An official website of the United States government
For release 10:00 a.m. (ET), Wednesday, November 18, 2020 USDL-20-2131 Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 * QCEWInfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cew Media Contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES – SECOND QUARTER 2020 From June 2019 to June 2020, employment decreased in all of the 357 largest U.S. counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. In June 2020, national employment (as measured by the QCEW program) decreased to 135.1 million, a 9.4-percent decrease over the year. Atlantic, NJ, had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment with a loss of 34.2 percent. Employment data in this release are presented for June 2020, and average weekly wage data are presented for second quarter 2020. Employment in most of the country was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to contain it. Among the 357 largest counties, 352 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. In the second quarter of 2020, average weekly wages for the nation increased to $1,188, an 8.6-percent increase over the year. Atlantic, NJ, had the largest second quarter over-the-year wage gain at 22.5 percent. (See table 1.) The increases in average weekly wages largely reflect substantial employment loss among lower-paid industries. Large County Employment in June 2020 Atlantic, NJ, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-34.2 percent). Within Atlantic, the largest employment decrease occurred in leisure and hospitality, which lost 33,336 jobs over the year (-75.2 percent). Cleveland, OK, and Utah, UT, both experienced the smallest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment, each with a loss of 0.2 percent. Within Cleveland, leisure and hospitality had the largest employment decrease with a loss of 1,838 jobs (-13.7 percent). Within Utah, leisure and hospitality had the largest employment decrease with a loss of 2,297 jobs (-9.9 percent). Large County Average Weekly Wage in Second Quarter 2020 Atlantic, NJ, had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly wages (+22.5 percent). Within Atlantic, an average weekly wage gain of $143 (+24.2 percent) in leisure and hospitality 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 6.6 percent. Within Ector, natural resources and mining had the largest impact, with an average weekly wage decrease of $84 (-4.7 percent) over the year. Ten Largest Counties All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage decreases in employment. In June 2020, New York, NY, had the largest over-the-year employment percentage loss (-18.8 percent). Within New York, leisure and hospitality had the largest employment decrease with a loss of 208,495 jobs (-66.1 percent). (See table 2.) All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in average weekly wages. In second quarter 2020, New York, NY, experienced the largest over-the-year percentage gain in average weekly wages (+14.9 percent). Within New York, leisure and hospitality had the largest impact, with an average weekly wage increase of $149 (+15.5 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. June 2020 employment and second quarter 2020 average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release. 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 second quarter 2020 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, December 2, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. (ET). The County Employment and Wages news release for third quarter 2020 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, February 24, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. (ET). __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Special Notice: Imputation Methodology Improvements QCEW implemented improvements to imputation methodology, effective with second quarter 2020 processing. QCEW imputation creates estimated values for non-respondent employers for the first two quarters of non-response. After two quarters of non-response, establishments are converted from non-respondents to establishment deaths. Usually, non-respondents account for less than 5 percent of QCEW employment. BLS expected substantially higher than usual numbers of non-respondent employers in the second quarter of 2020 due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. The national employment response rate for second quarter declined by 0.4 percent. Changes to state response rates varied. For more information on QCEW response rates, see www.bls.gov/cew/response-rates/home.htm. QCEW implemented three improvements to imputation methodology. First, BLS summarized counts of the regular state unemployment insurance claims by employer to identify employers who may have ceased operations, either temporarily or permanently. These employers were treated as business deaths rather than being treated as late respondents. Second, for employers that are expected to still be in operation during the reference time period, BLS modified the imputation formula to use reported data for similar employers to create imputed levels of employment and wages. Third, state QCEW staff used unemployment insurance claims information as a supplement to aid their review of imputed and reported QCEW data. BLS applied these changes to data for non-respondent employers in the first and second quarters of 2020. The impact on first quarter 2020 was negligible. The impact on second quarter 2020 employment was a decline of 0.2 percent, or a decline of about 270,000 from what would have been reported for June 2020 employment. Total wages decreased by 0.1 percent. For more information on QCEW imputation methodology and the impact of the improved methods, see www.bls.gov/cew/additional-resources/imputation-methodology.htm. