Employment increased in all four of Connecticut’s large counties from December 2014 to December 2015, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (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 over-the-year percentage gains ranged from 0.8 percent in New London County to 0.3 percent in Hartford County.

Nationally, employment increased 1.9 percent from December 2014 to December 2015, as 308 of the 342 largest counties registered increases. Williamson, Tenn., had the largest percentage increase with a gain of 6.8 percent over the year. Ector, Texas, had the largest over-the year percentage decrease in employment among the largest U.S. counties, with a loss of 11.8 percent.

Among the four large counties in Connecticut, employment was highest in Hartford (511,012) and Fairfield (429,742). Along with New Haven and New London, the four large counties accounted for 84.8 percent of the state’s total employment in December 2015. Nationwide, the 342 largest counties accounted for 72.5 percent of total U.S. employment.

All four of Connecticut’s large counties recorded increases in average weekly wages from the fourth quarter of 2014 to the fourth quarter of 2015, with the largest gains in Hartford (4.6 percent) and New London (4.2 percent). Fairfield County had the highest average weekly wage in the state at $1,735 and ranked seventh-highest among the nation’s 342 largest counties. (See table 1.) Nationally, the average weekly wage increased 4.4 percent over the year to $1,082 in the fourth quarter of 2015.

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

Large County Wage Changes

The over-the-year wage gain in Hartford (4.6 percent) exceeded the national increase of 4.4 percent and ranked 189^th among the 342 largest U.S. counties. (See table 1.) The wage increases in New London (4.2 percent), New Haven (3.7 percent) and Fairfield (3.5 percent) ranked 218^th, 254^th, and 262^nd, respectively.

Nationwide, 325 of the 342 largest counties had over-the-year gains in average weekly wages from the fourth quarter of 2015. Wyandotte, Kan., had the largest wage gain in the nation, up 10.4 percent.

Ten large U.S. counties had over-the year decreases in average weekly wages, with the largest decrease in Midland, Texas (-11.5 percent).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

As noted, average weekly wages in Fairfield County ranked seventh among the 342 largest U.S. counties in the fourth quarter of 2015. Hartford ($1,306, 30^th) and New Haven ($1,128, 76^th) also had average weekly wages above the U.S. average of $1,082, and placed in the top quarter of the nationwide ranking. The average weekly wage in New London County ($1,053, 120^th) was below the national average, but still ranked in the top half nationwide.

Nationwide, Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $2,335. New York, N.Y., was second with an average weekly wage of $2,235, followed by San Mateo, Calif. ($2,095), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,961).

Cameron, Texas, reported the lowest average weekly wage nationwide ($649), followed by Horry, S.C. ($653); Hidalgo, Texas ($661); and Webb, Texas ($706). Wages in the lowest-ranked county, Cameron, were less than one-third of the average weekly wage reported for the highest-ranked county, Santa Clara, Calif.

Average Weekly Wages in Connecticut’s Smaller Counties

Three of the four counties in Connecticut with employment below 75,000—Litchfield, Tolland, and Windham—had average weekly wages lower than the national average of $1,082, with Windham reporting the lowest, $862. Middlesex County was the exception, with an average weekly wage of $1,129. (See table 2.)

When all eight counties are considered, four had an average weekly wage above the national average of $1,082. New London was just below the national average with an average weekly wage of $1,053, while wages in the remaining counties were all below $1,000 per week. (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 2014 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 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 first quarter 2016 is scheduled to be released on

Wednesday, September 7, 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 9.7 million employer reports cover 141.9 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; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.