An official website of the United States government
For release 10:00 a.m. (ET), Wednesday, February 24, 2021 USDL-21-0317 Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 * QCEWInfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cew Media Contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES – THIRD QUARTER 2020 From September 2019 to September 2020, employment decreased in 355 of the 357 largest U.S. counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. In September 2020, national employment (as measured by the QCEW program) decreased to 138.5 million, a 6.8-percent decrease over the year. Maui + Kalawao, HI, had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment with a loss of 35.4 percent. Employment data in this release are presented for September 2020, and average weekly wage data are presented for third quarter 2020. Employment was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to contain it. Among the 357 largest counties, 350 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. In the third quarter of 2020, average weekly wages for the nation increased to $1,173, a 7.4-percent increase over the year. San Mateo, CA, had the largest third quarter over-the-year wage gain at 23.2 percent. (See table 1.) Nationally, the increases in average weekly wages largely reflect substantial employment loss among lower-paid industries, as was the case in the second quarter. In the third quarter, employment declines occurring in some higher-paid industries also feature significant wage increases. Large County Employment in September 2020 Maui + Kalawao, HI, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-35.4 percent). Within Maui + Kalawao, the largest employment decrease occurred in leisure and hospitality, which lost 16,951 jobs over the year (-66.8 percent). Utah, UT, experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment with a gain of 1.9 percent. Within Utah, professional and business services had the largest employment increase with a gain of 3,334 jobs (+8.6 percent). Large County Average Weekly Wage in Third Quarter 2020 San Mateo, CA, had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly wages (+23.2 percent). Within San Mateo, an average weekly wage gain of $1,096 (+17.6 percent) in information made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in average weekly wages. Ector, TX, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 11.0 percent. Within Ector, natural resources and mining had the largest impact, with an average weekly wage decrease of $209 (-11.4 percent) over the year. Ten Largest Counties All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage decreases in employment. In September 2020, New York, NY, had the largest over-the-year employment percentage loss (-15.9 percent). Within New York, leisure and hospitality had the largest employment decrease with a loss of 182,490 jobs (-58.8 percent). (See table 2.) All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in average weekly wages. In third quarter 2020, King, WA, experienced the largest over-the-year percentage gain in average weekly wages (+14.3 percent). Within King, information had the largest impact, with an average weekly wage increase of $895 (+16.6 percent) over the year. For More Information The tables included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 357 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2019. September 2020 employment and third quarter 2020 average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release. QCEW response rate tables are available at www.bls.gov/cew/response-rates/. The most current news release on quarterly measures of gross job flows is available from QCEW Business Employment Dynamics at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf. Several BLS regional offices issue QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. Links to these releases are available at www.bls.gov/cew/regional-resources.htm. QCEW data are available in the Census Business Builder suite of web tools assisting business owners and regional analysts in data-driven decision making at www.census.gov/data/data-tools/cbb.html. The QCEW news release schedule is available at www.bls.gov/cew/release-calendar.htm. ____________ The County Employment and Wages full data update for third quarter 2020 is scheduled to be released on Tuesday, March 9, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. (ET). The County Employment and Wages news release for fourth quarter 2020 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, May 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. (ET).
Technical Note These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative program, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The summaries are a result of the administration of state unemployment insurance programs that require most employers to pay quarterly taxes based on the employment and wages of workers covered by UI. QCEW data in this release are based on the 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Data for 2020 are preliminary and subject to revision. For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as having employment levels of 75,000 or greater. In addition, data for San Juan, PR, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. averages, rankings, or in the analysis in the text. Each year, these large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual average of employment for the previous year. The 358 counties presented in this release were derived using 2019 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2020 data, three counties have been added to the publication tables: Baldwin, AL; Iredell, NC; and Gregg, TX. One county has been dropped from the publication tables: Bay, FL. These counties will be included or excluded, respectively, in all 2020 quarterly releases. The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from the preceding year. 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: QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES). Each of these measures makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and publication product. Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is important to understand program differences and the intended uses of the program products. (See table.) Additional information on each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table. 