An official website of the United States government
For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, September 18, 2014 USDL-14-1713 Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 * QCEWInfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cew Media Contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES First Quarter 2014 From March 2013 to March 2014, employment increased in 281 of the 339 largest U.S. counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Weld, Colo., had the largest increase, with a gain of 7.5 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.7 percent. Within Weld, the largest employment increase occurred in natural resources and mining, which gained 2,145 jobs over the year (24.1 percent). Peoria, Ill., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 2.6 percent. County employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, which produces detailed information on county employment and wages within 6 months after the end of each quarter. The U.S. average weekly wage increased 3.8 percent over the year, growing to $1,027 in the first quarter of 2014. Chester, Pa., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 13.9 percent. Within Chester, an average weekly wage gain of $520, or 49.1 percent, in trade, transportation, and utilities made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in average weekly wages. Benton, Ark., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 3.2 percent over the year. Table A. Large counties ranked by March 2014 employment, March 2013-14 employment increase, and March 2013-14 percent increase in employment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment in large counties -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 2014 employment | Increase in employment, | Percent increase in employment, (thousands) | March 2013-14 | March 2013-14 | (thousands) | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | United States 134,555.0| United States 2,254.3| United States 1.7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Los Angeles, Calif. 4,125.8| Los Angeles, Calif. 79.4| Weld, Colo. 7.5 New York, N.Y. 2,453.1| Harris, Texas 64.0| York, S.C. 6.4 Cook, Ill. 2,413.6| New York, N.Y. 58.7| Lee, Fla. 6.3 Harris, Texas 2,226.8| Dallas, Texas 45.4| Sarasota, Fla. 5.8 Maricopa, Ariz. 1,749.9| King, Wash. 39.1| Wyandotte, Kan. 5.5 Dallas, Texas 1,515.6| Maricopa, Ariz. 39.0| Midland, Texas 5.4 Orange, Calif. 1,459.9| Santa Clara, Calif. 36.9| Montgomery, Texas 5.2 San Diego, Calif. 1,321.0| Orange, Calif. 35.0| Collier, Fla. 4.9 King, Wash. 1,214.7| Clark, Nev. 32.3| Sonoma, Calif. 4.8 Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,043.4| San Diego, Calif. 26.7| Fort Bend, Texas 4.8 | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Large County Employment In March 2014, national employment was 134.6 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the year, employment increased 1.7 percent, or 2.3 million. The 339 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs accounted for 72.0 percent of total U.S. employment and 78.3 percent of total wages. These 339 counties had a net job growth of 1.7 million over the year, accounting for 74.4 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Weld, Colo., had the largest percentage increase in employment (7.5 percent) among the largest U.S. counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Los Angeles, Calif.; Harris, Texas; New York, N.Y.; Dallas, Texas; and King, Wash. These counties had a combined over- the-year employment gain of 286,600 jobs, which was 12.7 percent of the overall job increase for the U.S. (See table A.) Employment declined in 50 of the largest counties from March 2013 to March 2014. Peoria, Ill., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-2.6 percent). Within Peoria, professional and business services had the largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 1,240 jobs (-7.4 percent). St. Clair, Ill. had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by Atlantic, N.J.; Lake, Ind.; and Arlington, Va. (See table 1.) Table B. Large counties ranked by first quarter 2014 average weekly wages, first quarter 2013-14 increase in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2013-14 percent increase in average weekly wages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weekly wage in large counties -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weekly wage, | Increase in average weekly | Percent increase in average first quarter 2014 | wage, first quarter 2013-14 | weekly wage, first | | quarter 2013-14 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | United States $1,027| United States $38| United States 3.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | New York, N.Y. $2,749| New York, N.Y. $294| Chester, Pa. 13.9 Santa Clara, Calif. 2,074| San Mateo, Calif. 181| New York, N.Y. 12.0 San Mateo, Calif. 2,058| Chester, Pa. 173| San Mateo, Calif. 9.6 Somerset, N.J. 2,048| San Francisco, Calif. 166| Forsyth, N.C. 9.6 San Francisco, Calif. 1,944| Suffolk, Mass. 150| San Francisco, Calif. 9.3 Fairfield, Conn. 1,922| Santa Clara, Calif. 