Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 05-31 http://www.bls.gov/cew/ For release: 10:00 A.M. EST Media contact: 691-5902 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2004 In June 2004, Rutherford County, Tenn., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Rutherford County experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 8.5 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.2 percent. Suffolk County, Mass., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2004, with an increase of 11.8 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.1 percent over the same time span. Of the 317 largest counties in the United States, 155 had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in June 2004, and 146 experienced changes below the national average. Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 139 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 163 counties. The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 8.4 million employer reports cover 130.6 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation and for the 317 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2003. In addition, data for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. averages, or in the analysis in the text. (See Technical Note.) June 2004 employment and 2004 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the first quarter of 2004 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www. bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the second quarter of 2004 will be available in January on the BLS Web site. Large County Employment In June 2004, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.6 million, up 1.2 percent from June 2003. The 317 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.3 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.2 percent of total covered wages. These 317 counties had a net job gain of 986,400 over the year, accounting for 63.5 percent of the U.S. employment increase. Employment increased in 237 of the large counties from June 2003 to June 2004. Rutherford County, Tenn., had the largest over- the-year percentage increase in employment (8.5 percent). Elkhart County, Ind., had the next largest increase, 7.6 percent, followed by the counties of Clark, Nev. (7.3 percent), Prince William, Va. (6.9 percent), and Collin, Texas (6.8 percent). (See table 1.) Employment declined in 65 counties from June 2003 to June 2004. The larg- est percentage decline in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-3.4 per- cent), followed by the counties of St. Louis City, Mo. (-2.6 percent), Anchor- age Borough, Alaska, and Santa Cruz, Calif. (-2.2 percent each), and Baltimore City, Md., and Wayne, Mich. (-2.1 percent each). - 2 - Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by June 2004 employment, June 2003-04 employment change, and June 2003-04 percent change in employment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment in large counties -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Percent change June 2004 employment | Net change in employment, | in employment, (thousands) | June 2003-04 | June 2003-04 | (thousands) | ----------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------- U.S. 130,638.4|U.S. 1,554.4|U.S. 1.2 ----------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------- | | Los Angeles, Calif. 4,063.4|Orange, Calif. 55.5|Rutherford, Tenn. 8.5 Cook, Ill. 2,522.9|Clark, Nev. 55.0|Elkhart, Ind. 7.6 New York, N.Y. 2,225.0|Maricopa, Ariz. 47.0|Clark, Nev. 7.3 Harris, Texas 1,839.4|Los Angeles, Calif. 32.5|Prince William, Va. 6.9 Maricopa, Ariz. 1,599.1|Riverside, Calif. 29.4|Collin, Texas 6.8 Orange, Calif. 1,479.1|Orange, Fla. 24.8|Lee, Fla. 6.0 Dallas, Texas 1,431.1|Hillsborough, Fla. 24.1|Seminole, Fla. 5.8 San Diego, Calif. 1,281.5|San Bernardino, Calif. 24.1|Utah, Utah 5.7 King, Wash. 1,099.4|Fairfax, Va. 23.8|Riverside, Calif. 5.4 Miami-Dade, Fla. 981.6|San Diego, Calif. 22.4|Marion, Fla. 5.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The largest gains in employment from June 2003 to June 2004 were recorded in the counties of Orange, Calif. (55,500), Clark, Nev. (55,000), Maricopa, Ariz. (47,000), Los Angeles, Calif. (32,500), and Riverside, Calif. (29,400). (See table A.) The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Wayne County, Mich. (-17,200), followed by the counties of Philadelphia, Pa. (-10,600), Oakland, Mich. (-10,200), Alameda, Calif., and Middlesex, Mass. (-8,600 each). Large County Average Weekly Wages The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2004 was $724. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 113 of the largest 317 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,300. Santa Clara County, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,288, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,189), Arlington, Va. ($1,170), and Suffolk, Mass. ($1,163). (See table B.) There were 200 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter of 2004. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($452), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($457), Horry, S.C. ($476), Webb, Texas ($486), and Yakima, Wash. ($491). (See table 1.) - 3 - Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by second quarter 2004 average weekly wages, second quarter 2003-04 change in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2003-04 percent change in average weekly wages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weekly wage in large counties -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weekly wage, | Change in average | Percent change in second quarter 2004 | weekly wage, | average weekly | second quarter | wage, second | 2003-04 | quarter 2003-04 ---------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------ U.S. $724|U.S. $22|U.S. 3.1 ---------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------ New York, N.Y. $1,300|Suffolk, Mass. $123|Suffolk, Mass. 11.8 Santa Clara, Calif. 1,288|Arlington, Va. 78|Pierce, Wash. 9.8 Washington, D.C. 1,189|Pierce, Wash. 63|Lee, Fla. 9.6 Arlington, Va. 1,170|Santa Clara, Calif. 63|Spartanburg, S.C. 8.7 Suffolk, Mass. 1,163|Lee, Fla. 57|Rock Island, Ill. 8.5 San Mateo, Calif. 1,147|Middlesex, Mass. 57|Okaloosa, Fla. 7.3 Fairfield, Conn. 1,110|Rock Island, Ill. 57|Arlington, Va. 7.1 San Francisco, Calif. 1,100|Spartanburg, S.C. 55|Riverside, Calif. 