Employment rose in each of the six large counties in Tennessee from March 2015 to March 2016, 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 2015 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Janet S. Rankin noted that Williamson County had the largest employment gain in the country, up 7.9 percent over the previous year. Employment gains in Tennessee’s remaining large counties ranged from 5.5 percent in Rutherford County to 1.6 percent in Shelby County. (See table 1.)

Nationally, employment advanced 2.0 percent from March 2015 to March 2016 as 318 of the 344 largest U.S. counties had increases. As noted, Williamson, Tenn., had the largest percentage increase with a gain of 7.9 percent. Midland, Texas, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment among the largest U.S. counties, with a loss of 9.0 percent.

Among the largest counties in Tennessee, employment was highest in Shelby (487,200) in March 2016, followed by Davidson (462,000). Together, Tennessee’s six large counties accounted for 56.5 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 344 largest counties made up 72.6 percent of total U.S. employment.

Of Tennessee’s six large counties, three had average weekly wage gains from the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2016—Knox (2.0 percent); Davidson (1.8 percent); and Hamilton (0.8 percent). Williamson County had the highest average weekly wage among the state’s largest counties at $1,198. Nationally, the average weekly wage decreased 0.5 percent over the year to $1,043 in the first quarter of 2016. (See table 1.)

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 89 counties with employment levels below 75,000 in Tennessee. Average weekly wages in these counties ranged from $1,146 to $465. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

As noted, average weekly wages rose in three of Tennessee’s large counties from the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2016. Knox’s 2.0-percent wage increase ranked 38^th among the nation’s 344 largest counties while Davidson’s 1.8-percent gain ranked 47^th and Hamilton’s 0.8-percent growth ranked 108^th. (See table 1.) Wages declined in Tennessee’s three other large counties over the previous year. Williamson (-4.9 percent) had the highest rate of wage decrease and ranked 330^th in the nation, followed by Shelby (-1.7 percent, 254^th) and Rutherford (-1.1 percent, 224^th).

Of the 344 largest counties, 167 had over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. McLean, Ill., had the largest percentage wage decrease nationwide (-13.3 percent). Washington, Pa., was second with a wage decrease of 12.0 percent, followed by the counties of Lafayette, La. (-10.3percent); Mercer, N.J. (-8.5 percent); and Williamson, Texas (-7.8 percent).

Nationally, 164 large U.S. counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Clayton, Ga., had the largest percentage increase in average weekly wages (15.5 percent), followed by King, Wash. (5.1 percent); San Mateo, Calif. (4.8 percent); Ventura, Calif. (4.4 percent); and Merrimack, N.H. (4.3 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Average weekly wages in 3 of Tennessee’s 6 largest counties placed in the top half of the national ranking among the 344 largest counties in the first quarter of 2016. Williamson and Davidson Counties had average weekly wages above the U.S. average of $1,043 and ranked in the top 100 nationwide at 49^th and 71^st, respectively. Shelby County ($991), ranked 125^th. Average weekly wages in the remaining three large counties placed in the bottom half of the national ranking.

Nationwide, 91 large counties registered average weekly wages above the U.S. average of $1,043 in the first quarter of 2016. New York, N.Y., recorded the highest average weekly wage at $2,783, followed by Santa Clara, Calif., at $2,210. Rounding out the top five were San Mateo, Calif. ($2,195); San Francisco, Calif. ($2,054); and Somerset, N.J. ($2,022).

Among the largest U.S. counties, 253 had average weekly wages below the national average in the first quarter of 2016. Horry, S.C. ($587), had the lowest wage, followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($592); Hidalgo, Texas ($614); Webb, Texas ($650); and Lake, Fl. ($653).

Average weekly wages in Tennessee’s smaller counties

Among the 89 counties in Tennessee with employment below 75,000, only Roane County ($1,146) had an average weekly wage above the national average of $1,043. Hancock County reported the lowest average weekly in the state, averaging $465 in the first quarter of 2016. (See table 2.)

When all 95 counties in Tennessee were considered, 28 reported average weekly wages under $600, 35 had wages from $600 to $699, 18 had wages from $700 to $799, and 14 had wages above $800. (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 2014 are now available online at https://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 second quarter 2016 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, December 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 9.5 million employer reports cover 137.4 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; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.