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Impact on Second Quarter 2020 QCEW Data Response rate tables for the second quarter of 2020 are available at www.bls.gov/covid19/county-employment-and-wages-covid-19-impact-second-quarter-2020.htm. For more information about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on QCEW data, see www.bls.gov/covid19/effects-of-covid-19-pandemic-on-county-employment-and-wages-data.htm. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Technical Note Special technical note: This technical note describes the procedures regularly used for the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. Due to COVID-19, some of the procedures described in this technical note have been modified. The modifications are briefly described in the box notes in this news release and are described in more detail at www.bls.gov/covid19/effects-of-covid-19-pandemic-on-county-employment-and-wages-data.htm and also at www.bls.gov/cew/additional-resources/imputation-methodology.htm. 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. 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, second quarter 2020 Employment Average weekly wage(2) Establishments, County(1) second quarter Percent Ranking Percent Ranking 2020 June change, by Second change, by (thousands) 2020 June percent quarter second percent (thousands) 2019-20(3) change 2020 quarter change 2019-20(3) United States(4)......... 10,451.0 135,114.4 -9.4 - $1,188 8.6 - Baldwin, AL.............. 6.6 74.1 -6.7 88 782 8.6 156 Jefferson, AL............ 19.3 328.8 -7.7 130 1,115 5.0 317 Madison, AL.............. 10.1 198.4 -3.8 19 1,255 8.8 144 Mobile, AL............... 10.4 160.2 -6.7 88 961 6.3 275 Montgomery, AL........... 6.4 121.7 -7.9 136 936 5.9 289 Shelby, AL............... 5.9 80.0 -6.3 75 1,056 4.7 323 Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.6 86.9 -10.3 219 908 3.2 340 Anchorage, AK............ 8.3 133.9 -10.5 226 1,262 11.1 76 Maricopa, AZ............. 110.7 1,924.6 -4.6 30 1,137 7.7 209 Pima, AZ................. 19.5 350.5 -6.4 77 990 8.0 193 Benton, AR............... 7.0 121.7 -1.4 4 1,327 11.1 76 Pulaski, AR.............. 14.5 233.6 -7.8 132 1,014 7.0 246 Washington, AR........... 6.4 103.7 -6.2 71 968 6.7 260 Alameda, CA.............. 66.7 707.9 -10.9 241 1,648 10.2 98 Butte, CA................ 8.4 74.1 -8.4 152 916 8.8 144 Contra Costa, CA......... 34.6 329.4 -12.1 269 1,486 10.7 86 Fresno, CA............... 38.5 382.4 -6.2 71 932 6.5 266 Kern, CA................. 21.9 306.9 -9.2 181 991 8.9 140 Los Angeles, CA.......... 518.8 3,945.3 -12.2 272 1,333 8.9 140 Marin, CA................ 12.7 100.6 -13.7 311 1,617 15.6 8 Merced, CA............... 7.0 77.8 -6.6 86 891 7.0 246 Monterey, CA............. 14.4 195.2 -8.8 167 983 6.3 275 Napa, CA................. 6.0 70.2 -14.6 320 1,186 9.2 130 Orange, CA............... 130.0 1,442.0 -12.7 285 1,334 11.4 64 Placer, CA............... 14.2 157.5 -9.4 189 1,221 13.3 22 Riverside, CA............ 71.4 703.6 -8.1 143 957 8.4 167 Sacramento, CA........... 63.3 634.6 -7.4 117 1,326 11.0 83 San Bernardino, CA....... 65.1 735.2 -5.3 46 993 7.5 219 San Diego, CA............ 118.2 1,325.1 -11.2 248 1,315 10.6 88 San Francisco, CA........ 61.9 663.4 -12.8 288 2,643 8.6 156 San Joaquin, CA.......... 19.0 248.0 -5.1 38 1,008 7.8 204 San Luis Obispo, CA...... 10.8 106.3 -12.8 288 1,034 8.3 177 San Mateo, CA............ 29.3 372.7 -10.6 231 2,812 18.1 4 Santa Barbara, CA........ 16.0 199.7 -5.1 38 1,138 8.5 159 Santa Clara, CA.......... 76.1 1,022.0 -9.1 179 3,045 16.5 6 Santa Cruz, CA........... 9.8 97.5 -12.7 285 1,136 12.9 23 Solano, CA............... 12.0 129.7 -10.0 211 1,250 7.8 204 Sonoma, CA............... 20.4 187.0 -12.0 265 1,177 10.0 102 Stanislaus, CA........... 16.6 181.0 -7.5 121 1,013 9.2 130 Tulare, CA............... 11.8 161.2 -5.0 36 850 8.7 151 Ventura, CA.............. 28.3 306.5 -8.5 157 1,194 11.9 46 Yolo, CA................. 7.3 102.6 -6.9 95 1,233 8.3 177 Adams, CO................ 12.1 217.2 -4.4 27 1,130 6.6 264 Arapahoe, CO............. 23.4 315.3 -6.5 81 1,349 8.3 177 Boulder, CO.............. 16.4 174.2 -8.2 146 1,428 9.5 116 Denver, CO............... 35.9 475.2 -11.3 251 1,485 10.6 88 Douglas, CO.............. 13.2 126.6 -5.2 42 1,324 7.5 219 El Paso, CO.............. 21.4 269.3 -6.2 71 1,061 8.5 159 Jefferson, CO............ 21.6 229.2 -7.4 117 1,240 10.4 94 Larimer, CO.............. 13.2 155.9 -7.3 115 1,090 11.6 57 Weld, CO................. 8.2 104.7 -9.3 183 1,025 2.4 348 Fairfield, CT............ 36.8 366.1 -13.7 311 1,751 11.7 52 Hartford, CT............. 29.3 459.0 -11.4 254 1,383 9.8 106 New Haven, CT............ 25.2 333.0 -10.1 214 1,227 11.5 59 New