7.1 Somerset, N.J. 1,093|Westchester, N.Y. 54|Benton, Ark. 6.9 Fairfax, Va. 1,085|Washington, Ore. 52|Elkhart, Ind. 6.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Over the year, national average weekly wages rose by 3.1 percent. Among the largest counties, Suffolk County, Mass., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 11.8 percent from the second quar- ter of 2003. Pierce County, Wash., was second with 9.8 percent growth, fol- lowed by the counties of Lee, Fla. (9.6 percent), Spartanburg, S.C. (8.7 per- cent), and Rock Island, Ill. (8.5 percent). Twelve counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Somerset County, N.J., had the largest decrease, -5.2 percent, followed by the counties of Olmsted, Minn. (-3.3 percent), Williamson, Texas (-2.7 percent), King, Wash. (-2.0 percent), and Lake, Ohio (-1.6 percent). Ten Largest U.S. Counties Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2003 employment levels), 9 reported increases in employment, while 1 showed a decline from June 2003 to June 2004. Orange County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 3.9 percent increase. Within Orange County, employment rose in every industry group except natural resources and mining, manufacturing, and information. The largest gains were in professional and business services (8.5 percent) and construction (8.3 percent). (See table 2.) Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest increase in employment, 3.0 percent, followed by Miami-Dade, Fla., and San Diego, Calif. (1.8 percent each). The only decrease in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Cook County, Ill., a 0.3 percent decline. The next lowest change in employment was recorded in Dallas County, Texas (+0.1 percent) and Harris County, Texas (+0.5 percent). Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Miami-Dade County, Fla., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, 4.2 percent. Within Miami-Dade County, wages increased the most in manufacturing (11.5 percent) and information (9.7 percent). Dallas County, Texas, and New York County, N.Y., were second in wage growth, with gains of 3.9 percent each. The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in Orange County, Calif. (2.9 percent) and Cook County, Ill. (3.0 percent). King County, Wash., experienced the only decline in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties (-2.0 percent). The information sector posted the largest drop in wages, with a decline of 20.9 percent over the year. - 4 - Largest County by State Table 3 shows June 2004 employment and the 2004 second-quarter average weekly wage in the largest county in each state. (This table includes two counties--Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.,--that have employment levels below 75,000). The employment levels in these counties in June 2004 ranged from approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 40,600 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,300), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Laramie County, Wyo. ($572). - 5 - Technical Note These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative program, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from summaries of employment and to- tal pay of workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by State 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. Data for 2004 are preliminary and sub- ject to revision. For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as having employment levels of 75,000 or greater. Each year, these large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual average of employment for the previous year. The 318 counties discussed in this release were derived using 2003 preliminary annual averages of employment. These counties will be included in all 2004 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. 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 pro- cedure, and publication product. Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in somewhat different measures of over-the-quarter employment change. It is important to understand program differences and the intended uses of the program products. (See table below.) Additional information on each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table below. - 6 - 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- | 400,000 employers | submitted by 8.4 | ministrative records| | million establish- | submitted by 6.5 | | ments | million private-sec-| | | 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 feder-| establishments with | ing agriculture, pri- | al 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 | -7 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 annu- | new quarter of UI | dinal database and | ally realigns (bench- | data | directly summarizes | marks) sample esti- | | gross job gains and | mates to first quar- | | losses | ter UI levels -----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------ 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 |--Future expansions | | industry | will include data at| | | the county, MSA, and| | | state level and by | | | size of establish- | | | ment | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|-------------------------- 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 | -Future: Employment| cators | surveys | expansion and con- | | | traction by size of| | | establishment | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|-------------------------- Program |--www.bls.gov/cew/ |--www.bls.gov/bdm/ |--www.bls.gov/ces/ Web sites | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 7 - Coverage Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws and for federal civilian workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the SWAs by employers. In addition to the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the "Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on the location and industry of each of their establishments. The employment and wage data included in this release are derived from microdata summaries of more than 8 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS. These re- ports are based on place of employment rather than place of residence. UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable from state to state. In 2003, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 127.8 million jobs. The estimated 122.9 million workers in these jobs (after adjust- ment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $4.826 trillion in