Employment in Rockingham County rose 0.7 percent from September 2012 to September 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Hillsborough, New Hampshire’s other large county, saw an employment gain of 0.5 percent. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2012 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Deborah A. Brown noted that employment growth in both counties was below the 1.7-percent national average.

Nationwide, employment increased in 286 of the 334 largest U.S. counties. The largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment was recorded in Fort Bend, Texas (6.0 percent); Peoria, Ill., experienced the largest over-the-year decrease (-3.7 percent).

Among New Hampshire’s two large counties, employment was higher in Hillsborough County (190,690) in September 2013. Together, both large counties accounted for 52.9 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 334 largest counties made up 71.4 percent of total U.S. employment.

The average weekly wage in Rockingham rose 2.6 percent to $866 from the third quarter of 2012 to the third quarter of 2013. While average weekly wages were higher in Hillsborough, at $989, it experienced a smaller wage increase of 1.9 percent. (See table 1 .) Nationally, the average weekly wage increased 1.9 percent over the year to $922.

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 2.6-percent wage gain in Rockingham County ranked 70^th among the 334 largest U.S. counties. Hillsborough’s 1.9-percent wage increase ranked 138^th. Nationwide, San Mateo, Calif, had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 9.9 percent in the third quarter of 2013. Across the country, 291 large counties experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages.

Of the 334 largest counties, 40 experienced decreases in average weekly wages. Pinellas, Fla. had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wage, with a loss of 4.3 percent. Rockland, N.Y., had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by Harford, Md.; Douglas, Colo.; and Mercer, N.J.

Large County Average Weekly Wages

Hillsborough County’s average weekly wage of $989 placed 71^st in the national ranking, putting it in the top quarter of all large counties. Rockingham County’s $866 weekly wage was in the top half of large counties (159^th) but was below the U.S. average of $922.

Among the 232 counties with average weekly wages below the national average, Horry, S.C. ($564), reported the lowest wage, followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($587), Hidalgo, Texas ($595), Pasco, Fla. ($635), and Webb, Texas, ($636).

Nationally, average weekly wages were equal to or greater than the national average in 102 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 $1,868. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,698, followed by New York, N.Y. ($1,667), and Washington, D.C. ($1,560). 

Average Weekly Wages in New Hampshire’s Smaller Counties

All eight of the counties in New Hampshire with employment below 75,000 had average weekly wages lower than the national average of $922. Among these counties, Grafton reported the highest average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2013 at $910, while Carroll reported the lowest at $611.

When all 10 counties in New Hampshire were considered, all but 1 had wages below the national average. Three reported average weekly wages at or below $699, 2 reported wages from $700 to $799, 3 had wages from $800 to $899, and 2 had wages above $900. The lowest-paid counties were generally located in the northeastern part of the state. (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 the QCEW Web site at www.bls.gov/cew.

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages Annual Wages Online, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2012 edition of this publication, which was published in September 2013, 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 in September 2014. 

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

For personal assistance or further information on the QCEW program, as well as other Bureau programs, contact the New England Information Office at 617-565-2327. This release is available in PDF and HTML format on the New England BLS Web site at https://www.bls.gov/regions/northeast/news-release/countyemploymentand-wages_newhampshire.htm.

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 9.2 million employer reports cover 135.1 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 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.

Table 1. Covered (1) employment and wages in the United States and the 2 largest counties in New Hampshire, third quarter 2013 (2)

Area	Employment			Average Weekly Wage (3)
	September 2013 (thousands)	Percent change, September 2012-13 (4)	National ranking by percent change (5)	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level (5)	Percent change, third quarter 2012-13 (4)	National ranking by percent change (5)
United States (6)	134,957.5	1.7	--	$922	--	1.9	--
New Hampshire	624.5	0.6	--	895	18	2.4	17
Hillsborough	190.7	0.5	255	989	71	1.9	138
Rockingham	139.5	0.7	239	866	159	2.6	70
Footnotes: (1) Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. (2) Data are preliminary. (3) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. (4) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. (5) Ranking does not include the county of San Juan, Puerto Rico. (6) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Table 2. Covered(1) employment and wages in the United States and all of the counties in New Hampshire, third quarter 2013(2)