Table 1. Covered employment and wages in the United States and the 6 largest counties in Tennessee, first quarter 2016

Area	Employment			Average weekly wage (1)
	March 2016 (thousands)	Percent change, March 2015-16 (2)	National ranking by percent change (3)	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level (3)	Percent change, first quarter 2015-16 (2)	National ranking by percent change (3)
United States (4)	140,070.8	2.0	--	$1,043	--	-0.5	--
Tennessee	2,859.2	3.3	--	887	27	0.3	16
Davidson, Tenn.	462.0	3.9	31	1,097	71	1.8	47
Hamilton, Tenn.	194.7	2.8	99	882	198	0.8	108
Knox, Tenn.	233.4	2.6	116	875	205	2.0	38
Rutherford, Tenn.	117.8	5.5	4	848	235	-1.1	224
Shelby, Tenn.	487.2	1.6	211	991	125	-1.7	254
Williamson, Tenn.	121.3	7.9	1	1,198	49	-4.9	330
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, first quarter 2016

State	Employment		Average weekly wage (1)
	March 2016 (thousands)	Percent change, March 2015-16	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level	Percent change, first quarter 2015-16	National ranking by percent change
United States (2)	140,070.8	2.0	1043	--	-0.5	--
Alabama	1,902.6	1.6	842	37	-0.2	22
Alaska	317.6	-1.4	1028	15	-2	43
Arizona	2,679.8	2.8	918	23	-0.8	30
Arkansas	1,191.1	2.1	793	45	0.5	13
California	16,455.5	2.6	1206	6	0	20
Colorado	2,514.6	2.4	1057	13	-1.3	36
Connecticut	1,650.6	0.6	1362	3	-1.4	38
Delaware	429.7	1.5	1072	10	-3	48
District of Columbia	749.6	2.0	1766	1	0.4	14
Florida	8,301.8	3.5	887	27	0.2	18
Georgia	4,215.1	3.0	1008	17	1.9	2
Hawaii	645.1	1.4	896	26	1.7	3
Idaho	670.4	3.5	725	50	-1.5	39
Illinois	5,800.6	1.2	1126	7	-0.5	28
Indiana	2,949.5	1.9	853	33	-0.5	28
Iowa	1,518.2	0.9	844	36	-0.4	27
Kansas	1,362.3	0.4	833	38	-2	43
Kentucky	1,843.9	1.9	823	41	0.1	19
Louisiana	1,910.5	-0.8	860	32	-2.6	47
Maine	580.5	1.8	804	44	1.1	8
Maryland	2,591.7	1.9	1103	9	-0.8	30
Massachusetts	3,414.8	2.1	1327	4	-1	33
Michigan	4,163.7	2.1	976	20	0.7	11
Minnesota	2,750.1	1.5	1065	12	-1.2	34
Mississippi	1,121.0	1.7	713	51	0.4	14
Missouri	2,729.5	1.9	879	29	-0.3	25
Montana	447.8	1.8	751	49	0.3	16
Nebraska	956.6	1.4	817	42	0	20
Nevada	1,264.1	3.0	875	30	1.2	5
New Hampshire	635.1	1.9	998	18	1.6	4
New Jersey	3,909.7	2.4	1268	5	-1.7	41
New Mexico	800.4	0.0	792	46	-1.6	40
New York	9,042.2	2.0	1456	2	-0.3	25
North Carolina	4,220.3	3.0	928	22	-0.2	22
North Dakota	409.4	-6.2	908	25	-7.6	51
Ohio	5,236.2	1.8	913	24	-0.8	30
Oklahoma	1,578.6	-0.9	833	38	-4.1	49
Oregon	1,808.2	3.2	929	21	1.2	5
Pennsylvania	5,662.2	1.1	1012	16	-1.9	42
Rhode Island	464.6	1.9	985	19	-2.2	46
South Carolina	1,974.6	2.7	806	43	0.8	10
South Dakota	410.5	0.9	771	48	1.2	5
Tennessee	2,859.2	3.3	887	27	0.3	16
Texas	11,638.7	0.7	1066	11	-2.1	45
Utah	1,369.2	3.8	849	35	0.6	12
Vermont	304.6	0.1	832	40	1	9
Virginia	3,748.1	2.6	1057	13	-1.2	34
Washington	3,147.7	3.1	1121	8	3	1
West Virginia	683.9	-1.2	782	47	-1.3	36
Wisconsin	2,771.4	1.3	875	30	-0.2	22
Wyoming	267.9	-3.7	850	34	-4.7	50
Puerto Rico	895.2	-1.2	520	(3)	-0.4	(3)
Virgin Islands	38.6	0.4	769	(3)	2.9	(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.