pay, representing 94.6 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 43.9 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 domes- tic 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. Effective January 1, 2004, the Washington Employment Security Department no longer includes as covered wages an em- ployee's income attributable to the transfer of shares of stock to the em- ployee. This change in wage coverage pertains to all establishments in Washington State and contributes significantly to over-the-year changes in wages in the state in 2004. Concepts and methodology Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who worked during or received pay for the pay period including the 12th of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of covered firms are reported, including pro- duction and sales workers, corporation officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. Workers on paid vacations and part-time workers also are included. Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels (all employees, as described above) and dividing the result by 13, for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made 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. Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time to part- time workers as well as the number of individuals in high-paying and low- paying occupations. When comparing average weekly wage levels between industries and/or states, these factors should be taken into consideration. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2003 quarterly data as the base data. Final data for 2003 may differ from pre- liminary data published earlier. - 8 - In order to insure the highest possible quality of data, states verify with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, and own- ership classification of all establishments on a 3-year cycle. Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this process are in- troduced with the data reported for the first quarter of the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also are introduced in the first quarter. These changes in classifications are partially adjusted for in order to im- prove the measure of economic change over time, as presented in this release. Some changes in classification reflect economic events, while other changes are simply the result of corrections and other noneconomic events. Changes of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county to another or changing its primary economic activity) are not adjusted for in the over-the- year change, because these changes are due to an actual event. But to the ex- tent possible, changes that are not economic in nature (such as a correction to a previously reported location or industry classification) are adjusted for in the measures of change presented in this release. The adjustment is made by reassigning year-ago data for establishments with noneconomic changes into the classification shown in the current data. The year-ago totals are then recreated reflecting this reassignment process. The adjusted year-ago data are then used to calculate the over- the-year change. The adjusted year-ago data differ to some extent from the data available on the BLS Web site. This process results in a more accurate presentation of change in local economic activity than what would result from the simple comparison of current and year-ago data points. 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 re- ferred to in this release are defined as census regions. Additional statistics and other information An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive infor- mation by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2002 is available for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The 2002 bulletin is now available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn02.htm. The 2003 annual bulletin will be published in early 2005. BLS also will make this bulletin available on the BLS Web site. 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(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties, second quarter 2004(2) Employment Average weekly wage(5) Establishments, second quarter Percent County(3) 2004 June Percent Ranking Average change, Ranking (thousands) 2004 change, by weekly second by (thousands) June percent wage quarter percent 2003-04(4) change 2003-04 change (4) United States(6)......... 8,363.3 130,638.4 1.2 - $724 3.1 - Jefferson, AL............ 18.5 370.2 0.4 210 720 2.7 178 Madison, AL.............. 7.8 164.3 2.5 71 788 3.0 150 Mobile, AL............... 9.6 162.1 -0.5 264 592 3.1 140 Montgomery, AL........... 6.6 132.1 1.9 100 629 3.3 122 Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.1 77.6 2.2 85 608 2.4 201 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.7 140.9 -2.2 306 788 3.7 82 Maricopa, AZ............. 80.3 1,599.1 3.0 57 733 3.5 103 Pima, AZ................. 17.5 330.1 3.6 41 650 3.2 130 Benton, AR............... 4.4 84.9 3.4 45 664 6.9 9 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.3 241.8 0.9 176 664 4.4 44 Washington, AR........... 5.0 86.4 2.9 60 587 5.4 27 Alameda, CA.............. 47.3 677.2 -1.3 294 957 3.6 93 Contra Costa, CA......... 27.2 341.4 -0.5 264 911 4.4 44 Fresno, CA............... 28.1 338.6 -1.3 294 581 4.5 42 Kern, CA................. 15.6 252.7 (7) - 631 (7) - Los Angeles, CA.......... 354.4 4,063.4 0.8 182 815 3.4 112 Marin, CA................ 11.7 112.0 1.0 170 917 2.8 170 Monterey, CA............. 11.8 180.6 -1.2 292 644 2.5 192 Orange, CA............... 89.2 1,479.1 3.9 38 826 2.9 164 Placer, CA............... 9.3 132.6 4.9 12 723 2.0 237 Riverside, CA............ 37.6 577.1 5.4 9 651 7.1 7 Sacramento, CA........... 45.8 611.3 0.8 182 806 3.1 140 San Bernardino, CA....... 41.0 604.4 4.2 23 649 1.7 249 San Diego, CA............ 85.1 1,281.5 1.8 106 786 3.7 82 San Francisco, CA........ 42.7 520.6 -1.0 285 1,100 4.4 44 San Joaquin, CA.......... 15.6 220.0 (7) - 630 3.8 80 San Luis Obispo, CA...... 8.6 102.6 -0.7 274 613 5.7 20 San Mateo, CA............ 22.7 328.9 -1.0 285 1,147 1.6 254 Santa Barbara, CA........ 13.0 185.7 0.1 230 687 4.2 56 Santa Clara, CA.......... 51.9 855.3 -0.5 264 1,288 5.1 30 Santa Cruz, CA........... 8.3 99.8 -2.2 306 691 5.0 33 Solano, CA............... 9.3 128.5 0.2 224 694 6.0 14 Sonoma, CA............... 17.0 195.7 0.9 176 718 2.6 186 Stanislaus, CA........... 12.9 172.6 0.5 202 617 3.7 82 Tulare, CA............... 8.5 (7) (7) - 522 5.0 33 