137| Suffolk, Mass. 8.8 Suffolk, Mass. 1,852| Midland, Texas 104| Midland, Texas 8.5 Washington, D.C. 1,701| Middlesex, Mass. 90| Palm Beach, Fla. 7.8 Arlington, Va. 1,669| Forsyth, N.C. 90| Washington, Pa. 7.3 Morris, N.J. 1,646| Lake, Ill. 86| Elkhart, Ind. 7.2 | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Large County Average Weekly Wages Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $1,027, a 3.8 percent increase, during the year ending in the first quarter of 2014. Among the 339 largest counties, 323 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Chester, Pa., had the largest wage increase among the largest U.S. counties (13.9 percent). Of the 339 largest counties, 15 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Benton, Ark., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, with a loss of 3.2 percent. Within Benton, professional and business services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage decrease. Within this industry, average weekly wages declined by $253 (-8.9 percent) over the year. Cumberland, N.C., had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by Dutchess, N.Y.; Ocean, N.J.; and McLean, Ill. (See table 1.) Ten Largest U.S. Counties All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in March 2014. King, Wash., had the largest gain (3.3 percent). Within King, trade, transportation, and utilities had the largest over-the-year employment level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of 10,023 jobs, or 4.7 percent. Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.0 percent) among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.) Average weekly wages increased over the year in all of the 10 largest U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (12.0 percent). Within New York, financial services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. Within this industry, average weekly wages increased by $1,607, or 21.0 percent, over the year. Orange, Calif., had the smallest increase in average weekly wages (2.7 percent) among the 10 largest counties. For More Information The tables included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 339 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2013. March 2014 employment and 2014 first quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release. The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.4 million employer reports cover 134.6 million full- and part- time workers. The QCEW program provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by detailed industry. Data for the first quarter of 2014 will be available later at www.bls.gov/cew/. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note. Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling (202) 691-6567. Several BLS regional offices are issuing QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. For links to these releases, see www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm. _____________ The County Employment and Wages release for second quarter 2014 is scheduled to be released on Thursday, December 18, 2014. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | County Changes for the 2014 County Employment and Wages News Releases | | | | Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2013 are included in this release and | | will be included in future 2014 releases. Five counties have been added to the publication tables: | | Shelby, Ala.; Osceola, Fla.; Black Hawk, Iowa; Washington, Minn.; and Cleveland, Okla. | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Note These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative program, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from summaries of employment and 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 2012 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2014 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, Puerto Rico, 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 340 counties presented in this release were derived using 2013 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2014 data, five counties have been added to the publication tables: Shelby, Ala.; Osceola, Fla.; Black Hawk, Iowa; Washington, Minn.; and Cleveland, Okla. These counties will be included in all 2014 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 time-tables. Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these measures--QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)--makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage, estimation 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- | 557,000 establish- | submitted by 9.4 | ministrative records| ments | million establish- | submitted by 7.3 | | ments in first | million private-sec-| | quarter of 2014 | 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, in- | | | cluding railroads, | | | religious organiza- | | | tions, and other non- | | | UI-covered jobs -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ Publication|--Quarterly |--Quarterly |--Monthly frequency | -6 months after the| -8 months after the | -Usually first Friday | end of each quar- | end of each quarter| of following month | ter | | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ Use of UI |--Directly summarizes|--Links each new UI |--Uses UI file as a sam- file | and publishes each | quarter to longitu- | pling frame and to an- | new quarter of UI | dinal database and | nually realign sample- | data | directly summarizes | based estimates to pop- | | gross job gains and | ulation counts (bench- | | losses | marking) -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ Principal |--Provides a quarter-|--Provides quarterly |--Provides current month- products | ly and annual uni- | employer dynamics | ly estimates of employ- | verse count of es- | data on establish- | ment, hours, and earn- | tablishments, em- | ment openings, clos-| ings at the MSA, state, | ployment, and wages| ings, expansions, | and national level by | at the county, MSA,| and contractions at | industry | state, and national| the national level | | levels by detailed | 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 |--Major uses include:|--Major uses include: |--Major uses include: uses | -Detailed locality | -Business cycle | -Principal national | data | analysis | economic indicator | -Periodic universe | -Analysis of employ-| -Official time series | counts for bench- | er dynamics under- | for employment change | marking sample | lying economic ex- | measures | survey estimates | pansions and con- | -Input into other ma- | -Sample frame for | tractions | jor economic indi- | BLS establishment | -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 9.2 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2013. 