For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, September 27, 2012 USDL-12-1939 

Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • QCEWInfo@bls.gov • www.bls.gov/cew 

Media Contact: (202) 691-5902 • PressOffice@bls.gov

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

First Quarter 2012 

From March 2011 to March 2012, employment increased in 293 of the 328 largest U.S. counties, the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Gregg, Texas, posted the largest increase, with a gain of 

6.0 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.8 percent. Within Gregg, the largest

employment increase occurred in construction, which gained 1,948 jobs over the year (28.7 percent).

Benton, Wash., experienced the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the largest 

counties in the U.S. with a loss of 3.9 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 5.4 percent to $984 in the first quarter of 

2012. Williamson, Texas, had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 

27.4 percent. Within Williamson, a total wage gain of $298.1 million (49.5 percent) in the trade, 

transportation, and utilities industry had the largest impact on the county’s increase in average weekly 

wages. New York, N.Y., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 6.3 

percent over the year. County employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of 

Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, March 2011-12 

(U.S. average = 1.8 percent)

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, first quarter 2011-12 

(U.S. average = 5.4 percent)

6.0 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.7

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Gregg,

Texas

Williamson,

Tenn.

Rutherford, 

Tenn.

Montgomery, 

Texas

Harford, 

Md.

27.4

13.6 12.4 12.1 11.8

0 

5 

10

15

20

25

30

Williamson, 

Texas

Middlesex, 

N.J.

Washington, 

Pa.

Newport 

News City, 

Va.

Collin, 

Texas
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by March 2012 employment, March 2011-12 employment 

increase, and March 2011-12 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

March 2012 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) March 2011-12 March 2011-12

(thousands)

United States 130,175.4 United States 2,338.1 United States 1.8

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,925.0 Harris, Texas 70.4 Gregg, Texas 6.0

Cook, Ill. 2,373.7 New York, N.Y. 53.0 Williamson, Tenn. 5.6

New York, N.Y. 2,360.9 Los Angeles, Calif. 52.9 Rutherford, Tenn. 5.3

Harris, Texas 2,085.3 Maricopa, Ariz. 41.4 Montgomery, Texas 4.9

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,665.1 Cook, Ill. 35.8 Harford, Md. 4.7

Dallas, Texas 1,446.5 Dallas, Texas 34.6 Kent, Mich. 4.6

Orange, Calif. 1,386.8 King, Wash. 33.6 Delaware, Ohio 4.6

San Diego, Calif. 1,253.4 Santa Clara, Calif. 30.2 Fort Bend, Texas 4.6

King, Wash. 1,144.4 Hennepin, Minn. 27.1 Kern, Calif. 4.4

Miami-Dade, Fla. 989.5 Orange, Calif. 24.1 Douglas, Colo. 4.2

Manatee, Fla. 4.2

Ottawa, Mich. 4.2

Washington, Pa. 4.2

Denton, Texas 4.2

Davis, Utah 4.2

Utah, Utah 4.2

Large County Employment 

In March 2012, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.2 million, up by 

1.8 percent or 2.3 million jobs, from March 2011. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs 

accounted for 71.1 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.5 percent of total wages. These 328 

counties had a net job growth of 1.6 million over the year, accounting for 70.2 percent of the overall 

U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)

Gregg, Texas, had the largest percentage increase in employment (6.0 percent) among the largest U.S. 

counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; New 

York, N.Y.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Maricopa, Ariz.; and Cook, Ill. These counties had a combined overthe-year gain of 253,500, or 10.8 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S. (See table A.)

Employment declined in 32 of the large counties from March 2011 to March 2012. Benton, Wash., had 

the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-3.9 percent). Within Benton, professional 

and business services was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 3,103 jobs 

(-13.3 percent). Madison, Ill., had the second largest percent decrease in employment, followed by 

Arlington, Va. Two counties, St. Clair, Ill., and Jefferson, La., tied for the fourth largest employment 

decrease. (See table 1.)
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by first quarter 2012 average weekly wages, first quarter 2011-12

increase in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2011-12 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

Average weekly wage, Increase in average weekly Percent increase in average 

first quarter 2012 wage, first quarter 2011-12 weekly wage, first

quarter 2011-12

United States $984 United States $50 United States 5.4

New York, N.Y. $2,464 Williamson, Texas $261 Williamson, Texas 27.4

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,957 Middlesex, N.J. 160 Middlesex, N.J. 13.6