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- | 697,000 establish- | submitted by 10.4 | ministrative records| ments | million establish- | submitted by 8.3 | | ments in first | million private-sec-| | quarter of 2020 | 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 workers | | | -Other employment, | | | including railroads, | | | religious organiza- | | | tions, and other non- | | | UI-covered jobs -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ Publication|--Quarterly |--Quarterly |--Monthly frequency | -Within 5 months | -7 months after the | -Usually the 3rd | after the end of | end of each quarter| Friday after the end | each quarter | | of the week including | | | the 12th of the month -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ Use of UI |--Directly summarizes|--Links each new UI |--Uses UI file as a sa- file | and publishes each | quarter to longitu- | mpling frame and to | new quarter of UI | dinal database and | annually realign sam- | data | directly summarizes | plebased estimates to | | gross job gains and | population counts | | losses | (benchmarking) -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ Principal |--Provides a quarter-|--Provides quarterly |--Provides current mon- products | ly and annual uni- | employer dynamics | thly estimates of emp- | verse count of es- | data on establish- | loyment, hours, and | tablishments, em- | ment openings, clos-| earnings at the MSA, | ployment, and wages| ings, expansions, | state, and national | at the county, MSA,| and contractions at | level by industry | state, and national| the national level | | levels by detailed | by NAICS supersec- | | industry | tors and by size of | | | firm, and at the | | | state private-sector| | | total level | | |--Future expansions | | | will include data | | | with greater indus- | | | try detail and data | | | at the county and | | | MSA level | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ Principal |--Detailed locality |--Business cycle |--Principal federal uses | data | analysis | economic indicator | | | (PFEI) |--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 |--Analysis of employ- | cators | surveys | ment expansion and | | | contraction by size | | | of firm | | | | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ Program |--www.bls.gov/cew |--www.bls.gov/bdm |--www.bls.gov/ces Web sites | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coverage Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers on behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the "Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries of 10.2 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2019. These reports are based on place of employment rather than place of residence. UI and UCFE coverage is broad and has been basically comparable from state to state since 1978, when the 1976 amendments to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act became effective, expanding coverage to include most state and local government employees. In 2019, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 148.1 million jobs. The estimated 142.5 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 97.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $8.769 trillion in pay, representing 94.2 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 40.9 percent of the gross domestic product. Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members of the Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may affect the over-the-year comparisons presented in this news release. Concepts and methodology Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who worked during or received pay for the pay period including the 12th of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of covered firms are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. Workers on paid vacations and part-time workers also are included. Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels (all employees, as described above) and dividing the result by 13, for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values that can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage data are non-wage cash payments such as bonuses, the cash value of meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between the current quarter and prior year levels. Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time to part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in high-paying and low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay periods within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the workforce could increase significantly when there is a large decline in the number of employees that had been receiving below-average wages. Wages may include payments to workers not present in the employment counts because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month. When comparing average weekly wage levels between industries, states, or quarters, these factors should be taken into consideration. Wages measured by QCEW may be subject to periodic and sometimes large fluctuations. This variability may be due to calendar effects resulting from some quarters having more pay dates than others. The effect is most visible in counties with a dominant employer. In particular, this effect has been observed in counties where government employers represent a large fraction of overall employment. Similar calendar effects can result from private sector pay practices. However, these effects are typically less pronounced for two reasons: employment is less concentrated in a single private employer, and private employers use a variety of pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly). For example, the effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result, in some quarters federal wages include six pay dates, while in other quarters there are seven pay dates. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may also reflect this calendar effect. Growth in average weekly wages may be attributed, in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year, which include seven pay dates, with year-ago wages that reflect only six pay dates. An opposite effect will occur when wages in the current quarter reflecting six pay dates are compared with year-ago wages for a quarter including seven pay dates. In order to ensure the highest possible quality of data, states verify with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, and ownership classification of all establishments on a 3-year cycle. Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also are introduced in the first quarter. QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry for a number of reasons that reflect economic events or administrative changes. For example, economic change would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative change would come from a company correcting its county designation. QCEW imputes employment and wages for nonrespondents. Records are imputed for two quarters of nonresponse. After two quarters of nonresponse, BLS drops the establishment from the universe. QCEW state staff attempt to contact large missing employers in the first quarter of nonresponse. Effective with the release of totals for the second quarter of 2020, imputation is based on the current trend of reported employment and wages. Nonrespondents are not included in totals if unemployment claims indicate that the worksite is not in operation. Imputation methodology is described in more detail at www.bls.gov/cew/additional-resources/imputation-methodology.htm. The over-the-year changes of employment and wages presented in this release have been adjusted to account for most of the administrative corrections made to the underlying establishment reports. This is done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2019 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year percent change in employment and wages are not published. These adjusted prior-year levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS Web site. Over-the-year change calculations based on data from the Web site, or from data published in prior BLS news releases, may differ substantially from the over-the-year changes presented in this news release. The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change measures presented in this release eliminate the effect of most of the administrative changes (those occurring when employers update the industry, location, and ownership information of their establishments). The most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of updated information about the county location of individual establishments. Included in these adjustments are administrative changes involving the classification of establishments that were previously reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry categories. Adjusted data account for improvements in reporting employment and wages for individual and multi-unit establishments. To accomplish this, adjustments were implemented to account for: administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity (first quarter of 2008); selected large administrative changes in employment and wages (second quarter of 2011); and state verified improvements in reporting of employment and wages (third quarter of 2014). These adjustments allow QCEW to include county employment and wage growth rates in this news release that would otherwise not meet publication standards. The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data. County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties include those designated as independent cities in some jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where counties have not been created. County data also are presented for the New England states for comparative purposes even though townships are the more common designation used in New England (and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined as census regions. Additional statistics and other information Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2019 edition of this publication, which was published in September 2020, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2020 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from the 2019 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online are now available at www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2019/home.htm. The 2020 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available in September 2021. News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are available from BED at www.bls.gov/bdm, (202) 691-6467, or data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/forms/bdm. Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; TDD message referral phone number: (800) 877-8339.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 358 largest counties, third quarter 2020 Employment Average weekly wage(2) Establishments, County(1) third quarter Percent Ranking Percent Ranking 2020 September change, by Third change, by (thousands) 2020 September percent quarter third percent (thousands) 2019-20(3) change 2020 quarter change 2019-20(3) United States(4)......... 10,561.3 138,549.5 -6.8 - $1,173 7.4 - Baldwin, AL.............. 6.7 72.8 -4.1 58 786 7.8 140 Jefferson, AL............ 19.5 334.7 -5.5 125 1,112 5.3 282 Madison, AL.............. 10.3 201.9 -2.1 14 1,291 7.9 131 Mobile, AL............... 10.4 162.4 -5.6 127 968 5.3 282 Montgomery, AL........... 6.5 123.2 -5.7 136 967 6.6 215 Shelby, AL............... 6.0 80.1 -5.2 105 1,082 7.2 175 Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.7 90.0 -9.3 304 959 8.5 95 Anchorage, AK............ 8.4 136.5 -9.1 292 1,227 6.8 202 Maricopa, AZ............. 113.2 1,987.7 -4.1 58 1,139 7.4 162 Pima, AZ................. 19.8 357.2 -5.7 136 1,006 7.6 152 Benton, AR............... 7.1 123.5 -0.7 4 1,078 6.1 248 Pulaski, AR.............. 14.5 236.9 -5.0 94 1,031 7.2 175 Washington, AR........... 6.4 108.9 -2.2 18 918 3.3 332 Alameda, CA.............. 66.9 715.9 -9.7 313 1,704 14.7 9 Butte, CA................ 8.4 74.4 -10.5 332 946 9.2 67 Contra Costa, CA......... 35.0 332.9 -10.4 329 1,465 11.8 18 Fresno, CA............... 38.7 383.1 -6.5 184 932 8.9 80 Kern, CA................. 22.2 322.9 -7.6 220 971 7.5 156 Los Angeles, CA.......... 521.9 3,973.9 -11.8 344 1,334 9.1 71 Marin, CA................ 12.8 101.9 -11.6 343 1,564 16.9 6 Merced, CA............... 7.1 80.9 -6.0 156 913 7.9 131 Monterey, CA............. 14.5 195.9 -8.6 276 1,006 7.6 152 Napa, CA................. 6.0 70.9 -13.8 347 1,166 8.1 125 Orange, CA............... 131.0 1,461.5 -11.1 340 1,330 10.2 38 Placer, CA............... 14.3 160.1 -7.8 236 1,223 11.3 20 Riverside, CA............ 72.0 707.7 -6.6 188 981 9.9 46 Sacramento, CA........... 63.7 640.2 -6.4 178 1,274 6.5 221 San Bernardino, CA....... 65.9 749.3 -3.8 49 1,004 8.2 119 San Diego, CA............ 119.0 1,350.0 -9.4 305 1,332 11.1 22 San Francisco, CA........ 62.0 658.6 -13.8 347 2,750 20.7 2 San Joaquin, CA.......... 19.2 254.2 -2.8 31 1,017 8.2 119 San Luis Obispo, CA...... 10.8 108.4 -9.1 292 1,045 10.1 42 San Mateo, CA............ 29.4 376.9 -9.9 320 2,922 23.2 1 Santa Barbara, CA........ 16.1 205.6 -7.0 202 1,104 8.2 119 Santa Clara, CA.......... 76.3 1,031.0 -8.3 258 2,883 18.0 4 Santa Cruz, CA........... 9.9 99.3 -9.7 313 1,140 15.5 8 Solano, CA............... 12.0 130.3 -9.9 320 1,247 9.3 64 