Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 04-1200 http://www.bls.gov/cew/ For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT Media contact: 691-5902 Thursday, July 8, 2004 (This release was reissued on Tuesday, August 31, 2004, to correct data in the second column of table A and in the release text associated with table A. See page 5 for corrections to data from prior releases.) COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FOURTH QUARTER 2003 In December 2003, Clark County, Nev., and Loudoun County, Va., had the largest over-the-year percentage increases 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. Clark and Loudoun counties experienced over-the-year employment gains of 5.2 percent each, compared with zero job growth in the nation. Collier County, Fla., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the fourth quarter of 2003, with an increase of 9.7 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.6 percent over the same time span. Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 171 had over-the-year growth in employment and 137 experienced declines in employment, while the national average employment level was unchanged. Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 166 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 144 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 8.3 million employer reports cover 129.3 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation and for the 315 U.S. counties with employment levels of 75,000 or more. 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.) December 2003 employment and 2003 fourth-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, MSAs, coun- ties, and the nation through the third quarter of 2003 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the fourth quarter of 2003 and revised data for the first, second, and third quarters of 2003 will be available later in July on the BLS Web site. Large County Employment The national employment total in December 2003 was 129.3 million, un- changed from December 2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.5 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.6 percent of total wages. These 315 counties had a net job loss of 26,708 over the year. The biggest gains in employment from December 2002 to December 2003 were recorded in the counties of Clark, Nev. (38,500) Orange, Calif. (18,600), Riverside, Calif. (16,500), San Diego, Calif. (15,900), and Fairfax, Va. (15,300). (See table A.) - 2 - Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by December 2003 employment, December 2002-03 employment change, and December 2002-03 percent change in employment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment in large counties --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | December 2003 employment | Net change in employment, | Percent change (thousands) | December 2002-03 | in employment, | (thousands) | December 2002-03 ---------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------ U.S. 129,341.5|U.S. -37.3|U.S. 0.0 ---------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------ Los Angeles, Calif. 4,075.3|Clark, Nev. 38.5|Clark, Nev. 5.2 Cook, Ill. 2,539.8|Orange, Calif. 18.6|Loudoun, Va. 5.2 New York, N.Y. 2,253.6|Riverside, Calif. 16.5|Prince William, Va. 5.1 Harris, Texas 1,841.5|San Diego, Calif. 15.9|Rutherford, Tenn. 4.6 Maricopa, Ariz. 1,621.2|Fairfax, Va. 15.3|Hidalgo, Texas 4.4 Dallas, Texas 1,450.8|San Bernardino, Calif. 14.7|Montgomery, Texas 4.3 Orange, Calif. 1,436.6|Pinellas, Fla. 10.0|Placer, Calif. 4.3 San Diego, Calif. 1,278.2|Wake, N.C. 8.9|Chesapeake City, Va. 4.2 King, Wash. 1,100.6|Gwinnett, Ga. 8.2|Lee, Fla. 3.9 Miami-Dade, Fla. 980.8|Orange, Fla. 8.0|Frederick, Md. 3.8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment increased in 171 counties from December 2002 to December 2003. Clark County, Nev., and Loudoun County, Va., had the largest over- the-year percentage increases in employment (5.2 percent each). Prince William County, Va., had the next largest increase, 5.1 percent, followed by the counties of Rutherford, Tenn. (4.6 percent), and Hidalgo, Texas (4.4 percent). (See table 1.) Employment declined in 137 counties from December 2002 to December 2003. The largest percentage decline in employment was in San Mateo County, Calif. (-4.7 percent), followed by the counties of Sangamon, Ill. (-3.9 percent), Santa Clara, Calif. (-3.4 percent), Tulsa, Okla. (-3.0 percent), and Shawnee, Kan. (-2.9 percent). The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Cook County, Ill., (-30,800), followed by the counties of Santa Clara, Calif. (-30,500), New York, N.Y. (-21,900), Dallas, Texas (-20,700), and Middlesex, Mass (-20,400). Large County Average Weekly Wages The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2003 was $767, which was 3.6 percent higher than in the fourth quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 109 of the largest 315 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,480. Santa Clara County, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,333, followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,308), Suffolk, Mass. ($1,245), and Washing- ton, D.C. ($1,238). (See table B.) Collier County, Fla., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 9.7 percent. Madison County, Ill., was second with 8.8 percent growth, followed by the counties of Washington, Ore. (8.5 percent), Genesee, Mich. (8.0 percent), and Peoria, Ill. (7.6 percent). - 3 - Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by fourth quarter 2003 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2002-03 change in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2002-03 percent change in average weekly wages ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Average weekly wage in large counties ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Average weekly wage, | Change in average weekly| Percent change in fourth quarter 2003 | wage, fourth quarter | average weekly wage, | 2002-03 | fourth quarter 2002-03 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. $767|U.S. $27|U.S. 3.6 ---------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------ New York, N.Y. $1,480|New York, N.Y. $99|Collier, Fla. 9.7 Santa Clara, Calif. 