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 2013, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 134.0 million jobs. The estimated 128.7 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.8 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $6.673 trillion in pay, representing 93.7 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 39.8 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--some reflecting economic events, others reflecting 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. 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 2013 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 account for 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. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, adjusted data account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity. Beginning with the second quarter of 2011, adjusted data account for selected large administrative changes in employment and wages. These new 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 2012 edition of this publication, which was published in September 2013, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2013 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2012 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn12.htm. The 2013 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available in September 2014. News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone (202) 691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/); (e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov). Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 340 largest counties, first quarter 2014 Employment Average weekly wage(2) Establishments, County(1) first quarter Percent Ranking Percent Ranking 2014 March change, by First change, by (thousands) 2014 March percent quarter first percent (thousands) 2013-14(3) change 2014 quarter change 2013-14(3) United States(4)......... 9,358.3 134,555.0 1.7 - $1,027 3.8 - Jefferson, AL............ 17.7 336.3 0.1 280 997 1.3 268 Madison, AL.............. 9.1 180.3 -0.1 290 1,049 1.7 241 Mobile, AL............... 9.6 164.8 0.8 218 819 0.9 292 Montgomery, AL........... 6.4 128.0 -0.6 312 785 0.6 303 Shelby, AL............... 5.0 77.5 1.9 128 963 4.9 41 Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.3 87.2 1.9 128 800 0.3 314 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 8.3 150.6 0.3 265 1,070 3.0 136 Maricopa, AZ............. 92.9 1,749.9 2.3 102 977 3.3 117 Pima, AZ................. 18.6 353.0 0.0 282 821 1.5 252 Benton, AR............... 5.7 103.1 4.6 13 1,298 -3.2 339 Pulaski, AR.............. 14.4 242.1 0.0 282 881 3.2 124 Washington, AR........... 5.7 95.0 1.8 137 782 3.0 136 Alameda, CA.............. 57.0 690.3 2.5 88 1,298 4.3 59 Contra Costa, CA......... 29.7 335.9 2.7 80 1,268 1.5 252 Fresno, CA............... 31.0 345.0 2.9 72 755 2.6 167 Kern, CA................. 17.3 292.2 2.4 97 856 1.2 275 Los Angeles, CA.......... 441.9 4,125.8 2.0 118 1,096 3.8 84 Marin, CA................ 11.9 109.0 2.4 97 1,195 4.8 44 Monterey, CA............. 12.9 162.5 3.2 55 837 0.6 303 Orange, CA............... 106.5 1,459.9 2.5 88 1,121 2.7 159 Placer, CA............... 11.2 140.0 2.9 72 952 2.1 207 Riverside, CA............ 52.9 619.5 4.0 27 785 2.1 207 Sacramento, CA........... 52.3 607.1 1.6 148 1,083 3.0 136 San Bernardino, CA....... 51.3 646.0 3.7 39 798 1.1 279 San Diego, CA............ 99.6 1,321.0 2.1 114 1,131 6.8 13 San Francisco, CA........ 57.2 629.7 3.9 31 1,944 9.3 5 San Joaquin, CA.......... 16.8 211.7 2.0 118 803 2.6 167 San Luis Obispo, CA...... 9.7 109.7 2.9 72 788 0.3 314 San Mateo, CA............ 25.5 365.7 4.6 13 2,058 9.6 3 Santa Barbara, CA........ 14.6 189.0 3.3 50 915 2.1 207 Santa Clara, CA.......... 65.3 960.4 4.0 27 2,074 7.1 11 Santa Cruz, CA........... 9.1 93.5 3.2 55 871 0.5 310 Solano, CA............... 10.2 125.2 1.5 153 1,038 2.1 207 Sonoma, CA............... 19.0 188.8 4.8 9 871 0.9 292 Stanislaus, CA........... 14.4 168.5 2.1 114 802 1.4 261 Tulare, CA............... 9.2 144.0 2.0 118 687 6.3 17 Ventura, CA.............. 24.7 317.3 1.7 140 1,072 4.4 56 Yolo, CA................. 6.0 90.6 1.4 162 1,014 4.0 73 Adams, CO................ 9.1 176.9 4.7 11 915 2.6 167 Arapahoe, CO............. 19.3 298.9 2.6 83 1,250 4.8 44 Boulder, CO.............. 13.3 165.9 2.6 83 1,161 3.8 84 Denver, CO............... 27.0 449.9 3.9 31 1,329 4.8 44 Douglas, CO.............. 10.0 103.9 4.2 22 1,143 3.6 105 El Paso, CO.............. 16.8 242.9 1.4 162 876 2.3 187 Jefferson, CO............ 17.8 216.4 2.0 118 993 4.9 41 Larimer, CO.............. 10.3 137.0 2.7 80 860 4.2 69 Weld, CO................. 6.0 94.7 7.5 1 868 5.6 23 Fairfield, CT............ 33.6 410.5 0.6 238 1,922 2.3 187 Hartford, CT............. 26.2 493.6 0.7 224 1,383 5.2 35 New Haven, CT............ 22.9 354.9 0.6 238 1,026 1.3 268 New London, CT........... 7.0 119.6 -1.2 324 1,022 4.7 47 New Castle, DE........... 17.7 272.7 1.9 128 1,285 4.3 59 Washington, DC........... 35.6 727.3 1.2 177 1,701 5.3 31 Alachua, FL.............. 6.7 119.2 1.0 195 785 1.9 224 Brevard, FL.............. 14.7 189.2 0.7 224 856 0.9 292 Broward, FL.............. 65.6 736.8 2.8 78 911 3.4 111 Collier, FL.............. 12.5 133.5 4.9 8 828 0.2 319 Duval, FL................ 27.7 453.7 1.6 148 977 1.3 268 Escambia, FL............. 8.1 123.1 0.8 218 739 2.5 174 Hillsborough, FL......... 39.3 620.7 2.9 72 950 2.8 149 Lake, FL................. 7.6 85.8 3.0 64 639 1.9 224 Lee, FL.................. 19.8 228.1 6.3 3 749 1.2 275 Leon, FL................. 8.3 140.8 2.5 88 763 2.0 215 Manatee, FL.............. 