Ventura, CA.............. 20.5 311.0 1.5 127 779 4.3 51 Yolo, CA................. 5.0 97.8 -0.7 274 689 6.0 14 Adams, CO................ 8.6 143.6 0.0 239 700 3.4 112 Arapahoe, CO............. 18.9 271.9 -0.1 245 862 0.5 295 Boulder, CO.............. 11.8 153.6 1.5 127 883 4.3 51 Denver, CO............... 24.3 426.1 0.4 210 887 4.6 41 El Paso, CO.............. 15.9 239.5 1.5 127 683 2.9 164 Jefferson, CO............ 18.0 206.8 0.1 230 740 1.5 264 Larimer, CO.............. 9.2 126.0 2.1 93 647 -0.9 307 Fairfield, CT............ 31.7 416.6 0.0 239 1,110 3.3 122 Hartford, CT............. 24.2 485.5 0.2 224 897 3.9 72 New Haven, CT............ 21.9 365.9 1.2 157 803 3.5 103 New London, CT........... 6.6 129.8 -0.9 279 787 5.1 30 New Castle, DE........... 19.0 282.6 1.0 170 860 3.1 140 Washington, DC........... 29.5 665.7 1.7 116 1,189 3.6 93 Alachua, FL.............. 6.0 121.7 1.7 116 583 4.1 67 Brevard, FL.............. 12.8 197.0 (7) - 715 (7) - Broward, FL.............. 58.2 691.9 1.8 106 706 3.5 103 Collier, FL.............. 10.6 113.5 4.5 18 655 5.5 23 Duval, FL................ 22.8 436.3 2.9 60 709 2.8 170 Escambia, FL............. 7.5 123.6 4.1 29 577 3.2 130 Hillsborough, FL......... 31.9 601.5 4.2 23 693 4.4 44 Lee, FL.................. 15.4 191.0 6.0 6 649 9.6 3 Leon, FL................. 7.4 139.8 1.5 127 638 4.4 44 Manatee, FL.............. 7.2 116.4 4.4 21 581 4.1 67 Marion, FL............... 6.6 89.7 5.1 10 551 4.2 56 Miami-Dade, FL........... 82.0 981.6 1.8 106 718 4.2 56 Okaloosa, FL............. 5.4 81.7 -1.1 290 588 7.3 6 Orange, FL............... 30.5 618.8 4.2 23 673 3.5 103 Palm Beach, FL........... 43.8 512.8 3.4 45 724 3.0 150 Pasco, FL................ 7.6 78.4 3.4 45 565 4.2 56 Pinellas, FL............. 28.8 433.3 4.1 29 640 2.1 226 Polk, FL................. 10.7 184.3 3.8 40 587 3.2 130 Sarasota, FL............. 13.3 150.0 4.7 15 636 6.5 12 Seminole, FL............. 12.4 152.9 5.8 7 654 3.2 130 Volusia, FL.............. 12.1 151.4 4.1 29 548 3.6 93 Bibb, GA................. 4.8 86.8 1.4 139 612 2.0 237 Chatham, GA.............. 7.1 126.9 2.2 85 610 2.9 164 Clayton, GA.............. 4.4 105.9 (7) - 805 3.6 93 Cobb, GA................. 20.1 297.1 0.4 210 815 4.2 56 De Kalb, GA.............. 17.2 291.9 0.3 217 806 3.7 82 Fulton, GA............... 37.8 725.9 1.4 139 940 2.2 219 Gwinnett, GA............. 21.7 305.6 3.3 48 760 -0.3 303 Muscogee, GA............. 4.8 96.3 -0.4 260 580 2.3 213 Richmond, GA............. 4.8 105.3 1.2 157 625 3.8 80 Honolulu, HI............. 24.0 427.4 2.1 93 675 2.7 178 Ada, ID.................. 13.1 189.4 3.3 48 669 3.2 130 Champaign, IL............ 3.9 90.4 1.1 164 614 1.7 249 Cook, IL................. 126.6 2,522.9 -0.3 256 860 3.0 150 Du Page, IL.............. 32.5 583.2 0.8 182 856 0.6 292 Kane, IL................. 11.0 205.1 2.4 76 663 1.1 277 Lake, IL................. 19.0 328.4 0.5 202 867 2.5 192 McHenry, IL.............. 7.5 98.3 3.2 52 646 2.2 219 McLean, IL............... 3.4 83.8 -0.9 279 755 3.6 93 Madison, IL.............. 5.6 95.4 -0.2 252 617 5.5 23 Peoria, IL............... 4.6 98.9 2.4 76 688 4.1 67 Rock Island, IL.......... 3.4 78.5 -0.5 264 725 8.5 5 St. Clair, IL............ 5.1 92.4 -0.5 264 592 4.2 56 Sangamon, IL............. 5.1 132.7 (7) - 724 (7) - Will, IL................. 10.7 164.0 3.3 48 674 0.9 286 Winnebago, IL............ 6.6 137.9 1.4 139 632 1.1 277 Allen, IN................ 8.7 177.4 1.4 139 648 1.4 270 Elkhart, IN.............. 4.8 126.6 7.6 2 663 6.8 10 Hamilton, IN............. 6.2 90.0 4.2 23 726 0.8 289 Lake, IN................. 9.9 192.6 -0.9 279 656 3.3 122 Marion, IN............... 23.6 580.5 0.8 182 769 5.9 17 St. Joseph, IN........... 6.0 125.5 1.4 139 627 1.1 277 Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.8 107.1 -1.5 297 625 4.2 56 Linn, IA................. 6.0 117.4 1.4 139 685 1.6 254 Polk, IA................. 14.2 263.9 2.2 85 711 2.7 178 Scott, IA................ 5.1 87.7 2.4 76 597 2.9 164 Johnson, KS.............. 18.7 298.7 1.9 100 751 2.3 213 Sedgwick, KS............. 11.5 239.6 0.3 217 670 3.4 112 Shawnee, KS.............. 4.7 95.5 -0.7 274 634 5.1 30 Fayette, KY.............. 8.7 167.7 1.4 139 670 3.1 140 Jefferson, KY............ 21.4 420.6 -0.1 245 726 4.9 35 Caddo, LA................ 7.0 121.5 2.1 93 632 5.2 28 Calcasieu, LA............ 4.6 82.3 -0.8 278 584 1.2 276 East Baton Rouge, LA..... 13.0 248.2 2.6 68 612 -0.5 305 Jefferson, LA............ 14.0 214.4 0.4 210 597 2.4 201 Lafayette, LA............ 7.5 119.3 -0.2 252 628 2.4 201 Orleans, LA.............. 12.5 252.4 0.5 202 676 2.4 201 Cumberland, ME........... 11.7 173.1 1.8 106 666 4.2 56 Anne Arundel, MD......... 13.4 215.8 2.2 85 760 2.4 201 Baltimore, MD............ 20.6 366.8 1.1 164 738 3.4 112 Frederick, MD............ 5.4 90.2 2.3 79 703 3.5 103 Howard, MD............... 7.9 140.0 0.3 217 830 3.5 103 Montgomery, MD........... 31.3 455.0 0.0 239 950 3.6 93 Prince Georges, MD....... 14.9 313.5 1.6 123 795 2.4 201 Baltimore City, MD....... 13.9 357.0 -2.1 304 841 4.5 42 Barnstable, MA........... 9.2 101.8 -0.2 252 654 6.0 14 Bristol, MA.............. 15.2 222.5 0.7 189 673 4.3 51 Essex, MA................ 20.6 299.9 -1.0 285 779 2.1 226 Hampden, MA.............. 14.0 202.1 -0.4 260 673 2.6 186 Middlesex, MA............ 47.9 787.8 -1.1 290 1,041 5.8 18 Norfolk, MA.............. 21.8 321.9 -0.7 274 883 3.2 130 Plymouth, MA............. 13.6 175.8 0.9 176 728 2.2 219 Suffolk, MA.............. 22.3 560.5 -0.5 264 1,163 11.8 1 Worcester, MA............ 20.3 321.6 0.6 194 767 3.9 72 Genesee, MI.............. 8.6 155.4 -0.3 256 695 2.1 226 Ingham, MI............... 7.0 168.1 -0.9 279 699 0.3 298 Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.5 116.3 -0.5 264 683 3.0 150 Kent, MI................. 14.6 336.8 1.3 151 675 0.0 300 Macomb, MI............... 18.0 328.4 0.6 194 808 1.6 254 Oakland, MI.............. 41.5 725.1 -1.4 296 890 1.6 254 Ottawa, MI............... 5.8 113.3 1.5 127 664 1.4 270 Saginaw, MI.............. 4.6 90.6 -1.6 299 669 1.1 277 Washtenaw, MI............ 8.2 192.9 0.1 230 835 1.8 244 Wayne, MI................ 35.1 797.6 -2.1 304 857 2.5 192 Anoka, MN................ 7.3 114.7 1.8 106 725 0.1 299 Dakota, MN............... 9.5 171.5 1.3 151 732 2.4 201 Hennepin, MN............. 40.0 832.0 0.7 189 916 3.0 150 Olmsted, MN.............. 3.3 88.8 1.6 123 754 -3.3 312 Ramsey, MN............... 14.7 331.3 0.4 210 848 4.2 56 St. Louis, MN............ 5.7 95.6 0.3 217 610 2.7 178 Stearns, MN.............. 