Employment increased in one of Mississippi’s two large counties from June 2016 to June 2017, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (Large counties are those with 2016 annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more.) Regional Commissioner Janet S. Rankin noted that Harrison County employment rose 1.8 percent during the 12-month period. Hinds County employment decreased 0.8 percent over the year. (See table 1.)

Nationally, employment advanced 1.7 percent from June 2016 to June 2017 as 318 of the 346 largest U.S. counties had increases. Midland, Texas, had the largest percentage increase with a gain of 7.3 percent over the year. Lucas, Ohio, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., with a loss of 1.9 percent.

Among Mississippi’s two largest counties, employment was higher in Hinds (120,700) in June 2017, followed by Harrison (86,900). Together, Hinds and Harrison Counties accounted for 18.4 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 346 largest counties made up 72.7 percent of total U.S. employment, which stood at 145.2 million in June 2017.

From the second quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2017, Harrison County gained 3.0 percent in average weekly wages, the largest among the two large counties in Mississippi. (See table 1.) Hinds County had the higher average weekly wage at $849. Nationally, the average weekly wage was $1,020, a 3.2-percent increase from a year ago.

Employment and wages levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 80 counties in Mississippi with employment below 75,000. Wage levels were below the national average in each of these smaller counties. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Harrison and Hinds Counties’ average weekly wages rose 3.0 and 1.0 percent, respectively, from the second quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2017. Harrison (168^th) ranked in the top half and Hinds (300^th) was in the bottom quarter of the national rankings for large county wage growth. (See table 1.)

Nationally, 325 of the 346 largest counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New Hanover, N.C., had the largest weekly wage increase among the largest U.S. counties (11.9 percent). San Mateo, Calif., and Midland, Texas were second with increases of 11.4 percent each. The top five counties for average weekly wage gains included Kitsap, Wash. (11.0 percent) and Clackamas, Ore. (10.0 percent).

Of the 346 largest U.S. counties, 19 had over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. McLean, Ill., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages (-20.4 percent), followed by Union, N.J. (-3.7 percent); Warren, Ohio (-3.6 percent); Somerset, N.J. (-3.4 percent); Fairfield, Conn. (-1.9 percent); and Washington, Ore. (-1.9 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Average weekly wages in both Hinds County ($849) and Harrison County ($718) were below the U.S. average of $1,020 and placed in the bottom third of the national ranking in the second quarter of 2017. (See table 1.)

Nationwide, average weekly wages were higher than the U.S. average ($1,020) in 97 of the 346 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., was the highest-paid large county with an average weekly wage of $2,392. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $2,093, followed by San Francisco, Calif. ($1,941) and New York, N.Y. ($1,907).

Among the largest U.S. counties, 249 had average weekly wages below the national average in the second quarter of 2017. The lowest wage was reported in Cameron, Texas ($615), followed by Horry, S.C. ($622); and the Texas counties of Hidalgo ($632) and Webb ($667).

Average weekly wages in Mississippi’s smaller counties

Among the 80 smaller counties in Mississippi with employment below 75,000, Kemper ($972) had the highest average weekly wage in the state. Issaquena County had the lowest weekly wage in the state, averaging $450 in the second quarter of 2017. (See table 2.)

When all 82 counties in Mississippi were considered, 15 had average weekly wages below $600, 41 had wages from $600 to $699, 20 had wages from $700 to $799, and 6 had wages $800 or higher. (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 2016 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 2017 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2016 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2016/home.htm. The 2017 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available in September 2018.

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2017 is scheduled to be released on Tuesday, March 8, 2018.