Area	Employment September 2013	Average Weekly Wage(3)
United States(4)	134,957,493	$922
New Hampshire	624,525	895
Belknap	26,017	689
Carroll	20,647	611
Cheshire	32,243	763
Coos	12,928	647
Grafton	52,554	910
Hillsborough	190,690	989
Merrimack	73,902	831
Rockingham	139,460	866
Strafford	45,875	869
Sullivan	13,859	736
Footnotes:   (1) Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. (2) Data are preliminary. (3) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. (4) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Table 3. Covered (1) employment and wages by state, third quarter 2013 (2)

State	Employment		Average weekly wage (3)
	September 2013 (thousands)	Percent change, September 2012-13	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level	Percent change, third quarter 2012-13	National ranking by percent change
United States (4)	134,957.5	1.7	$922	--	1.9	--
Alabama	1,847.6	0.8	794	34	1.3	43
Alaska	345.0	0.4	990	9	3.0	7
Arizona	2,490.9	2.2	859	22	1.5	36
Arkansas	1,156.5	0.1	723	47	2.1	21
California	15,526.4	2.7	1,057	6	2.1	21
Colorado	2,355.7	3.1	952	12	1.7	31
Connecticut	1,650.3	0.7	1,109	3	1.9	28
Delaware	416.8	2.1	941	14	2.1	21
District of Columbia	726.2	1.5	1,560	1	3.0	7
Florida	7,501.8	2.6	808	31	1.1	46
Georgia	3,928.2	2.3	867	21	1.5	36
Hawaii	617.7	1.7	839	25	1.6	33
Idaho	644.7	2.3	703	50	2.3	19
Illinois	5,731.7	0.7	959	11	1.5	36
Indiana	2,883.6	1.2	784	38	1.6	33
Iowa	1,512.0	1.5	772	40	2.1	21
Kansas	1,347.6	1.8	776	39	2.0	26
Kentucky	1,794.5	1.0	760	43	1.1	46
Louisiana	1,893.4	1.4	827	28	2.9	10
Maine	601.5	0.7	735	46	1.8	30
Maryland	2,546.4	0.6	1,011	8	0.4	51
Massachusetts	3,318.3	1.2	1,131	2	2.6	11
Michigan	4,069.7	2.1	875	20	1.5	36
Minnesota	2,724.2	1.7	938	15	2.6	11
Mississippi	1,099.1	0.8	688	51	2.5	15
Missouri	2,661.0	1.3	805	32	1.4	40
Montana	446.7	1.2	705	49	2.3	19
Nebraska	937.5	1.3	766	41	3.4	3
Nevada	1,169.4	2.5	836	27	2.0	26
New Hampshire	624.5	0.6	895	18	2.4	17
New Jersey	3,851.9	1.2	1,068	5	1.3	43
New Mexico	793.7	0.5	766	41	0.7	49
New York	8,724.8	1.3	1,108	4	1.7	31
North Carolina	4,006.4	1.7	817	30	1.4	40
North Dakota	436.7	3.4	921	16	5.5	1
Ohio	5,147.5	1.4	837	26	1.2	45
Oklahoma	1,572.6	1.4	797	33	2.4	17
Oregon	1,709.8	2.4	856	23	2.6	11
Pennsylvania	5,622.4	0.3	913	17	1.6	33
Rhode Island	465.2	1.3	878	19	2.6	11
South Carolina	1,859.3	2.3	751	44	1.9	28
South Dakota	408.9	0.9	706	48	3.4	3
Tennessee	2,712.8	1.5	819	29	0.6	50
Texas	11,091.9	2.8	952	12	2.5	15
Utah	1,265.5	2.9	791	36	3.1	6
Vermont	302.5	0.0	788	37	3.4	3
Virginia	3,650.1	0.6	971	10	1.1	46
Washington	3,017.9	2.4	1,044	7	2.1	21
West Virginia	710.3	-0.7	751	44	3.7	2
Wisconsin	2,752.7	1.1	793	35	3.0	7
Wyoming	286.1	0.2	840	24	1.4	40
Puerto Rico	910.9	-2.5	501	(5)	-0.6	(5)
Virgin Islands	37.9	-1.9	706	(5)	-0.6	(5)
Footnotes: (1) Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. (2) Data are preliminary. (3) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. (4) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. (5) Data not included in the national ranking.