London, CT........... 7.8 101.4 -18.9 348 1,236 17.3 5 New Castle, DE........... 21.3 266.4 -9.3 183 1,279 8.1 188 Sussex, DE............... 7.6 79.9 -10.5 226 872 12.4 36 Washington, DC........... 41.6 701.7 -10.0 211 1,987 11.7 52 Alachua, FL.............. 7.6 124.2 -5.5 50 979 5.6 299 Brevard, FL.............. 16.7 212.7 -3.2 13 1,063 6.6 264 Broward, FL.............. 73.4 738.6 -9.0 176 1,084 6.8 258 Collier, FL.............. 15.5 134.7 -5.5 50 1,018 7.3 229 Duval, FL................ 31.3 497.0 -4.7 34 1,074 6.9 250 Escambia, FL............. 8.6 133.6 -2.8 11 893 6.1 279 Hillsborough, FL......... 46.7 663.9 -4.6 30 1,107 6.4 269 Lake, FL................. 9.0 95.0 -3.6 17 793 5.7 294 Lee, FL.................. 24.0 245.8 -5.6 52 946 6.4 269 Leon, FL................. 9.1 141.1 -6.0 64 927 7.2 234 Manatee, FL.............. 11.9 119.1 -5.2 42 876 4.7 323 Marion, FL............... 8.9 104.5 -2.2 6 795 5.4 309 Miami-Dade, FL........... 105.6 1,036.8 -9.3 183 1,109 5.5 302 Okaloosa, FL............. 6.8 82.1 -4.3 24 1,015 8.8 144 Orange, FL............... 46.6 688.2 -19.9 351 1,051 10.3 96 Osceola, FL.............. 8.0 82.9 -14.4 316 797 5.7 294 Palm Beach, FL........... 60.1 561.6 -7.5 121 1,138 7.6 215 Pasco, FL................ 11.8 113.2 -2.5 8 834 6.0 285 Pinellas, FL............. 35.1 414.7 -5.7 54 1,001 5.6 299 Polk, FL................. 14.6 220.8 -1.4 4 869 3.0 344 St. Johns, FL............ 8.2 74.8 -3.4 15 911 8.1 188 St. Lucie, FL............ 7.2 73.5 -3.3 14 875 3.2 340 Sarasota, FL............. 17.0 159.4 -5.2 42 941 5.5 302 Seminole, FL............. 16.1 186.9 -6.2 71 1,033 8.7 151 Volusia, FL.............. 15.3 160.4 -7.0 103 855 8.4 167 Bibb, GA................. 4.5 77.7 -5.8 56 872 5.2 315 Chatham, GA.............. 8.7 146.7 -9.5 190 952 6.1 279 Clayton, GA.............. 4.3 97.3 -20.5 353 1,089 2.6 345 Cobb, GA................. 23.3 341.4 -8.8 167 1,179 4.9 321 DeKalb, GA............... 19.0 280.8 -7.2 111 1,175 7.2 234 Forsyth, GA.............. 6.3 74.3 -4.6 30 1,015 6.4 269 Fulton, GA............... 46.9 809.3 -10.3 219 1,514 7.9 200 Gwinnett, GA............. 27.1 337.9 -6.7 88 1,056 3.6 334 Hall, GA................. 4.8 86.3 -3.7 18 964 3.5 337 Muscogee, GA............. 4.7 88.8 -6.0 64 884 7.8 204 Richmond, GA............. 4.7 97.5 -6.0 64 959 8.0 193 Honolulu, HI............. 27.7 385.0 -17.7 343 1,158 11.9 46 Maui + Kalawao, HI....... 6.8 54.6 -32.6 356 981 10.6 88 Ada, ID.................. 17.6 248.5 -2.6 10 1,017 7.1 241 Champaign, IL............ 4.1 85.3 -7.2 111 1,042 10.7 86 Cook, IL................. 138.4 2,297.3 -13.1 299 1,372 9.6 114 DuPage, IL............... 34.5 554.0 -12.4 277 1,290 7.4 226 Kane, IL................. 12.6 189.3 -13.1 299 1,031 8.5 159 Lake, IL................. 20.1 310.7 -11.7 260 1,500 9.7 109 McHenry, IL.............. 7.8 89.4 -10.7 235 933 7.9 200 McLean, IL............... 3.3 74.4 -9.5 190 1,075 12.8 24 Madison, IL.............. 5.3 96.3 -6.9 95 885 6.2 277 Peoria, IL............... 4.1 94.5 -10.8 237 1,143 7.4 226 St. Clair, IL............ 5.0 81.9 -11.6 259 942 11.3 68 Sangamon, IL............. 4.8 118.9 -9.2 181 1,110 6.8 258 Will, IL................. 15.1 231.8 -9.0 176 995 7.2 234 Winnebago, IL............ 5.9 112.0 -12.4 277 955 8.2 182 Allen, IN................ 9.2 177.9 -7.8 132 943 6.9 250 Elkhart, IN.............. 4.8 124.0 -8.6 162 908 -1.5 353 Hamilton, IN............. 10.0 137.5 -6.9 95 1,099 9.1 133 Lake, IN................. 10.6 171.3 -9.9 202 944 4.2 327 Marion, IN............... 24.9 552.4 -8.7 166 1,170 8.4 167 St. Joseph, IN........... 5.9 113.3 -9.8 200 941 7.3 229 Tippecanoe, IN........... 3.8 79.1 -7.1 106 971 3.6 334 Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.8 98.8 -9.9 202 902 3.2 340 Johnson, IA.............. 4.4 77.2 -7.5 121 1,094 10.2 98 Linn, IA................. 7.1 122.3 -8.0 138 1,096 7.6 215 Polk, IA................. 18.3 282.3 -8.5 157 1,176 10.8 84 Scott, IA................ 5.8 84.0 -9.9 202 934 7.7 209 Johnson, KS.............. 24.5 333.2 -6.4 77 1,207 9.1 133 Sedgwick, KS............. 12.9 229.2 -11.3 251 945 4.7 323 Shawnee, KS.............. 5.1 90.6 -5.9 61 917 5.3 312 Wyandotte, KS............ 3.6 86.3 -4.4 27 1,098 4.2 327 Boone, KY................ 4.6 89.9 -5.9 61 969 3.1 343 Fayette, KY.............. 11.6 179.4 -8.4 152 1,055 9.4 123 Jefferson, KY............ 26.3 427.8 -9.6 194 1,154 8.4 167 Caddo, LA................ 7.4 100.5 -9.3 183 916 6.9 250 Calcasieu, LA............ 5.5 85.1 -17.1 340 984 2.4 348 East Baton Rouge, LA..... 16.8 233.1 -10.9 241 1,076 5.5 302 Jefferson, LA............ 14.5 168.8 -11.4 254 1,056 8.8 144 Lafayette, LA............ 10.3 118.5 -9.7 198 945 5.0 317 Orleans, LA.............. 14.0 158.8 -20.3 352 1,165 18.2 3 St. Tammany, LA.......... 9.0 83.1 -8.4 152 973 9.3 126 Cumberland, ME........... 13.9 167.2 -12.9 294 1,124 14.5 14 Anne Arundel, MD......... 15.5 246.2 -12.2 272 1,309 12.5 33 Baltimore, MD............ 21.2 340.4 -11.5 256 1,194 10.6 88 Frederick, MD............ 6.6 94.0 -12.6 283 1,108 11.9 46 Harford, MD.............. 5.9 87.1 -9.9 202 1,161 11.5 59 Howard, MD............... 10.2 154.6 -12.8 288 1,490 12.5 33 Montgomery, MD........... 33.0 420.8 -12.3 274 1,590 11.7 52 Prince George's, MD...... 16.4 280.6 -14.2 315 1,275 12.3 39 Baltimore City, MD....... 