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 9.9 million employer reports cover 145.2 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 2 largest counties in Mississippi, second quarter 2017

Area	Employment			Average weekly wage (1)
	June 2017 (thousands)	Percent change, June 2016-17 (2)	National ranking by percent change (3)	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level (3)	Percent change, second quarter 2016-17 (2)	National ranking by percent change (3)
United States (4)	145,186.4	1.7	--	$1,020	--	3.2	--
Mississippi	1,128.9	0.7	--	732	51	0.8	49
Harrison, Miss.	86.9	1.8	146	718	336	3.0	168
Hinds, Miss.	120.7	-0.8	339	849	266	1.0	300
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, second quarter 2017

State	Employment		Average weekly wage (1)
	June 2017 (thousands)	Percent change, June 2016-17	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level	Percent change, second quarter 2016-17	National ranking by percent change
United States (2)	145,186.4	1.7	$1,020	--	3.2	--
Alabama	1,946.4	1.2	858	38	2.8	31
Alaska	338.4	-0.7	1,005	16	-0.5	51
Arizona	2,699.6	2.9	943	23	2.5	35
Arkansas	1,206.0	0.7	810	47	3.2	22
California	17,150.9	2.2	1,210	5	4.7	3
Colorado	2,638.8	2.5	1,042	11	4.2	5
Connecticut	1,701.2	0.6	1,216	4	0.4	50
Delaware	446.6	0.6	1,012	15	2.2	43
District of Columbia	766.5	1.0	1,675	1	3.3	19
Florida	8,390.6	2.8	905	27	2.5	35
Georgia	4,357.8	2.1	956	21	2.9	27
Hawaii	653.0	1.0	935	24	3.5	13
Idaho	723.5	3.4	765	50	3.4	16
Illinois	6,006.6	0.9	1,062	9	2.4	39
Indiana	3,041.0	1.5	859	37	3.7	9
Iowa	1,571.4	0.4	853	39	3.3	19
Kansas	1,377.8	-0.1	849	40	2.4	39
Kentucky	1,889.4	0.8	862	35	2.9	27
Louisiana	1,907.7	0.0	869	34	2.0	46
Maine	629.1	0.9	814	46	2.5	35
Maryland	2,694.8	1.4	1,103	8	3.1	23
Massachusetts	3,604.5	1.6	1,278	2	3.6	11
Michigan	4,365.3	1.6	969	19	2.9	27
Minnesota	2,902.1	2.0	1,037	12	3.9	6
Mississippi	1,128.9	0.7	732	51	0.8	49
Missouri	2,818.7	1.2	889	30	3.0	25
Montana	473.6	1.3	797	48	3.9	6
Nebraska	984.0	0.4	833	43	3.5	13
Nevada	1,333.5	3.4	900	29	2.9	27
New Hampshire	665.4	1.6	1,015	14	1.2	48
New Jersey	4,123.5	1.8	1,173	6	2.3	41
New Mexico	815.4	0.7	823	45	1.5	47
New York	9,417.4	1.6	1,237	3	2.2	43
North Carolina	4,361.4	1.8	902	28	4.3	4
North Dakota	422.7	-0.2	953	22	5.0	2
Ohio	5,422.8	1.2	912	25	3.3	19
Oklahoma	1,583.8	0.8	845	41	2.5	35
Oregon	1,912.6	2.2	967	20	3.8	8
Pennsylvania	5,859.4	1.3	1,000	17	3.0	25
Rhode Island	487.3	1.0	980	18	2.6	33
South Carolina	2,053.9	2.0	834	42	3.6	11
South Dakota	435.5	0.6	785	49	3.4	16
Tennessee	2,948.1	1.8	906	26	3.5	13
Texas	12,059.6	2.1	1,027	13	2.7	32
Utah	1,440.3	3.4	862	35	2.6	33
Vermont	314.2	1.0	870	33	2.1	45
Virginia	3,886.6	1.5	1,047	10	3.7	9
Washington	3,352.5	2.2	1,141	7	5.6	1
West Virginia	690.9	-0.3	828	44	3.4	16
Wisconsin	2,905.3	1.1	876	31	2.3	41
Wyoming	280.2	-0.7	875	32	3.1	23
Puerto Rico	873.6	-1.0	515	(3)	1.2	(3)
Virgin Islands	38.6	0.4	762	(3)	2.6	(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.