4.1 78.0 1.1 164 597 2.2 219 Harrison, MS............. 4.5 90.2 0.2 224 525 0.6 292 Hinds, MS................ 6.5 130.8 1.0 170 635 1.1 277 Boone, MO................ 4.3 78.1 2.0 98 587 4.3 51 Clay, MO................. 4.9 87.7 0.6 194 675 0.4 296 Greene, MO............... 8.0 144.7 0.3 217 577 3.4 112 Jackson, MO.............. 18.7 366.0 -0.4 260 745 2.1 226 St. Charles, MO.......... 7.3 114.8 4.6 17 640 3.4 112 St. Louis, MO............ 33.7 621.2 -1.0 285 781 1.6 254 St. Louis City, MO....... 8.2 223.6 -2.6 308 805 1.8 244 Douglas, NE.............. 14.7 311.9 0.1 230 669 1.7 249 Lancaster, NE............ 7.5 153.4 1.9 100 601 2.2 219 Clark, NV................ 38.3 805.1 7.3 3 684 4.4 44 Washoe, NV............... 12.6 205.2 4.9 12 688 3.3 122 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.3 195.8 1.7 116 792 3.0 150 Rockingham, NH........... 10.7 136.9 2.5 71 721 3.6 93 Atlantic, NJ............. 6.5 150.2 2.2 85 665 2.6 186 Bergen, NJ............... 34.2 451.8 -0.1 245 914 2.1 226 Burlington, NJ........... 11.1 201.3 0.6 194 784 3.2 130 Camden, NJ............... 13.3 211.7 3.1 55 754 3.6 93 Essex, NJ................ 21.3 361.8 0.1 230 930 3.7 82 Gloucester, NJ........... 6.1 101.6 4.7 15 675 4.2 56 Hudson, NJ............... 13.8 233.8 0.0 239 948 5.7 20 Mercer, NJ............... 10.6 219.0 -1.5 297 896 1.6 254 Middlesex, NJ............ 20.6 396.4 1.2 157 914 3.9 72 Monmouth, NJ............. 19.8 260.6 2.9 60 797 1.8 244 Morris, NJ............... 17.6 285.3 1.2 157 1,044 1.5 264 Ocean, NJ................ 11.4 152.1 2.3 79 636 3.9 72 Passaic, NJ.............. 12.4 178.9 1.4 139 799 4.9 35 Somerset, NJ............. 9.9 168.7 (7) - 1,093 -5.2 313 Union, NJ................ 14.9 235.0 (7) - 912 (7) - Bernalillo, NM........... 16.6 317.0 2.5 71 649 2.4 201 Albany, NY............... 9.5 229.3 0.5 202 762 2.6 186 Bronx, NY................ 15.3 217.3 0.5 202 715 3.3 122 Broome, NY............... 4.4 96.3 0.5 202 588 -0.2 302 Dutchess, NY............. 7.8 117.2 -0.5 264 (7) (7) - Erie, NY................. 23.3 455.8 -0.5 264 653 4.3 51 Kings, NY................ 41.9 446.0 0.6 194 652 4.2 56 Monroe, NY............... 17.7 386.6 -0.1 245 738 1.0 284 Nassau, NY............... 50.5 608.0 0.9 176 825 3.0 150 New York, NY............. 112.3 2,225.0 0.6 194 1,300 3.9 72 Oneida, NY............... 5.3 110.7 0.2 224 573 2.5 192 Onondaga, NY............. 12.6 249.8 0.7 189 691 3.0 150 Orange, NY............... 9.2 128.5 1.4 139 652 3.3 122 Queens, NY............... 40.1 474.8 -1.0 285 738 1.5 264 Richmond, NY............. 8.0 89.4 0.6 194 671 4.0 70 Rockland, NY............. 9.3 113.4 0.9 176 801 3.4 112 Suffolk, NY.............. 47.6 614.3 1.2 157 782 2.8 170 Westchester, NY.......... 35.2 415.0 0.8 182 978 5.8 18 Buncombe, NC............. 6.9 106.3 1.5 127 567 3.5 103 Catawba, NC.............. 4.3 87.2 1.9 100 572 3.1 140 Cumberland, NC........... 5.6 111.7 2.2 85 563 2.7 178 Durham, NC............... 6.2 166.6 2.3 79 916 2.3 213 Forsyth, NC.............. 8.4 174.5 0.0 239 679 0.9 286 Guilford, NC............. 13.7 268.7 1.5 127 662 2.8 170 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 27.2 505.8 0.5 202 835 3.2 130 New Hanover, NC.......... 6.4 90.1 1.8 106 590 3.7 82 Wake, NC................. 23.3 392.5 3.3 48 734 2.7 178 Cass, ND................. 5.4 89.3 3.1 55 590 3.9 72 Butler, OH............... 6.8 134.7 2.6 68 674 6.1 13 Cuyahoga, OH............. 38.2 764.5 -0.3 256 757 3.4 112 Franklin, OH............. 28.9 686.4 0.3 217 733 2.5 192 Hamilton, OH............. 24.4 547.7 0.0 239 782 3.7 82 Lake, OH................. 6.7 101.0 1.5 127 604 -1.6 309 Lorain, OH............... 6.1 103.3 0.1 230 636 2.4 201 Lucas, OH................ 10.8 228.0 -0.1 245 668 1.4 270 Mahoning, OH............. 6.4 106.9 0.6 194 547 2.4 201 Montgomery, OH........... 13.1 285.9 -1.2 292 697 2.3 213 Stark, OH................ 9.1 167.6 -0.6 273 584 1.9 240 Summit, OH............... 14.7 267.8 2.2 85 684 3.0 150 Trumbull, OH............. 4.8 85.0 -3.4 309 671 5.2 28 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.6 403.0 1.5 127 635 2.6 186 Tulsa, OK................ 18.2 319.6 0.1 230 649 1.6 254 Clackamas, OR............ 11.5 141.9 4.2 23 686 1.8 244 Jackson, OR.............. 6.3 80.3 4.0 36 569 3.5 103 Lane, OR................. 10.5 141.8 2.9 60 595 2.4 201 Marion, OR............... 8.5 136.4 3.9 38 587 1.7 249 Multnomah, OR............ 25.7 424.5 2.1 93 752 2.6 186 Washington, OR........... 14.6 227.7 2.5 71 844 6.6 11 Allegheny, PA............ 37.4 700.5 -0.1 245 759 3.0 150 Berks, PA................ 8.9 163.5 1.8 106 671 1.1 277 Bucks, PA................ 20.1 261.3 1.9 100 724 3.6 93 Chester, PA.............. 14.4 225.6 1.5 127 932 4.4 44 Cumberland, PA........... 5.7 127.7 1.6 123 707 3.4 112 Dauphin, PA.............. 6.9 176.9 0.8 182 726 4.8 40 Delaware, PA............. 13.8 209.8 -0.9 279 761 1.3 274 Erie, PA................. 7.3 128.4 1.3 151 585 3.2 130 Lackawanna, PA........... 5.7 99.1 1.4 139 566 2.5 192 Lancaster, PA............ 11.7 228.2 1.5 127 636 2.1 226 Lehigh, PA............... 8.3 176.7 1.0 170 723 3.0 150 Luzerne, PA.............. 8.0 143.3 0.4 210 591 2.8 170 Montgomery, PA........... 27.8 485.0 0.3 217 887 3.6 93 Northampton, PA.......... 6.1 92.2 1.4 139 651 2.7 178 Philadelphia, PA......... 28.4 627.2 -1.7 302 838 3.1 140 Westmoreland, PA......... 9.6 137.8 3.0 57 595 3.1 140 York, PA................. 8.4 168.1 2.3 79 645 2.9 164 Kent, RI................. 5.6 82.6 2.5 71 669 -1.0 308 Providence, RI........... 17.8 288.9 -0.3 256 713 4.9 35 Charleston, SC........... 11.7 194.9 3.6 41 597 0.7 291 Greenville, SC........... 12.1 223.8 0.2 224 642 2.1 226 Horry, SC................ 7.9 113.1 4.4 21 476 1.9 240 Lexington, SC............ 5.4 86.8 1.8 106 573 5.5 23 Richland, SC............. 9.3 206.4 2.0 98 629 2.4 201 Spartanburg, SC.......... 6.2 115.6 0.9 176 686 8.7 4 Minnehaha, SD............ 6.0 110.8 1.6 123 606 3.4 112 Davidson, TN............. 17.8 424.3 -0.2 252 722 4.0 70 Hamilton, TN............. 8.3 184.2 0.4 210 642 0.6 292 Knox, TN................. 10.3 216.0 1.8 106 627 2.8 170 Rutherford, TN........... 3.6 89.7 8.5 1 680 0.4 296 Shelby, TN............... 19.8 497.3 0.1 230 735 3.5 103 Bell, TX................. 4.2 91.2 3.6 41 553 1.3 274 Bexar, TX................ 29.7 661.8 0.7 189 636 5.5 23 Brazoria, TX............. 4.1 76.3 0.8 182 684 3.0 150 Brazos, TX............... 3.5 75.8 3.0 57 519 1.6 254 Cameron, TX.............. 6.1 116.5 1.2 157 452 2.3 213 Collin, TX............... 