Employment rose in the four largest counties in Utah from March 2013 to March 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2013 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Stanley W. Suchman noted that Utah County experienced the fastest growth, up 4.7 percent over the year. Three of the four counties registered employment gains exceeding the national average of 1.7 percent.

Nationally, employment increased in 281 of the 339 largest U.S. counties from March 2013 to March 2014. Weld, Colo., posted the largest percentage increase with a gain of 7.5 percent over the year. Peoria, Ill., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment with a loss of 2.6 percent.

Among the four largest counties in Utah, employment was highest in Salt Lake County (614,600) and lowest in Weber (94,300). Together, the four largest counties accounted for 79.4 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 339 large counties made up 72.0 percent of total U.S. employment.

Two of Utah’s four large counties experienced wage growth that exceeded the 3.8-percent national gain from the first quarter of 2013 to the first quarter of 2014; however, the four counties’ average weekly wages were all below the $1,027 national average. Utah County recorded the fastest rate of wage growth (5.9 percent) while Salt Lake County had the highest average weekly wage ($947) among Utah’s large counties. (See table 1.)

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 25 counties in Utah with employment below 75,000. All of these smaller counties had average weekly wages below the national average. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

As mentioned, Utah County had the largest wage gain at 5.9 percent, placing it 21^st in the national ranking, followed by Weber (4.9 percent, 41^st). (See table 1.) Salt Lake and Davis registered wage growth of 3.4 and 1.0 percent, respectively, and placed 111^th and 288^th.

Among the 339 largest U.S. counties, 323 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2014. Chester, Pa., ranked first in average weekly wage growth with an increase of 13.9 percent. Benton, Ark., had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 3.2 percent.

Large county average weekly wages

At $947, Salt Lake County’s average weekly wage ranked 146^th among the 339 largest U.S. counties in the first quarter of 2014. The three remaining large counties in Utah had average weekly wages that placed them in the bottom quartile of the national ranking—Davis ($778, 289^th); Utah ($771, 296^th); and Weber ($721, 320^th).

Nationally, weekly wages were higher than the average of $1,027 in 95 of the 339 largest U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,749. Santa Clara, Calif., was second at $2,074, followed by San Mateo, Calif. ($2,058) and Somerset, N.J. ($2,048). Among the 244 large counties with an average weekly wage below the U.S. average in the first quarter of 2014, Horry, S.C. ($571) reported the lowest wage.

Average weekly wages in Utah’s smaller counties

Each of the 25 counties in Utah with employment below 75,000 had average weekly wages lower than the national average. Duchesne County’s wage of $955 was the highest among the small counties followed by Uintah at $953. Piute reported the lowest weekly wage in the state with an average of $480 in the first quarter of 2014. (See table 2.)

When all 29 counties in Utah were considered, 11 reported average weekly wages under $600, 8 reported wages from $600 to $699, 7 posted wages from $700 to $799, and 3 had wages greater than $800. (See chart 1.) Most of the counties with average weekly wages above $600 were located in the northern half of the state while counties with wages under $600 were predominantly located in the southern half.

Additional statistics and other information

Quarterly 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 the QCEW Web site at 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 2013 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 2014 version of the news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2013 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2013/home.htm.

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 9.4 million employer reports cover 134.6 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 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.