Sonoma, CA............... 20.4 191.3 -11.0 337 1,208 10.8 25 Stanislaus, CA........... 16.6 186.4 -6.0 156 1,035 9.4 61 Tulare, CA............... 12.0 156.0 -6.2 169 867 9.5 58 Ventura, CA.............. 28.4 303.5 -7.9 240 1,161 9.2 67 Yolo, CA................. 7.3 103.9 -5.9 151 1,256 7.0 190 Adams, CO................ 12.2 220.4 -3.3 39 1,134 4.2 316 Arapahoe, CO............. 23.6 319.5 -4.5 76 1,363 6.2 240 Boulder, CO.............. 16.7 177.9 -5.8 145 1,466 -5.5 355 Denver, CO............... 36.6 483.4 -9.7 313 1,503 9.4 61 Douglas, CO.............. 13.4 128.9 -1.3 6 1,281 4.5 309 El Paso, CO.............. 21.8 277.3 -3.2 37 1,065 6.2 240 Jefferson, CO............ 21.9 231.9 -5.3 115 1,260 9.8 49 Larimer, CO.............. 13.4 158.8 -5.0 94 1,090 7.5 156 Weld, CO................. 8.3 105.3 -9.6 311 1,022 -2.7 351 Fairfield, CT............ 37.4 382.6 -8.4 268 1,605 8.7 91 Hartford, CT............. 29.8 477.4 -7.1 208 1,319 5.3 282 New Haven, CT............ 25.6 351.3 -5.7 136 1,178 7.9 131 New London, CT........... 7.9 108.7 -11.5 342 1,160 10.7 27 New Castle, DE........... 21.5 274.5 -6.0 156 1,281 6.8 202 Sussex, DE............... 7.8 82.0 -4.9 90 841 7.4 162 Washington, DC........... 43.3 713.7 -8.1 248 1,962 6.1 248 Alachua, FL.............. 7.5 128.2 -4.8 84 1,014 7.8 140 Brevard, FL.............. 16.9 214.7 -2.6 24 1,017 5.9 254 Broward, FL.............. 74.9 753.6 -7.9 240 1,089 9.1 71 Collier, FL.............. 15.7 139.4 -4.4 71 984 7.0 190 Duval, FL................ 31.4 509.0 -3.0 35 1,073 6.7 209 Escambia, FL............. 8.7 134.6 -2.8 31 911 6.4 227 Hillsborough, FL......... 47.6 675.9 -4.8 84 1,133 8.9 80 Lake, FL................. 9.2 99.6 -2.5 23 796 7.3 168 Lee, FL.................. 24.4 253.3 -4.7 82 935 9.6 56 Leon, FL................. 9.2 145.2 -4.6 78 945 4.7 302 Manatee, FL.............. 12.1 121.5 -5.2 105 913 9.1 71 Marion, FL............... 9.0 104.3 -1.7 9 787 7.4 162 Miami-Dade, FL........... 108.1 1,048.5 -9.5 308 1,116 7.8 140 Okaloosa, FL............. 6.9 84.0 -2.1 14 983 9.5 58 Orange, FL............... 47.4 733.3 -15.7 350 1,056 10.6 31 Osceola, FL.............. 8.1 89.5 -10.3 328 759 4.8 299 Palm Beach, FL........... 61.2 568.7 -6.3 175 1,115 10.2 38 Pasco, FL................ 12.1 120.6 -2.1 14 835 7.3 168 Pinellas, FL............. 35.7 417.2 -5.2 105 1,011 8.2 119 Polk, FL................. 14.9 230.1 -0.6 3 871 5.6 266 St. Johns, FL............ 8.4 78.2 -1.2 5 903 6.6 215 St. Lucie, FL............ 7.3 77.8 -2.3 20 835 6.0 253 Sarasota, FL............. 17.2 162.1 -4.6 78 956 6.6 215 Seminole, FL............. 16.2 191.6 -4.4 71 990 7.1 181 Volusia, FL.............. 15.4 166.4 -5.1 102 824 8.9 80 Bibb, GA................. 4.5 78.3 -5.7 136 887 5.0 294 Chatham, GA.............. 8.8 150.6 -5.8 145 937 3.8 326 Clayton, GA.............. 4.4 110.2 -11.1 340 1,225 11.2 21 Cobb, GA................. 24.0 351.0 -6.6 188 1,221 6.3 233 DeKalb, GA............... 19.4 282.6 -6.4 178 1,172 7.1 181 Forsyth, GA.............. 6.5 74.5 -3.3 39 994 3.1 337 Fulton, GA............... 48.2 824.3 -8.3 258 1,521 7.4 162 Gwinnett, GA............. 27.7 342.8 -5.6 127 1,073 6.3 233 Hall, GA................. 4.9 87.7 -2.8 31 952 4.7 302 Muscogee, GA............. 4.7 89.4 -5.4 120 870 2.8 340 Richmond, GA............. 4.7 99.5 -4.3 68 973 5.4 276 Honolulu, HI............. 27.7 370.5 -20.7 354 1,167 10.2 38 Maui + Kalawao, HI....... 6.9 52.2 -35.4 357 971 7.1 181 Ada, ID.................. 18.2 251.6 -1.5 7 1,022 5.4 276 Champaign, IL............ 4.1 89.8 -2.7 29 1,033 9.1 71 Cook, IL................. 140.2 2,367.3 -9.8 319 1,332 7.0 190 DuPage, IL............... 34.8 567.2 -8.3 258 1,305 7.1 181 Kane, IL................. 12.8 194.5 -9.4 305 1,025 8.5 95 Lake, IL................. 20.3 319.2 -7.0 202 1,382 6.3 233 McHenry, IL.............. 7.9 91.5 -7.3 215 926 10.1 42 McLean, IL............... 3.3 76.9 -6.5 184 1,116 13.1 14 Madison, IL.............. 5.4 100.1 -5.2 105 876 5.8 259 Peoria, IL............... 4.2 97.3 -7.0 202 1,192 11.0 23 St. Clair, IL............ 5.0 85.7 -7.7 226 926 8.8 84 Sangamon, IL............. 4.8 122.9 -5.0 94 1,126 -3.8 353 Will, IL................. 15.3 240.6 -5.1 102 979 6.2 240 Winnebago, IL............ 5.9 115.4 -8.1 248 964 5.0 294 Allen, IN................ 9.2 183.6 -4.2 64 930 5.9 254 Elkhart, IN.............. 4.8 129.1 -2.6 24 996 11.9 17 Hamilton, IN............. 10.2 140.8 -2.6 24 1,082 6.3 233 Lake, IN................. 10.6 177.2 -6.7 194 945 2.4 343 Marion, IN............... 25.1 567.1 -6.4 178 1,153 5.0 294 St. Joseph, IN........... 5.9 114.5 -7.2 212 933 3.3 332 Tippecanoe, IN........... 3.6 82.6 -5.7 136 973 5.5 271 Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.9 102.2 -6.1 165 940 6.5 221 Johnson, IA.............. 4.5 78.2 -6.2 169 1,099 8.3 111 Linn, IA................. 7.1 121.6 -8.1 248 1,067 5.6 266 Polk, IA................. 18.4 287.0 -5.4 120 1,157 6.9 196 Scott, IA................ 5.8 84.3 -7.6 220 948 6.3 233 Johnson, KS.............. 24.2 335.7 -4.8 84 1,183 10.3 35 Sedgwick, KS............. 12.8 239.6 -7.0 202 919 2.7 341 Shawnee, KS.............. 5.1 92.2 -3.5 44 919 5.9 254 Wyandotte, KS............ 3.5 88.3 -3.8 49 1,054 1.9 344 Boone, KY................ 4.8 93.2 -2.2 18 962 5.4 276 Fayette, KY.............. 11.8 182.7 -7.2 212 1,001 6.7 209 Jefferson, KY............ 27.0 443.5 -6.1 165 1,099 6.1 248 Caddo, LA................ 7.5 101.7 -7.9 240 923 8.1 125 Calcasieu, LA............ 5.6 75.8 -24.1 356 1,029 5.3 282 East Baton Rouge, LA..... 17.1 243.7 -8.2 254 1,071 6.1 248 Jefferson, LA............ 14.7 172.2 -8.5 271 999 5.7 263 Lafayette, LA............ 10.5 121.3 -7.9 240 928 0.5 349 Orleans, LA.............. 14.3 159.5 -20.0 352 1,165 17.3 5 St. Tammany, LA.......... 9.1 84.8 -5.9 151 938 4.6 307 Cumberland, ME........... 14.1 175.2 -7.6 220 1,105 9.7 52 Anne Arundel, MD......... 15.4 255.3 -8.6 276 1,269 10.7 27 Baltimore, MD............ 20.9 345.7 -8.7 282 1,163 9.7 52 Frederick, MD............ 6.5 97.2 -8.3 258 1,093 8.4 103 Harford, MD.............. 5.9 89.3 -6.6 188 1,141 7.8 140 Howard, MD............... 10.0 159.9 -9.6 311 1,518 14.7 9 Montgomery, MD........... 32.6 436.7 -7.8 236 1,540 9.8 49 Prince George's, MD...... 16.2 290.6 -9.4 305 1,230 6.8 202 Baltimore City, MD....... 13.6 324.7 -6.0 156 1,340 8.3 111 Barnstable, MA........... 9.6 92.3 -10.1 324 1,012 10.7 27 Bristol, MA.............. 18.0 211.2 -8.4 268 1,052 8.3 111 Essex, MA................ 27.8 298.9 -9.2 297 1,250 8.4 103 Hampden, MA.............. 18.9 192.1 -10.6 334 1,037 9.6 56 Middlesex, MA............ 57.5 859.9 -8.6 276 1,788 10.0 45 Norfolk, MA.............. 25.8 315.0 -10.7 335 1,326 9.0 75 