.3 78 Lancaster, NE............ 7.3 146.7 0.8 95 592 2.8 115 Clark, NV................ 33.9 744.2 3.8 8 655 2.5 148 Washoe, NV............... 11.5 192.3 2.2 27 673 2.4 153 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.0 187.4 -0.1 152 783 3.8 51 Rockingham, NH........... 10.4 126.6 -0.4 171 725 3.6 58 Atlantic, NJ............. 6.4 138.8 0.7 100 662 3.3 78 Bergen, NJ............... 34.0 446.2 0.0 143 936 1.5 210 Burlington, NJ........... 10.9 193.3 1.6 48 775 1.8 193 Camden, NJ............... 12.9 201.8 1.0 83 750 3.6 58 Essex, NJ................ 21.0 360.0 -0.2 159 982 2.1 170 Gloucester, NJ........... 5.8 94.5 3.4 10 648 0.6 260 Hudson, NJ............... 13.6 235.7 -1.3 234 1,034 -9.1 315 Mercer, NJ............... 10.3 217.2 0.0 143 984 2.4 153 Middlesex, NJ............ 20.3 386.2 -2.9 302 $980 1.0 243 Monmouth, NJ............. 19.3 239.8 -0.4 171 805 0.8 254 Morris, NJ............... 17.3 274.3 -1.5 247 1,106 0.1 280 Ocean, NJ................ 11.2 135.5 1.4 59 629 2.8 115 Passaic, NJ.............. 12.3 174.5 -1.2 228 782 3.2 88 Somerset, NJ............. 9.7 168.1 -2.3 286 1,299 5.5 12 Union, NJ................ 14.8 232.9 -0.8 200 948 0.5 261 Bernalillo, NM........... 16.8 308.3 1.2 72 628 2.1 170 Albany, NY............... 9.4 224.7 -1.0 216 762 2.3 161 Bronx, NY................ 15.1 214.1 0.3 122 674 1.4 218 Broome, NY............... 4.4 97.2 -0.4 171 589 -2.2 305 Dutchess, NY............. 7.5 114.0 0.3 122 756 0.3 271 Erie, NY................. 23.3 447.7 -0.4 171 656 1.9 185 Kings, NY................ 41.2 438.7 0.8 95 631 1.4 218 Monroe, NY............... 17.6 378.5 -0.9 203 729 0.3 271 Nassau, NY............... 49.9 588.8 0.4 114 800 1.0 243 New York, NY............. 112.6 2,210.3 -1.8 266 1,648 -5.9 313 Oneida, NY............... 5.3 106.7 0.2 131 566 0.2 276 Onondaga, NY............. 12.5 243.4 0.3 122 683 0.1 280 Orange, NY............... 8.9 122.3 1.4 59 607 3.2 88 Queens, NY............... 39.3 469.8 0.0 143 723 1.4 218 Richmond, NY............. 7.7 86.1 0.3 122 632 -4.0 311 Rockland, NY............. 9.1 108.5 0.3 122 768 1.2 231 Suffolk, NY.............. 46.4 579.2 0.1 138 761 2.7 130 Westchester, NY.......... 34.9 399.6 0.2 131 989 -2.5 307 Buncombe, NC............. 6.9 102.9 0.1 138 551 1.1 236 Catawba, NC.............. 4.5 87.5 -4.2 313 551 1.8 193 Cumberland, NC........... 5.8 109.0 1.6 48 540 1.3 225 Durham, NC............... 6.4 161.7 -2.4 290 985 1.3 225 Forsyth, NC.............. 8.6 173.5 -2.7 296 715 4.2 40 Guilford, NC............. 14.4 265.0 -1.0 216 669 3.1 95 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 28.5 499.9 -2.0 278 936 3.3 78 New Hanover, NC.......... 6.4 86.3 -0.7 194 567 0.7 257 Wake, NC................. 23.6 373.9 -1.0 216 742 1.8 193 Cass, ND................. 5.0 82.6 2.1 33 583 2.8 115 Butler, OH............... 6.8 126.5 -0.2 159 $647 2.2 166 Cuyahoga, OH............. 38.7 753.4 -0.9 203 768 2.9 112 Franklin, OH............. 29.7 674.9 -2.5 293 743 3.1 95 Hamilton, OH............. 25.2 540.1 -0.1 152 800 2.8 115 Lake, OH................. 6.7 95.5 -0.7 194 634 3.8 51 Lorain, OH............... 6.2 98.9 -0.4 171 619 3.0 101 Lucas, OH................ 11.0 223.5 -1.4 241 681 3.0 101 Mahoning, OH............. 6.5 102.9 -1.0 216 551 3.6 58 Montgomery, OH........... 13.3 284.9 -1.7 260 