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.
United States Department of Labor