Plymouth, MA............. 16.6 179.9 -9.5 308 1,115 7.7 149 Suffolk, MA.............. 32.4 634.1 -10.4 329 1,942 9.3 64 Worcester, MA............ 26.7 324.4 -8.5 271 1,167 10.1 42 Genesee, MI.............. 7.2 124.3 -8.4 268 934 8.0 130 Ingham, MI............... 6.5 140.8 -9.2 297 1,086 8.8 84 Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.8 113.5 -7.3 215 1,052 6.5 221 Kent, MI................. 16.3 370.0 -9.0 287 1,036 7.8 140 Macomb, MI............... 19.1 305.3 -9.0 287 1,107 5.7 263 Oakland, MI.............. 42.8 679.6 -9.1 292 1,256 8.3 111 Ottawa, MI............... 6.3 123.4 -5.4 120 952 3.3 332 Saginaw, MI.............. 4.0 77.2 -9.0 287 936 8.6 92 Washtenaw, MI............ 9.3 202.7 -8.5 271 1,277 8.5 95 Wayne, MI................ 35.3 674.5 -8.3 258 1,240 7.4 162 Anoka, MN................ 7.9 121.5 -6.8 199 1,126 3.6 328 Dakota, MN............... 10.8 177.0 -7.7 226 1,139 8.1 125 Hennepin, MN............. 41.7 849.9 -9.7 313 1,447 9.0 75 Olmsted, MN.............. 3.8 96.7 -3.6 47 1,224 -4.4 354 Ramsey, MN............... 14.3 305.6 -9.2 297 1,263 5.5 271 St. Louis, MN............ 5.4 90.1 -8.1 248 947 3.5 329 Stearns, MN.............. 4.4 81.6 -6.1 165 1,010 6.9 196 Washington, MN........... 6.2 84.5 -5.0 94 944 4.2 316 Harrison, MS............. 4.6 81.5 -6.3 175 787 9.5 58 Hinds, MS................ 5.6 113.4 -5.2 105 945 4.7 302 Boone, MO................ 5.0 91.2 -4.4 71 1,006 12.3 16 Clay, MO................. 6.1 102.3 -3.9 51 998 8.4 103 Greene, MO............... 9.7 164.6 -3.5 44 896 6.8 202 Jackson, MO.............. 23.4 351.8 -6.3 175 1,132 5.7 263 St. Charles, MO.......... 10.2 150.7 -2.1 14 920 6.7 209 St. Louis, MO............ 42.5 566.0 -7.1 208 1,194 5.5 271 St. Louis City, MO....... 15.8 209.6 -9.2 297 1,211 3.2 336 Yellowstone, MT.......... 6.8 81.3 -1.8 12 963 4.8 299 Douglas, NE.............. 19.5 324.5 -5.0 94 1,098 7.0 190 Lancaster, NE............ 10.2 165.4 -5.9 151 942 7.4 162 Clark, NV................ 56.5 875.9 -14.9 349 1,021 7.5 156 Washoe, NV............... 15.1 213.1 -6.5 184 1,091 8.3 111 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.5 194.2 -5.8 145 1,244 8.6 92 Merrimack, NH............ 5.3 73.9 -5.2 105 1,096 7.7 149 Rockingham, NH........... 11.4 145.3 -5.2 105 1,118 7.3 168 Atlantic, NJ............. 6.8 113.7 -13.7 346 955 8.4 103 Bergen, NJ............... 34.2 395.4 -11.0 337 1,371 10.7 27 Burlington, NJ........... 11.5 190.2 -6.0 156 1,218 10.4 33 Camden, NJ............... 12.6 187.6 -8.3 258 1,127 8.2 119 Essex, NJ................ 21.7 306.1 -11.0 337 1,420 6.9 196 Gloucester, NJ........... 6.6 109.0 -5.0 94 951 6.9 196 Hudson, NJ............... 16.4 245.6 -9.9 320 1,513 8.8 84 Mercer, NJ............... 11.6 246.5 -5.6 127 1,393 6.8 202 Middlesex, NJ............ 23.2 400.0 -6.4 178 1,321 8.5 95 Monmouth, NJ............. 20.8 245.3 -7.8 236 1,173 13.7 12 Morris, NJ............... 17.5 270.6 -8.3 258 1,651 7.9 131 Ocean, NJ................ 14.2 163.8 -6.0 156 938 10.9 24 Passaic, NJ.............. 13.1 150.2 -10.4 329 1,107 10.6 31 Somerset, NJ............. 10.6 175.1 -7.9 240 1,672 10.2 38 Union, NJ................ 15.2 210.4 -9.1 292 1,403 11.4 19 Bernalillo, NM........... 20.4 311.0 -7.2 212 1,011 7.9 131 Albany, NY............... 10.4 218.8 -6.7 194 1,266 12.8 15 Bronx, NY................ 19.3 299.1 -7.7 226 1,194 5.6 266 Broome, NY............... 4.3 78.1 -8.6 276 976 10.3 35 Dutchess, NY............. 8.5 103.8 -9.5 308 1,129 8.3 111 Erie, NY................. 24.6 430.8 -9.1 292 1,051 9.7 52 Kings, NY................ 66.6 735.1 -9.2 297 1,028 7.3 168 Monroe, NY............... 18.9 355.8 -9.2 297 1,083 7.3 168 Nassau, NY............... 54.4 565.1 -10.1 324 1,275 9.9 46 New York, NY............. 130.0 2,110.1 -15.9 351 2,342 13.7 12 Oneida, NY............... 5.3 96.7 -8.2 254 906 7.9 131 Onondaga, NY............. 12.7 229.0 -8.5 271 1,081 8.8 84 Orange, NY............... 10.8 136.2 -8.8 284 1,002 9.2 67 Queens, NY............... 54.1 635.1 -12.1 345 1,154 7.1 181 Richmond, NY............. 10.1 119.7 -7.7 226 1,124 9.2 67 Rockland, NY............. 11.3 119.3 -8.9 286 1,079 7.9 131 Saratoga, NY............. 6.1 83.3 -8.2 254 1,065 8.5 95 Suffolk, NY.............. 53.8 618.8 -8.3 258 1,349 16.3 7 Westchester, NY.......... 36.3 387.8 -10.5 332 1,438 10.4 33 Buncombe, NC............. 10.4 122.4 -9.2 297 905 6.5 221 Cabarrus, NC............. 5.3 73.1 -5.3 115 877 8.1 125 Catawba, NC.............. 4.6 84.0 -4.5 76 871 5.2 289 Cumberland, NC........... 6.6 114.3 -5.2 105 892 5.4 276 Durham, NC............... 9.3 210.5 -3.9 51 1,491 6.6 215 Forsyth, NC.............. 9.8 180.8 -5.7 136 1,028 6.4 227 Guilford, NC............. 15.2 268.9 -5.9 151 989 6.6 215 Iredell, NC.............. 5.9 74.7 -1.7 9 1,119 19.8 3 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 42.2 681.3 -5.4 120 1,286 5.8 259 New Hanover, NC.......... 9.1 113.7 -4.2 64 967 10.8 25 Pitt, NC................. 3.9 74.7 -4.2 64 950 4.7 302 Wake, NC................. 39.3 550.2 -3.3 39 1,216 7.7 149 Cass, ND................. 7.7 116.7 -3.9 51 1,058 6.5 221 Butler, OH............... 8.1 149.5 -5.7 136 996 5.6 266 Cuyahoga, OH............. 36.7 675.1 -7.7 226 1,167 7.8 140 Delaware, OH............. 5.9 85.5 -5.1 102 1,118 8.8 84 Franklin, OH............. 34.8 724.4 -5.3 115 1,175 7.1 181 Greene, OH............... 3.8 74.3 -2.8 31 1,151 7.3 168 Hamilton, OH............. 24.9 487.0 -6.9 200 1,300 9.3 64 Lake, OH................. 6.4 90.0 -7.7 226 912 0.2 350 Lorain, OH............... 6.3 92.6 -5.9 151 880 6.8 202 Lucas, OH................ 10.2 194.7 -7.0 202 974 4.2 316 Mahoning, OH............. 5.9 91.2 -7.4 217 819 6.9 196 Montgomery, OH........... 12.3 240.0 -6.2 169 986 6.7 209 Stark, OH................ 8.7 149.7 -6.0 156 851 5.3 282 Summit, OH............... 14.7 251.8 -5.8 145 978 5.3 282 Warren, OH............... 5.5 92.8 -4.8 84 1,219 6.6 215 Cleveland, OK............ 6.1 82.9 -3.2 37 817 4.7 302 Oklahoma, OK............. 28.7 441.0 -5.7 136 1,034 3.9 324 Tulsa, OK................ 22.8 339.3 -6.6 188 995 2.7 341 Clackamas, OR............ 16.1 158.1 -7.7 226 1,112 6.7 209 Deschutes, OR............ 9.8 83.2 -4.0 55 990 9.0 75 Jackson, OR.............. 8.1 87.8 -5.3 115 908 7.1 181 Lane, OR................. 13.1 145.5 -8.3 258 943 10.3 35 Marion, OR............... 11.8 155.5 -4.1 58 983 8.3 111 Multnomah, OR............ 37.5 468.4 -10.2 326 1,254 8.4 103 Washington, OR........... 21.0 284.4 -6.5 184 1,470 7.2 175 Allegheny, PA............ 36.6 643.1 -8.5 271 1,234 7.8 140 Berks, PA................ 8.9 160.8 -8.3 258 1,053 8.6 92 Bucks, PA................ 20.5 246.3 -8.0 245 1,071 9.0 75 Butler, PA............... 5.1 