697 2.8 115 Stark, OH................ 9.1 165.7 -2.2 283 586 3.9 46 Summit, OH............... 14.8 257.0 -0.6 187 704 6.3 7 Trumbull, OH............. 4.9 85.8 -1.5 247 672 6.5 5 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.5 396.4 -2.3 286 620 5.1 20 Tulsa, OK................ 18.2 319.3 -4.1 311 649 -1.7 303 Clackamas, OR............ 11.0 129.7 -1.5 247 661 1.7 202 Lane, OR................. 10.2 136.3 0.2 131 558 3.0 101 Marion, OR............... 8.3 123.9 1.3 64 573 2.5 148 Multnomah, OR............ 25.3 418.1 -1.9 273 748 1.8 193 Washington, OR........... 13.9 218.1 -0.9 203 810 -2.6 309 Allegheny, PA............ 36.0 687.5 -1.1 224 769 1.1 236 Berks, PA................ 8.7 157.9 -2.2 283 652 0.9 249 Bucks, PA................ 19.5 247.0 1.6 48 688 1.5 210 Chester, PA.............. 14.3 213.5 -0.4 171 945 5.2 17 Cumberland, PA........... 5.5 123.2 0.5 109 691 1.6 206 Dauphin, PA.............. 6.8 171.6 -0.9 203 724 0.3 271 Delaware, PA............. 13.7 210.1 -0.5 180 805 4.3 37 Erie, PA................. 7.2 123.2 -1.1 224 563 -0.2 285 Lackawanna, PA........... 5.6 96.5 -0.4 171 561 0.9 249 Lancaster, PA............ 11.4 217.2 -0.1 152 631 2.8 115 Lehigh, PA............... 8.1 165.0 -1.6 256 727 1.5 210 Luzerne, PA.............. 7.8 137.2 -0.9 203 580 2.1 170 Montgomery, PA........... 27.2 472.3 -1.3 234 936 2.5 148 Northampton, PA.......... 5.9 90.0 0.2 131 623 -0.3 288 Philadelphia, PA......... 27.1 654.0 0.2 131 834 1.7 202 Westmoreland, PA......... 9.3 129.5 -1.0 216 569 2.0 179 York, PA................. 8.4 162.2 -1.1 224 $657 3.8 51 Kent, RI................. 5.4 76.9 2.0 37 638 2.7 130 Providence, RI........... 17.2 282.9 -0.5 180 747 7.3 3 Charleston, SC........... 12.8 184.9 3.1 11 586 3.2 88 Greenville, SC........... 13.2 221.4 1.3 64 655 3.0 101 Horry, SC................ 8.5 96.7 2.2 27 487 5.0 21 Lexington, SC............ 6.0 82.4 0.5 109 534 0.9 249 Richland, SC............. 10.4 204.9 1.1 79 617 2.8 115 Spartanburg, SC.......... 6.9 115.6 -0.4 171 650 1.4 218 Minnehaha, SD............ 5.8 105.7 1.4 59 594 4.9 23 Davidson, TN............. 17.9 423.2 0.9 88 721 3.0 101 Hamilton, TN............. 8.3 186.5 0.3 122 611 2.5 148 Knox, TN................. 10.3 207.8 2.3 24 611 3.0 101 Rutherford, TN........... 3.5 81.8 4.5 4 637 1.4 218 Shelby, TN............... 20.0 494.3 1.5 54 730 2.4 153 Bell, TX................. 4.0 88.8 0.3 122 538 1.5 210 Bexar, TX................ 29.0 652.7 0.4 114 637 2.2 166 Brazoria, TX............. 4.0 75.6 -2.4 290 712 1.9 185 Brazos, TX............... 3.4 77.3 0.7 100 503 0.8 254 Cameron, TX.............. 6.0 115.0 1.4 59 438 2.1 170 Collin, TX............... 11.4 191.2 0.8 95 812 -1.3 302 Dallas, TX............... 67.4 1,436.5 -3.0 304 890 0.2 276 Denton, TX............... 7.8 126.1 -0.3 167 600 0.0 284 El Paso, TX.............. 12.3 250.8 0.4 114 510 2.8 115 Fort Bend, TX............ 5.9 96.5 1.0 83 740 -0.4 291 Galveston, TX............ 4.7 88.2 0.9 88 641 7.4 2 Harris, TX............... 87.7 1,830.8 -0.9 203 860 -0.5 292 Hidalgo, TX.............. 8.9 179.9 1.9 40 445 4.0 42 Jefferson, TX............ 5.8 115.2 -3.0 304 634 -0.5 292 Lubbock, TX.............. 6.4 115.4 -1.4 241 531 3.3 78 McLennan, TX............. 4.6 96.8 -0.4 171 559 2.0 179 Montgomery, TX........... 6.0 84.2 1.8 