1,333|Santa Clara, Calif. 86|Madison, Ill. 8.8 Fairfield, Conn. 1,308|Suffolk, Mass. 75|Washington, Ore. 8.5 Suffolk, Mass. 1,245|Fairfax, Va. 70|Genesee, Mich. 8.0 Washington, D.C. 1,238|Washington, Ore. 70|Peoria, Ill. 7.6 San Mateo, Calif. 1,234|San Mateo, Calif. 67|Okaloosa, Fla. 7.5 Arlington, Va. 1,199|Collier, Fla. 62|Norfolk City, Va. 7.3 San Francisco, Calif. 1,178|Philadelphia, Pa. 61|New York, N.Y. 7.2 Somerset, N.J. 1,159|Genesee, Mich. 59|Philadelphia, Pa. 7.2 Fairfax, Va. 1,158|Hudson, N.J. 56|Richmond, N.Y. 7.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There were 206 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($480), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($487), Yakima, Wash. ($515), Horry, S.C. ($523), and Brazos, Texas ($537). (See table 1.) Six large counties experienced declines in average weekly wages. Broome County, N.Y., and Olmsted County, Minn., had the largest decreases, -3.3 per- cent each, followed by the counties of Hamilton, Ind. (-1.5 percent), Arapa- hoe, Colo. (-1.3 percent), and Santa Cruz, Calif. (-1.2 percent). Ten Largest U.S. Counties Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 employment levels), 3 re- ported increases in employment, while declines occurred in 6 from December 2002 to December 2003. Orange County, Calif., and San Diego County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a 1.3 percent increase each. Orange County showed employment gains in every private industry supersector, except manufacturing and information. San Diego County had a similar experience, but also reported a decline in the natural resources and mining supersector. Government employment in Orange County declined by 5.7 percent, whereas government employment in San Diego County increased by 0.1 percent. (See table 2.) King County, Wash., had the next largest increase in employment, 0.2 percent. The largest decline in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, -1.4 percent. The next largest declines in employment were recorded in Cook County, Ill., -1.2 percent, and in New York County, N.Y., -1.0 percent. All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York County, N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 7.2 percent rate. New York County's fastest growing supersectors were financial activities, where the average weekly wage rose by 16.1 percent, and information, with a 7.9 per- cent increase. Orange County, Calif., was second in wage growth, increasing by 5.3 percent, followed by Dallas County, Texas, where the average wage in- creased by 4.3 percent. King County, Wash., experienced the smallest in- crease in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, rising by only 0.2 percent, primarily due to wage decreases in the information supersector. This was followed by Harris County, Texas, and San Diego County, Calif., with increases in average weekly wages of 2.1 percent and 2.6 percent, re- spectively. - 4 - Largest County by State Table 3 shows December 2003 employment and 2003 fourth-quarter average weekly wage in the largest county in each state. This table includes two counties that have employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in December 2003 ranged from approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,480), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Laramie, Wyo. ($597). - 5 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- | Correction of Data in Prior County Employment | | and Wages News Releases | | | | In addition to the corrections made to the data in the second | | column of table A in this release, corrections also have been made | | to data originally published in the second column of table A of | | the second and third quarter 2003 County Employment and Wages news | | releases (USDL 04-6 and USDL 04-599). Corrected data from these | | releases are presented in the tables below. All data released | | through Create Customized Tables, Series Report, and FTP tools | | on the BLS Web site are unaffected. | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by June 2003 employment, June 2002-03 employment change, and June 2002-03 percent change in employment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | June 2003 employment | Net change in employment, | Percent change (thousands) | June 2002-03 | in employment, | (thousands) | June 2002-03 ---------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------ U.S. 129,169.4|U.S. -628.3|U.S. -0.5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles, Calif. 4,060.4|Clark, Nev. 25.4|Loudoun, Va. 5.2 Cook, Ill. 2,543.0|Riverside, Calif. 16.1|Yakima, Wash. 4.8 New York, N.Y. 2,214.1|Orange, Fla. 13.4|Lee, Fla. 4.6 Harris, Texas 1,837.2|Orange, Calif. 13.1|St. Charles, Mo. 4.3 Maricopa, Ariz. 1,547.0|Maricopa, Ariz. 10.5|Placer, Calif. 4.2 Dallas, Texas 1,442.7|Sacramento, Calif. 9.3|Rutherford, Tenn. 4.1 Orange, Calif. 1,433.5|Pinellas, Fla. 9.1|Pasco, Fla. 3.9 San Diego, Calif. 1,263.1|San Bernardino, Calif. 8.5|Thurston, Wash. 3.7 King, Wash. 1,090.7|Lee, Fla. 8.0|Hidalgo, Texas 3.6 Miami-Dade, Fla. 966.5|Kern, Calif. 8.0|Clark, Nev. 3.5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by September 2003 employment, September 2002-03 employment change, and September 2002-03 percent change in employment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | September 2003 employment | Net change in employment, | Percent change (thousands) | September 2002-03 | in employment, | (thousands) | September 2002-03 ---------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------ U.S. 128,546.3|U.S. -494.3|U.S. -0.4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles, Calif. 4,007.2|Clark, Nev. 32.6|Manatee, Fla. 5.7 Cook, Ill. 2,529.5|Maricopa, Ariz. 17.5|Lee, Fla. 5.4 New York, N.Y. 2,184.9|Orange, Calif. 16.1|Loudoun, Va. 5.4 Harris, Texas 1,823.7|Riverside, Calif. 14.8|Gloucester, N.J. 4.6 Maricopa, Ariz. 1,571.3|San Bernardino, Calif. 14.4|Clark, Nev. 4.4 Dallas, Texas 1,438.9|Pinellas, Fla. 11.3|Okaloosa, Fla. 4.4 Orange, Calif. 