12.6 207.8 6.8 5 803 1.9 240 Dallas, TX............... 67.8 1,431.1 0.1 230 886 3.9 72 Denton, TX............... 8.4 131.8 2.8 66 616 1.5 264 El Paso, TX.............. 12.4 251.7 1.5 127 524 2.7 178 Fort Bend, TX............ 6.4 102.0 4.0 36 710 1.4 270 Galveston, TX............ 4.8 88.3 -1.8 303 639 3.7 82 Harris, TX............... 89.6 1,839.4 0.5 202 847 3.2 130 Hidalgo, TX.............. 9.3 188.2 4.1 29 457 2.9 164 Jefferson, TX............ 5.8 117.0 0.2 224 653 2.5 192 Lubbock, TX.............. 6.5 117.5 2.2 85 535 0.9 286 McLennan, TX............. 4.7 99.5 1.7 116 569 1.6 254 Montgomery, TX........... 6.3 91.3 4.1 29 640 2.1 226 Nueces, TX............... 8.0 144.7 1.3 151 590 3.1 140 Potter, TX............... 3.9 77.4 1.9 100 556 1.6 254 Smith, TX................ 4.9 86.9 2.7 67 624 4.9 35 Tarrant, TX.............. 33.8 700.2 1.0 170 742 2.1 226 Travis, TX............... 25.0 516.7 2.1 93 801 1.1 277 Webb, TX................. 4.3 78.6 3.2 52 486 2.3 213 Williamson, TX........... 5.0 85.8 2.3 79 718 -2.7 311 Davis, UT................ 6.2 95.7 4.8 14 590 2.8 170 Salt Lake, UT............ 34.0 521.2 1.7 116 671 3.7 82 Utah, UT................. 10.9 151.5 5.7 8 550 0.0 300 Weber, UT................ 5.3 87.5 1.7 116 551 2.2 219 Chittenden, VT........... 5.7 96.5 1.3 151 722 2.8 170 Arlington, VA............ 6.9 157.0 (7) - 1,170 7.1 7 Chesterfield, VA......... 6.7 114.7 3.2 52 650 1.7 249 Fairfax, VA.............. 29.8 550.0 4.5 18 1,085 3.7 82 Henrico, VA.............. 8.3 167.8 1.2 157 745 1.8 244 Loudoun, VA.............. 6.3 114.2 4.1 29 926 -0.8 306 Prince William, VA....... 5.9 98.2 6.9 4 649 3.0 150 Alexandria City, VA...... 5.7 93.0 -0.1 245 930 3.3 122 Chesapeake City, VA...... 4.8 93.5 5.0 11 576 2.5 192 Newport News City, VA.... 3.7 99.0 2.9 60 663 3.3 122 Norfolk City, VA......... 5.6 145.4 1.1 164 699 1.0 284 Richmond City, VA........ 6.9 159.4 0.7 189 829 5.7 20 Virginia Beach City, VA.. 10.6 175.0 3.5 44 562 3.7 82 Clark, WA................ 10.2 121.5 4.5 18 668 1.5 264 King, WA................. 76.0 1,099.4 1.0 170 932 -2.0 310 Kitsap, WA............... 6.1 80.8 4.1 29 667 4.9 35 Pierce, WA............... 19.3 251.8 2.9 60 706 9.8 2 Snohomish, WA............ 15.9 212.4 1.8 106 731 0.8 289 Spokane, WA.............. 14.4 195.2 1.1 164 591 3.1 140 Thurston, WA............. 6.2 92.7 2.6 68 660 1.5 264 Yakima, WA............... 8.1 107.3 4.2 23 491 2.1 226 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.2 109.1 -0.4 260 645 3.0 150 Brown, WI................ 6.8 148.0 1.4 139 660 2.0 237 Dane, WI................. 13.7 289.6 1.7 116 722 2.1 226 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.2 496.4 -1.6 299 726 3.9 72 Outagamie, WI............ 4.9 102.0 2.3 79 637 3.1 140 Racine, WI............... 4.3 76.4 -0.9 279 674 -0.3 303 Waukesha, WI............. 13.5 228.8 1.1 164 737 1.9 240 Winnebago, WI............ 4.0 87.0 -1.6 299 687 2.5 192 San Juan, PR............. 13.2 321.5 1.3 151 469 2.2 219 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. These 317 U.S. counties comprise 70.3 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. Table 2. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties, second quarter 2004(2) Employment Average weekly wage(4) Establishments, second quarter County by NAICS supersector 2004 Percent Percent (thousands) June change, Average change, 2004 June weekly second (thousands) 2003-04(3) wage quarter 2003-04(3) United States(5)............................. 8,363.3 130,638.4 1.2 $724 3.1 Private industry........................... 8,092.2 109,709.6 1.4 713 3.2 Natural resources and mining............. 122.5 1,811.3 0.5 650 5.3 Construction............................. 817.2 7,095.7 3.4 748 2.2 Manufacturing............................ 371.7 14,346.2 -1.3 883 3.6 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 1,854.3 25,293.5 1.1 634 2.8 Information.............................. 143.5 3,107.5 -2.4 1,105 3.3 Financial activities..................... 780.2 7,917.8 0.4 1,039 4.4 Professional and business services....... 1,333.2 16,431.9 3.3 859 3.5 Education and health services............ 742.5 16,043.8 2.1 676 3.4 Leisure and hospitality.................. 676.8 12,966.3 2.4 308 3.0 Other services........................... 1,064.0 4,347.9 0.0 472 3.1 Government................................. 271.1 20,928.8 0.0 781 2.6 Los Angeles, CA.............................. 354.4 4,063.4 0.8 815 3.4 Private industry........................... 350.6 3,474.6 1.3 797 3.9 Natural resources and mining............. 0.6 12.0 1.8 863 0.9 Construction............................. 13.0 140.2 5.4 804 3.6 Manufacturing............................ 17.3 484.3 -3.4 834 6.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 53.7 771.3 1.5 694 2.8 Information.............................. 8.9 210.5 3.8 1,365 7.6 Financial activities..................... 22.9 236.1 0.7 1,227 7.1 Professional and business services....... 39.8 567.1 2.0 917 0.7 Education and health services............ 26.9 451.1 0.9 735 2.9 Leisure and hospitality.................. 25.5 375.5 2.8 486 5.2 Other services........................... 141.6 224.7 2.6 399 0.8 Government................................. 3.8 588.8 -1.8 923 1.9 Cook, IL..................................... 126.6 2,522.9 -0.3 860 3.0 Private industry........................... 125.3 2,200.3 0.1 849 2.5 Natural resources and mining............. 0.1 1.4 -5.0 901 3.7 Construction............................. 10.6 98.4 -1.7 1,045 2.6 Manufacturing............................ 7.6 258.1 -2.7 891 4.6 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 26.5 479.2 0.9 712 2.4 Information.............................. 2.5 63.1 -4.3 1,160 5.5 Financial activities..................... 14.0 217.6 -0.5 1,340 4.3 Professional and business services....... 25.9 406.9 1.5 1,042 -0.4 Education and health services............ 12.4 347.5 1.1 735 3.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.6 227.5 1.2 373 4.5 Other services........................... 12.7 95.5 -2.4 634 4.8 Government................................. 1.2 322.7 (6) 934 (6) New York, NY................................. 112.3 2,225.0 0.6 1,300 3.9 Private industry........................... 112.1 1,773.6 0.8 1,392 3.6 Natural resources and mining............. 0.0 0.1 1.1 1,204 2.5 Construction............................. 2.1 28.9 -3.7 1,296 2.9 Manufacturing............................ 