42 626 -0.9 298 Nueces, TX............... 7.9 143.6 0.4 114 586 1.9 185 Smith, TX................ 4.8 84.4 0.3 122 591 4.2 40 Tarrant, TX.............. 33.1 687.5 -1.7 260 739 1.7 202 Travis, TX............... 24.0 507.3 -2.0 278 $815 1.4 218 Williamson, TX........... 4.6 80.5 0.8 95 808 5.6 11 Davis, UT................ 5.7 86.9 1.1 79 595 3.1 95 Salt Lake, UT............ 32.3 508.2 -1.7 260 647 -1.1 299 Utah, UT................. 9.9 139.0 0.5 109 536 0.4 265 Weber, UT................ 5.0 85.4 1.2 72 525 2.1 170 Chittenden, VT........... 5.6 91.6 -1.4 241 718 0.8 254 Arlington, VA............ 6.8 148.6 -1.9 273 1,138 3.2 88 Chesterfield, VA......... 6.5 108.3 -0.7 194 647 0.5 261 Fairfax, VA.............. 29.6 525.1 0.4 114 1,091 4.0 42 Henrico, VA.............. 7.9 165.1 -0.5 180 806 3.6 58 Loudoun, VA.............. 5.8 101.1 2.9 14 872 -7.9 314 Prince William, VA....... 5.5 85.4 1.2 72 621 3.3 78 Alexandria City, VA...... 5.6 89.7 0.7 100 903 1.8 193 Chesapeake City, VA...... 4.6 88.7 2.4 21 543 3.4 69 Newport News City, VA.... 3.6 94.7 0.9 88 639 2.7 130 Norfolk City, VA......... 5.5 144.2 -0.2 159 695 5.5 12 Richmond City, VA........ 6.9 159.1 -1.6 256 870 3.4 69 Virginia Beach City, VA.. 10.3 161.5 -0.5 180 551 4.6 33 Clark, WA................ 10.9 113.9 1.6 48 645 0.2 276 King, WA................. 85.3 1,080.7 -1.0 216 919 -1.1 299 Kitsap, WA............... 6.5 75.9 2.1 33 664 1.8 193 Pierce, WA............... 21.1 240.5 2.4 21 638 3.2 88 Snohomish, WA............ 16.9 206.0 1.0 83 749 1.9 185 Spokane, WA.............. 15.4 187.7 1.4 59 584 0.7 257 Thurston, WA............. 6.7 88.7 4.1 6 651 -0.5 292 Yakima, WA............... 9.4 87.9 3.6 9 (7) (7) - Kanawha, WV.............. 6.1 107.8 -1.2 228 $636 1.6 206 Brown, WI................ 6.6 139.5 0.4 114 649 0.9 249 Dane, WI................. 13.3 279.2 0.9 88 697 3.9 46 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.3 496.4 -1.4 241 739 2.1 170 Outagamie, WI............ 4.9 95.1 1.3 64 635 2.4 153 Racine, WI............... 4.3 74.2 -2.1 280 653 5.2 17 Waukesha, WI............. 13.1 219.0 0.2 131 736 0.4 265 Winnebago, WI............ 3.9 85.6 -1.8 266 703 2.8 115 San Juan, PR............. 11.6 313.4 -1.8 266 $464 4.7 28 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.6 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 annual 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, first quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wages(4) Establishments, first quarter County by NAICS supersector 2003 Percent Percent (thousands) March change, Average change, 2003 March weekly March (thousands) 2002-03 wages 2002-03 (3) (3) United States(5).................................. 8,250.6 126,860.3 -0.3 $729 1.5 Private industry................................ 7,984.4 105,662.0 -0.6 727 1.1 Natural resources and mining.................. 125.0 1,528.5 -0.5 674 0.1 Construction.................................. 800.9 6,292.4 -1.4 723 -0.1 Manufacturing................................. 383.0 14,618.6 -4.6 882 3.0 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 1,861.1 24,709.0 -0.8 634 1.9 Information................................... 148.1 3,204.6 -6.7 1,155 1.1 Financial activities.......................... 755.5 7,758.4 1.5 1,255 -1.3 Professional and business services............ 