9.9 111.5 3.4 47 706 0.4 311 Marion, FL............... 8.0 93.6 1.6 148 657 1.1 279 Miami-Dade, FL........... 93.4 1,043.4 2.6 83 948 4.4 56 Okaloosa, FL............. 6.2 78.4 0.9 207 785 0.6 303 Orange, FL............... 38.1 728.9 3.3 50 873 2.8 149 Osceola, FL.............. 5.9 80.2 4.1 25 683 1.3 268 Palm Beach, FL........... 51.7 545.2 3.5 44 1,010 7.8 8 Pasco, FL................ 10.2 103.9 2.6 83 657 3.0 136 Pinellas, FL............. 31.4 396.6 1.3 170 843 1.7 241 Polk, FL................. 12.6 200.4 2.0 118 727 3.0 136 Sarasota, FL............. 14.9 153.5 5.8 4 790 3.7 98 Seminole, FL............. 14.1 165.1 3.1 58 811 2.5 174 Volusia, FL.............. 13.5 157.6 2.5 88 685 3.8 84 Bibb, GA................. 4.6 81.3 2.9 72 772 3.5 108 Chatham, GA.............. 8.2 137.1 1.2 177 833 2.8 149 Clayton, GA.............. 4.3 111.1 1.7 140 962 4.3 59 Cobb, GA................. 22.4 322.8 4.6 13 1,101 1.1 279 De Kalb, GA.............. 18.6 282.3 3.8 37 1,056 4.0 73 Fulton, GA............... 43.7 749.8 2.3 102 1,500 5.4 27 Gwinnett, GA............. 24.9 319.4 3.5 44 988 3.2 124 Muscogee, GA............. 4.7 94.6 1.0 195 800 1.9 224 Richmond, GA............. 4.7 102.0 1.4 162 801 1.4 261 Honolulu, HI............. 24.9 457.2 1.1 184 893 1.8 230 Ada, ID.................. 13.8 208.8 3.9 31 857 5.9 21 Champaign, IL............ 4.5 87.6 -0.3 297 837 1.6 248 Cook, IL................. 156.3 2,413.6 1.0 195 1,248 5.0 39 Du Page, IL.............. 38.6 588.6 0.9 207 1,183 2.7 159 Kane, IL................. 13.9 198.6 1.7 140 841 2.6 167 Lake, IL................. 23.0 317.8 -0.4 303 1,484 6.2 18 McHenry, IL.............. 8.9 93.0 2.6 83 807 3.2 124 McLean, IL............... 3.9 83.3 -1.7 334 1,041 -1.0 335 Madison, IL.............. 6.1 93.9 -0.3 297 801 2.3 187 Peoria, IL............... 4.8 98.6 -2.6 339 963 -0.9 333 St. Clair, IL............ 5.7 90.1 -2.3 338 762 1.5 252 Sangamon, IL............. 5.4 125.5 0.6 238 993 3.2 124 Will, IL................. 16.1 209.7 2.3 102 867 4.2 69 Winnebago, IL............ 6.9 122.7 -0.9 317 834 3.1 132 Allen, IN................ 8.8 174.3 1.1 184 825 2.0 215 Elkhart, IN.............. 4.7 118.1 4.0 27 809 7.2 10 Hamilton, IN............. 8.7 121.9 4.2 22 1,022 3.7 98 Lake, IN................. 10.3 183.1 -1.9 336 863 -0.7 331 Marion, IN............... 23.8 568.0 1.0 195 1,052 0.0 324 St. Joseph, IN........... 5.9 115.8 1.0 195 777 1.0 288 Tippecanoe, IN........... 3.3 79.3 0.7 224 828 1.5 252 Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.8 104.0 -0.4 303 804 3.3 117 Black Hawk, IA........... 3.7 74.7 0.4 260 826 1.1 279 Johnson, IA.............. 3.9 79.8 1.5 153 876 3.7 98 Linn, IA................. 6.5 126.0 0.6 238 958 3.8 84 Polk, IA................. 16.1 279.8 3.0 64 1,044 2.7 159 Scott, IA................ 5.5 87.6 0.5 253 780 1.6 248 Johnson, KS.............. 21.1 319.8 2.4 97 1,072 5.3 31 Sedgwick, KS............. 12.3 242.7 0.9 207 909 5.1 38 Shawnee, KS.............. 4.7 96.0 2.3 102 818 1.1 279 Wyandotte, KS............ 3.2 85.1 5.5 5 938 5.2 35 Boone, KY................ 4.1 77.1 1.5 153 822 1.2 275 Fayette, KY.............. 10.3 180.0 1.3 170 869 2.8 149 Jefferson, KY............ 24.3 431.6 1.0 195 994 3.8 84 Caddo, LA................ 7.4 114.3 -1.6 331 779 2.4 182 Calcasieu, LA............ 5.0 87.2 0.3 265 856 2.0 215 East Baton Rouge, LA..... 14.9 265.7 1.2 177 915 1.1 279 Jefferson, LA............ 13.8 191.2 0.3 265 875 2.1 207 Lafayette, LA............ 9.3 140.0 0.9 207 954 4.3 59 Orleans, LA.............. 11.5 187.2 3.6 42 980 1.8 230 St. Tammany, LA.......... 7.7 82.0 3.0 64 841 1.0 288 Cumberland, ME........... 12.6 167.6 0.9 207 912 1.7 241 Anne Arundel, MD......... 14.6 250.4 0.7 224 1,061 -0.4 329 Baltimore, MD............ 21.2 361.0 -0.1 290 985 0.6 303 Frederick, MD............ 6.3 94.0 -0.6 312 964 1.9 224 Harford, MD.............. 5.6 86.4 -0.9 317 910 -0.3 327 Howard, MD............... 9.5 156.3 -0.2 293 1,220 2.3 187 Montgomery, MD........... 33.0 450.7 0.6 238 1,364 3.6 105 Prince Georges, MD....... 15.6 298.9 -0.4 303 1,007 2.1 207 Baltimore City, MD....... 13.8 327.0 -0.5 307 1,192 1.7 241 Barnstable, MA........... 9.0 82.6 0.8 218 830 1.6 248 Bristol, MA.............. 16.3 214.4 1.6 148 874 2.6 167 Essex, MA................ 22.2 305.7 1.7 140 1,044 1.9 224 Hampden, MA.............. 16.2 196.7 0.6 238 923 2.8 149 Middlesex, MA............ 50.1 835.2 1.0 195 1,553 6.2 18 Norfolk, MA.............. 23.6 328.2 1.3 170 1,159 1.8 230 Plymouth, MA............. 14.2 176.7 1.1 184 894 2.2 199 Suffolk, MA.............. 24.7 611.6 2.2 110 1,852 8.8 6 Worcester, MA............ 22.1 321.6 1.0 195 976 2.7 159 Genesee, MI.............. 7.1 131.2 -0.3 297 804 4.3 59 Ingham, MI............... 6.2 148.4 -0.3 297 961 1.4 261 Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.2 111.0 0.6 238 917 2.0 215 Kent, MI................. 13.9 353.9 3.7 39 862 3.1 132 Macomb, MI............... 17.2 301.7 1.1 184 995 2.3 187 Oakland, MI.............. 38.1 677.8 1.1 184 1,107 2.9 143 Ottawa, MI............... 5.5 111.6 3.1 58 782 2.8 149 Saginaw, MI.............. 4.1 81.6 -0.7 315 814 4.5 53 Washtenaw, MI............ 8.2 196.8 0.5 253 996 1.3 268 Wayne, MI................ 30.7 684.1 0.4 260 1,121 6.4 16 Anoka, MN................ 6.8 113.9 2.0 118 887 2.1 207 Dakota, MN............... 9.4 174.4 1.2 177 997 4.3 59 Hennepin, MN............. 41.7 849.5 1.0 195 1,325 3.8 84 Olmsted, MN.............. 3.3 90.3 -1.4 328 1,031 2.7 159 Ramsey, MN............... 13.1 317.3 0.5 253 1,192 1.8 230 St. Louis, MN............ 5.3 93.9 0.0 282 813 3.3 117 Stearns, MN.............. 4.2 80.3 0.2 275 761 1.7 241 Washington, MN........... 5.2 73.7 0.9 207 841 3.8 84 Harrison, MS............. 4.5 81.9 -0.2 293 708 0.7 301 Hinds, MS................ 6.0 119.6 -0.2 293 840 2.9 143 Boone, MO................ 4.6 88.8 1.8 137 745 0.8 296 