13.8 319.3 -7.6 126 1,329 3.7 333 Barnstable, MA........... 9.7 85.7 -21.1 355 1,076 16.1 7 Bristol, MA.............. 17.8 200.3 -14.4 316 1,124 11.1 76 Essex, MA................ 27.6 283.5 -15.3 330 1,311 13.7 19 Hampden, MA.............. 18.8 182.9 -14.5 318 1,037 11.1 76 Middlesex, MA............ 57.0 835.4 -12.3 274 1,880 14.0 16 Norfolk, MA.............. 25.6 299.2 -17.3 342 1,425 12.7 29 Plymouth, MA............. 16.5 167.7 -17.9 344 1,180 14.0 16 Suffolk, MA.............. 32.1 611.3 -13.6 309 2,053 13.4 21 Worcester, MA............ 26.5 312.7 -12.5 282 1,199 12.8 24 Genesee, MI.............. 7.3 119.0 -12.3 274 925 7.2 234 Ingham, MI............... 6.6 136.6 -11.0 244 1,140 9.5 116 Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.8 109.6 -11.7 260 1,071 9.1 133 Kent, MI................. 16.3 351.7 -15.4 333 1,059 13.5 20 Macomb, MI............... 19.2 291.2 -13.5 304 1,114 6.0 285 Oakland, MI.............. 43.2 648.3 -14.8 325 1,278 8.4 167 Ottawa, MI............... 6.3 117.6 -10.0 211 957 6.0 285 Saginaw, MI.............. 4.1 73.7 -13.8 313 947 9.0 137 Washtenaw, MI............ 9.3 189.6 -12.0 265 1,260 9.2 130 Wayne, MI................ 36.1 639.8 -13.5 304 1,282 11.8 49 Anoka, MN................ 8.0 119.2 -9.1 179 1,110 7.1 241 Dakota, MN............... 11.0 174.9 -10.3 219 1,167 9.5 116 Hennepin, MN............. 42.0 830.7 -12.4 277 1,470 9.1 133 Olmsted, MN.............. 3.9 91.4 -9.9 202 1,332 14.6 12 Ramsey, MN............... 14.5 299.9 -11.2 248 1,288 8.5 159 St. Louis, MN............ 5.5 87.3 -13.5 304 991 8.3 177 Stearns, MN.............. 4.5 80.0 -8.5 157 966 8.4 167 Washington, MN........... 6.3 82.0 -9.8 200 1,016 9.0 137 Harrison, MS............. 4.6 78.9 -10.1 214 818 9.5 116 Hinds, MS................ 5.6 111.6 -6.6 86 925 6.1 279 Boone, MO................ 5.0 87.8 -6.9 95 990 12.4 36 Clay, MO................. 6.0 99.8 -6.7 88 960 1.8 350 Greene, MO............... 9.6 160.4 -5.8 56 906 8.1 188 Jackson, MO.............. 23.2 347.8 -8.3 148 1,154 5.3 312 St. Charles, MO.......... 10.1 145.1 -5.4 48 954 7.7 209 St. Louis, MO............ 41.6 551.3 -9.7 198 1,221 7.3 229 St. Louis City, MO....... 15.7 201.8 -11.9 264 1,243 7.9 200 Yellowstone, MT.......... 6.6 80.1 -3.4 15 978 6.5 266 Douglas, NE.............. 19.2 319.1 -7.0 103 1,083 8.2 182 Lancaster, NE............ 10.2 161.3 -6.4 77 943 9.3 126 Clark, NV................ 57.1 830.0 -18.9 348 1,026 8.8 144 Washoe, NV............... 15.2 207.3 -8.8 167 1,065 8.7 151 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.4 186.6 -10.5 226 1,306 11.3 68 Merrimack, NH............ 5.2 71.1 -9.5 190 1,091 9.4 123 Rockingham, NH........... 11.3 137.7 -11.0 244 1,205 11.8 49 Atlantic, NJ............. 6.7 90.8 -34.2 357 1,104 22.5 1 Bergen, NJ............... 33.7 372.5 -17.0 338 1,364 10.6 88 Burlington, NJ........... 11.3 180.8 -12.7 285 1,202 8.8 144 Camden, NJ............... 12.5 178.5 -13.5 304 1,172 11.7 52 Essex, NJ................ 21.2 295.6 -15.3 330 1,447 11.2 73 Gloucester, NJ........... 6.6 101.9 -11.3 251 996 9.5 116 Hudson, NJ............... 16.1 234.0 -15.0 326 1,550 7.8 204 Mercer, NJ............... 11.4 238.2 -9.6 194 1,508 11.4 64 Middlesex, NJ............ 22.9 380.2 -12.0 265 1,364 10.5 93 Monmouth, NJ............. 20.6 226.8 -18.1 345 1,197 15.0 10 Morris, NJ............... 17.3 258.7 -13.6 309 1,667 8.2 182 Ocean, NJ................ 13.9 151.4 -16.9 337 955 12.8 24 Passaic, NJ.............. 12.9 142.9 -15.1 329 1,140 11.1 76 Somerset, NJ............. 10.4 169.0 -13.0 296 1,780 9.7 109 Union, NJ................ 15.0 200.4 -13.5 304 1,465 12.0 43 Bernalillo, NM........... 20.1 304.3 -8.8 167 1,009 9.7 109 Albany, NY............... 10.4 211.1 -10.3 219 1,277 8.3 177 Bronx, NY................ 19.2 288.0 -11.5 256 1,204 8.0 193 Broome, NY............... 4.4 75.6 -13.2 301 1,010 12.8 24 Dutchess, NY............. 8.5 98.1 -15.0 326 1,199 11.3 68 Erie, NY................. 24.5 407.8 -14.7 322 1,106 12.1 41 Kings, NY................ 66.6 688.2 -14.6 320 1,058 10.3 96 Monroe, NY............... 18.9 344.3 -13.4 302 1,126 11.6 57 Nassau, NY............... 54.5 533.1 -17.0 338 1,388 14.2 15 New York, NY............. 131.1 2,048.7 -18.8 347 2,427 14.9 11 Oneida, NY............... 5.3 94.4 -12.4 277 947 8.9 140 Onondaga, NY............. 12.7 221.5 -13.0 296 1,095 9.5 116 Orange, NY............... 10.8 129.5 -15.0 326 1,085 12.6 30 Queens, NY............... 54.1 592.5 -18.2 346 1,174 7.8 204 Richmond, NY............. 10.1 110.1 -15.7 334 1,158 12.0 43 Rockland, NY............. 11.3 112.2 -15.3 330 1,154 11.1 76 Saratoga, NY............. 6.1 78.0 -16.2 335 1,170 12.6 30 Suffolk, NY.............. 53.8 579.5 -16.5 336 1,296 12.0 43 Westchester, NY.......... 36.4 367.7 -17.1 340 1,721 21.7 2 Buncombe, NC............. 10.3 114.7 -14.7 322 916 8.5 159 Cabarrus, NC............. 5.2 72.2 -6.5 81 862 6.9 250 Catawba, NC.............. 4.6 81.7 -7.6 126 851 2.5 346 Cumberland, NC........... 6.5 112.1 -7.5 121 887 3.9 331 Durham, NC............... 9.1 205.9 -5.4 48 1,478 8.4 167 Forsyth, NC.............. 9.7 174.6 -8.6 162 1,021 6.9 250 Guilford, NC............. 15.1 260.1 -8.5 157 986 3.8 332 Iredell, NC.............. 5.8 73.2 -4.3 24 983 5.4 309 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 41.5 671.3 -6.3 