1,315.8 15,653.9 -0.7 865 1.2 Education and health services................. 721.9 15,678.7 2.9 637 3.1 Leisure and hospitality....................... 660.2 11,734.6 1.4 303 2.0 Other services................................ 1,060.7 4,243.4 0.6 459 2.0 Government...................................... 266.2 21,198.4 0.7 739 3.2 Los Angeles, CA................................... 347.1 4,050.1 0.0 817 1.2 Private industry................................ 343.3 3,448.7 0.1 797 0.9 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.6 11.8 -0.9 945 -7.5 Construction.................................. 12.9 133.1 0.6 789 0.0 Manufacturing................................. 18.3 512.3 -5.9 839 4.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 53.7 766.9 0.4 691 2.7 Information................................... 9.5 206.3 -5.6 1,473 4.8 Financial activities.......................... 22.7 235.5 1.4 1,290 -3.9 Professional and business services............ 39.7 563.6 1.0 895 0.9 Education and health services................. 25.9 448.1 3.3 697 0.6 Leisure and hospitality....................... 24.9 355.6 2.2 456 0.4 Other services................................ 134.5 214.3 6.6 405 1.5 Government...................................... 3.8 601.4 -0.7 928 2.8 Cook, IL.......................................... 125.5 2,496.5 -1.5 905 1.3 Private industry................................ 124.3 2,168.2 -2.0 911 1.2 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.1 1.3 -2.3 899 2.3 Construction.................................. 10.2 88.1 -2.7 1,045 -1.1 Manufacturing................................. 8.0 271.4 -5.7 897 4.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 26.6 477.6 -1.1 714 1.7 Information................................... 2.5 66.5 -7.0 1,294 3.9 Financial activities.......................... 13.5 216.9 -0.7 1,806 -1.7 Professional and business services............ 25.8 396.8 -4.3 1,126 2.2 Education and health services................. 12.1 344.8 0.0 688 3.8 Leisure and hospitality....................... 10.4 204.7 1.9 356 0.0 Other services................................ 12.7 95.2 -0.7 $616 2.7 Government...................................... 1.1 328.3 1.5 869 2.8 New York, NY...................................... 112.6 2,210.3 -1.8 1,648 -5.9 Private industry................................ 112.4 1,762.0 -1.7 1,817 -7.7 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.0 0.1 1.6 1,484 1.2 Construction.................................. 2.2 29.8 -5.7 1,336 3.6 Manufacturing................................. 3.7 48.9 -8.8 1,068 4.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 22.7 233.9 0.3 1,009 1.4 Information................................... 4.5 130.7 -6.7 1,966 8.3 Financial activities.......................... 17.1 350.8 -3.3 4,219 -12.7 Professional and business services............ 22.9 428.1 -3.2 1,669 -6.7 Education and health services................. 7.8 270.7 1.0 840 5.8 Leisure and hospitality....................... 10.1 178.2 2.7 635 1.9 Other services................................ 15.9 82.1 0.6 758 2.0 Government...................................... 0.2 448.3 -2.2 987 8.6 Harris, TX........................................ 87.7 1,830.8 -0.9 $860 -0.5 Private industry................................ 