Employment in Hillsborough County rose 1.3 percent from September 2014 to September 2015, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Rockingham, New Hampshire’s other large county, saw an employment gain of 2.7 percent. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2014 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Deborah A. Brown noted that employment growth in Rockingham county was above the 1.9-percent national average.

Nationwide, employment increased in 312 of the 342 largest U.S. counties. The largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment was in Williamson, Tenn. (6.5 percent); Ector, Texas, experienced the largest over-the-year decrease (-8.3 percent).

Among New Hampshire’s two large counties, employment was higher in Hillsborough County (197,500) in September 2015. Together, both large counties accounted for 53.4 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 342 largest counties made up 72.2 percent of total U.S. employment.

The average weekly wage in Rockingham rose 2.2 percent to $938 from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2015. The average weekly wage in Hillsborough, at $1,031, increased 1.5 percent. See table 1 .)

Nationally, the average weekly wage increased 2.6 percent over the year to $974.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the eight counties in New Hampshire 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

The 2.2-percent wage gain in Rockingham County ranked 204^th among the 342 largest U.S. counties. Hillsborough’s 1.5-percent wage increase ranked 265^th. Nationwide, Rockland, N.Y., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 24.9 percent in the third quarter of 2015. Across the country, 319 of the largest counties experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages.

Of the 342 largest U.S. counties, 20 experienced decreases in average weekly wages. Midland,Texas, had the largest percentage decrease with a loss of 6.7 percent. Ector,Texas, had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages of 4.9 percent, followed by Lafayette, La. (-3.2 percent); Stark, Ohio (-2.1 percent); and Gregg, Texas (-1.5 percent).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

Hillsborough County’s average weekly wage of $1,031 placed 76^th in the national ranking, putting it in the top quarter of the 342 largest counties. Rockingham County’s $938 weekly wage was in the top half (126^th) but was below the U.S. average of $974.

Among the 242 counties with average weekly wages below the national average, Horry, S.C. ($598), reported the lowest wage, followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($615), Hidalgo, Texas ($624), Webb, Texas ($658), and Marion, Fla. ($658).

Nationally, average weekly wages were greater than the national average in 100 of the largest U.S. counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,090. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,894, followed by New York, N.Y. ($1,829), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,712). 

Average Weekly Wages in New Hampshire’s Smaller Counties

All eight counties in New Hampshire with employment below 75,000 had average weekly wages lower than the national average of $974. Among these counties, Grafton reported the highest average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2015 at $971, while Carroll reported the lowest at $632.

When all 10 counties in New Hampshire were considered, all but 1 had wages below the national average. Two reported average weekly wages at or below $699, 3 reported wages from $700 to $799, 1 had wages from $800 to $899, and 4 had wages above $900. The lowest-paid counties were generally located in the northeastern part of the state. (See chart 1.).The county with above-average wages encompasses the Manchester metropolitan area.

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 2014 edition of this publication, which was published in September 2015, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2015 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online 2014 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2014/home.htm. The 2015 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available in September 2016.

The County Employment and Wages release for the fourth quarter 2015 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, June 8, 2016

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 9.6 million employer reports cover 140.4  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.

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.