Employment fell in all of the seven largest counties in Wisconsin from September 2019 to September 2020, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (Large counties are those with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2019.) Regional Commissioner Jason Palmer noted that Milwaukee County and Racine County had the largest over-the-year decreases in employment at 8.0 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively. (See chart 1 and table 1.)

National employment decreased 6.8 percent over the year, with 355 of the 357 largest U.S. counties reporting declines. Maui + Kalawao, HI, had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment with a loss of 35.4 percent.  Utah, UT, experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment with a gain of 1.9 percent.

Among the seven largest counties in Wisconsin, employment was highest in Milwaukee County (449,300) in September 2020. Within Milwaukee County’s private industry, health care and social assistance accounted for the largest employment (93,558). Together, the seven largest Wisconsin counties accounted for 51.9 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 357 largest counties made up 72.9 percent of total U.S. employment.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 65 counties in Wisconsin with employment below 75,000. Wage levels in all of the 65 smaller counties were below the national average in the third quarter of 2020. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

All seven large Wisconsin counties reported average weekly wage gains from the third quarter of 2019 to the third quarter of 2020. (See chart 2.) Dane County has the largest gain (+6.7 percent), followed by Brown County (+6.5 percent). Over-the-year wage gains among Wisconsin’s other large counties ranged from 5.9 percent to 4.4 percent. Average weekly wages for the nation increased 7.4 percent over the year.

Among the 357 largest counties in the United States, 350 had over-the-year wage increases. Nationally, the increases in average weekly wages largely reflect substantial employment loss among lower-paid industries. Employment declines occurring in some higher-paid industries also feature significant wage increases. San Mateo, CA, had the largest percentage wage increase (+23.2 percent). Seven large counties had wage declines during the period. Ector, TX, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease (-11.0 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Average weekly wages in all seven of the largest counties in Wisconsin were below the national average of $1,173 in the third quarter of 2020. Among the large counties in the state, Dane County ($1,124) had the highest average weekly wage. Outagamie and Racine Counties had the lowest weekly wages ($964 each).

Among the largest U.S. counties, 96 reported average weekly wages above the U.S. average in the third quarter of 2020. San Mateo, CA, had the highest average weekly wage at $2,922. Average weekly wages were at or below the national average in 261 counties. At $697 a week, Cameron, TX, had the lowest average weekly wage.

Average weekly wages in Wisconsin’s smaller counties

Among the 65 smaller counties in Wisconsin—those with employment below 75,000—all reported an average weekly wage below the national average of $1,173. Sheboygan County ($975) reported the highest average weekly wage in the state, while Florence County ($550) reported the state's lowest average weekly wage.

When all 72 counties in Wisconsin were considered, 8 reported average weekly wages of less than $700, 24 registered wages from $700 to $799, 24 had wages from $800 to $899, and 16 had average weekly wages of $900 or higher. (See chart 3.) The higher-paying counties were located in and around the Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Madison metropolitan areas and the smaller areas of Racine and Kenosha.

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 2019 edition of this publication was published in September 2020. Tables and additional content from the 2019 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online are available at www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2019/home.htm. The 2020 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available in September 2021.

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 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 at www.bls.gov/cew. However, data in QCEW press releases have been revised 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.

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

Table 1. Covered employment and wages in the United States and the seven largest counties in Wisconsin, third quarter 2020

Area	Establishments, third quarter 2020 (thousands)	Employment			Average weekly wage (1)
		September 2020 (thousands)	Percent change, September 2019–20 (2)	National ranking by percent change (3)	Third quarter 2020	National ranking by level (3)	Percent change, third quarter 2019–20 (2)	National ranking by percent change (3)
United States (4)	10,561.3	138,549.5	-6.8	--	$1,173	--	7.4	--
Wisconsin	181.2	2,746.6	-5.2	--	977	34	5.3	43
Brown	7.3	151.3	-4.9	90	1,012	215	6.5	221
Dane	16.6	327.2	-5.2	105	1,124	128	6.7	209
Milwaukee	27.8	449.3	-8.0	245	1,053	184	4.4	312
Outagamie	5.7	103.3	-5.0	94	964	264	5.4	276
Racine	4.8	70.9	-5.8	145	964	264	5.9	254
Waukesha	13.9	234.3	-4.9	90	1,103	149	4.6	307
Winnebago	4.0	90.1	-2.6	24	1,015	213	4.4	312
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: Data are preliminary. Covered employment and wages includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.