1,426.5|San Diego, Calif. 10.8|Placer, Calif. 4.3 San Diego, Calif. 1,256.7|Lee, Fla. 9.4|Hidalgo, Texas 4.0 King, Wash. 1,095.4|Fairfax, Va. 9.0|Rutherford, Tenn. 3.9 Miami-Dade, Fla. 965.2|Orange, Fla. 7.8|Pasco, Fla. 3.8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 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 2003 are preliminary and sub- ject to revision. 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 8.3 | ministrative records| | million employers | submitted by 6.4 | | | 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 | | |--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 by in- | | | dustry and size of | | | establishment | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|-------------------------- 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 | traction by size | jor economic indi- | BLS establishment | of establishment | cators | survey | | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|-------------------------- 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 2002, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 128.2 million jobs. The estimated 123.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjust- ment for multiple jobholders) represented 99.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $4.713 trillion in pay, representing 94.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 45.1 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. 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 from unrounded employment and wage values so the average wage values that can be calculated from data from this database may differ from the averages reported, due to rounding. 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 the final 2002 quarterly data as the base data. Final data for 2002 may differ from preliminary 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 bulletin is now available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn02.htm. 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 316 largest counties, fourth quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wage(5) Establishments, fourth quarter Percent Percent County(3) 2003 December change, Ranking Average change, Ranking (thousands) 2003 December by weekly fourth by (thousands) 2002-03 percent wage quarter percent (4) change 2002-03 change (4) United States(6)......... 8,314.1 129,341.5 0.0 - $767 3.6 - Jefferson, AL............ 18.2 374.3 0.3 150 761 2.6 235 Madison, AL.............. 7.7 160.0 2.5 26 825 4.8 75 Mobile, AL............... 9.5 161.7 -0.9 240 625 3.3 185 Montgomery, AL........... 6.5 130.5 0.1 163 698 4.6 88 Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.1 76.7 0.4 138 657 4.3 105 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.8 140.0 1.7 59 787 2.3 256 Maricopa, AZ............. 80.9 1,621.2 (7) - 757 4.0 129 Pima, AZ................. 17.6 335.6 1.3 74 669 4.5 92 Benton, AR............... 4.1 83.1 3.4 14 679 6.3 21 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.2 242.9 1.1 88 716 4.5 92 Washington, AR........... 4.9 85.6 1.5 66 603 3.1 201 Alameda, CA.............. 48.2 677.7 -2.3 297 981 3.2 195 Contra Costa, CA......... 27.7 338.2 -1.0 249 928 2.4 249 Fresno, CA............... 29.2 325.7 1.2 83 613 3.4 176 Kern, CA................. 15.9 246.2 1.1 88 648 3.3 185 Los Angeles, CA.......... 356.0 4,075.3 -0.5 205 903 4.2 114 Marin, CA................ 11.9 111.4 -1.1 257 1,001 5.1 52 Monterey, CA............. 11.9 149.9 -0.6 217 672 4.3 105 Orange, CA............... 88.8 1,436.6 1.3 74 874 5.3 47 Placer, CA............... 9.2 126.9 4.3 6 731 2.8 220 Riverside, CA............ 36.9 549.1 3.1 18 646 5.4 40 Sacramento, CA........... 46.1 598.6 0.7 116 834 2.8 220 San Bernardino, CA....... 40.8 592.0 2.5 26 674 3.5 171 San Diego, CA............ 85.3 1,278.2 1.3 74 815 2.6 235 San Francisco, CA........ 43.8 539.1 -0.9 240 1,178 3.5 171 San Joaquin, CA.......... 15.7 207.5 -0.5 205 675 4.3 105 San Luis Obispo, CA...... 8.6 97.7 0.5 132 632 4.1 122 San Mateo, CA............ 22.9 327.8 -4.7 312 1,234 5.7 32 Santa Barbara, CA........ 13.1 171.1 0.2 158 728 4.9 67 Santa Clara, CA.......... 52.0 855.1 -3.4 310 1,333 6.9 11 Santa Cruz, CA........... 8.4 90.3 -1.4 271 715 -1.2 310 Solano, CA............... 9.3 126.3 0.3 150 703 4.8 75 Sonoma, CA............... 17.1 187.0 -2.8 305 753 2.7 227 Stanislaus, CA........... 13.1 164.5 1.2 83 636 4.1 122 Tulare, CA............... 8.8 133.1 -1.0 249 540 4.2 114 Ventura, CA.............. 20.4 301.6 0.1 163 812 3.3 185 Yolo, CA................. 5.0 93.9 (7) - 702 (7) - Adams, CO................ 8.5 139.1 -2.8 305 726 2.5 242 Arapahoe, CO............. 18.7 272.0 -1.7 278 918 -1.3 311 Boulder, CO.............. 11.7 151.5 -1.7 278 924 4.4 99 Denver, CO............... 24.1 425.7 -2.3 297 935 3.4 176 El Paso, CO.............. 15.6 233.8 -0.5 205 705 2.2 263 Jefferson, CO............ 17.8 204.6 -2.0 289 781 1.0 299 Larimer, CO.............. 9.0 120.3 0.1 163 708 1.3 295 Fairfield, CT............ 31.9 417.3 -0.3 191 1,308 3.2 195 Hartford, CT............. 24.3 484.5 -0.9 240 946 3.4 176 New Haven, CT............ 22.0 362.8 -0.7 224 858 4.5 92 New London, CT........... 6.6 129.8 1.3 74 816 2.8 220 New Castle, DE........... 18.0 283.1 0.8 108 917 6.0 27 Washington, DC........... 30.0 654.8 -0.4 198 1,238 3.9 136 Alachua, FL.............. 5.8 124.7 2.3 32 586 3.4 176 Brevard, FL.............. 12.1 190.5 2.2 35 714 3.0 209 Broward, FL.............. 56.5 691.6 -0.2 184 742 4.4 99 Collier, FL.............. 10.2 122.6 0.6 125 698 9.7 1 Duval, FL................ 21.8 431.6 -0.3 191 750 4.9 67 Escambia, FL............. 7.1 122.7 0.8 108 595 2.2 263 Hillsborough, FL......... 30.5 604.3 0.2 158 731 6.4 17 Lee, FL.................. 14.6 195.3 3.9 9 641 3.7 159 Leon, FL................. 7.2 144.1 -0.1 176 653 0.9 300 Manatee, FL.............. 6.7 120.3 3.7 11 583 3.4 176 Marion, FL............... 6.2 88.6 3.3 16 568 3.8 150 Miami-Dade, FL........... 80.2 980.8 -0.5 205 765 3.5 171 Okaloosa, FL............. 5.0 80.7 3.0 21 588 7.5 6 Orange, FL............... 29.0 617.2 1.3 74 707 3.5 171 Palm Beach, FL........... 