75 1,331 8.4 167 New Hanover, NC.......... 9.0 110.0 -7.5 121 961 9.7 109 Pitt, NC................. 3.9 71.8 -7.1 106 913 5.7 294 Wake, NC................. 38.6 534.4 -7.2 111 1,207 7.3 229 Cass, ND................. 7.6 113.2 -6.8 93 1,070 7.5 219 Butler, OH............... 8.0 146.3 -7.8 132 1,024 8.2 182 Cuyahoga, OH............. 36.2 668.0 -9.6 194 1,168 8.2 182 Delaware, OH............. 5.8 83.7 -10.1 214 1,142 11.4 64 Franklin, OH............. 34.2 711.2 -6.9 95 1,142 7.6 215 Greene, OH............... 3.7 72.9 -4.7 34 1,224 9.9 103 Hamilton, OH............. 24.5 476.4 -9.6 194 1,234 6.5 266 Lake, OH................. 6.3 90.1 -8.8 167 956 7.2 234 Lorain, OH............... 6.3 91.9 -8.4 152 879 6.2 277 Lucas, OH................ 10.1 188.6 -10.9 241 959 5.5 302 Mahoning, OH............. 5.9 88.8 -9.9 202 821 8.7 151 Montgomery, OH........... 12.2 236.6 -7.7 130 968 4.8 322 Stark, OH................ 8.6 147.6 -8.3 148 836 4.1 330 Summit, OH............... 14.5 246.7 -8.3 148 1,010 6.4 269 Warren, OH............... 5.3 92.0 -8.0 138 1,075 8.1 188 Cleveland, OK............ 6.1 80.9 -0.2 1 865 7.5 219 Oklahoma, OK............. 28.6 438.2 -6.0 64 1,059 6.1 279 Tulsa, OK................ 22.8 338.1 -6.9 95 1,017 5.5 302 Clackamas, OR............ 15.7 155.0 -9.9 202 1,130 9.3 126 Deschutes, OR............ 9.5 79.4 -9.3 183 1,015 12.8 24 Jackson, OR.............. 8.0 84.6 -7.1 106 922 8.9 140 Lane, OR................. 12.9 142.5 -10.6 231 938 9.8 106 Marion, OR............... 11.6 150.2 -7.4 117 1,015 9.3 126 Multnomah, OR............ 36.6 455.2 -12.8 288 1,293 11.2 73 Washington, OR........... 20.5 278.7 -8.6 162 1,516 11.3 68 Allegheny, PA............ 35.7 633.3 -10.6 231 1,267 8.5 159 Berks, PA................ 8.9 156.1 -11.5 256 1,042 7.1 241 Bucks, PA................ 20.4 232.8 -14.5 318 1,115 11.5 59 Butler, PA............... 5.1 81.9 -8.3 148 1,076 8.2 182 Chester, PA.............. 15.9 227.8 -10.8 237 1,543 11.1 76 Cumberland, PA........... 6.6 126.2 -7.9 136 1,088 8.0 193 Dauphin, PA.............. 7.5 167.5 -12.0 265 1,170 9.8 106 Delaware, PA............. 14.2 196.8 -13.4 302 1,251 11.3 68 Erie, PA................. 6.9 108.5 -13.0 296 916 11.4 64 Lackawanna, PA........... 5.6 86.5 -11.8 262 922 11.5 59 Lancaster, PA............ 13.8 221.7 -10.7 235 979 8.1 188 Lehigh, PA............... 8.8 175.0 -11.2 248 1,133 9.4 123 Luzerne, PA.............. 7.4 131.4 -10.5 226 930 9.0 137 Montgomery, PA........... 28.0 450.2 -12.4 277 1,446 11.5 59 Northampton, PA.......... 6.9 104.7 -12.6 283 1,003 8.0 193 Philadelphia, PA......... 35.1 610.8 -12.9 294 1,380 9.9 103 Washington, PA........... 5.5 78.3 -13.9 314 1,107 5.3 312 Westmoreland, PA......... 9.2 121.7 -10.4 224 932 7.1 241 York, PA................. 9.2 164.0 -9.3 183 1,026 7.7 209 Kent, RI................. 5.6 66.8 -14.7 322 1,070 15.3 9 Providence, RI........... 19.1 253.2 -12.8 288 1,198 12.1 41 Charleston, SC........... 17.6 236.1 -10.3 219 1,064 9.7 109 Greenville, SC........... 15.9 256.8 -7.8 132 997 6.7 260 Horry, SC................ 10.0 124.9 -12.1 269 723 11.2 73 Lexington, SC............ 7.3 118.3 -2.5 8 865 5.5 302 Richland, SC............. 11.0 206.0 -7.1 106 970 8.6 156 Spartanburg, SC.......... 6.8 141.7 -5.2 42 920 0.3 351 York, SC................. 6.8 94.9 -6.1 69 960 9.5 116 Minnehaha, SD............ 7.8 123.6 -5.0 36 1,013 8.5 159 Davidson, TN............. 25.4 460.4 -10.6 231 1,215 8.4 167 Hamilton, TN............. 10.6 194.7 -6.1 69 990 4.2 327 Knox, TN................. 13.3 226.7 -5.3 46 983 6.4 269 Rutherford, TN........... 6.3 123.7 -6.9 95 934 -2.7 355 Shelby, TN............... 21.5 465.2 -7.6 126 1,156 5.8 290 Williamson, TN........... 10.0 130.9 -6.5 81 1,354 6.9 250 Bell, TX................. 5.9 116.7 -3.9 20 982 5.4 309 Bexar, TX................ 43.7 815.1 -7.1 106 1,047 5.8 290 Brazoria, TX............. 6.3 110.1 -5.9 61 1,134 3.4 338 Brazos, TX............... 4.8 98.0 -5.6 52 881 9.9 103 Cameron, TX.............. 6.6 136.6 -4.1 21 698 6.1 279 Collin, TX............... 28.7 415.5 -5.8 56 1,350 7.5 219 Dallas, TX............... 80.2 1,623.5 -5.8 56 1,361 4.5 326 Denton, TX............... 16.9 249.5 -5.1 38 1,031 7.1 241 Ector, TX................ 4.2 65.9 -19.3 350 1,142 -6.6 357 El Paso, TX.............. 15.7 292.3 -5.7 54 810 7.4 226 Fort Bend, TX............ 15.1 186.1 -5.8 56 1,026 5.0 317 Galveston, TX............ 6.4 106.0 -6.0 64 1,029 5.6 299 Gregg, TX................ 4.3 68.2 -10.8 237 919 0.2 352 Harris, TX............... 119.2 2,179.4 -7.3 115 1,352 3.4 338 Hidalgo, TX.............. 12.8 253.0 -4.3 24 704 7.0 246 Jefferson, TX............ 5.8 110.1 -10.2 217 1,101 5.7 294 Lubbock, TX.............. 7.9 134.9 -4.6 30 918 7.9 200 McLennan, TX............. 5.5 111.1 -2.3 7 943 7.0 246 Midland, TX.............. 6.2 87.8 -21.0 354 1,404 -4.6 356 Montgomery, TX........... 12.7 181.7 -6.7 88 1,145 5.0 317 Nueces, TX............... 8.3 151.4 -8.5 157 948 2.5 346 Potter, TX............... 4.0 73.7 -4.5 29 954 6.7 260 Smith, TX................ 6.5 100.8 -4.1 21 928 5.7 294 Tarrant, TX.............. 46.4 867.9 -6.5 81 1,129 5.1 316 Travis, TX............... 44.9 733.1 -6.4 77 1,417 9.6 114 Webb, TX................. 5.6 95.0 -8.8 167 753 7.7 209 Williamson, TX........... 12.4 175.1 -5.1 38 1,193 11.8 49 