3.3 46.1 -1.7 1,018 4.6 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 21.6 232.9 1.2 1,003 3.9 Information.............................. 4.2 124.9 -5.7 1,689 7.0 Financial activities..................... 16.6 350.8 -0.1 2,404 5.0 Professional and business services....... 22.3 434.8 2.0 1,526 0.9 Education and health services............ 8.0 270.3 1.0 870 5.5 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.1 190.5 3.9 655 5.8 Other services........................... 16.1 82.1 -0.2 786 5.1 Government................................. 0.2 451.4 0.0 938 5.5 Harris, TX................................... 89.6 1,839.4 0.5 847 3.2 Private industry........................... 89.2 1,597.4 0.4 859 3.2 Natural resources and mining............. 1.2 63.3 2.3 2,052 9.9 Construction............................. 6.3 131.8 -7.6 833 6.0 Manufacturing............................ 4.6 164.3 -1.3 1,071 1.8 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 21.0 389.4 0.6 786 0.6 Information.............................. 1.4 34.1 -1.9 1,044 1.6 Financial activities..................... 9.7 114.2 2.1 1,047 2.9 Professional and business services....... 17.2 286.9 2.2 946 4.1 Education and health services............ 9.0 187.2 0.9 743 3.5 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.6 163.8 1.6 319 1.3 Other services........................... 10.4 57.7 -0.1 505 0.8 Government................................. 0.4 242.0 1.6 765 2.8 Maricopa, AZ................................. 80.3 1,599.1 3.0 733 3.5 Private industry........................... 79.8 1,410.7 3.7 716 3.6 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 11.0 1.4 472 1.7 Construction............................. 8.4 138.3 8.4 725 2.7 Manufacturing............................ 3.2 128.4 0.2 991 3.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 18.5 327.7 3.9 710 4.1 Information.............................. 1.6 35.5 -5.6 863 2.1 Financial activities..................... 9.6 135.1 1.4 901 2.7 Professional and business services....... 17.9 267.0 5.2 713 4.2 Education and health services............ 7.7 164.5 5.9 762 4.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.6 155.8 2.3 346 3.6 Other services........................... 5.7 45.1 3.3 493 2.3 Government................................. 0.5 188.4 -1.9 843 3.3 Dallas, TX................................... 67.8 1,431.1 0.1 886 3.9 Private industry........................... 67.4 1,276.2 0.2 896 3.9 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 6.5 6.7 2,278 -7.3 Construction............................. 4.4 75.0 -1.2 818 2.0 Manufacturing............................ 3.4 145.9 0.0 1,013 2.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 15.6 307.9 -0.5 864 4.2 Information.............................. 1.8 60.4 -6.2 1,246 7.4 Financial activities..................... 8.7 139.3 0.7 1,128 3.8 Professional and business services....... 13.8 240.0 1.9 1,010 5.3 Education and health services............ 6.1 130.0 1.4 794 3.1 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.0 126.6 0.5 403 5.2 Other services........................... 6.7 41.3 -3.4 544 0.9 Government................................. 0.5 154.9 -1.2 802 2.8 Orange, CA................................... 89.2 1,479.1 3.9 826 2.9 Private industry........................... 87.8 1,327.9 4.3 817 3.0 Natural resources and mining............. 0.2 8.1 -1.7 512 2.8 Construction............................. 6.6 93.8 8.3 865 2.7 Manufacturing............................ 6.0 184.2 -0.8 973 6.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 17.3 266.0 2.0 781 2.8 Information.............................. 1.5 33.8 -0.4 1,146 5.0 Financial activities..................... 9.9 134.8 7.2 1,296 4.9 Professional and business services....... 17.5 261.9 8.5 832 -1.1 Education and health services............ 9.2 129.3 4.3 746 2.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.7 167.9 4.4 360 2.3 Other services........................... 12.9 47.6 4.0 500 2.5 Government................................. 1.4 151.2 0.5 904 1.6 San Diego, CA................................ 85.1 1,281.5 1.8 786 3.7 Private industry........................... 83.7 1,062.2 2.5 767 3.9 Natural resources and mining............. 0.9 11.9 -1.9 512 8.2 Construction............................. 6.6 87.0 9.0 800 1.9 Manufacturing............................ 3.6 105.5 -1.0 1,050 5.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 14.1 212.9 4.2 657 4.0 Information.............................. 1.4 36.5 -2.2 1,527 14.6 Financial activities..................... 8.9 80.4 0.9 1,029 2.0 Professional and business services....... 14.8 207.3 3.7 918 3.0 Education and health services............ 7.6 120.2 0.8 711 4.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.6 147.8 2.4 343 3.0 Other services........................... 19.1 52.2 -0.6 436 2.8 Government................................. 1.4 219.3 -1.7 876 3.3 King, WA..................................... 76.0 1,099.4 1.0 932 -2.0 Private industry........................... 75.5 945.5 1.2 940 -2.8 Natural resources and mining............. 0.4 3.4 5.0 1,038 -8.9 Construction............................. 6.1 55.9 1.7 875 1.0 Manufacturing............................ 2.6 102.0 -2.4 1,140 4.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 14.7 217.5 1.3 798 4.9 Information.............................. 1.5 67.6 -0.1 2,212 -20.9 Financial activities..................... 6.1 75.6 -1.1 1,072 -1.1 Professional and business services....... 11.9 159.9 4.2 1,062 -1.7 Education and health services............ 6.0 111.1 3.4 728 4.4 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.5 105.6 3.4 398 4.7 Other services........................... 20.7 46.8 -6.0 469 8.1 Government................................. 0.5 153.9 -0.1 882 3.0 Miami-Dade, FL............................... 82.0 981.6 1.8 718 4.2 Private industry........................... 81.7 828.0 2.0 686 4.1 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 8.9 4.0 412 7.9 Construction............................. 5.1 40.8 2.7 756 7.2 Manufacturing............................ 2.8 50.6 -1.8 690 11.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 23.5 237.6 -0.7 651 3.3 Information.............................. 1.7 26.3 -3.6 1,039 9.7 Financial activities..................... 8.6 66.6 2.1 972 4.2 Professional and business services....... 16.1 135.5 5.9 795 1.0 Education and health services............ 8.0 125.2 1.9 701 3.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.4 96.2 5.1 401 6.1 Other services........................... 