87.3 1,587.0 -1.5 877 -0.9 Natural resources and mining.................. 1.2 60.5 3.4 2,229 3.9 Construction.................................. 6.4 142.6 -2.8 802 -1.1 Manufacturing................................. 4.7 169.1 -5.5 1,093 4.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 21.2 390.5 -3.6 818 -4.9 Information................................... 1.4 34.7 -6.7 1,096 -1.2 Financial activities.......................... 9.1 110.6 -0.4 1,192 -1.9 Professional and business services............ 16.8 279.5 -2.0 913 -2.0 Education and health services................. 8.5 183.8 2.1 719 3.2 Leisure and hospitality....................... 6.4 155.2 4.5 313 1.0 Other services................................ 10.3 57.6 -3.4 506 -0.4 Government...................................... 0.4 243.8 3.5 749 3.7 Maricopa, AZ...................................... 79.0 1,569.5 1.2 699 1.2 Private industry................................ 78.5 1,352.8 1.0 700 0.9 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.5 9.0 4.3 534 17.4 Construction.................................. 8.4 123.1 1.3 700 -0.4 Manufacturing................................. 3.3 127.8 -6.4 1,019 0.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 18.7 316.7 1.1 687 0.9 Information................................... 1.6 38.0 -3.6 847 1.0 Financial activities.......................... 9.2 131.5 2.4 935 4.5 Professional and business services............ 17.7 251.0 1.1 683 1.0 Education and health services................. 7.4 153.4 4.9 694 3.0 Leisure and hospitality....................... 5.3 156.0 3.2 337 1.5 Other services................................ 5.6 45.0 0.5 470 0.4 Government...................................... 0.5 216.7 2.7 694 2.7 Dallas, TX........................................ 67.4 1,436.5 -3.0 890 0.2 Private industry................................ 67.0 1,279.1 -3.5 904 0.2 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.5 6.4 -25.0 2,154 4.6 Construction.................................. 4.5 72.5 -7.5 774 2.1 Manufacturing................................. 3.5 145.6 -8.0 1,010 0.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 15.8 320.5 -3.5 866 1.8 Information................................... 1.8 65.1 -14.3 1,305 1.6 Financial activities.......................... 8.3 137.7 -0.5 1,269 -0.3 Professional and business services............ 13.9 232.0 -3.6 956 -0.1 Education and health services................. 6.1 129.4 5.1 782 1.0 Leisure and hospitality....................... 5.0 125.1 -0.3 $431 5.1 Other services................................ 6.8 42.7 -2.5 545 -0.5 Government...................................... 0.4 157.4 1.7 778 1.7 Orange, CA........................................ 87.6 1,421.1 1.0 832 3.6 Private industry................................ 86.2 1,267.6 1.3 813 3.2 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.2 8.6 -1.6 472 1.3 Construction.................................. 6.4 81.8 3.8 863 0.5 Manufacturing................................. 6.2 184.4 -5.8 947 6.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 17.4 263.1 0.4 775 2.2 Information................................... 1.5 34.5 -7.8 1,208 0.7 Financial activities.......................... 