Clay, MO................. 5.2 91.0 3.6 42 880 3.4 111 Greene, MO............... 8.1 156.1 1.9 128 738 3.7 98 Jackson, MO.............. 19.4 345.6 0.3 265 992 0.8 296 St. Charles, MO.......... 8.5 130.5 2.1 114 828 4.3 59 St. Louis, MO............ 33.4 571.5 1.2 177 1,066 3.3 117 St. Louis City, MO....... 10.5 217.4 -1.3 325 1,170 4.3 59 Yellowstone, MT.......... 6.3 76.9 0.5 253 813 3.7 98 Douglas, NE.............. 18.3 323.1 2.3 102 933 2.2 199 Lancaster, NE............ 9.9 160.6 1.9 128 779 2.5 174 Clark, NV................ 51.2 861.4 3.9 31 856 3.0 136 Washoe, NV............... 13.9 190.1 3.3 50 856 2.8 149 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.0 190.2 1.0 195 1,086 4.4 56 Rockingham, NH........... 10.5 134.9 1.3 170 944 2.8 149 Atlantic, NJ............. 6.6 125.8 -2.1 337 808 1.5 252 Bergen, NJ............... 32.9 431.3 1.5 153 1,222 2.4 182 Burlington, NJ........... 11.0 193.8 -1.4 328 1,017 0.4 311 Camden, NJ............... 11.9 191.8 0.2 275 937 0.6 303 Essex, NJ................ 20.4 330.0 -1.3 325 1,343 1.1 279 Gloucester, NJ........... 6.1 97.5 1.6 148 839 1.8 230 Hudson, NJ............... 14.2 234.6 0.5 253 1,569 2.5 174 Mercer, NJ............... 11.0 233.5 1.4 162 1,490 0.7 301 Middlesex, NJ............ 21.9 388.4 0.6 238 1,307 3.7 98 Monmouth, NJ............. 20.1 240.8 1.1 184 1,003 1.5 252 Morris, NJ............... 17.1 275.6 0.7 224 1,646 4.3 59 Ocean, NJ................ 12.6 151.1 3.1 58 779 -1.3 336 Passaic, NJ.............. 12.3 165.0 -1.1 322 968 0.3 314 Somerset, NJ............. 10.1 175.3 0.8 218 2,048 -0.3 327 Union, NJ................ 14.3 218.5 -0.9 317 1,263 1.5 252 Bernalillo, NM........... 17.9 310.0 0.8 218 836 1.1 279 Albany, NY............... 10.2 222.2 0.1 280 1,008 2.9 143 Bronx, NY................ 17.5 249.2 1.9 128 881 2.2 199 Broome, NY............... 4.6 86.4 -1.1 322 750 2.3 187 Dutchess, NY............. 8.4 107.5 0.0 282 946 -1.6 337 Erie, NY................. 24.4 449.9 0.2 275 875 2.3 187 Kings, NY................ 56.4 556.1 4.6 13 760 0.8 296 Monroe, NY............... 18.5 372.8 0.7 224 919 1.5 252 Nassau, NY............... 53.2 595.9 1.7 140 1,091 1.8 230 New York, NY............. 125.9 2,453.1 2.5 88 2,749 12.0 2 Oneida, NY............... 5.3 101.0 -0.3 297 751 0.3 314 Onondaga, NY............. 13.0 238.4 -0.2 293 911 3.5 108 Orange, NY............... 10.1 133.8 0.3 265 798 0.4 311 Queens, NY............... 49.1 539.3 2.5 88 911 1.3 268 Richmond, NY............. 9.4 97.4 3.1 58 802 1.8 230 Rockland, NY............. 10.1 113.6 2.9 72 1,054 0.2 319 Saratoga, NY............. 5.8 78.5 1.1 184 865 0.6 303 Suffolk, NY.............. 51.7 618.4 0.3 265 1,029 -0.4 329 Westchester, NY.......... 36.2 402.6 0.3 265 1,430 5.4 27 Buncombe, NC............. 8.2 117.3 1.9 128 727 1.4 261 Catawba, NC.............. 4.2 81.2 1.7 140 720 1.7 241 Cumberland, NC........... 6.2 117.5 -1.0 320 732 -2.0 338 Durham, NC............... 7.5 185.7 1.3 170 1,373 3.9 79 Forsyth, NC.............. 9.0 175.8 1.0 195 1,029 9.6 3 Guilford, NC............. 14.1 267.9 0.9 207 883 1.7 241 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 33.4 600.1 3.1 58 1,382 5.2 35 New Hanover, NC.......... 7.4 100.0 2.2 110 775 1.6 248 Wake, NC................. 30.2 479.6 3.5 44 1,013 2.3 187 Cass, ND................. 6.5 110.6 3.0 64 869 3.8 84 Butler, OH............... 7.5 140.1 2.4 97 872 2.7 159 Cuyahoga, OH............. 35.4 696.5 0.0 282 1,054 4.0 73 Delaware, OH............. 4.6 79.6 0.4 260 1,123 4.0 73 Franklin, OH............. 29.8 686.6 1.9 128 1,024 4.1 72 Hamilton, OH............. 23.1 489.7 1.2 177 1,116 0.8 296 Lake, OH................. 6.3 92.2 -0.3 297 824 0.2 319 Lorain, OH............... 6.0 93.4 0.6 238 807 1.9 224 Lucas, OH................ 10.0 201.2 1.4 162 867 2.0 215 Mahoning, OH............. 5.9 95.9 0.4 260 686 2.5 174 Montgomery, OH........... 11.9 241.8 0.9 207 854 2.2 199 Stark, OH................ 8.7 155.1 0.9 207 751 2.2 199 Summit, OH............... 14.0 255.4 1.5 153 926 3.8 84 Warren, OH............... 4.4 80.1 4.1 25 862 2.7 159 Cleveland, OK............ 5.2 78.7 2.3 102 693 1.8 230 Oklahoma, OK............. 26.0 436.4 0.7 224 971 3.9 79 Tulsa, OK................ 21.3 337.1 0.7 224 976 4.7 47 Clackamas, OR............ 13.1 143.1 1.4 162 875 3.1 132 Jackson, OR.............. 6.7 77.7 2.0 118 733 5.0 39 Lane, OR................. 11.0 140.5 2.5 88 740 3.2 124 Marion, OR............... 9.6 135.1 3.4 47 757 2.3 187 Multnomah, OR............ 30.8 458.5 3.3 50 1,009 2.2 199 Washington, OR........... 17.1 260.6 3.7 39 1,213 4.6 52 Allegheny, PA............ 35.0 674.5 -0.6 312 1,130 4.5 53 Berks, PA................ 8.9 164.7 0.6 238 867 4.0 73 Bucks, PA................ 19.6 246.1 0.6 238 921 1.8 230 Butler, PA............... 5.0 83.4 0.6 238 905 1.0 288 Chester, PA.............. 15.1 238.3 0.8 218 1,415 13.9 1 Cumberland, PA........... 6.1 124.5 0.5 253 921 3.3 117 Dauphin, PA.............. 7.3 173.2 -0.1 290 1,038 4.5 53 Delaware, PA............. 13.7 214.1 1.2 177 1,121 5.5 25 Erie, PA................. 7.1 121.4 -0.5 307 759 0.1 323 Lackawanna, PA........... 5.9 96.3 -0.5 307 744 3.5 108 Lancaster, PA............ 12.8 221.6 1.8 137 803 2.0 215 Lehigh, PA............... 8.6 176.2 0.7 224 979 3.4 111 Luzerne, PA.............. 7.5 138.6 0.0 282 773 3.8 84 Montgomery, PA........... 27.1 465.9 0.3 265 1,346 4.2 69 Northampton, PA.......... 6.6 104.4 1.1 184 874 3.8 84 Philadelphia, PA......... 34.6 634.3 0.3 265 1,187 2.9 143 Washington, PA........... 5.3 84.9 0.7 224 1,067 7.3 9 Westmoreland, PA......... 9.3 129.6 -0.7 315 772 1.8 230 York, PA................. 8.9 170.4 0.3 265 845 1.1 279 Providence, RI........... 17.4 272.0 1.5 153 1,057 5.6 23 Charleston, SC........... 12.4 222.1 2.8 78 863 2.9 143 Greenville, SC........... 12.8 244.0 4.4 17 855 2.6 167 Horry, SC................ 7.9 110.1 2.5 88 571 1.4 261 Lexington, SC............ 