42.5 521.8 -0.5 205 770 3.6 168 Pasco, FL................ 7.2 82.8 1.8 53 558 4.9 67 Pinellas, FL............. 27.9 436.7 2.3 32 671 1.5 290 Polk, FL................. 10.1 188.3 -0.7 224 617 4.9 67 Sarasota, FL............. 12.6 151.1 -1.6 276 648 5.7 32 Seminole, FL............. 11.7 150.6 0.8 108 683 2.7 227 Volusia, FL.............. 11.5 151.2 1.1 88 583 4.5 92 Bibb, GA................. 4.8 87.3 2.2 35 642 0.0 308 Chatham, GA.............. 7.0 126.6 1.6 63 639 1.8 280 Clayton, GA.............. 4.4 109.6 -1.7 278 784 3.7 159 Cobb, GA................. 19.8 303.4 2.5 26 850 4.3 105 De Kalb, GA.............. 17.1 295.7 -0.2 184 832 2.5 242 Fulton, GA............... 37.7 732.5 -1.3 267 990 3.6 168 Gwinnett, GA............. 21.4 298.0 2.8 23 823 1.5 290 Muscogee, GA............. 4.8 97.0 0.9 99 603 -0.5 309 Richmond, GA............. 4.8 106.0 0.9 99 641 3.7 159 Honolulu, HI............. 24.5 427.0 0.7 116 704 3.7 159 Ada, ID.................. 13.0 184.9 1.0 95 685 1.9 278 Champaign, IL............ 3.9 90.5 -0.6 217 659 2.0 273 Cook, IL................. 126.7 2,539.8 -1.2 262 922 3.0 209 Du Page, IL.............. 32.3 571.2 -0.6 217 921 2.4 249 Kane, IL................. 10.8 198.5 0.6 125 718 2.3 256 Lake, IL................. 18.8 320.3 -0.5 205 976 3.3 185 McHenry, IL.............. 7.3 93.2 0.7 116 695 1.9 278 McLean, IL............... 3.4 86.0 -0.7 224 758 3.3 185 Madison, IL.............. 5.6 94.9 -1.7 278 666 8.8 2 Peoria, IL............... 4.6 97.1 -1.9 288 749 7.6 5 Rock Island, IL.......... 3.4 77.4 -0.7 224 792 4.9 67 St. Clair, IL............ 5.1 93.6 1.2 83 605 2.9 215 Sangamon, IL............. 5.1 136.3 -3.9 311 754 0.3 305 Will, IL................. 10.4 155.7 2.4 29 731 0.6 304 Winnebago, IL............ 6.6 137.1 -1.0 249 672 2.3 256 Allen, IN................ 8.7 179.8 -1.7 278 678 2.6 235 Elkhart, IN.............. 4.8 117.8 1.8 53 685 5.4 40 Hamilton, IN............. 6.0 85.9 3.4 14 780 -1.5 312 Lake, IN................. 9.9 191.2 -0.9 240 689 5.0 59 Marion, IN............... 23.7 578.1 -0.5 205 800 3.8 150 St. Joseph, IN........... 6.0 124.9 -0.1 176 670 5.7 32 Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.8 108.3 -1.0 249 666 5.4 40 Linn, IA................. 5.9 115.8 -1.2 262 732 5.0 59 Polk, IA................. 13.8 262.7 0.3 150 763 5.0 59 Scott, IA................ 5.0 85.5 0.4 138 643 3.9 136 Johnson, KS.............. 18.8 293.8 0.6 125 783 2.1 267 Sedgwick, KS............. 11.6 240.4 -1.6 276 699 1.2 298 Shawnee, KS.............. 4.8 95.9 -2.9 308 641 4.1 122 Wyandotte, KS............ 3.2 76.6 -0.4 198 744 4.3 105 Fayette, KY.............. 8.7 167.5 0.0 173 696 4.7 82 Jefferson, KY............ 21.4 421.5 -0.3 191 752 3.7 159 Caddo, LA................ 7.0 121.1 1.4 67 647 4.0 129 Calcasieu, LA............ 4.5 81.9 -1.8 283 625 3.1 201 East Baton Rouge, LA..... 12.9 246.2 2.1 39 659 2.3 256 Jefferson, LA............ 13.7 213.8 0.3 150 647 3.4 176 Lafayette, LA............ 7.4 120.9 0.7 116 682 2.6 235 Orleans, LA.............. 12.3 251.3 0.7 116 717 1.6 288 Cumberland, ME........... 11.3 172.2 1.8 53 718 5.9 31 Anne Arundel, MD......... 13.1 209.4 1.4 67 797 2.4 249 Baltimore, MD............ 20.0 361.9 -0.1 176 807 3.1 201 Frederick, MD............ 5.3 88.7 3.8 10 724 1.7 284 Howard, MD............... 7.6 138.5 1.7 59 873 3.2 195 Montgomery, MD........... 30.8 455.5 0.4 138 1,006 4.7 82 Prince Georges, MD....... 14.6 316.7 1.4 67 828 4.0 129 Baltimore City, MD....... 14.1 368.7 -0.4 198 870 3.8 150 Barnstable, MA........... 9.1 88.0 0.9 99 690 2.7 227 Bristol, MA.............. 14.9 220.4 0.4 138 701 6.4 17 Essex, MA................ 20.4 294.1 -2.5 301 844 5.1 52 Hampden, MA.............. 13.7 199.1 -2.1 291 728 5.4 40 Middlesex, MA............ 47.5 790.6 -2.5 301 1,085 5.0 59 Norfolk, MA.............. 21.7 319.5 -1.3 267 971 5.0 59 Plymouth, MA............. 13.3 171.3 0.4 138 762 4.4 99 Suffolk, MA.............. 22.2 563.4 -2.8 305 1,245 6.4 17 Worcester, MA............ 20.0 319.0 -0.5 205 799 6.3 21 Genesee, MI.............. 8.6 156.8 -1.5 273 794 8.0 4 Ingham, MI............... 7.0 171.7 0.1 163 764 3.9 136 Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.5 116.5 -0.2 184 737 4.5 92 Kent, MI................. 14.4 337.3 0.1 163 744 2.2 263 Macomb, MI............... 18.0 325.6 -0.4 198 884 3.9 136 Oakland, MI.............. 41.3 728.5 -1.8 283 984 3.3 185 Ottawa, MI............... 5.7 110.0 -0.2 184 720 1.3 295 Saginaw, MI.............. 4.6 92.3 -0.9 240 751 4.7 82 Washtenaw, MI............ 8.1 197.5 -1.1 257 885 4.2 114 Wayne, MI................ 35.2 820.3 -1.5 273 907 5.3 47 Anoka, MN................ 7.4 111.7 0.8 108 753 2.0 273 Dakota, MN............... 9.7 167.2 1.9 51 760 2.4 249 Hennepin, MN............. 41.4 829.1 -1.0 249 957 3.8 150 Olmsted, MN.............. 3.3 87.2 0.4 138 762 -3.3 313 Ramsey, MN............... 15.1 327.5 -0.9 240 871 3.9 136 St. Louis, MN............ 5.7 92.8 -2.2 294 621 2.5 242 Stearns, MN.............. 4.2 77.1 -0.5 205 632 3.9 136 Harrison, MS............. 4.5 89.6 3.1 18 543 3.2 195 Hinds, MS................ 6.6 132.4 1.1 88 680 2.6 235 Boone, MO................ 4.2 77.3 -0.7 224 600 2.7 227 Clay, MO................. 4.8 85.9 -0.4 198 716 3.2 195 Greene, MO............... 7.9 145.9 0.7 116 589 3.7 159 Jackson, MO.............. 18.7 365.6 -2.4 300 780 2.1 267 St. Charles, MO.......... 7.1 108.2 1.8 53 659 3.1 201 St. Louis, MO............ 33.7 625.2 -1.8 283 820 2.6 235 St. Louis City, MO....... 8.3 227.4 -2.7 303 836 2.6 235 Douglas, NE.............. 15.0 314.3 -0.3 191 705 2.5 242 Lancaster, NE............ 7.5 150.5 1.3 74 631 2.1 267 Clark, NV................ 36.6 779.9 5.2 1 715 4.8 75 Washoe, NV............... 12.2 200.1 2.1 39 739 5.3 47 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.2 195.8 1.1 88 876 4.8 75 Rockingham, NH........... 10.6 133.8 1.0 95 799 2.4 249 Atlantic, NJ............. 6.6 144.3 1.9 51 698 3.4 176 Bergen, NJ............... 34.7 455.3 -0.5 205 1,029 5.0 59 Burlington, NJ........... 11.1 198.5 2.2 35 819 1.5 290 Camden, NJ............... 13.4 207.2 1.6 63 838 (7) - Essex, NJ................ 21.6 364.0 -0.6 217 1,000 4.6 88 Gloucester, NJ........... 6.1 99.3 3.6 12 