Davis, UT................ 9.3 132.2 -0.9 3 986 10.8 84 Salt Lake, UT............ 50.3 691.0 -4.2 23 1,146 8.8 144 Utah, UT................. 18.5 248.5 -0.2 1 984 10.2 98 Weber, UT................ 6.5 106.1 -2.9 12 875 7.6 215 Chittenden, VT........... 7.2 91.0 -12.8 288 1,192 14.6 12 Arlington, VA............ 9.1 170.3 -8.9 173 1,926 12.2 40 Chesterfield, VA......... 9.4 128.8 -6.9 95 966 6.7 260 Fairfax, VA.............. 36.9 576.7 -8.1 143 1,776 8.0 193 Henrico, VA.............. 11.8 173.9 -10.8 237 1,112 8.5 159 Loudoun, VA.............. 13.0 158.4 -12.1 269 1,362 12.6 30 Prince William, VA....... 9.7 122.2 -11.0 244 1,048 11.7 52 Alexandria City, VA...... 6.2 81.1 -11.8 262 1,610 10.1 101 Chesapeake City, VA...... 6.3 96.9 -7.0 103 904 7.2 234 Newport News City, VA.... 4.0 97.0 -7.2 111 1,090 5.8 290 Norfolk City, VA......... 6.1 128.9 -9.9 202 1,188 8.4 167 Richmond City, VA........ 8.0 140.6 -10.5 226 1,308 12.5 33 Virginia Beach City, VA.. 12.4 164.5 -10.4 224 924 10.4 94 Benton, WA............... 6.1 87.4 -9.9 202 1,147 5.8 290 Clark, WA................ 15.7 152.4 -8.4 152 1,122 7.3 229 King, WA................. 90.3 1,312.9 -8.9 173 1,945 13.9 18 Kitsap, WA............... 7.0 86.2 -6.8 93 1,137 7.7 209 Pierce, WA............... 23.7 292.9 -8.1 143 1,090 6.0 285 Snohomish, WA............ 22.1 268.5 -8.9 173 1,262 6.9 250 Spokane, WA.............. 16.9 214.9 -7.6 126 1,007 6.1 279 Thurston, WA............. 8.8 110.3 -7.4 117 1,117 8.7 151 Whatcom, WA.............. 7.6 83.8 -10.2 217 1,007 6.4 269 Yakima, WA............... 8.0 117.0 -8.0 138 829 7.2 234 Kanawha, WV.............. 5.6 88.6 -9.5 190 954 3.6 334 Brown, WI................ 7.3 148.0 -8.0 138 1,007 7.5 219 Dane, WI................. 16.3 317.9 -9.0 176 1,231 12.4 36 Milwaukee, WI............ 27.5 437.9 -11.0 244 1,108 8.0 193 Outagamie, WI............ 5.6 102.3 -8.2 146 988 6.9 250 Racine, WI............... 4.7 70.3 -8.6 162 960 5.5 302 Waukesha, WI............. 13.8 231.5 -8.0 138 1,145 7.5 219 Winnebago, WI............ 4.0 87.8 -6.5 81 1,033 -2.6 354 San Juan, PR............. 10.9 213.4 -10.7 (5) 681 6.2 (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, second quarter 2020 Employment Average weekly wage(1) Establishments, second quarter County by NAICS supersector 2020 Percent Percent (thousands) June change, Second change, 2020 June quarter second (thousands) 2019-20(2) 2020 quarter 2019-20(2) United States(3) ............................ 10,451.0 135,114.4 -9.4 $1,188 8.6 Private industry........................... 10,148.9 114,475.9 -10.1 1,179 8.7 Natural resources and mining............. 140.4 1,854.0 -10.1 1,087 -2.2 Construction............................. 844.6 7,269.3 -4.9 1,215 1.2 Manufacturing............................ 358.0 11,965.4 -7.2 1,331 2.6 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 1,946.3 25,726.3 -6.1 979 5.8 Information.............................. 195.4 2,597.7 -10.1 2,444 12.7 Financial activities..................... 939.4 8,121.3 -2.9 1,757 7.1 Professional and business services....... 1,963.0 19,711.7 -7.4 1,521 6.4 Education and health services............ 1,857.3 21,580.9 -6.5 1,027 5.1 Leisure and hospitality.................. 887.7 11,755.1 -31.2 463 -0.9 Other services........................... 817.7 3,729.8 -18.3 862 13.6 Government................................. 302.0 20,638.4 -5.5 1,237 7.6 Los Angeles, CA.............................. 518.8 3,945.3 -12.2 1,333 8.9 Private industry........................... 512.4 3,389.2 -13.2 1,294 8.9 Natural resources and mining............. 0.6 6.3 4.1 1,048 -6.2 Construction............................. 17.6 146.0 -2.8 1,342 3.5 Manufacturing............................ 12.6 310.5 -9.0 1,491 7.0 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 59.8 746.7 -10.2 1,067 6.1 Information.............................. 13.8 152.1 -22.2 2,759 9.1 Financial activities..................... 31.2 205.9 -6.6 2,036 5.8 Professional and business services....... 58.4 566.8 -10.4 1,613 6.9 Education and health services............ 247.8 785.6 -4.4 961 5.4 Leisure and hospitality.................. 40.7 355.2 -36.0 752 9.0 Other services........................... 29.8 114.0 -25.7 951 22.2 Government................................. 6.4 556.1 -5.5 1,562 6.9 Cook, IL..................................... 138.4 2,297.3 -13.1 1,372 9.6 Private industry........................... 137.2 2,023.6 -13.7 1,359 9.4 Natural resources and mining............. 0.1 1.7 13.6 1,217 0.2 Construction............................. 11.1 71.8 -9.9 1,545 2.3 Manufacturing............................ 5.6 173.7 -7.1 1,271 0.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 28.3 425.3 -9.5 1,101 5.1 Information.............................. 2.6 49.4 -7.5 2,276 8.5 Financial activities..................... 14.2 201.9 -3.0 2,305 5.4 Professional and business services....... 29.1 431.8 -10.8 1,651 5.4 Education and health services............ 16.0 418.8 -7.4 1,092 7.9 Leisure and hospitality.................. 13.8 165.3 -46.2 557 -4.0 Other services........................... 15.6 83.7 -16.7 1,109 14.6 Government................................. 1.3 273.7 -8.3 1,467 10.2 New York, NY................................. 131.1 2,048.7 -18.8 2,427 14.9 Private industry........................... 