5.9 104.4 4.4 17 717 -0.1 325 Richland, SC............. 9.1 206.6 2.1 114 845 2.2 199 Spartanburg, SC.......... 5.9 122.2 2.5 88 818 3.3 117 York, SC................. 4.8 81.0 6.4 2 785 2.5 174 Minnehaha, SD............ 6.7 118.7 2.3 102 852 5.4 27 Davidson, TN............. 19.4 448.5 3.0 64 1,041 3.3 117 Hamilton, TN............. 8.7 184.1 0.2 275 863 2.3 187 Knox, TN................. 11.2 220.6 1.0 195 837 0.8 296 Rutherford, TN........... 4.7 110.6 3.9 31 837 2.3 187 Shelby, TN............... 19.4 470.1 -0.4 303 1,017 3.9 79 Williamson, TN........... 7.0 105.1 4.0 27 1,189 -0.9 333 Bell, TX................. 5.0 110.6 0.9 207 821 4.3 59 Bexar, TX................ 36.7 784.5 2.3 102 917 3.0 136 Brazoria, TX............. 5.2 97.4 1.7 140 1,032 6.6 15 Brazos, TX............... 4.2 95.1 3.9 31 711 2.3 187 Cameron, TX.............. 6.4 133.9 1.9 128 581 1.4 261 Collin, TX............... 20.9 337.0 4.3 19 1,213 2.5 174 Dallas, TX............... 70.8 1,515.6 3.1 58 1,281 5.4 27 Denton, TX............... 12.3 200.2 4.2 22 895 2.4 182 El Paso, TX.............. 14.3 283.7 1.1 184 690 3.9 79 Fort Bend, TX............ 10.9 159.5 4.8 9 1,034 4.0 73 Galveston, TX............ 5.7 101.2 3.0 64 905 2.1 207 Gregg, TX................ 4.2 76.9 -1.6 331 879 3.8 84 Harris, TX............... 107.5 2,226.8 3.0 64 1,399 4.7 47 Hidalgo, TX.............. 11.8 238.5 1.4 162 597 2.9 143 Jefferson, TX............ 5.8 120.7 -0.5 307 1,016 3.6 105 Lubbock, TX.............. 7.2 130.0 2.0 118 750 4.7 47 McLennan, TX............. 4.9 101.9 0.0 282 781 2.2 199 Midland, TX.............. 5.2 88.0 5.4 6 1,322 8.5 7 Montgomery, TX........... 9.8 154.8 5.2 7 1,022 2.5 174 Nueces, TX............... 8.1 161.8 1.5 153 867 3.8 84 Potter, TX............... 3.9 77.4 1.3 170 775 2.8 149 Smith, TX................ 5.9 95.3 0.7 224 799 3.8 84 Tarrant, TX.............. 39.6 814.0 2.0 118 1,010 5.5 25 Travis, TX............... 34.6 646.6 4.3 19 1,100 3.4 111 Webb, TX................. 5.0 93.5 2.2 110 650 3.2 124 Williamson, TX........... 8.7 143.5 4.3 19 1,127 6.7 14 Davis, UT................ 7.6 110.7 3.4 47 778 1.0 288 Salt Lake, UT............ 39.6 614.6 2.7 80 947 3.4 111 Utah, UT................. 13.6 189.6 4.7 11 771 5.9 21 Weber, UT................ 5.6 94.3 1.4 162 721 4.9 41 Chittenden, VT........... 6.3 97.0 0.6 238 937 0.2 319 Arlington, VA............ 8.8 163.1 -1.8 335 1,669 3.2 124 Chesterfield, VA......... 8.1 121.8 2.0 118 866 1.3 268 Fairfax, VA.............. 35.3 576.4 -1.5 330 1,580 1.2 275 Henrico, VA.............. 10.4 178.5 0.9 207 1,110 6.2 18 Loudoun, VA.............. 10.5 145.9 1.5 153 1,244 3.9 79 Prince William, VA....... 8.2 116.3 0.6 238 832 -0.1 325 Alexandria City, VA...... 6.3 93.8 -1.6 331 1,368 5.3 31 Chesapeake City, VA...... 5.7 95.1 0.2 275 758 -0.7 331 Newport News City, VA.... 3.7 97.9 1.1 184 989 2.8 149 Norfolk City, VA......... 5.6 134.2 -0.5 307 969 3.7 98 Richmond City, VA........ 7.1 147.4 0.7 224 1,147 3.2 124 Virginia Beach City, VA.. 11.3 167.2 0.5 253 769 1.5 252 Benton, WA............... 6.1 77.0 0.7 224 959 0.6 303 Clark, WA................ 14.9 136.0 3.8 37 887 2.4 182 King, WA................. 88.8 1,214.7 3.3 50 1,353 4.7 47 Kitsap, WA............... 7.1 80.9 2.2 110 888 1.4 261 Pierce, WA............... 23.5 273.0 3.0 64 867 0.3 314 Snohomish, WA............ 21.1 264.2 1.7 140 1,161 6.9 12 Spokane, WA.............. 16.8 202.1 1.3 170 822 0.9 292 Thurston, WA............. 8.1 101.9 3.2 55 861 1.8 230 Whatcom, WA.............. 7.4 82.1 1.5 153 801 3.1 132 Yakima, WA............... 9.2 99.2 2.4 97 653 2.0 215 Kanawha, WV.............. 5.9 102.6 -1.3 325 845 2.7 159 Brown, WI................ 6.5 146.2 0.6 238 881 5.3 31 Dane, WI................. 14.1 308.1 1.1 184 970 3.4 111 Milwaukee, WI............ 24.5 471.3 0.0 282 992 2.0 215 Outagamie, WI............ 5.0 101.0 0.4 260 827 2.6 167 Waukesha, WI............. 12.3 226.5 0.7 224 992 2.0 215 Winnebago, WI............ 3.6 88.2 -1.0 320 928 2.4 182 San Juan, PR............. 11.2 256.0 -1.2 (5) 621 0.8 (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 quarterly 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 339 U.S. counties comprise 72.0 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties, first quarter 2014 Employment Average weekly wage(1) Establishments, first quarter County by NAICS supersector 2014 Percent Percent (thousands) March change, First change, 2014 March quarter first (thousands) 2013-14(2) 2014 quarter 2013-14(2) United States(3) ............................ 9,358.3 134,555.0 1.7 $1,027 3.8 Private industry........................... 9,064.0 113,150.6 2.1 1,035 4.1 Natural resources and mining............. 135.2 1,920.1 2.5 1,249 6.4 Construction............................. 748.0 5,721.2 4.2 1,002 2.6 Manufacturing............................ 338.0 12,033.7 0.9 1,266 3.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 1,910.1 25,564.3 2.1 842 3.1 Information.............................. 148.7 2,710.2 0.6 1,905 7.1 Financial activities..................... 829.1 7,588.3 0.7 2,115 10.0 Professional and business services....... 1,661.8 18,631.2 2.4 1,346 4.2 Education and health services............ 1,489.9 20,451.4 1.3 852 1.9 Leisure and hospitality.................. 789.7 14,134.7 3.0 388 1.8 Other services........................... 805.0 4,172.3 1.7 641 3.2 Government................................. 294.2 21,404.4 -0.2 983 2.5 Los Angeles, CA.............................. 441.9 4,125.8 2.0 1,096 3.8 Private industry........................... 436.2 3,587.4 2.2 1,073 4.0 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 10.4 1.1 1,730 8.3 Construction............................. 12.8 117.3 2.5 1,065 1.3 Manufacturing............................ 12.5 363.2 -0.8 1,215 0.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 52.9 775.4 2.0 880 3.0 Information.............................. 