713 3.9 136 Hudson, NJ............... 14.0 236.8 -1.8 283 989 6.0 27 Mercer, NJ............... 10.6 223.5 2.4 29 988 4.2 114 Middlesex, NJ............ 20.8 396.3 -1.3 267 995 4.6 88 Monmouth, NJ............. 20.0 249.9 0.4 138 882 3.9 136 Morris, NJ............... 17.8 283.1 -0.2 184 1,135 2.3 256 Ocean, NJ................ 11.5 141.4 1.7 59 691 2.7 227 Passaic, NJ.............. 12.6 178.3 -0.7 224 854 2.9 215 Somerset, NJ............. 10.0 165.8 (7) - 1,159 1.7 284 Union, NJ................ 15.2 243.5 2.8 23 991 0.1 307 Bernalillo, NM........... 16.7 313.9 0.5 132 690 5.2 50 Albany, NY............... 9.5 232.2 0.9 99 802 5.5 37 Bronx, NY................ 15.1 215.1 -2.1 291 744 4.2 114 Broome, NY............... 4.4 95.9 -2.2 294 613 -3.3 313 Dutchess, NY............. 7.6 116.8 0.4 138 776 2.2 263 Erie, NY................. 23.1 461.5 0.1 163 682 4.4 99 Kings, NY................ 41.3 448.5 0.1 163 708 4.4 99 Monroe, NY............... 17.5 388.2 -0.3 191 748 4.0 129 Nassau, NY............... 50.0 608.7 0.2 158 904 6.0 27 New York, NY............. 111.9 2,253.6 -1.0 249 1,480 7.2 8 Oneida, NY............... 5.3 109.2 -0.3 191 599 3.5 171 Onondaga, NY............. 12.5 247.5 -0.5 205 734 3.8 150 Orange, NY............... 9.0 127.4 0.8 108 664 5.1 52 Queens, NY............... 39.7 477.3 -0.7 224 797 3.0 209 Richmond, NY............. 7.9 90.4 -0.8 234 726 7.1 10 Rockland, NY............. 9.2 113.4 0.4 138 832 5.1 52 Suffolk, NY.............. 46.8 600.6 1.0 95 838 3.3 185 Westchester, NY.......... 34.7 413.0 -0.2 184 1,035 5.6 35 Buncombe, NC............. 6.7 106.2 1.4 67 617 4.8 75 Catawba, NC.............. 4.3 86.8 -2.7 303 614 4.1 122 Cumberland, NC........... 5.6 110.8 0.5 132 579 3.0 209 Durham, NC............... 6.2 164.4 0.9 99 955 4.3 105 Forsyth, NC.............. 8.4 176.8 0.1 163 730 4.4 99 Guilford, NC............. 13.7 267.2 -0.9 240 705 5.4 40 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 27.5 508.9 0.0 173 878 4.9 67 New Hanover, NC.......... 6.3 89.2 2.0 48 629 4.1 122 Wake, NC................. 23.2 389.7 2.3 32 783 4.7 82 Cass, ND................. 5.2 86.5 1.8 53 630 2.4 249 Butler, OH............... 6.9 131.3 1.3 74 690 3.1 201 Cuyahoga, OH............. 39.2 767.8 -0.8 234 803 4.7 82 Franklin, OH............. 29.9 696.5 -0.4 198 765 4.1 122 Hamilton, OH............. 25.4 550.2 -0.1 176 828 4.5 92 Lake, OH................. 6.8 98.6 0.7 116 641 0.8 303 Lorain, OH............... 6.3 100.9 -0.1 176 677 5.6 35 Lucas, OH................ 11.1 228.9 -0.5 205 717 4.8 75 Mahoning, OH............. 6.6 105.7 -1.1 257 582 3.4 176 Montgomery, OH........... 13.5 288.7 -1.1 257 755 4.7 82 Stark, OH................ 9.1 166.8 -2.2 294 609 2.4 249 Summit, OH............... 14.9 265.2 -0.3 191 724 3.9 136 Trumbull, OH............. 4.9 86.0 -2.1 291 729 6.6 14 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.6 404.3 -0.8 234 671 6.2 24 Tulsa, OK................ 18.0 319.4 -3.0 309 681 3.0 209 Clackamas, OR............ 11.2 134.5 0.9 99 722 4.2 114 Lane, OR................. 10.3 138.1 -1.2 262 614 2.7 227 Marion, OR............... 8.4 126.7 2.0 48 613 1.8 280 Multnomah, OR............ 25.7 426.0 -0.7 224 780 1.7 284 Washington, OR........... 14.1 221.7 -0.6 217 889 8.5 3 Allegheny, PA............ 36.3 695.7 -1.2 262 802 3.8 150 Berks, PA................ 8.9 163.1 0.6 125 715 4.1 122 Bucks, PA................ 19.3 253.1 0.7 116 763 5.0 59 Chester, PA.............. 14.2 221.0 1.7 59 964 4.3 105 Cumberland, PA........... 5.5 125.2 0.5 132 715 3.8 150 Dauphin, PA.............. 6.9 174.2 -0.4 198 754 6.5 15 Delaware, PA............. 13.8 211.4 -2.3 297 852 6.8 12 Erie, PA................. 7.1 125.9 0.1 163 613 2.0 273 Lackawanna, PA........... 5.6 98.7 0.8 108 594 5.1 52 Lancaster, PA............ 11.7 222.5 0.1 163 679 4.6 88 Lehigh, PA............... 8.2 171.0 1.8 53 783 4.0 129 Luzerne, PA.............. 7.8 141.6 1.4 67 608 2.7 227 Montgomery, PA........... 27.4 481.9 -0.8 234 936 5.1 52 Northampton, PA.......... 5.9 92.5 0.6 125 677 4.5 92 Philadelphia, PA......... 27.8 652.6 -1.1 257 903 7.2 8 Westmoreland, PA......... 9.3 132.7 -0.6 217 612 3.2 195 York, PA................. 8.4 166.3 0.9 99 668 3.7 159 Kent, RI................. 5.5 81.3 2.1 39 689 3.9 136 Providence, RI........... 17.4 290.7 0.4 138 763 5.5 37 Charleston, SC........... 11.3 189.7 2.7 25 633 3.8 150 Greenville, SC........... 11.9 225.4 0.5 132 683 1.8 280 Horry, SC................ 7.5 97.8 (7) - 523 2.8 220 Lexington, SC............ 5.2 84.6 0.9 99 595 3.7 159 Richland, SC............. 9.2 208.9 0.3 150 659 2.5 242 Spartanburg, SC.......... 6.1 117.7 -0.6 217 669 1.8 280 Minnehaha, SD............ 5.9 109.0 0.8 108 644 4.0 129 Davidson, TN............. 18.0 432.3 1.1 88 778 3.7 159 Hamilton, TN............. 8.3 191.2 1.1 88 683 5.4 40 Knox, TN................. 10.2 213.0 1.2 83 679 3.3 185 Rutherford, TN........... 3.6 86.7 4.6 4 712 6.7 13 Shelby, TN............... 19.9 501.5 0.6 125 792 4.9 67 Bell, TX................. 4.1 90.2 0.6 125 568 2.9 215 Bexar, TX................ 29.5 659.9 0.5 132 675 6.1 25 Brazoria, TX............. 4.0 75.7 -1.0 249 719 1.4 293 Brazos, TX............... 3.4 78.0 0.3 150 537 4.3 105 Cameron, TX.............. 6.0 115.3 -0.1 176 480 3.9 136 Collin, TX............... 12.1 198.5 2.1 39 844 1.4 293 Dallas, TX............... 68.6 1,450.8 -1.4 271 952 4.3 105 Denton, TX............... 8.2 131.6 2.1 39 654 1.7 284 El Paso, TX.............. 12.5 254.1 -0.8 234 553 5.1 52 Fort Bend, TX............ 6.2 98.3 0.0 173 766 3.8 150 Galveston, TX............ 4.7 86.8 -1.8 283 666 0.9 300 Harris, TX............... 89.4 1,841.5 -0.9 240 906 2.1 267 Hidalgo, TX.............. 9.1 186.3 4.4 5 487 3.0 209 Jefferson, TX............ 5.9 117.5 -0.1 176 732 6.1 25 Lubbock, TX.............. 6.4 116.4 -0.7 224 574 2.9 215 McLennan, TX............. 4.7 98.1 0.2 158 605 2.0 273 Montgomery, TX........... 6.1 88.2 4.3 6 700 0.9 300 Nueces, TX............... 8.0 143.9 -0.1 176 640 3.9 136 Smith, TX................ 4.8 85.6 -0.2 184 661 3.1 201 Tarrant, TX.............. 33.7 693.5 -0.9 240 793 2.3 256 Travis, TX............... 24.7 511.4 -1.3 267 863 3.9 136 Williamson, TX........... 4.8 84.3 3.2 