129.7 1,818.4 -20.7 2,516 16.6 Natural resources and mining............. 0.0 0.2 14.6 2,374 -20.0 Construction............................. 2.4 35.5 -17.0 1,960 -0.9 Manufacturing............................ 1.8 13.8 -37.7 1,860 23.7 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 18.3 178.1 -30.2 1,714 10.6 Information.............................. 5.8 167.1 -14.9 3,232 13.1 Financial activities..................... 19.6 380.3 -4.0 3,960 6.1 Professional and business services....... 29.3 527.5 -11.5 2,557 5.8 Education and health services............ 10.3 325.6 -9.0 1,588 9.5 Leisure and hospitality.................. 14.5 107.0 -66.1 1,109 15.5 Other services........................... 19.9 79.1 -26.6 1,596 23.1 Government................................. 1.5 230.3 -0.6 1,727 3.1 Harris, TX................................... 119.2 2,179.4 -7.3 1,352 3.4 Private industry........................... 118.7 1,901.4 -8.4 1,365 3.3 Natural resources and mining............. 1.6 55.7 -18.2 3,304 5.9 Construction............................. 7.9 155.4 -9.2 1,403 0.6 Manufacturing............................ 4.9 164.8 -8.9 1,597 0.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 25.3 444.2 -5.1 1,197 0.6 Information.............................. 1.3 22.9 -13.9 1,637 8.8 Financial activities..................... 12.9 125.2 -3.6 1,764 3.5 Professional and business services....... 24.1 387.4 -6.5 1,668 1.6 Education and health services............ 17.2 290.5 -3.9 1,105 3.0 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.8 192.6 -21.7 459 -8.4 Other services........................... 11.6 60.5 -12.1 902 4.4 Government................................. 0.6 278.0 1.0 1,266 6.3 Maricopa, AZ................................. 110.7 1,924.6 -4.6 1,137 7.7 Private industry........................... 110.0 1,751.2 -4.1 1,125 7.6 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 7.8 -4.9 1,050 2.4 Construction............................. 8.8 131.7 0.1 1,195 3.0 Manufacturing............................ 3.5 128.1 -1.7 1,535 2.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 21.6 385.3 -0.1 1,018 5.7 Information.............................. 2.4 33.9 -13.2 1,755 21.5 Financial activities..................... 14.6 191.4 1.9 1,509 11.4 Professional and business services....... 28.0 333.7 -3.7 1,174 4.4 Education and health services............ 13.9 314.4 -1.4 1,052 3.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 9.3 178.3 -20.7 510 -3.4 Other services........................... 7.2 46.6 -12.4 846 7.4 Government................................. 0.7 173.4 -9.6 1,240 8.2 Dallas, TX................................... 80.2 1,623.5 -5.8 1,361 4.5 Private industry........................... 79.7 1,452.7 -6.2 1,366 4.4 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 7.8 -10.0 2,468 -1.6 Construction............................. 5.0 89.5 -5.1 1,332 2.5 Manufacturing............................ 2.8 114.1 -3.7 1,484 -1.8 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 16.2 340.0 -2.0 1,199 3.5 Information.............................. 1.5 44.2 -6.4 2,070 4.9 Financial activities..................... 10.0 157.9 -1.1 1,881 2.0 Professional and business services....... 18.5 341.2 -5.0 1,569 1.6 Education and health services............ 10.0 193.7 -4.2 1,169 1.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.3 126.6 -24.5 525 1.2 Other services........................... 7.2 36.4 -18.5 1,011 12.7 Government................................. 0.5 170.8 -1.4 1,317 6.0 Orange, CA................................... 130.0 1,442.0 -12.7 1,334 11.4 Private industry........................... 128.6 1,298.2 -13.1 1,317 11.6 Natural resources and mining............. 0.2 2.2 -5.6 925 1.1 Construction............................. 8.0 101.2 -5.3 1,469 1.4 Manufacturing............................ 5.3 146.4 -8.5 1,641 8.0 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 18.7 231.0 -9.2 1,144 7.7 Information.............................. 1.6 23.0 -10.8 2,278 13.9 Financial activities..................... 13.4 112.4 -3.8 2,078 12.5 Professional and business services....... 24.3 293.3 -9.5 1,511 9.5 Education and health services............ 39.1 211.4 -5.8 1,002 4.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 9.9 139.4 -39.7 504 -7.0 Other services........................... 7.9 37.9 -21.5 853 14.5 Government................................. 1.4 143.9 -8.4 1,473 7.2 San Diego, CA................................ 118.2 1,325.1 -11.2 1,315 10.6 Private industry........................... 116.3 1,101.6 -12.0 1,269 11.0 Natural resources and mining............. 0.7 10.1 -2.4 785 1.8 Construction............................. 8.2 80.9 -2.5 1,332 4.4 Manufacturing............................ 3.6 112.5 -4.6 1,662 3.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 15.5 199.4 -9.4 991 10.6 Information.............................. 1.4 21.2 -10.0 2,037 0.9 Financial activities..................... 11.5 72.6 -4.3 1,693 10.8 Professional and business services....... 21.8 237.1 -5.8 1,740 5.4 Education and health services............ 35.9 197.4 -5.9 1,018 5.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 9.3 132.5 -35.8 519 -5.5 Other services........................... 