9.1 198.4 1.7 2,084 10.3 Financial activities..................... 23.6 206.9 -0.7 2,143 12.4 Professional and business services....... 46.0 597.8 2.6 1,350 3.0 Education and health services............ 204.7 708.1 1.1 795 3.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 29.6 450.5 5.6 551 2.4 Other services........................... 26.5 144.2 3.1 646 2.4 Government................................. 5.7 538.3 0.2 1,253 3.0 New York, NY................................. 125.9 2,453.1 2.5 2,749 12.0 Private industry........................... 125.6 2,020.4 2.9 3,092 12.5 Natural resources and mining............. 0.0 0.2 9.5 3,901 61.5 Construction............................. 2.2 33.1 -0.4 1,702 2.0 Manufacturing............................ 2.3 25.1 -1.6 1,736 16.0 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 20.7 255.9 1.3 1,339 3.6 Information.............................. 4.6 145.9 1.8 3,207 9.0 Financial activities..................... 19.1 354.2 1.7 9,261 21.0 Professional and business services....... 26.5 509.7 3.1 2,603 6.4 Education and health services............ 9.6 324.1 3.3 1,206 1.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 13.5 269.8 5.1 809 2.5 Other services........................... 19.7 96.0 2.3 1,086 4.3 Government................................. 0.3 432.7 0.4 1,147 2.6 Cook, IL..................................... 156.3 2,413.6 1.0 1,248 5.0 Private industry........................... 155.0 2,120.7 1.4 1,258 5.4 Natural resources and mining............. 0.1 0.7 4.9 855 2.0 Construction............................. 12.8 58.8 3.9 1,323 2.3 Manufacturing............................ 6.7 185.7 -0.8 1,224 4.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 30.8 442.4 1.3 937 4.1 Information.............................. 2.8 53.0 -1.0 2,027 2.9 Financial activities..................... 16.1 181.7 -0.2 3,270 16.9 Professional and business services....... 33.3 433.7 2.6 1,539 1.2 Education and health services............ 16.4 421.6 1.1 878 0.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 14.0 242.6 2.0 453 1.6 Other services........................... 17.5 95.9 1.7 964 17.7 Government................................. 1.3 292.9 -1.7 1,176 1.4 Harris, TX................................... 107.5 2,226.8 3.0 1,399 4.7 Private industry........................... 107.0 1,962.6 3.0 1,447 4.9 Natural resources and mining............. 1.8 92.9 6.0 4,113 7.0 Construction............................. 6.7 150.4 4.1 1,314 4.5 Manufacturing............................ 4.7 193.8 2.3 1,648 3.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 24.2 458.1 3.1 1,291 3.5 Information.............................. 1.2 28.4 0.8 1,485 2.3 Financial activities..................... 11.0 117.2 2.7 2,122 7.7 Professional and business services....... 21.6 385.2 1.5 1,729 6.4 Education and health services............ 14.8 265.0 2.2 955 2.5 Leisure and hospitality.................. 9.0 207.8 5.4 413 0.5 Other services........................... 11.6 62.8 2.9 769 6.7 Government................................. 0.5 264.2 2.6 1,042 2.6 Maricopa, AZ................................. 92.9 1,749.9 2.3 977 3.3 Private industry........................... 92.2 1,539.9 2.5 987 3.5 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 8.3 -0.1 1,194 1.1 Construction............................. 7.3 91.8 3.4 980 4.6 Manufacturing............................ 3.2 114.3 0.7 1,502 2.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 20.3 345.1 2.9 894 2.4 Information.............................. 1.5 32.7 3.2 1,450 12.7 Financial activities..................... 11.0 151.8 3.5 1,514 4.6 Professional and business services....... 22.0 291.7 1.5 1,058 5.4 Education and health services............ 10.8 256.3 1.3 903 1.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.4 198.1 4.1 440 2.1 Other services........................... 6.4 47.7 2.2 670 5.8 Government................................. 0.7 210.0 0.4 900 1.2 Dallas, TX................................... 70.8 1,515.6 3.1 1,281 5.4 Private industry........................... 70.3 1,348.6 3.2 1,307 5.6 Natural resources and mining............. 0.6 9.7 5.2 4,429 12.7 Construction............................. 4.0 74.3 7.0 1,104 6.5 Manufacturing............................ 2.7 106.1 -3.3 1,606 3.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 15.3 303.2 4.7 1,085 4.9 Information.............................. 1.4 48.2 2.1 2,369 1.2 Financial activities..................... 8.5 147.5 1.9 2,124 10.1 Professional and business services....... 15.8 300.9 3.8 1,402 6.1 Education and health services............ 8.7 178.3 2.5 1,063 5.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.1 140.6 4.5 482 4.1 Other services........................... 6.8 39.3 2.1 731 2.2 Government................................. 0.5 167.0 2.4 1,068 2.8 Orange, CA................................... 106.5 1,459.9 2.5 1,121 2.7 Private industry........................... 105.2 1,315.1 2.6 1,100 2.9 Natural resources and mining............. 0.2 3.6 -2.5 670 5.3 Construction............................. 6.2 79.7 6.6 1,166 5.9 Manufacturing............................ 4.9 157.2 -0.6 1,426 4.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 16.6 249.8 1.7 983 1.2 Information.............................. 1.2 24.0 -2.3 1,810 4.3 Financial activities..................... 10.3 111.7 0.0 1,839 4.7 Professional and business services....... 20.1 269.7 3.8 1,336 4.6 Education and health services............ 26.5 184.6 2.3 861 -0.1 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.7 188.6 3.9 438 2.6 Other services........................... 6.4 41.9 3.0 636 2.3 Government................................. 1.3 144.8 1.6 1,317 2.3 San Diego, CA................................ 99.6 1,321.0 2.1 1,131 6.8 Private industry........................... 