82.5 -6.6 188 1,045 4.8 299 Chester, PA.............. 15.9 236.7 -6.7 194 1,365 7.3 168 Cumberland, PA........... 6.7 129.2 -5.6 127 1,054 7.8 140 Dauphin, PA.............. 7.5 175.5 -6.1 165 1,118 5.2 289 Delaware, PA............. 14.3 207.1 -8.8 284 1,188 8.4 103 Erie, PA................. 6.9 113.7 -8.1 248 874 7.6 152 Lackawanna, PA........... 5.6 89.7 -8.1 248 896 9.4 61 Lancaster, PA............ 13.9 232.4 -5.8 145 965 6.2 240 Lehigh, PA............... 8.9 183.0 -6.6 188 1,130 8.5 95 Luzerne, PA.............. 7.5 135.9 -7.6 220 906 7.1 181 Montgomery, PA........... 28.3 472.4 -7.0 202 1,402 8.8 84 Northampton, PA.......... 6.9 110.4 -8.0 245 985 8.8 84 Philadelphia, PA......... 35.3 631.0 -10.9 336 1,392 7.2 175 Washington, PA........... 5.6 79.9 -10.2 326 1,102 5.2 289 Westmoreland, PA......... 9.2 124.3 -7.7 226 920 3.5 329 York, PA................. 9.2 168.9 -6.7 194 990 5.5 271 Kent, RI................. 5.6 69.8 -9.7 313 1,018 9.0 75 Providence, RI........... 19.2 266.8 -8.2 254 1,091 7.8 140 Charleston, SC........... 17.9 239.2 -7.7 226 1,047 8.5 95 Greenville, SC........... 16.1 265.2 -4.2 64 969 6.4 227 Horry, SC................ 10.2 123.9 -9.0 287 721 8.9 80 Lexington, SC............ 7.4 118.3 -2.7 29 887 5.3 282 Richland, SC............. 11.1 210.9 -5.6 127 971 5.8 259 Spartanburg, SC.......... 7.0 144.6 -4.3 68 929 4.5 309 York, SC................. 6.9 97.2 -3.5 44 952 8.1 125 Minnehaha, SD............ 8.0 125.3 -2.6 24 1,017 7.6 152 Davidson, TN............. 25.9 472.1 -9.0 287 1,237 5.0 294 Hamilton, TN............. 10.7 198.2 -4.9 90 1,037 7.2 175 Knox, TN................. 13.5 231.6 -4.1 58 1,001 6.9 196 Rutherford, TN........... 6.4 130.6 -1.7 9 995 6.1 248 Shelby, TN............... 21.8 470.4 -6.4 178 1,143 7.5 156 Williamson, TN........... 10.2 135.4 -3.9 51 1,314 4.2 316 Bell, TX................. 5.9 117.5 -3.3 39 955 4.1 321 Bexar, TX................ 43.8 824.8 -6.2 169 1,036 7.5 156 Brazoria, TX............. 6.3 108.8 -7.4 217 1,100 0.8 348 Brazos, TX............... 4.9 103.6 -4.8 84 864 5.9 254 Cameron, TX.............. 6.6 135.5 -4.3 68 697 5.4 276 Collin, TX............... 29.0 423.0 -4.4 71 1,358 6.4 227 Dallas, TX............... 80.6 1,653.8 -4.6 78 1,355 4.1 321 Denton, TX............... 17.0 257.3 -3.0 35 1,026 6.3 233 Ector, TX................ 4.2 65.2 -20.8 355 1,094 -11.0 357 El Paso, TX.............. 15.7 299.5 -5.0 94 814 6.8 202 Fort Bend, TX............ 15.4 187.8 -4.7 82 995 1.8 345 Galveston, TX............ 6.5 104.7 -5.2 105 1,010 5.0 294 Gregg, TX................ 4.3 68.9 -9.9 320 882 -3.7 352 Harris, TX............... 119.8 2,171.8 -7.7 226 1,336 1.4 346 Hidalgo, TX.............. 12.9 253.4 -4.1 58 713 4.2 316 Jefferson, TX............ 5.8 111.2 -9.7 313 1,096 3.4 331 Lubbock, TX.............. 8.0 136.6 -3.7 48 892 3.7 327 McLennan, TX............. 5.6 112.1 -1.6 8 947 6.2 240 Midland, TX.............. 6.2 87.5 -20.1 353 1,358 -7.4 356 Montgomery, TX........... 12.9 184.5 -5.5 125 1,113 3.3 332 Nueces, TX............... 8.4 149.4 -8.6 276 950 1.2 347 Potter, TX............... 4.0 74.4 -3.4 43 944 6.2 240 Smith, TX................ 6.5 101.0 -4.0 55 928 4.3 314 Tarrant, TX.............. 46.6 877.1 -5.6 127 1,116 4.3 314 Travis, TX............... 45.6 745.6 -4.6 78 1,427 8.3 111 Webb, TX................. 5.6 95.4 -7.1 208 742 3.9 324 Williamson, TX........... 12.6 179.0 -2.4 21 1,236 8.4 103 Davis, UT................ 9.4 135.3 0.8 2 943 8.4 103 Salt Lake, UT............ 51.8 707.5 -2.4 21 1,152 6.4 227 Utah, UT................. 19.0 259.3 1.9 1 981 5.6 266 Weber, UT................ 6.6 107.6 -1.9 13 880 5.8 259 Chittenden, VT........... 7.3 94.6 -8.7 282 1,132 6.2 240 Arlington, VA............ 9.2 171.4 -7.5 219 1,845 4.0 323 Chesterfield, VA......... 9.5 130.6 -4.0 55 967 5.1 292 Fairfax, VA.............. 37.2 592.3 -4.4 71 1,774 7.5 156 Henrico, VA.............. 11.9 178.8 -6.7 194 1,083 5.5 271 Loudoun, VA.............. 13.1 164.7 -6.0 156 1,335 9.7 52 Prince William, VA....... 9.7 125.3 -6.0 156 1,054 9.9 46 Alexandria City, VA...... 6.3 82.6 -6.2 169 1,549 2.9 338 Chesapeake City, VA...... 6.3 98.2 -4.1 58 917 7.0 190 Newport News City, VA.... 4.0 98.8 -4.8 84 1,069 4.5 309 Norfolk City, VA......... 6.1 131.1 -7.1 208 1,129 5.1 292 Richmond City, VA........ 8.0 145.9 -7.8 236 1,301 8.2 119 Virginia Beach City, VA.. 12.5 168.6 -5.3 115 902 7.9 131 Benton, WA............... 6.2 88.6 -5.6 127 1,175 6.3 233 Clark, WA................ 16.1 156.1 -5.7 136 1,148 8.5 95 King, WA................. 91.7 1,340.0 -6.9 200 2,077 14.3 11 Kitsap, WA............... 7.1 87.1 -5.6 127 1,117 9.8 49 Pierce, WA............... 24.1 300.2 -6.4 178 1,114 7.1 181 Snohomish, WA............ 22.4 271.5 -7.6 220 1,243 6.2 240 Spokane, WA.............. 17.2 218.1 -6.2 169 1,018 7.0 190 Thurston, WA............. 8.9 113.2 -5.6 127 1,117 7.2 175 Whatcom, WA.............. 7.6 84.5 -7.6 220 1,007 7.9 131 Yakima, WA............... 8.2 119.7 -5.4 120 843 6.4 227 Kanawha, WV.............. 5.6 88.7 -8.6 276 981 2.9 338 Brown, WI................ 7.3 151.3 -4.9 90 1,012 6.5 221 Dane, WI................. 16.6 327.2 -5.2 105 1,124 6.7 209 Milwaukee, WI............ 27.8 449.3 -8.0 245 1,053 4.4 312 Outagamie, WI............ 5.7 103.3 -5.0 94 964 5.4 276 Racine, WI............... 4.8 70.9 -5.8 145 964 5.9 254 Waukesha, WI............. 13.9 234.3 -4.9 90 1,103 4.6 307 Winnebago, WI............ 4.0 90.1 -2.6 24 1,015 4.4 312 San Juan, PR............. 10.8 223.6 -7.3 (5) 669 4.7 (5) (1) Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. (2) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. (3) Percent changes were computed from employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. (4) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. (5) This county was not included in the U.S. rankings. Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. These 357 U.S. counties comprise 72.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties, third quarter 2020 Employment Average weekly wage(1) Establishments, third quarter County by NAICS supersector 2020 Percent Percent (thousands) September change, Third change, 2020 September quarter third (thousands) 2019-20(2) 2020 quarter 2019-20(2) United States(3) ............................ 10,561.3 138,549.5 -6.8 $1,173 7.4 Private industry........................... 10,258.7 117,260.0 -7.5 1,170 7.8 Natural resources and mining............. 140.8 1,826.9 -10.3 1,070 -3.6 Construction............................. 853.3 7,308.2 -4.7 1,269 3.8 Manufacturing............................ 360.0 12,034.4 -6.1 1,321 4.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 1,956.6 26,426.4 -3.3 970 5.1 Information.............................. 