17 751 1.6 288 Davis, UT................ 6.0 90.9 2.1 39 615 2.8 220 Salt Lake, UT............ 33.8 523.3 0.3 150 700 2.8 220 Utah, UT................. 10.5 147.1 2.1 39 589 2.1 267 Weber, UT................ 5.1 87.1 1.4 67 578 2.1 267 Chittenden, VT........... 5.7 95.3 0.4 138 769 4.9 67 Arlington, VA............ 6.9 153.5 1.2 83 1,199 4.0 129 Chesterfield, VA......... 6.6 112.8 2.1 39 697 3.6 168 Fairfax, VA.............. 30.0 548.1 2.9 22 1,158 6.4 17 Henrico, VA.............. 8.1 171.5 1.4 67 773 2.7 227 Loudoun, VA.............. 5.9 108.0 5.2 1 965 3.1 201 Prince William, VA....... 5.7 91.9 5.1 3 688 4.2 114 Alexandria City, VA...... 5.6 92.2 1.3 74 986 2.5 242 Chesapeake City, VA...... 4.7 93.3 4.2 8 595 3.3 185 Newport News City, VA.... 3.7 97.6 1.6 63 694 5.5 37 Norfolk City, VA......... 5.5 146.0 -1.0 249 746 7.3 7 Richmond City, VA........ 7.0 159.3 -1.5 273 856 6.3 21 Virginia Beach City, VA.. 10.4 170.5 2.0 48 609 6.5 15 Clark, WA................ 10.7 117.7 3.5 13 680 2.9 215 King, WA................. 81.6 1,100.6 0.2 158 935 0.2 306 Kitsap, WA............... 6.3 79.2 3.1 18 678 5.4 40 Pierce, WA............... 20.4 246.2 2.2 35 668 4.2 114 Snohomish, WA............ 16.3 208.0 0.8 108 757 1.3 295 Spokane, WA.............. 15.2 191.2 0.7 116 604 2.5 242 Thurston, WA............. 6.5 89.7 2.4 29 673 2.0 273 Yakima, WA............... 9.2 86.0 0.9 99 515 2.8 220 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.2 109.6 -0.7 224 654 2.3 256 Brown, WI................ 6.8 146.0 1.3 74 714 3.3 185 Dane, WI................. 13.6 290.9 1.0 95 748 3.9 136 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.6 502.0 -1.2 262 772 5.2 50 Outagamie, WI............ 4.9 98.8 0.4 138 669 3.4 176 Racine, WI............... 4.3 76.1 -0.8 234 761 4.8 75 Waukesha, WI............. 13.4 226.0 0.3 150 791 3.1 201 Winnebago, WI............ 4.0 87.2 -2.0 289 741 5.0 59 San Juan, PR............. 13.0 335.5 2.1 39 512 6.0 27 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.5 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, fourth quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wage(4) Establishments, County by NAICS supersector fourth quarter Percent Percent 2003 December change, Average change, (thousands) 2003 December weekly fourth (thousands) 2002-03 wage quarter (3) 2002-03 (3) United States(5)............................. 8,314.1 129,341.5 0.0 $767 3.6 Private industry........................... 8,048.7 108,215.1 0.0 769 3.9 Natural resources and mining............. 123.7 1,557.8 0.1 703 4.9 Construction............................. 804.9 6,689.5 1.2 837 2.3 Manufacturing............................ 376.8 14,307.8 -4.2 943 6.7 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 1,853.6 25,957.3 -0.3 665 3.4 Information.............................. 145.2 3,165.9 -4.0 1,139 3.9 Financial activities..................... 767.0 7,874.7 1.2 1,138 5.9 Professional and business services....... 1,329.4 16,113.2 0.6 945 3.8 Education and health services............ 732.2 15,974.0 2.1 731 3.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 669.9 12,042.8 1.7 335 3.4 Other services........................... 1,080.6 4,274.1 -0.1 494 3.1 Government................................. 265.3 21,126.3 -0.2 757 2.4 Los Angeles, CA.............................. 356.0 4,075.3 -0.5 903 4.2 Private industry........................... 352.2 3,486.3 -0.2 898 4.2 Natural resources and mining............. 0.6 11.0 0.7 955 16.9 Construction............................. 12.9 133.9 -1.1 883 1.7 Manufacturing............................ 17.8 485.2 -7.1 900 6.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 53.9 794.6 -1.2 735 2.7 Information.............................. 9.2 194.9 -2.0 1,627 5.2 Financial activities..................... 23.0 237.9 0.9 1,258 7.0 Professional and business services....... 40.1 575.0 1.6 1,043 3.7 Education and health services............ 26.6 456.5 1.9 820 3.9 Leisure and hospitality.................. 25.6 375.9 5.6 766 6.5 Other services........................... 142.1 220.7 3.5 422 5.0 Government................................. 3.8 589.0 -2.3 930 3.3 Cook, IL..................................... 126.7 2,539.8 -1.2 922 3.0 Private industry........................... 125.5 2,221.9 -0.9 929 3.2 Natural resources and mining............. 0.1 1.3 -3.6 1,037 3.2 Construction............................. 10.5 96.7 0.0 1,169 -0.8 Manufacturing............................ 7.9 265.7 -5.1 975 6.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 26.7 499.4 -0.8 753 0.4 Information.............................. 2.5 66.1 -4.1 1,164 0.1 Financial activities..................... 13.8 219.4 -0.8 1,471 8.1 Professional and business services....... 26.1 405.5 -1.3 1,206 4.1 Education and health services............ 12.3 350.8 1.0 791 3.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.5 217.7 2.8 375 -0.3 Other services........................... 12.6 95.1 -2.0 655 3.0 Government................................. 1.2 317.9 -3.1 871 0.9 New York, NY................................. 111.9 2,253.6 -1.0 1,480 7.2 Private industry........................... 111.7 1,800.4 -0.6 1,623 8.1 Natural resources and mining............. 0.0 0.1 0.0 1,197 -6.5 Construction............................. 2.2 30.0 -4.5 1,567 3.4 Manufacturing............................ 3.5 46.6 -4.9 1,290 6.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 22.1 247.6 -1.2 1,164 5.5 Information.............................. 4.3 130.6 -5.1 1,751 7.9 Financial activities..................... 16.7 352.0 -2.0 3,034 16.1 Professional and business services....... 22.6 439.7 0.5 1,702 2.6 Education and health services............ 7.8 273.8 2.4 918 7.6 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.1 188.2 0.4 787 6.1 Other services........................... 16.0 82.9 -1.1 871 6.1 Government................................. 0.2 453.2 -2.2 912 0.1 Harris, TX................................... 89.4 1,841.5 -0.9 906 2.1 Private industry........................... 89.0 1,595.2 -1.2 929 2.1 Natural resources and mining............. 1.2 62.5 (6) 2,185 (6) Construction............................. 