9.4 119.0 8.6 1,323 8.9 Professional and business services............ 17.3 252.5 3.3 858 -0.8 Education and health services................. 8.9 123.0 6.7 702 2.5 Leisure and hospitality....................... 6.5 155.6 0.1 343 6.2 Other services................................ 12.0 44.8 3.9 481 0.4 Government...................................... 1.4 153.5 -1.6 985 6.7 San Diego, CA..................................... 83.8 1,250.5 1.7 $777 2.6 Private industry................................ 82.5 1,025.6 1.6 756 2.3 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.9 11.3 -1.6 438 0.9 Construction.................................. 6.4 75.9 2.0 774 1.0 Manufacturing................................. 3.7 107.7 -6.3 1,004 0.7 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 14.2 204.0 2.1 656 4.5 Information................................... 1.4 37.0 -3.0 1,322 4.3 Financial activities.......................... 8.7 78.9 5.2 1,101 2.3 Professional and business services............ 14.6 202.7 1.5 919 2.8 Education and health services................. 7.5 120.2 3.0 661 5.6 Leisure and hospitality....................... 6.4 136.9 4.8 332 4.4 Other services................................ 18.6 50.5 4.8 430 2.9 Government...................................... 1.3 224.9 2.1 874 3.6 King, WA.......................................... 85.3 1,080.7 -1.0 919 -1.1 Private industry................................ 84.7 926.5 -1.4 934 -1.5 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.5 3.3 -1.2 1,180 24.1 Construction.................................. 6.9 51.4 -4.4 868 0.1 Manufacturing................................. 2.8 105.8 -10.3 1,174 -1.6 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 16.0 213.7 -1.4 788 1.4 Information................................... 1.7 66.6 -3.2 2,121 -9.5 Financial activities.......................... 6.3 76.2 2.4 1,183 5.1 Professional and business services............ 12.9 157.7 1.3 1,031 -0.8 Education and health services................. 6.0 107.2 0.7 673 3.7 Leisure and hospitality....................... 5.6 95.8 1.4 371 4.8 Other services................................ 26.1 48.6 1.1 440 -1.1 Government...................................... 0.6 154.2 1.5 830 2.9 Miami-Dade, FL.................................... 78.0 984.0 -0.2 692 2.7 Private industry................................ 77.8 831.9 -0.4 676 2.3 Natural resources and mining.................. 0.5 11.6 4.4 349 -2.8 Construction.................................. 4.7 39.2 0.7 690 2.2 Manufacturing................................. 2.9 53.1 -5.4 630 5.0 Trade, transportation, and utilities.......... 22.8 242.9 -1.8 656 3.5 Information................................... 1.7 28.9 -7.7 1,026 0.2 Financial activities.......................... 8.0 65.6 1.6 1,074 -3.6 Professional and business services............ 15.1 134.3 -3.0 773 6.2 Education and health services................. 7.6 122.8 2.1 672 4.3 Leisure and hospitality....................... 5.1 94.6 4.3 $368 -1.6 Other services................................ 7.3 35.2 -1.8 427 2.2 Government...................................... 0.3 152.1 0.7 779 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 annual 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. Table 3. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by state, first quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wages(5) Establishments, first quarter County(3) 2003 Percent Percent (thousands) March change, Average change, 2003 March weekly March (thousands) 2002-03 wages 2002-03 (4) (4) United States(6)......... 8,250.6 126,860.3 -0.3 $729 1.5 Jefferson, AL............ 18.2 368.0 -1.7 742 4.7 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.4 136.7 2.6 740 0.4 Maricopa, AZ............. 79.0 1,569.5 1.2 699 1.2 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.1 237.0 0.4 636 2.3 Los Angeles, CA.......... 347.1 4,050.1 0.0 817 1.2 Denver, CO............... 24.0 424.9 -1.9 882 1.0 Hartford, CT............. 24.0 475.1 -2.7 938 3.9 New Castle, DE........... 17.3 271.4 -0.5 932 0.4 Washington, DC........... 29.3 651.8 1.1 1,135 2.8 Miami-Dade, FL........... 78.0 984.0 -0.2 692 2.7 Fulton, GA............... 37.7 728.8 -0.9 1,010 2.1 Honolulu, HI............. 24.0 416.7 2.2 660 2.0 Ada, ID.................. 12.8 179.3 0.4 648 0.3 Cook, IL................. 125.5 2,496.5 -1.5 905 1.3 Marion, IN............... 23.6 565.5 -1.0 769 0.4 Polk, IA................. 13.6 254.2 -0.8 752 4.3 Johnson, KS.............. 18.3 284.1 0.0 791 6.0 Jefferson, KY............ 21.6 412.9 -0.9 708 3.4 Orleans, LA.............. 12.7 248.6 -0.9 674 1.2 Cumberland, ME........... 11.2 162.8 -0.1 663 3.0 Montgomery, MD........... 30.6 445.9 0.0 940 2.7 Middlesex, MA............ 46.6 782.5 -3.9 1,003 1.5 Wayne, MI................ 35.5 804.8 -1.8 857 4.9 Hennepin, MN............. 40.8 812.8 -1.5 923 1.1 Hinds, MS................ 6.6 129.6 -1.8 621 5.3 St. Louis, MO............ 34.1 618.7 -0.6 785 2.2 Yellowstone, MT.......... 5.6 66.7 0.9 532 0.6 Douglas, NE.............. 14.7 304.9 -1.7 695 3.3 Clark, NV................ 33.9 744.2 3.8 655 2.5 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.0 187.4 -0.1 783 3.8 Bergen, NJ............... 34.0 446.2 0.0 936 1.5 Bernalillo, NM........... 16.8 308.3 1.2 628 2.1 New York, NY............. 112.6 2,210.3 -1.8 1,648 -5.9 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 28.5 499.9 -2.0 936 3.3 Cass, ND................. 5.0 82.6 2.1 $583 2.8 Cuyahoga, OH............. 38.7 753.4 -0.9 768 2.9 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.5 396.4 -2.3 620 5.1 Multnomah, OR............ 25.3 418.1 -1.9 748 1.8 Allegheny, PA............ 36.0 687.5 -1.1 769 1.1 Providence, RI........... 17.2 282.9 -0.5 747 7.3 Greenville, SC........... 13.2 221.4 1.3 655 3.0 Minnehaha, SD............ 5.8 105.7 1.4 594 4.9 Shelby, TN............... 20.0 494.3 1.5 730 2.4 Harris, TX............... 87.7 1,830.8 -0.9 860 -0.5 Salt Lake, UT............ 32.3 508.2 -1.7 647 -1.1 Chittenden, VT........... 5.6 91.6 -1.4 718 0.8 Fairfax, VA.............. 29.6 525.1 0.4 1,091 4.0 King, WA................. 85.3 1,080.7 -1.0 919 -1.1 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.1 107.8 -1.2 636 1.6 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.3 496.4 -1.4 739 2.1 Laramie, WY.............. 2.8 38.1 3.5 560 2.4 San Juan, PR............. 11.6 313.4 -1.8 464 4.7 St. Thomas, VI........... 1.7 23.2 2.0 572 6.5 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 annual 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.