7.6 35.3 -0.4 439 3.8 Government................................. 0.3 153.6 1.0 890 4.6 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. Table 3. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by state, second quarter 2004(2) Employment Average weekly wage(5) Establishments, second quarter County(3) 2004 Percent Percent (thousands) June change, Average change, 2004 June weekly second (thousands) 2003-04(4) wage quarter 2003-04(4) United States(6)......... 8,363.3 130,638.4 1.2 $724 3.1 Jefferson, AL............ 18.5 370.2 0.4 720 2.7 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.7 140.9 -2.2 788 3.7 Maricopa, AZ............. 80.3 1,599.1 3.0 733 3.5 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.3 241.8 0.9 664 4.4 Los Angeles, CA.......... 354.4 4,063.4 0.8 815 3.4 Denver, CO............... 24.3 426.1 0.4 887 4.6 Hartford, CT............. 24.2 485.5 0.2 897 3.9 New Castle, DE........... 19.0 282.6 1.0 860 3.1 Washington, DC........... 29.5 665.7 1.7 1,189 3.6 Miami-Dade, FL........... 82.0 981.6 1.8 718 4.2 Fulton, GA............... 37.8 725.9 1.4 940 2.2 Honolulu, HI............. 24.0 427.4 2.1 675 2.7 Ada, ID.................. 13.1 189.4 3.3 669 3.2 Cook, IL................. 126.6 2,522.9 -0.3 860 3.0 Marion, IN............... 23.6 580.5 0.8 769 5.9 Polk, IA................. 14.2 263.9 2.2 711 2.7 Johnson, KS.............. 18.7 298.7 1.9 751 2.3 Jefferson, KY............ 21.4 420.6 -0.1 726 4.9 Orleans, LA.............. 12.5 252.4 0.5 676 2.4 Cumberland, ME........... 11.7 173.1 1.8 666 4.2 Montgomery, MD........... 31.3 455.0 0.0 950 3.6 Middlesex, MA............ 47.9 787.8 -1.1 1,041 5.8 Wayne, MI................ 35.1 797.6 -2.1 857 2.5 Hennepin, MN............. 40.0 832.0 0.7 916 3.0 Hinds, MS................ 6.5 130.8 1.0 635 1.1 St. Louis, MO............ 33.7 621.2 -1.0 781 1.6 Yellowstone, MT.......... 5.7 71.7 2.8 579 1.2 Douglas, NE.............. 14.7 311.9 0.1 669 1.7 Clark, NV................ 38.3 805.1 7.3 684 4.4 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.3 195.8 1.7 792 3.0 Bergen, NJ............... 34.2 451.8 -0.1 914 2.1 Bernalillo, NM........... 16.6 317.0 2.5 649 2.4 New York, NY............. 112.3 2,225.0 0.6 1,300 3.9 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 27.2 505.8 0.5 835 3.2 Cass, ND................. 5.4 89.3 3.1 590 3.9 Cuyahoga, OH............. 38.2 764.5 -0.3 757 3.4 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.6 403.0 1.5 635 2.6 Multnomah, OR............ 25.7 424.5 2.1 752 2.6 Allegheny, PA............ 37.4 700.5 -0.1 759 3.0 Providence, RI........... 17.8 288.9 -0.3 713 4.9 Greenville, SC........... 12.1 223.8 0.2 642 2.1 Minnehaha, SD............ 6.0 110.8 1.6 606 3.4 Shelby, TN............... 19.8 497.3 0.1 735 3.5 Harris, TX............... 89.6 1,839.4 0.5 847 3.2 Salt Lake, UT............ 34.0 521.2 1.7 671 3.7 Chittenden, VT........... 5.7 96.5 1.3 722 2.8 Fairfax, VA.............. 29.8 550.0 4.5 1,085 3.7 King, WA................. 76.0 1,099.4 1.0 932 -2.0 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.2 109.1 -0.4 645 3.0 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.2 496.4 -1.6 726 3.9 Laramie, WY.............. 2.9 40.6 1.7 572 3.2 San Juan, PR............. 13.2 321.5 1.3 469 2.2 St. Thomas, VI........... 1.7 23.0 -0.4 584 1.7 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. Table 4. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages by state, second quarter 2004(2) Employment Average weekly wage(3) Establishments, second quarter State 2004 Percent Percent (thousands) June change, Average change, 2004 June weekly second (thousands) 2003-04 wage quarter 2003-04 United States(4)......... 8,363.3 130,638.4 1.2 $724 3.1 Alabama.................. 113.7 1,858.5 1.6 619 2.7 Alaska................... 20.1 306.4 0.2 736 1.8 Arizona.................. 126.4 2,302.9 3.3 694 3.3 Arkansas................. 75.8 1,138.6 1.6 568 3.8 California............... 1,181.3 15,145.4 0.8 818 3.5 Colorado................. 162.6 2,171.6 1.3 744 2.8 Connecticut.............. 109.2 1,658.1 0.4 906 3.5 Delaware................. 28.7 417.8 2.1 774 3.3 District of Columbia..... 29.5 665.7 1.7 1,189 3.6 Florida.................. 523.4 7,387.6 3.1 656 4.0 Georgia.................. 251.9 3,858.8 1.9 700 2.5 Hawaii................... 36.7 585.4 2.6 652 2.8 Idaho.................... 48.9 606.8 2.9 555 3.2 Illinois................. 327.3 5,777.5 0.1 771 2.8 Indiana.................. 152.5 2,874.2 1.2 646 3.7 Iowa..................... 91.6 1,449.9 1.4 591 3.3 Kansas................... 81.9 1,312.3 1.0 608 2.9 Kentucky................. 105.9 1,744.9 0.9 628 3.3 Louisiana................ 115.9 1,884.8 0.8 592 2.1 Maine.................... 48.9 613.6 1.3 587 3.2 Maryland................. 153.7 2,491.6 0.8 787 3.6 Massachusetts............ 209.6 3,192.4 -0.4 899 5.9 Michigan................. 253.9 4,365.4 -0.6 743 1.6 Minnesota................ 156.1 2,660.1 1.1 743 2.8 Mississippi.............. 66.2 1,109.3 1.2 534 2.5 Missouri................. 167.4 2,668.8 0.6 651 1.9 Montana.................. 42.5 418.5 3.4 528 1.3 Nebraska................. 55.1 895.9 0.9 579 2.5 Nevada................... 62.7 1,146.9 6.5 685 4.1 New Hampshire............ 47.2 624.7 1.5 717 3.5 New Jersey............... 265.7 3,960.4 0.8 872 2.5 New Mexico............... 50.4 770.6 2.3 596 2.9 New York................. 554.9 8,383.0 0.5 879 3.4 North Carolina........... 229.5 3,791.3 1.6 638 2.7 North Dakota............. 24.2 326.5 2.3 539 4.5 Ohio..................... 286.9 5,359.0 0.3 672 2.8 Oklahoma................. 92.4 1,423.2 1.0 578 2.3 Oregon................... 121.2 1,635.8 3.1 670 2.9 Pennsylvania............. 333.2 5,576.5 0.6 710 3.0 Rhode Island............. 34.9 486.7 0.8 694 3.3 South Carolina........... 111.8 1,811.8 1.4 595 3.1 South Dakota............. 28.4 381.7 1.9 525 3.6 Tennessee................ 129.6 2,649.5 1.6 647 2.9 Texas.................... 508.6 9,344.0 1.2 706 2.8 Utah..................... 75.3 1,081.2 3.3 603 2.6 Vermont.................. 24.2 302.0 1.2 634 4.3 Virginia................. 205.5 3,545.1 2.7 745 3.6 Washington............... 209.5 2,759.8 2.2 750 0.4 West Virginia............ 47.7 693.7 1.1 589 2.8 Wisconsin................ 159.8 2,762.9 0.6 644 2.7 Wyoming.................. 22.6 259.2 2.6 586 4.1 Puerto Rico.............. 51.7 1,041.1 1.8 407 2.3 Virgin Islands........... 3.2 42.7 2.2 616 2.7 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.