6.3 135.5 -5.0 919 2.6 Manufacturing............................ 4.7 164.0 -4.9 1,106 2.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 21.1 403.2 -2.1 821 1.0 Information.............................. 1.4 33.8 -3.9 1,098 0.4 Financial activities..................... 9.7 113.1 1.7 1,181 4.9 Professional and business services....... 17.0 279.0 -1.7 1,073 3.2 Education and health services............ 8.8 188.3 1.5 812 1.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.5 155.2 0.7 335 -0.9 Other services........................... 10.3 56.3 -3.1 539 0.4 Government................................. 0.4 246.3 1.1 759 3.1 Maricopa, AZ................................. 80.9 1,621.2 (6) 757 4.0 Private industry........................... 80.5 1,401.8 2.2 755 3.9 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 9.8 -2.6 545 4.4 Construction............................. 8.4 131.7 5.9 779 2.1 Manufacturing............................ 3.3 128.0 -2.5 1,050 8.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 18.6 336.4 1.5 712 3.2 Information.............................. 1.6 36.6 -4.1 872 0.5 Financial activities..................... 9.5 133.3 1.5 933 3.7 Professional and business services....... 18.1 261.5 4.2 776 3.5 Education and health services............ 7.6 160.5 5.6 842 5.0 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.6 155.8 0.8 364 2.8 Other services........................... 5.7 44.7 -2.6 500 2.2 Government................................. 0.5 219.4 1.6 766 3.7 Dallas, TX................................... 68.6 1,450.8 -1.4 952 4.3 Private industry........................... 68.2 1,294.6 -1.4 970 4.8 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 6.8 (6) 2,680 (6) Construction............................. 4.5 73.0 -2.2 909 5.5 Manufacturing............................ 3.5 144.9 -3.1 1,075 6.8 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 15.8 326.1 -3.3 898 5.2 Information.............................. 1.9 64.0 -5.1 1,272 8.7 Financial activities..................... 8.6 140.0 1.2 1,215 2.9 Professional and business services....... 14.0 237.7 0.0 1,152 4.2 Education and health services............ 6.3 131.4 2.4 887 2.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.2 127.5 0.0 432 4.3 Other services........................... 6.7 40.5 -3.4 587 2.8 Government................................. 0.4 156.2 -1.8 800 -0.1 Orange, CA................................... 88.8 1,436.6 1.3 874 5.3 Private industry........................... 87.4 1,305.5 2.1 875 5.2 Natural resources and mining............. 0.3 6.1 8.3 579 0.2 Construction............................. 6.4 85.5 4.4 969 5.9 Manufacturing............................ 6.1 179.9 -3.0 1,036 11.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 17.3 278.8 0.6 802 2.7 Information.............................. 1.5 33.8 -4.4 1,152 5.3 Financial activities..................... 9.7 127.8 9.9 1,354 6.2 Professional and business services....... 17.4 261.0 1.0 942 2.8 Education and health services............ 9.1 126.6 6.1 849 3.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.6 159.9 2.5 358 3.8 Other services........................... 12.9 46.0 6.3 518 3.0 Government................................. 1.4 131.1 -5.7 859 6.0 San Diego, CA................................ 85.3 1,278.2 1.3 815 2.6 Private industry........................... 83.9 1,060.2 1.5 809 2.5 Natural resources and mining............. 0.9 11.0 -5.4 491 1.0 Construction............................. 6.4 81.1 4.7 869 0.7 Manufacturing............................ 3.6 105.4 -4.2 1,129 11.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 14.2 220.4 2.2 655 0.9 Information.............................. 1.4 36.7 -4.5 1,582 -2.0 Financial activities..................... 8.8 81.6 4.8 1,058 0.4 Professional and business services....... 14.9 208.1 1.5 989 2.8 Education and health services............ 7.6 122.6 1.6 778 5.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.5 141.5 3.5 346 2.4 Other services........................... 19.5 51.6 1.8 449 2.7 Government................................. 1.3 218.0 0.1 843 2.9 King, WA..................................... 81.6 1,100.6 0.2 935 0.2 Private industry........................... 81.0 945.5 0.1 944 -0.3 Natural resources and mining............. 0.4 2.8 -11.3 1,109 0.8 Construction............................. 6.2 53.4 -0.4 921 1.4 Manufacturing............................ 2.7 101.9 -8.2 1,176 -2.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 14.8 225.5 1.1 804 2.6 Information.............................. 1.5 69.2 0.8 1,829 -15.7 Financial activities..................... 6.1 77.5 2.4 1,114 3.5 Professional and business services....... 11.7 158.3 0.7 1,160 8.4 Education and health services............ 5.9 108.3 1.5 746 4.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.4 100.5 2.9 390 3.7 Other services........................... 26.4 48.1 1.2 463 0.4 Government................................. 0.6 155.1 1.0 882 3.6 Miami-Dade, FL............................... 80.2 980.8 -0.5 765 3.5 Private industry........................... 79.9 827.5 -0.7 742 3.6 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 9.9 -1.8 421 4.0 Construction............................. 4.9 40.7 0.3 788 2.7 Manufacturing............................ 2.8 49.4 -9.8 695 5.8 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 23.2 247.2 -1.7 689 4.2 Information.............................. 1.7 28.5 -3.2 990 1.7 Financial activities..................... 8.2 65.5 0.7 1,062 -1.1 Professional and business services....... 15.9 132.0 -0.2 948 5.2 Education and health services............ 7.8 123.4 1.4 748 2.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.3 92.8 2.1 432 9.9 Other services........................... 7.5 34.5 -1.8 450 3.0 Government................................. 0.3 153.3 0.5 886 2.8 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, fourth quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wage(5) Establishments, fourth quarter County(3) 2003 Percent Percent (thousands) December change, Average change, 2003 December weekly fourth (thousands) 2002-03(4) wage quarter 2002-03(4) United States(6)......... 