Nine of the 10 large counties in Michigan reported employment gains from December 2012 to December 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today. (Large counties are those with 2012 annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more.) Regional Commissioner Charlene Peiffer noted that Kent County had the largest increase, up 4.3 percent, followed by the counties of Ottawa (3.1 percent) and Macomb (2.7 percent). (See table 1.)

Nationally, employment advanced 1.8 percent from December 2012 to December 2013 as 292 of the 334 largest U.S. counties registered increases. Weld, Colo., recorded the largest percentage increase in the country, up 6.0 percent over the year. St. Clair, Ill., registered the largest percentage employment decline, down 3.1 percent.

Among the 10 largest counties in Michigan, employment was highest in Oakland County (690,700) and Wayne County (690,600) in December 2013. Two other counties, Kent (359,600) and Macomb (304,800) had employment levels of more than 300,000. Together, the 10 largest Michigan counties accounted for 69.8 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 334 largest counties made up 71.7 percent of total U.S. employment.

From the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013, Ottawa County recorded the fastest rate of increase in average weekly wages among the 10 large counties in Michigan, registering a gain of 4.1 percent. (See table 1.) Oakland County recorded the highest average weekly wage among these large counties at $1,115 per week followed by Wayne County at $1,085. Nationally, the average weekly wage was unchanged from a year ago, remaining at $1,000 in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 73 counties in Michigan with employment levels below 75,000. With the exception of Midland County ($1,034) wage levels in all of these smaller counties were below the national average in the fourth quarter of 2013. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Ottawa County’s 4.1-percent rise in average weekly wages from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013 ranked 11th among the nation’s largest counties. (See table 1.) Advancing at a slower pace, wages in Saginaw increased 2.0 percent over the year, ranking 47th. In contrast, Oakland County recorded a wage decrease of 2.5 percent.

Nationally, 185 of the 334 largest counties registered over-the-year wage increases. Santa Cruz, Calif., had the largest wage gain, up 6.5 percent from the fourth quarter of 2012. Ada, Idaho, was second with a wage increase of 6.4 percent, followed by the counties of Washington, Ore. (5.9 percent), and Union, N.J. (5.2 percent).

Among the large U.S. counties, 140 experienced over-the-year wage decreases. Douglas, Colo., had the largest wage decrease with a loss of 29.7 percent. San Mateo, Calif., had the second largest decrease in average weekly wages, down 15.8 percent from the fourth quarter 2012, followed by Virginia Beach City, Va. (-10.0 percent), McHenry, Ill. (-8.8 percent), and Shawnee, Kan. (-5.1 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

As noted, Oakland County ($1,115) had the highest average weekly wage in the state and ranked 54th among the 334 largest counties in the United States. Wayne ($1,085, 61st), Washtenaw ($1,030, 79th), and Macomb ($1,010, 91st) Counties also reported average weekly wages above the national average of $1,000. Saginaw ($804) reported the lowest average weekly wage among the state’s large counties and ranked 276th nationwide.

Nationally, 98 large counties registered average weekly wages above the U.S. average of $1,000 in the fourth quarter of 2013. San Mateo, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,724. New York, N.Y., was second at $2,041, followed by Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,972).

Seventy percent of the largest U.S. counties (235) reported weekly wages below the national average. Horry County, S.C., reported the lowest wage ($587), followed by the Texas counties of Cameron ($598) and Hidalgo ($620). Wages in these lowest-ranked counties were less than a quarter of the average weekly wage reported for the highest-ranked county, San Mateo.

Average weekly wages in Michigan's smaller counties

With the exception of Midland County ($1,034), all 73 counties in Michigan with employment below 75,000 had average weekly wages below the national average of $1,000. Among these smaller counties, Kalkaska had the second highest average weekly wage at $931, while Keweenaw had the lowest at $395. (See table 2.)

When all 83 counties in Michigan were considered, all but 5 had wages below the national average. Three reported average weekly wages under $550, 13 had wages from $550 to $649, 36 reported wages from $650 to $749, 18 had wages from $750 to $849, and 13 had wages of $850 or more. (See chart 1.)

Additional statistics and other information

QCEW data for states have been included in this release in table 3. For additional information about quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note or visit www.bls.gov/cew/.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2012 edition of this publication contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2013 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2012 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2012/home.htm. The 2013 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in September 2014.

Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; Federal Relay Service: 1-800-877-8339.

Technical Note

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 summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The 9.3 million employer reports cover 136.1 million full- and part-time workers. The average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels of those covered by UI programs. The result is then divided by 13, the number of weeks in a quarter. It is to be noted, therefore, that over-the-year wage changes for geographic areas may reflect shifts in the composition of employment by industry, occupation, and such other factors as hours of work. Thus, wages may vary among counties, metropolitan areas, or states for reasons other than changes in the average wage level. Data for all states, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), counties, and the nation are available on the BLS Web site www.bls.gov/cew/;however, data in QCEW press releases have been revised (see Technical Note below) and may not match the data contained on the Bureau’s Web site.

QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are simply the sums of individual establishment records reflecting the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry for a number of reasons–some reflecting economic events, others reflecting administrative changes.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ from data released by the individual states as well as from the data presented on the BLS Web site. These potential differences result from the states’ continuing receipt, review and editing of UI data over time. On the other hand, differences between data in this release and the data found on the BLS Web site are the result of adjustments made to improve over-the-year comparisons. Specifically, these adjustments account for administrative (noneconomic) changes such as a correction to a previously reported location or industry classification. Adjusting for these administrative changes allows users to more accurately assess changes of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county to another or changing its primary economic activity) over a 12-month period. Currently, adjusted data are available only from BLS press releases.