Table 3. Covered employment and wages by state, third quarter 2020

State	Establishments, third quarter 2020 (thousands)	Employment		Average weekly wage (1)
		September 2020 (thousands)	Percent change, September 2019–20	Third quarter 2020	National ranking by level	Percent change, third quarter 2019–20	National ranking by percent change
United States (2)	10,561.3	138,549.5	-6.8	$1,173	--	7.4	--
Alabama	132.2	1,902.4	-4.5	978	33	6.4	27
Alaska	22.9	302.6	-10.7	1,165	14	5.4	42
Arizona	174.1	2,797.1	-4.2	1,091	22	7.3	17
Arkansas	93.6	1,180.1	-3.4	892	49	6.1	31
California	1,643.8	16,096.8	-9.2	1,466	4	12.0	1
Colorado	220.1	2,597.2	-5.6	1,235	9	5.6	38
Connecticut	125.4	1,555.6	-7.3	1,328	7	7.4	15
Delaware	34.9	428.8	-5.6	1,150	15	6.8	21
District of Columbia	43.3	713.7	-8.1	1,962	1	6.1	31
Florida	749.1	8,329.7	-5.8	1,029	27	8.0	11
Georgia	313.0	4,282.1	-5.2	1,084	23	5.8	35
Hawaii	46.5	507.5	-22.9	1,114	18	10.3	4
Idaho	70.7	763.7	-0.2	884	50	5.5	41
Illinois	385.9	5,558.5	-7.8	1,199	11	6.8	21
Indiana	172.4	2,941.8	-4.7	961	39	5.3	43
Iowa	105.1	1,475.0	-5.2	969	36	6.0	34
Kansas	89.2	1,325.4	-5.0	952	40	6.6	24
Kentucky	128.0	1,807.1	-5.5	935	43	5.8	35
Louisiana	139.5	1,734.6	-9.6	970	35	5.2	45
Maine	54.4	597.3	-5.9	966	37	9.0	9
Maryland	172.4	2,496.6	-7.6	1,277	8	9.5	7
Massachusetts	265.1	3,314.8	-9.4	1,488	2	9.7	6
Michigan	266.9	4,035.9	-7.9	1,096	20	7.5	14
Minnesota	183.1	2,703.3	-7.4	1,178	12	6.4	27
Mississippi	74.9	1,092.4	-4.0	810	51	5.6	38
Missouri	218.8	2,681.7	-5.1	995	32	5.6	38
Montana	53.0	466.9	-2.5	904	48	6.6	24
Nebraska	73.7	949.9	-3.8	964	38	6.4	27
Nevada	87.9	1,251.0	-11.6	1,048	24	7.8	13
New Hampshire	56.1	634.2	-5.2	1,171	13	8.9	10
New Jersey	289.3	3,778.4	-8.0	1,331	6	9.5	7
New Mexico	63.1	771.9	-8.6	944	41	5.1	46
New York	657.6	8,547.7	-10.8	1,446	5	10.0	5
North Carolina	301.4	4,308.2	-4.4	1,039	26	6.9	20
North Dakota	32.5	398.2	-7.0	1,025	28	-0.3	50
Ohio	305.7	5,136.8	-5.6	1,040	25	6.6	24
Oklahoma	112.4	1,538.5	-5.7	917	46	2.3	48
Oregon	164.6	1,837.3	-7.0	1,113	19	7.4	15
Pennsylvania	366.5	5,501.0	-7.6	1,139	17	7.0	19
Rhode Island	40.1	452.5	-8.0	1,092	21	10.4	3
South Carolina	146.6	2,022.9	-5.2	924	44	6.7	23
South Dakota	35.2	422.3	-2.6	918	45	7.2	18
Tennessee	173.6	2,918.1	-4.6	1,022	29	5.8	35
Texas	733.1	11,926.8	-5.5	1,150	15	3.8	47
Utah	114.3	1,518.2	-1.0	1,015	30	6.1	31
Vermont	26.4	283.9	-8.6	1,001	31	7.9	12
Virginia	285.7	3,737.0	-5.0	1,201	10	6.4	27
Washington	256.6	3,266.2	-6.3	1,482	3	11.0	2
West Virginia	51.7	649.1	-6.7	913	47	1.8	49
Wisconsin	181.2	2,746.6	-5.2	977	34	5.3	43
Wyoming	27.5	264.0	-6.8	939	42	-0.4	51
Puerto Rico	45.7	831.6	-5.3	547	(3)	3.4	(3)
Virgin Islands	3.4	33.9	-13.0	1,019	(3)	-0.5	(3)
Footnotes: (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: Data are preliminary. Covered employment and wages includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.