8.3 37.8 -29.3 765 18.6 Government................................. 2.0 223.5 -6.8 1,527 6.9 King, WA..................................... 90.3 1,312.9 -8.9 1,945 13.9 Private industry........................... 89.6 1,145.2 -9.6 2,000 14.7 Natural resources and mining............. 0.4 2.9 -11.8 1,321 -5.4 Construction............................. 6.9 70.9 -7.3 1,422 -4.2 Manufacturing............................ 2.5 94.9 -10.4 1,773 4.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 13.4 263.6 -4.2 2,190 11.8 Information.............................. 2.7 127.5 4.4 4,319 14.4 Financial activities..................... 7.2 67.2 -3.2 2,034 12.2 Professional and business services....... 19.0 226.5 -4.2 2,027 7.7 Education and health services............ 21.0 167.5 -6.6 1,142 2.1 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.3 85.4 -42.7 594 -6.9 Other services........................... 9.2 38.9 -20.7 1,055 11.1 Government................................. 0.6 167.7 -3.8 1,579 9.0 Miami-Dade, FL............................... 105.6 1,036.8 -9.3 1,109 5.5 Private industry........................... 105.3 913.8 -10.1 1,082 5.0 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 8.9 3.9 726 6.3 Construction............................. 7.2 52.0 -0.9 1,052 1.3 Manufacturing............................ 2.8 39.7 -4.6 950 1.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 24.5 262.0 -9.0 994 4.2 Information.............................. 1.6 16.7 -12.4 1,812 4.4 Financial activities..................... 11.4 74.0 -3.0 1,681 5.0 Professional and business services....... 24.5 153.6 -6.3 1,282 -1.5 Education and health services............ 12.8 177.0 -3.8 1,050 3.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 7.7 95.8 -33.4 615 -3.5 Other services........................... 8.1 32.1 -16.9 732 7.6 Government................................. 0.3 122.9 -2.7 1,289 6.7 (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, second quarter 2020 Employment Average weekly wage(1) Establishments, second quarter State 2020 Percent Percent (thousands) June change, Second change, 2020 June quarter second (thousands) 2019-20 2020 quarter 2019-20 United States(2)........... 10,451.0 135,114.4 -9.4 $1,188 8.6 Alabama.................... 131.2 1,868.7 -6.4 964 5.9 Alaska..................... 22.7 296.2 -12.7 1,195 11.2 Arizona.................... 170.7 2,708.4 -5.1 1,090 7.9 Arkansas................... 93.0 1,156.5 -5.5 924 7.3 California................. 1,633.1 15,911.2 -10.2 1,468 10.9 Colorado................... 216.4 2,545.9 -8.0 1,226 8.7 Connecticut................ 123.4 1,483.6 -12.3 1,407 11.3 Delaware................... 34.5 416.0 -9.3 1,156 9.0 District of Columbia....... 41.7 701.8 -10.0 1,987 11.7 Florida.................... 738.0 8,113.8 -7.1 1,032 6.6 Georgia.................... 307.2 4,196.0 -7.0 1,075 5.7 Hawaii..................... 45.9 524.9 -20.1 1,108 12.0 Idaho...................... 67.9 748.3 -2.3 882 7.6 Illinois................... 379.6 5,391.8 -11.3 1,218 8.6 Indiana.................... 171.6 2,865.7 -7.3 960 5.6 Iowa....................... 104.7 1,458.8 -8.0 978 8.4 Kansas..................... 90.0 1,306.0 -7.0 969 7.1 Kentucky................... 125.4 1,754.0 -8.2 970 6.4 Louisiana.................. 137.8 1,710.1 -11.0 985 6.7 Maine...................... 53.8 572.5 -10.8 980 12.3 Maryland................... 175.8 2,430.3 -11.2 1,305 10.7 Massachusetts.............. 263.1 3,178.8 -14.3 1,570 14.0 Michigan................... 268.5 3,850.9 -12.9 1,114 9.5 Minnesota.................. 185.4 2,644.6 -10.5 1,200 9.0 Mississippi................ 73.8 1,063.1 -6.4 812 5.9 Missouri................... 215.9 2,622.2 -7.5 1,015 7.1 Montana.................... 51.5 459.5 -4.9 919 9.1 Nebraska................... 72.9 932.3 -6.0 960 8.0 Nevada..................... 85.9 1,191.6 -15.4 1,048 9.1 New Hampshire.............. 54.8 605.4 -10.5 1,215 11.5 New Jersey................. 284.1 3,570.3 -14.6 1,376 11.3 New Mexico................. 62.4 757.0 -9.4 958 7.8 New York................... 652.0 8,142.6 -15.9 1,520 12.8 North Carolina............. 296.2 4,205.4 -6.9 1,038 6.9 North Dakota............... 32.4 390.1 -9.7 1,061 3.3 Ohio....................... 302.3 5,049.8 -8.0 1,031 7.0 Oklahoma................... 112.1 1,521.3 -6.3 940 4.4 Oregon..................... 160.9 1,789.3 -9.6 1,143 10.3 Pennsylvania............... 362.8 5,314.5 -11.1 1,170 9.2 Rhode Island............... 39.5 429.3 -13.2 1,172 13.1 South Carolina............. 144.4 1,991.0 -7.2 928 6.9 South Dakota............... 34.7 415.9 -5.9 912 9.0 Tennessee.................. 171.1 2,847.2 -6.6 1,016 5.3 Texas...................... 727.4 11,807.1 -6.3 1,156 5.0 Utah....................... 111.6 1,474.8 -3.0 1,017 9.1 Vermont.................... 26.1 271.8 -13.6 1,055 13.6 Virginia................... 283.3 3,635.2 -8.8 1,218 9.4 Washington................. 253.8 3,207.1 -8.4 1,424 10.6 West Virginia.............. 51.3 634.9 -9.4 933 4.9 Wisconsin.................. 179.2 2,690.0 -8.7 1,014 8.0 Wyoming.................... 27.2 260.5 -9.6 965 3.7 Puerto Rico................ 46.1 798.7 -7.9 556 4.7 Virgin Islands............. 3.4 35.4 -7.0 1,016 6.9 (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.