98.2 1,100.6 2.3 1,115 7.8 Natural resources and mining............. 0.7 10.0 -2.7 615 6.8 Construction............................. 6.1 61.6 4.7 1,065 3.5 Manufacturing............................ 3.0 96.0 0.6 1,786 16.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 14.0 209.6 1.6 915 7.3 Information.............................. 1.2 24.4 -0.5 1,765 9.9 Financial activities..................... 9.0 69.6 -2.1 1,665 8.2 Professional and business services....... 17.6 226.0 2.0 1,642 11.9 Education and health services............ 27.5 181.7 1.8 870 1.6 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.5 170.4 4.3 428 0.9 Other services........................... 6.9 47.5 5.9 557 0.7 Government................................. 1.4 220.3 0.9 1,213 2.8 King, WA..................................... 88.8 1,214.7 3.3 1,353 4.7 Private industry........................... 88.2 1,054.3 3.6 1,373 4.8 Natural resources and mining............. 0.4 2.4 -1.6 1,515 -4.7 Construction............................. 5.9 53.4 7.7 1,166 0.1 Manufacturing............................ 2.3 104.9 0.8 1,921 10.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 15.0 225.4 4.7 1,159 4.1 Information.............................. 1.9 83.7 3.7 2,764 9.5 Financial activities..................... 6.5 64.7 0.7 1,913 2.8 Professional and business services....... 15.7 200.1 3.4 1,651 4.2 Education and health services............ 25.2 160.1 3.5 894 0.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.8 119.3 4.3 473 4.2 Other services........................... 8.6 40.2 3.7 803 1.9 Government................................. 0.5 160.4 1.8 1,227 4.2 Miami-Dade, FL............................... 93.4 1,043.4 2.6 948 4.4 Private industry........................... 93.0 906.3 3.1 933 4.7 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 10.4 11.3 478 -5.2 Construction............................. 5.2 34.7 9.5 897 9.9 Manufacturing............................ 2.7 36.7 2.5 913 5.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 27.4 266.3 2.9 865 3.8 Information.............................. 1.6 18.0 3.4 1,571 7.0 Financial activities..................... 9.8 70.3 4.3 1,787 9.4 Professional and business services....... 19.7 140.5 3.2 1,103 4.6 Education and health services............ 10.2 160.8 0.8 904 1.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.1 130.4 3.0 525 2.5 Other services........................... 8.2 37.8 3.4 573 3.8 Government................................. 0.3 137.1 -0.8 1,047 3.5 (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 2013 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, first quarter 2014 Employment Average weekly wage(1) Establishments, first quarter State 2014 Percent Percent (thousands) March change, First change, 2014 March quarter first (thousands) 2013-14 2014 quarter 2013-14 United States(2)........... 9,358.3 134,555.0 1.7 $1,027 3.8 Alabama.................... 117.5 1,849.5 0.6 825 1.6 Alaska..................... 22.0 319.1 0.3 1,023 3.5 Arizona.................... 145.8 2,540.8 1.9 918 3.1 Arkansas................... 87.2 1,152.6 0.3 784 2.5 California................. 1,377.6 15,572.9 2.8 1,165 4.5 Colorado................... 177.4 2,370.1 3.1 1,046 4.2 Connecticut................ 113.5 1,627.2 0.5 1,362 3.3 Delaware................... 29.1 412.5 2.0 1,110 3.9 District of Columbia....... 35.6 727.3 1.2 1,701 5.3 Florida.................... 633.6 7,752.4 2.9 868 3.0 Georgia.................... 280.1 3,974.8 2.6 972 3.4 Hawaii..................... 39.0 624.9 1.2 857 1.9 Idaho...................... 54.0 631.5 3.3 722 3.9 Illinois................... 411.8 5,651.2 0.9 1,104 4.2 Indiana.................... 159.6 2,842.5 1.2 845 1.7 Iowa....................... 98.8 1,485.4 1.5 824 3.0 Kansas..................... 84.8 1,343.0 1.7 840 4.1 Kentucky................... 120.0 1,784.1 1.1 811 2.7 Louisiana.................. 129.5 1,909.8 1.2 868 2.6 Maine...................... 48.8 565.9 0.7 786 1.9 Maryland................... 166.3 2,512.8 0.1 1,086 1.8 Massachusetts.............. 226.0 3,272.2 1.3 1,300 5.3 Michigan................... 236.6 4,013.5 1.7 950 3.1 Minnesota.................. 164.6 2,652.3 0.8 1,036 3.4 Mississippi................ 71.3 1,096.8 0.6 707 1.7 Missouri................... 182.4 2,634.6 1.0 866 2.9 Montana.................... 43.7 429.9 0.7 730 3.3 Nebraska................... 70.2 930.7 1.7 797 2.6 Nevada..................... 75.6 1,183.5 3.4 867 2.7 New Hampshire.............. 49.6 614.2 1.3 970 3.4 New Jersey................. 265.3 3,794.3 0.6 1,263 2.2 New Mexico................. 56.2 787.0 0.2 793 1.9 New York................... 621.7 8,699.5 1.6 1,460 7.3 North Carolina............. 259.7 4,003.2 1.7 914 3.4 North Dakota............... 31.1 428.9 3.3 944 6.7 Ohio....................... 288.3 5,071.5 1.3 909 2.8 Oklahoma................... 106.8 1,565.2 0.7 854 3.9 Oregon..................... 135.9 1,688.5 2.8 893 3.4 Pennsylvania............... 348.2 5,560.9 0.3 1,007 4.1 Rhode Island............... 35.6 449.7 1.1 996 4.4 South Carolina............. 118.7 1,873.6 2.7 787 1.9 South Dakota............... 31.7 400.2 1.4 741 4.5 Tennessee.................. 145.0 2,718.2 1.7 874 2.2 Texas...................... 616.5 11,220.6 2.6 1,062 4.5 Utah....................... 88.7 1,270.8 3.1 831 3.4 Vermont.................... 24.4 301.1 0.5 807 1.9 Virginia................... 242.4 3,613.2 0.0 1,050 2.2 Washington................. 251.8 2,966.3 2.6 1,068 3.8 West Virginia.............. 49.6 694.6 -0.9 779 1.4 Wisconsin.................. 163.2 2,694.5 1.0 856 2.9 Wyoming.................... 25.5 275.4 1.0 877 2.1 Puerto Rico................ 48.3 914.9 -1.8 521 1.4 Virgin Islands............. 3.4 38.3 -3.6 744 2.6 (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.