8,314.1 129,341.5 0.0 $767 3.6 Jefferson, AL............ 18.2 374.3 0.3 761 2.6 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.8 140.0 1.7 787 2.3 Maricopa, AZ............. 80.9 1,621.2 (7) 757 4.0 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.2 242.9 1.1 716 4.5 Los Angeles, CA.......... 356.0 4,075.3 -0.5 903 4.2 Denver, CO............... 24.1 425.7 -2.3 935 3.4 Hartford, CT............. 24.3 484.5 -0.9 946 3.4 New Castle, DE........... 18.0 283.1 0.8 917 6.0 Washington, DC........... 30.0 654.8 -0.4 1,238 3.9 Miami-Dade, FL........... 80.2 980.8 -0.5 765 3.5 Fulton, GA............... 37.7 732.5 -1.3 990 3.6 Honolulu, HI............. 24.5 427.0 0.7 704 3.7 Ada, ID.................. 13.0 184.9 1.0 685 1.9 Cook, IL................. 126.7 2,539.8 -1.2 922 3.0 Marion, IN............... 23.7 578.1 -0.5 800 3.8 Polk, IA................. 13.8 262.7 0.3 763 5.0 Johnson, KS.............. 18.8 293.8 0.6 783 2.1 Jefferson, KY............ 21.4 421.5 -0.3 752 3.7 Orleans, LA.............. 12.3 251.3 0.7 717 1.6 Cumberland, ME........... 11.3 172.2 1.8 718 5.9 Montgomery, MD........... 30.8 455.5 0.4 1,006 4.7 Middlesex, MA............ 47.5 790.6 -2.5 1,085 5.0 Wayne, MI................ 35.2 820.3 -1.5 907 5.3 Hennepin, MN............. 41.4 829.1 -1.0 957 3.8 Hinds, MS................ 6.6 132.4 1.1 680 2.6 St. Louis, MO............ 33.7 625.2 -1.8 820 2.6 Yellowstone, MT.......... 5.6 69.1 1.3 609 4.1 Douglas, NE.............. 15.0 314.3 -0.3 705 2.5 Clark, NV................ 36.6 779.9 5.2 715 4.8 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.2 195.8 1.1 876 4.8 Bergen, NJ............... 34.7 455.3 -0.5 1,029 5.0 Bernalillo, NM........... 16.7 313.9 0.5 690 5.2 New York, NY............. 111.9 2,253.6 -1.0 1,480 7.2 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 27.5 508.9 0.0 878 4.9 Cass, ND................. 5.2 86.5 1.8 630 2.4 Cuyahoga, OH............. 39.2 767.8 -0.8 803 4.7 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.6 404.3 -0.8 671 6.2 Multnomah, OR............ 25.7 426.0 -0.7 780 1.7 Allegheny, PA............ 36.3 695.7 -1.2 802 3.8 Providence, RI........... 17.4 290.7 0.4 763 5.5 Greenville, SC........... 11.9 225.4 0.5 683 1.8 Minnehaha, SD............ 5.9 109.0 0.8 644 4.0 Shelby, TN............... 19.9 501.5 0.6 792 4.9 Harris, TX............... 89.4 1,841.5 -0.9 906 2.1 Salt Lake, UT............ 33.8 523.3 0.3 700 2.8 Chittenden, VT........... 5.7 95.3 0.4 769 4.9 Fairfax, VA.............. 30.0 548.1 2.9 1,158 6.4 King, WA................. 81.6 1,100.6 0.2 935 0.2 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.2 109.6 -0.7 654 2.3 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.6 502.0 -1.2 772 5.2 Laramie, WY.............. 2.8 39.5 2.6 597 1.5 San Juan, PR............. 13.0 335.5 2.1 512 6.0 St. Thomas, VI........... 1.7 23.3 1.4 594 3.3 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. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. Table 4. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages by state, fourth quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wage(3) Establishments, fourth quarter State 2003 Percent Percent (thousands) December change, Average change, 2003 December weekly fourth (thousands) 2002-03 wage quarter 2002-03 United States(4)......... 8,314.1 129,341.5 0.0 $767 3.6 Alabama.................. 111.8 1,838.1 -0.1 657 4.0 Alaska................... 20.0 282.7 1.1 746 1.1 Arizona.................. 126.9 2,352.1 2.2 710 3.8 Arkansas................. 75.2 1,133.6 0.5 587 4.1 California............... 1,190.8 14,922.3 0.0 869 3.8 Colorado................. 160.0 2,134.6 -1.1 784 2.0 Connecticut.............. 109.1 1,648.9 -0.7 992 3.8 Delaware................. 27.1 408.4 0.5 825 5.0 District of Columbia..... 30.0 654.8 -0.4 1,238 3.9 Florida.................. 504.1 7,424.5 0.8 685 3.8 Georgia.................. 245.6 3,845.6 0.2 734 2.8 Hawaii................... 37.4 583.0 1.3 678 3.7 Idaho.................... 48.5 577.5 0.6 579 1.8 Illinois................. 325.7 5,738.7 -1.2 827 3.2 Indiana.................. 152.1 2,852.2 -0.3 675 3.5 Iowa..................... 90.6 1,418.5 0.0 626 4.7 Kansas................... 82.2 1,298.3 -0.9 631 2.8 Kentucky................. 105.7 1,740.6 0.3 645 3.5 Louisiana................ 114.0 1,870.9 0.5 628 2.4 Maine.................... 47.4 595.8 0.7 631 4.6 Maryland................. 150.4 2,466.4 0.7 831 3.6 Massachusetts............ 206.6 3,154.6 -1.9 954 5.2 Michigan................. 251.3 4,365.8 -1.1 806 3.9 Minnesota................ 159.0 2,591.9 -0.5 777 3.2 Mississippi.............. 65.6 1,108.1 0.4 559 3.7 Missouri................. 165.4 2,633.6 -0.7 676 2.4 Montana.................. 42.0 396.6 1.1 549 4.0 Nebraska................. 55.3 884.4 0.6 613 3.2 Nevada................... 60.3 1,111.2 4.4 721 5.1 New Hampshire............ 47.0 614.9 0.6 788 4.0 New Jersey............... 268.1 3,912.8 0.1 945 3.4 New Mexico............... 50.4 757.1 1.4 612 4.1 New York................. 550.3 8,379.2 -0.4 959 5.2 North Carolina........... 227.8 3,759.6 -0.1 679 4.5 North Dakota............. 24.0 317.6 0.9 563 4.3 Ohio..................... 294.2 5,322.4 -0.7 713 3.8 Oklahoma................. 91.6 1,423.4 -1.3 597 4.2 Oregon................... 118.8 1,579.8 0.2 694 3.3 Pennsylvania............. 326.9 5,524.5 -0.2 750 4.7 Rhode Island............. 34.7 480.5 1.2 738 5.1 South Carolina........... 108.4 1,781.0 0.3 623 3.1 South Dakota............. 28.1 365.4 0.3 559 4.1 Tennessee................ 128.4 2,648.0 0.4 689 4.2 Texas.................... 505.3 9,300.1 -0.3 754 3.1 Utah..................... 73.9 1,066.2 1.2 630 2.3 Vermont.................. 24.1 300.7 0.3 661 5.1 Virginia................. 202.6 3,477.5 1.2 786 5.2 Washington............... 222.7 2,654.7 1.0 759 1.3 West Virginia............ 47.2 685.2 0.1 587 2.1 Wisconsin................ 157.6 2,715.4 0.0 683 4.1 Wyoming.................. 22.0 241.6 1.7 616 4.1 Puerto Rico.............. 50.2 1,074.1 3.5 450 4.7 Virgin Islands........... 3.2 42.5 -0.2 629 2.4 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.