Table 1. Covered employment and wages in the United States and the 10 largest counties in Michigan, fourth quarter 2013

Area	Employment			Average weekly wage (1)
	December 2013 (thousands)	Percent change, December 2012-13 (2)	National ranking by percent change (3)	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level (3)	Percent change, fourth quarter 2012-13 (2)	National ranking by percent change (3)
United States (4)	136,129.4	1.8	--	1000	--	0.0	--
Michigan	4,072.4	2.0	--	952	20	-0.2	35
Genesee, Mich.	133.2	0.2	279	817	263	0.4	150
Ingham, Mich.	152.6	0.9	218	935	151	0.2	165
Kalamazoo, Mich.	112.3	0.9	218	908	166	1.2	91
Kent, Mich.	359.6	4.3	17	880	192	0.0	186
Macomb, Mich.	304.8	2.7	81	1010	91	0.7	128
Oakland, Mich.	690.7	1.9	130	1115	54	-2.5	315
Ottawa, Mich.	111.3	3.1	59	867	210	4.1	11
Saginaw, Mich.	85.3	1.3	175	804	276	2.0	47
Washtenaw, Mich.	200.8	1.0	207	1030	79	-0.2	205
Wayne, Mich.	690.6	-0.2	300	1085	61	0.0	186
Footnotes: (1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. (2) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. (3) Ranking does not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. (4) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
NOTE: Covered employment and wages includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. Data are preliminary.

Table 3. Covered employment and wages by state, fourth quarter 2013

State	Employment		Average weekly wage (1)
	December 2013 (thousands)	Percent change, December 2012-13	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level	Percent change, fourth quarter 2012-13	National ranking by percent change
United States (2)	136,129.4	1.8	$1,000	--	0.0	--
Alabama	1,866.5	1.0	851	34	-0.5	39
Alaska	315.1	0.0	1,022	14	1.6	7
Arizona	2,571.0	2.4	906	23	-0.5	39
Arkansas	1,154.3	-0.5	771	47	0.4	22
California	15,650.3	2.8	1,175	6	-0.9	43
Colorado	2,383.9	3.1	1,023	13	-0.9	43
Connecticut	1,661.2	0.3	1,238	4	-1.3	49
Delaware	419.6	1.8	1,035	9	-0.6	41
District of Columbia	727.3	0.6	1,638	1	-3.9	51
Florida	7,739.5	2.7	883	29	0.2	27
Georgia	3,986.9	2.5	924	21	-0.1	32
Hawaii	632.9	1.7	871	30	0.3	25
Idaho	634.5	2.6	754	50	3.0	2
Illinois	5,758.9	1.0	1,060	8	0.2	27
Indiana	2,896.9	1.6	814	40	-0.2	35
Iowa	1,510.9	1.4	834	38	1.6	7
Kansas	1,359.5	1.6	832	39	-0.4	38
Kentucky	1,818.0	1.2	804	42	0.2	27
Louisiana	1,911.6	0.9	889	26	0.5	20
Maine	586.8	0.8	786	46	1.7	5
Maryland	2,555.1	0.4	1,076	7	-0.9	43
Massachusetts	3,332.9	1.5	1,258	3	0.8	17
Michigan	4,072.4	2.0	952	20	-0.2	35
Minnesota	2,720.6	1.7	988	16	0.3	25
Mississippi	1,108.1	1.1	729	51	1.3	11
Missouri	2,670.4	1.1	861	32	-0.2	35
Montana	440.0	1.3	760	48	0.4	22
Nebraska	944.3	1.4	796	43	-0.1	32
Nevada	1,180.5	3.0	884	28	0.7	18
New Hampshire	629.3	1.4	1,017	15	-0.8	42
New Jersey	3,887.5	1.2	1,186	5	1.1	14
New Mexico	796.2	-0.1	814	40	1.4	10
New York	8,888.6	1.7	1,266	2	-1.1	48
North Carolina	4,045.5	1.9	860	33	0.7	18
North Dakota	435.0	3.3	980	17	3.8	1
Ohio	5,175.4	1.4	887	27	0.0	30
Oklahoma	1,581.3	0.6	851	34	-0.1	32
Oregon	1,699.6	2.5	894	25	2.6	3
Pennsylvania	5,650.3	0.4	976	18	0.4	22
Rhode Island	462.7	1.4	960	19	1.5	9
South Carolina	1,875.8	2.3	793	44	1.0	15
South Dakota	407.1	1.3	759	49	1.3	11
Tennessee	2,758.3	1.8	895	24	-0.9	43
Texas	11,246.3	2.6	1,027	12	0.0	30
Utah	1,284.7	3.1	836	37	-0.9	43
Vermont	308.5	0.6	848	36	2.3	4
Virginia	3,670.0	0.1	1,028	11	-1.3	49
Washington	2,976.0	2.5	1,034	10	1.7	5
West Virginia	710.1	-0.6	792	45	0.5	20
Wisconsin	2,751.8	1.0	865	31	1.2	13
Wyoming	279.2	0.6	917	22	1.0	15
Puerto Rico	958.3	-2.3	551	(3)	0.2	(3)
Virgin Islands	38.5	-3.6	754	(3)	2.4	(3)
(1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. (2) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. (3) Data not included in the national ranking.
NOTE: Covered employment and wages includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. Data are preliminary.