201.1 2,643.3 -8.1 2,573 15.7 Financial activities..................... 949.9 8,144.6 -2.3 1,735 7.6 Professional and business services....... 1,992.9 20,097.4 -5.6 1,520 7.1 Education and health services............ 1,878.3 22,069.6 -5.0 1,056 6.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 891.0 12,637.4 -24.0 482 0.6 Other services........................... 830.4 3,900.0 -13.0 836 9.3 Government................................. 302.6 21,289.5 -2.8 1,189 4.7 Los Angeles, CA.............................. 521.9 3,973.9 -11.8 1,334 9.1 Private industry........................... 515.5 3,421.2 -13.0 1,293 9.4 Natural resources and mining............. 0.6 6.2 -1.3 1,089 -0.9 Construction............................. 17.7 144.2 -5.0 1,391 5.1 Manufacturing............................ 12.6 307.5 -9.5 1,428 6.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 60.0 766.7 -8.0 1,071 5.3 Information.............................. 14.0 163.0 -21.7 2,842 16.9 Financial activities..................... 31.3 205.2 -6.7 2,014 8.2 Professional and business services....... 59.0 567.9 -10.9 1,616 9.5 Education and health services............ 248.8 792.2 -4.8 994 7.1 Leisure and hospitality.................. 40.8 354.9 -35.6 757 7.7 Other services........................... 29.7 112.8 -26.7 919 11.0 Government................................. 6.4 552.8 -3.5 1,602 5.9 Cook, IL..................................... 140.2 2,367.3 -9.8 1,332 7.0 Private industry........................... 138.9 2,083.6 -10.5 1,342 7.3 Natural resources and mining............. 0.1 1.7 13.4 1,229 -0.2 Construction............................. 11.3 72.5 -10.0 1,586 3.1 Manufacturing............................ 5.7 174.0 -6.2 1,320 2.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 28.6 437.5 -6.0 1,046 1.3 Information.............................. 2.6 49.0 -8.3 2,298 10.9 Financial activities..................... 14.3 203.0 -1.7 2,281 5.4 Professional and business services....... 29.5 439.7 -9.3 1,653 5.6 Education and health services............ 16.2 427.7 -5.9 1,124 6.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 14.0 194.2 -34.9 598 0.2 Other services........................... 15.9 84.0 -13.6 1,064 9.4 Government................................. 1.3 283.8 -4.1 1,259 5.7 New York, NY................................. 130.0 2,110.1 -15.9 2,342 13.7 Private industry........................... 128.5 1,877.1 -17.5 2,430 15.4 Natural resources and mining............. 0.0 0.2 9.1 2,112 -9.7 Construction............................. 2.4 38.5 -10.5 2,056 5.3 Manufacturing............................ 1.8 14.7 -33.8 1,675 12.8 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 18.2 196.3 -22.1 1,637 11.4 Information.............................. 5.9 172.4 -11.9 3,357 18.8 Financial activities..................... 19.6 379.3 -3.4 3,610 5.3 Professional and business services....... 29.5 526.6 -10.6 2,614 7.9 Education and health services............ 10.4 329.2 -8.3 1,554 8.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 14.4 127.9 -58.8 1,149 15.5 Other services........................... 19.5 87.7 -18.5 1,428 14.1 Government................................. 1.5 232.9 -0.2 1,628 1.5 Harris, TX................................... 119.8 2,171.8 -7.7 1,336 1.4 Private industry........................... 119.3 1,890.8 -9.0 1,346 1.4 Natural resources and mining............. 1.5 53.1 -20.7 3,309 -0.4 Construction............................. 8.0 150.2 -14.0 1,404 2.2 Manufacturing............................ 4.9 158.6 -11.7 1,556 -1.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 25.4 448.3 -4.4 1,196 0.8 Information.............................. 1.3 22.1 -14.9 1,724 10.0 Financial activities..................... 13.0 125.3 -3.6 1,748 3.0 Professional and business services....... 24.2 386.2 -6.8 1,647 -0.2 Education and health services............ 17.3 293.2 -3.7 1,118 5.0 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.8 191.8 -20.9 496 -3.5 Other services........................... 11.7 60.5 -11.8 880 2.9 Government................................. 0.6 281.0 1.9 1,264 1.9 Maricopa, AZ................................. 113.2 1,987.7 -4.1 1,139 7.4 Private industry........................... 112.4 1,774.5 -4.3 1,130 7.4 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 6.8 -9.9 1,261 21.8 Construction............................. 9.0 130.9 -1.6 1,214 4.7 Manufacturing............................ 3.6 127.9 -3.0 1,431 3.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 22.0 397.4 1.9 1,009 5.8 Information.............................. 2.5 35.1 -9.7 1,755 14.9 Financial activities..................... 15.0 192.8 1.4 1,503 6.8 Professional and business services....... 28.8 332.5 -4.2 1,201 6.8 Education and health services............ 14.2 326.0 -2.6 1,111 5.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 9.4 174.9 -22.8 546 4.2 Other services........................... 7.3 49.9 -8.1 830 5.6 Government................................. 0.7 213.2 -2.1 1,216 5.9 Dallas, TX................................... 80.6 1,653.8 -4.6 1,355 4.1 Private industry........................... 80.1 1,475.6 -5.2 1,364 4.0 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 7.4 -12.8 2,518 -11.7 Construction............................. 5.0 89.5 -5.6 1,363 3.6 Manufacturing............................ 2.9 114.5 -3.9 1,524 -3.7 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 16.3 349.6 0.5 1,190 2.3 Information.............................. 1.5 44.0 -6.0 2,077 5.4 Financial activities..................... 10.1 159.2 -0.3 1,845 2.2 Professional and business services....... 18.4 348.2 -4.4 1,592 4.3 Education and health services............ 10.1 197.3 -3.3 1,188 4.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.3 128.4 -23.4 550 0.5 Other services........................... 7.2 36.4 -17.1 934 9.1 Government................................. 0.5 178.2 0.6 1,273 4.3 Orange, CA................................... 131.0 1,461.5 -11.1 1,330 10.2 Private industry........................... 129.6 1,319.6 -11.7 1,317 10.0 Natural resources and mining............. 0.2 2.2 -6.5 905 -0.5 Construction............................. 8.0 100.8 -6.1 1,539 4.7 Manufacturing............................ 5.3 145.1 -8.4 1,543 2.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 18.8 237.3 -6.5 1,145 7.3 Information.............................. 1.7 23.3 -8.4 2,388 12.3 Financial activities..................... 13.5 113.4 -3.5 2,137 6.9 Professional and business services....... 