A to Z Index  |  FAQs  |  About BLS  |  Contact Us    

News Release Information

14-172-SAN
Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Contacts

Technical information:
Media contact:
  • (415) 625-2270

County Employment and Wages in Arizona – Second Quarter 2013

Employment advanced in one of Arizona’s two large counties from June 2012 to June 2013, 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 2012 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Richard J. Holden noted that Maricopa County experienced job growth of 2.6 percent, while employment in Pima County edged down 0.1 percent over the year.

Nationally, employment increased 1.6 percent from June 2012 to June 2013 as 288 of the 334 largest U.S. counties gained jobs. Fort Bend, Texas, had the largest increase with a gain of 7.0 percent over the year. Atlantic, N.J., had the largest over-the-year decrease with a loss of 4.5 percent.

Among the state’s two large counties, employment was higher in Maricopa County (1,678,700) in June 2013. Together, Arizona’s two large counties accounted for 82.9 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 334 large counties made up 71.4 percent of total U.S. employment. (See table 1.)

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 13 counties in Arizona with employment below 75,000. All but one of these smaller counties had average weekly wages below the national average. (See table 2)

Large county wage changes

Average weekly wages in Pima County increased 2.3 percent over the year from the second quarter of 2012 and ranked 98th among the 334 largest U.S. counties. Maricopa’s County’s 1.5-percent wage growth ranked 197th nationally. (See table 1.) Nationwide, 304 large counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2013. Union, N.J., ranked first with an increase of 8.1 percent. San Mateo, Calif., ranked second with a gain of 8.0 percent, followed by the counties of Williamson, Tenn. (7.8 percent), Rockingham, N.H. (6.9 percent), and Dane, Wis. (6.0 percent).

Among the 334 largest counties, 18 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Davidson, Tenn., had the largest decrease (-2.2 percent), followed by Whatcom, Wash. (-1.5 percent). Washington, Ore., and Shelby, Tenn., tied for the third largest percentage decrease (-1.3 percent). El Paso, Colo., and Wyandotte, Kan., tied for the fifth largest percentage decrease (-1.1 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Maricopa County’s $919 average weekly wage placed in the top third among the 334 large U.S. counties, ranking 110th. At $812 per week, Pima County’s average weekly wage placed 201st. Nationally, weekly wages were higher than average in 107 of the 334 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $1,810. New York, N.Y., was second at $1,675, followed by San Mateo, Calif. ($1,632) and Washington, D.C. ($1,575).

There were  227 large counties with an average weekly wage below the U.S. average in the second quarter of 2013, Horry, S.C. ($537) reported the lowest wage, followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($572), Hidalgo, Texas ($592), Yakima, Wash. ($629), and Lake, Fla. ($633).

Average weekly wages in Arizona’s smaller counties

Of the 13 counties in Arizona with employment below 75,000, only Greenlee ($1,093) had an average wage above the national average of $921. La Paz County reported the lowest wage in the state with an average of $629 in the second quarter of 2013. (See table 2.)

When all 15 counties in Arizona were considered, all but 1 had wages below the national average. Four counties reported average weekly wages under $700, six had wages from $700 to $799, three reported wages from $800 to $899, and two had wages of $900 or more. (See chart 1.)

Additional statistics and other information

Quarterly 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/.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages 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/cewbultn12.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 Service: 1-800-877-8339.


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 two large counties in Arizona, second quarter 2013 (2)
AreaEmploymentAverage Weekly Wage (3)
June 2013 (thousands)Percent change, June 2012-13 (4)National ranking by percent change (5)Average weekly wageNational ranking by level (5)Percent change, second quarter 2012-13 (4)National ranking by percent change (5)

United States (6)

135,094.01.6--$921--2.1--

Arizona

2,438.11.8--877201.732

Maricopa, Ariz.

1,678.72.6699191101.5197

Pima, Ariz.

343.6-0.12988122012.398

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 counties in Arizona, second quarter 2013 (2)
AreaEmployment June 2013Average Weekly Wage (3)

United States (4)

135,093,963$921

  Arizona

2,438,072877

    Apache

17,611785

    Cochise

35,251823

    Coconino

59,006747

    Gila

15,321713

    Graham

8,370737

    Greenlee

5,3771,093

    La Paz

5,306629

    Maricopa

1,678,689919

    Mohave

44,087664

    Navajo

26,353702

    Pima

343,649812

    Pinal

55,169734

    Santa Cruz

12,858843

    Yavapai

54,473681

    Yuma

57,202672

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.

 

SOURCE: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
 

 
Table 3. Covered (1) employment and wages by state, second quarter 2013 (2)
StateEmploymentAverage weekly wage (3)
June
2013
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June 2012-13
Average
weekly
wage
National
ranking by
level
Percent change,
second quarter
2012-13
National
ranking by
percent change

United States (4)

135,094.01.6$921--2.1--

Alabama

1,859.50.9794351.444

Alaska

342.6-0.197091.637

Arizona

2,438.11.8877201.732

Arkansas

1,150.4-0.6734462.410

California

15,485.82.41,04862.021

Colorado

2,359.42.9933141.637

Connecticut

1,666.31.01,12831.541

Delaware

417.81.8966122.021

District of Columbia

725.00.91,57512.119

Florida

7,402.02.4822292.021

Georgia

3,917.21.7867222.217

Hawaii

617.01.9823281.637

Idaho

642.72.7683511.928

Illinois

5,750.00.897181.928

Indiana

2,863.41.1776421.732

Iowa

1,523.91.3757432.021

Kansas

1,350.01.2779412.119

Kentucky

1,790.60.6782381.346

Louisiana

1,894.70.9824272.410

Maine

604.40.4732471.830

Maryland

2,570.30.91,00571.444

Massachusetts

3,352.71.31,13122.021

Michigan

4,073.72.2875212.021

Minnesota

2,745.21.9929152.410

Mississippi

1,094.90.7691491.541

Missouri

2,668.21.2803331.637

Montana

448.41.5717482.410

Nebraska

941.00.9737452.67

Nevada

1,168.32.3829261.732

New Hampshire

629.10.8916172.94

New Jersey

3,917.51.01,08452.67

New Mexico

795.00.478139-0.351

New York

8,804.91.11,11842.021

North Carolina

3,985.11.7808312.59

North Dakota

433.73.2887183.71

Ohio

5,162.31.1830251.732

Oklahoma

1,560.70.9794353.52

Oregon

1,708.02.5848231.346

Pennsylvania

5,665.90.3918162.85

Rhode Island

465.51.0880192.316

South Carolina

1,864.91.8747441.541

South Dakota

417.01.0689501.830

Tennessee

2,709.31.5820300.549

Texas

11,078.82.7944132.410

Utah

1,259.72.8783372.217

Vermont

303.10.3808312.76

Virginia

3,685.40.7968111.732

Washington

3,013.32.2969102.410

West Virginia

713.1-0.1781390.648

Wisconsin

2,768.20.6801343.03

Wyoming

290.40.4845240.549

Puerto Rico

926.1-1.1503(5)1.0(5)

Virgin Islands

38.9-3.0706(5)-13.8(5)

(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.
 

 

Last Modified Date: Tuesday, February 04, 2014