24.5 297.9 -8.6 1,481 9.0 Education and health services............ 39.5 216.9 -5.1 1,045 4.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.0 142.9 -37.3 572 6.1 Other services........................... 8.0 39.6 -16.9 823 6.7 Government................................. 1.4 141.9 -5.2 1,462 11.0 San Diego, CA................................ 119.0 1,350.0 -9.4 1,332 11.1 Private industry........................... 117.1 1,126.2 -10.2 1,296 12.0 Natural resources and mining............. 0.7 9.7 -6.8 841 5.4 Construction............................. 8.2 80.4 -5.2 1,391 7.2 Manufacturing............................ 3.6 112.8 -4.5 1,746 7.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 15.4 206.8 -5.9 985 9.1 Information.............................. 1.5 21.2 -9.0 2,637 6.2 Financial activities..................... 11.6 72.5 -5.2 1,719 11.5 Professional and business services....... 22.0 240.7 -4.9 1,766 8.9 Education and health services............ 36.2 202.2 -4.4 1,057 6.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 9.3 139.1 -31.3 602 10.1 Other services........................... 8.4 40.8 -23.7 761 14.6 Government................................. 2.0 223.8 -5.1 1,518 5.7 King, WA..................................... 91.7 1,340.0 -6.9 2,077 14.3 Private industry........................... 91.1 1,172.1 -7.7 2,149 15.7 Natural resources and mining............. 0.4 3.1 3.2 1,237 -5.2 Construction............................. 7.0 74.0 -3.6 1,567 4.3 Manufacturing............................ 2.5 90.3 -14.5 1,691 2.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 13.5 275.4 -0.6 1,915 9.5 Information.............................. 2.8 130.0 4.8 6,293 16.6 Financial activities..................... 7.3 67.8 -2.9 2,051 12.1 Professional and business services....... 19.3 227.7 -4.7 2,017 8.2 Education and health services............ 21.3 171.1 -4.6 1,163 4.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.4 91.9 -37.3 641 -0.5 Other services........................... 9.6 40.7 -15.6 1,094 16.8 Government................................. 0.6 167.9 -1.2 1,576 4.4 Miami-Dade, FL............................... 108.1 1,048.5 -9.5 1,116 7.8 Private industry........................... 107.7 913.3 -10.4 1,085 8.2 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 9.1 7.1 698 3.9 Construction............................. 7.5 51.0 -3.6 1,058 5.8 Manufacturing............................ 2.9 39.5 -5.6 971 4.0 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 25.1 262.4 -8.9 963 2.8 Information.............................. 1.7 16.9 -12.4 1,836 14.1 Financial activities..................... 11.7 74.1 -2.0 1,658 5.7 Professional and business services....... 25.3 156.1 -5.5 1,312 8.7 Education and health services............ 13.5 178.1 -4.6 1,088 7.1 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.9 92.6 -35.4 661 4.8 Other services........................... 8.4 32.7 -13.7 737 7.9 Government................................. 0.3 135.2 -3.1 1,333 4.4 (1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. (2) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. (3) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. Note: Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2019 annual average employment. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state, third quarter 2020 Employment Average weekly wage(1) Establishments, third quarter State 2020 Percent Percent (thousands) September change, Third change, 2020 September quarter third (thousands) 2019-20 2020 quarter 2019-20 United States(2)........... 10,561.3 138,549.5 -6.8 $1,173 7.4 Alabama.................... 132.2 1,902.4 -4.5 978 6.4 Alaska..................... 22.9 302.6 -10.7 1,165 5.4 Arizona.................... 174.1 2,797.1 -4.2 1,091 7.3 Arkansas................... 93.6 1,180.1 -3.4 892 6.1 California................. 1,643.8 16,096.8 -9.2 1,466 12.0 Colorado................... 220.1 2,597.2 -5.6 1,235 5.6 Connecticut................ 125.4 1,555.6 -7.3 1,328 7.4 Delaware................... 34.9 428.8 -5.6 1,150 6.8 District of Columbia....... 43.3 713.7 -8.1 1,962 6.1 Florida.................... 749.1 8,329.7 -5.8 1,029 8.0 Georgia.................... 313.0 4,282.1 -5.2 1,084 5.8 Hawaii..................... 46.5 507.5 -22.9 1,114 10.3 Idaho...................... 70.7 763.7 -0.2 884 5.5 Illinois................... 385.9 5,558.5 -7.8 1,199 6.8 Indiana.................... 172.4 2,941.8 -4.7 961 5.3 Iowa....................... 105.1 1,475.0 -5.2 969 6.0 Kansas..................... 89.2 1,325.4 -5.0 952 6.6 Kentucky................... 128.0 1,807.1 -5.5 935 5.8 Louisiana.................. 139.5 1,734.6 -9.6 970 5.2 Maine...................... 54.4 597.3 -5.9 966 9.0 Maryland................... 172.4 2,496.6 -7.6 1,277 9.5 Massachusetts.............. 265.1 3,314.8 -9.4 1,488 9.7 Michigan................... 266.9 4,035.9 -7.9 1,096 7.5 Minnesota.................. 183.1 2,703.3 -7.4 1,178 6.4 Mississippi................ 74.9 1,092.4 -4.0 810 5.6 Missouri................... 218.8 2,681.7 -5.1 995 5.6 Montana.................... 53.0 466.9 -2.5 904 6.6 Nebraska................... 73.7 949.9 -3.8 964 6.4 Nevada..................... 87.9 1,251.0 -11.6 1,048 7.8 New Hampshire.............. 56.1 634.2 -5.2 1,171 8.9 New Jersey................. 289.3 3,778.4 -8.0 1,331 9.5 New Mexico................. 63.1 771.9 -8.6 944 5.1 New York................... 657.6 8,547.7 -10.8 1,446 10.0 North Carolina............. 301.4 4,308.2 -4.4 1,039 6.9 North Dakota............... 32.5 398.2 -7.0 1,025 -0.3 Ohio....................... 305.7 5,136.8 -5.6 1,040 6.6 Oklahoma................... 112.4 1,538.5 -5.7 917 2.3 Oregon..................... 164.6 1,837.3 -7.0 1,113 7.4 Pennsylvania............... 366.5 5,501.0 -7.6 1,139 7.0 Rhode Island............... 40.1 452.5 -8.0 1,092 10.4 South Carolina............. 146.6 2,022.9 -5.2 924 6.7 South Dakota............... 35.2 422.3 -2.6 918 7.2 Tennessee.................. 173.6 2,918.1 -4.6 1,022 5.8 Texas...................... 733.1 11,926.8 -5.5 1,150 3.8 Utah....................... 114.3 1,518.2 -1.0 1,015 6.1 Vermont.................... 26.4 283.9 -8.6 1,001 7.9 Virginia................... 285.7 3,737.0 -5.0 1,201 6.4 Washington................. 256.6 3,266.2 -6.3 1,482 11.0 West Virginia.............. 51.7 649.1 -6.7 913 1.8 Wisconsin.................. 181.2 2,746.6 -5.2 977 5.3 Wyoming.................... 27.5 264.0 -6.8 939 -0.4 Puerto Rico................ 45.7 831.6 -5.3 547 3.4 Virgin Islands............. 3.4 33.9 -13.0 1,019 -0.5 (1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. (2) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.