Fairfield, Conn. 1,942 Morris, N.J. 138 Washington, Pa. 12.4

Somerset, N.J. 1,881 Lake, Ill. 126 Newport News City, Va. 12.1

San Francisco, Calif. 1,791 Collin, Texas 126 Collin, Texas 11.8

Suffolk, Mass. 1,708 San Mateo, Calif. 112 Tulsa, Okla. 11.3

San Mateo, Calif. 1,622 Washington, Pa. 110 Gregg, Texas 10.9

Arlington, Va. 1,617 Santa Clara, Calif. 103 Lake, Ill. 10.3

Washington, D.C. 1,602 Durham, N.C. 103 Peoria, Ill. 10.3

Morris, N.J. 1,595 Newport News City, Va. 100 Santa Cruz, Calif. 10.0

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 5.4 percent during the year ending in the first

quarter of 2012. Among the 328 largest counties, 323 had over-the-year increases in average weekly 

wages. (See chart 4.) Williamson, Texas, had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties 

(27.4 percent). 

Of the 328 largest counties, 4 experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. New York, 

N.Y., had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 6.3 percent. Smaller first quarter 

bonus payments in 2012 contributed to this decrease in the average weekly wage. Within New York

County, total wages in financial activities decreased by $5.3 billion (-13.4 percent) over the year. 

Somerset, N.J., had the second largest decline in average weekly wages, followed by Hudson, N.J., and 

Douglas, Colo. Clayton, Ga., had the smallest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages (0.1 

percent). (See table 1.)

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percentage increases in employment in March 

2012. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain (3.5 percent). Within Harris, professional and business 

services had the largest over-the-year level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of 

19,800 jobs (6.0 percent). San Diego, Calif., had the smallest percent increase in employment (1.1 

percent) among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.) 

Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. San Diego, 

Calif., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages (7.5 percent), largely due to substantial 

total wage gains over the year in professional and business services ($291.1 million or 7.6 percent). New 

York, N.Y., had the only average weekly wage decline (-6.3 percent) among the 10 largest counties. 
- 4 - 

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 328 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2011. March 2012 employment and 2012 

first quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.

The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the 

ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to 

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 130.2 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the first quarter of 2012 will be available later at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. 

Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling (202) 691-6567. 

Several BLS regional offices are issuing QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. For links to 

these releases, see http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm. 

The County Employment and Wages release for second quarter 2012 is scheduled to be released 

on Tuesday, January 8, 2013. 

County Changes for the 2012 County Employment and Wages News Releases

Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2011 are included in this release and 

will be included in future 2012 releases. Seven counties have been added to the publication tables: 

Okaloosa, Fla.; Tippecanoe, Ind.; Johnson, Iowa; St. Tammany, La.; Saratoga, N.Y.; Delaware, Ohio; 

and Gregg, Texas. One county, Jackson, Ore., will be excluded. 
Technical Note

These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative program, 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 summaries are 

a result of the administration of state unemployment insurance programs that require most employers to pay quarterly taxes based on 

the employment and wages of workers covered by UI. QCEW data 

in this release are based on the 2012 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2012 are preliminary and subject to 

revision.

For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as having 

employment levels of 75,000 or greater. In addition, data for San 

Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. 

averages, rankings, or in the analysis in the text. Each year, these 

large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual 

average of employment for the previous year. The 329 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2011 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2012 data, seven counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Okaloosa, Fla.; Tippecanoe, 

Ind.; Johnson, Iowa; St. Tammany, La.; Saratoga, N.Y.; Delaware, 

Ohio; and Gregg, Texas. These counties will be included in all 2012 

quarterly releases. One county, Jackson, Ore., which was published 

in the 2011 releases, will be excluded from this and future 2012 

releases because their 2011 annual average employment levels were

less than 75,000.

Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2012

Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.7 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 486,000 establishments

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws

UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers

Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs

Publication frequency

Quarterly

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter

Quarterly

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter

Monthly

— Usually first Friday of following 

month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal database and directly summarizes gross job gains and losses

Uses UI file as a sampling frame and 

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels

Principal

products

Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by 

detailed industry

Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

data on establishment openings, closings, expansions, and contractions at 

the national level by NAICS supersectors and by size of firm, and at the 

state private-sector total level 

Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry

Principal uses Major uses include:

— Detailed locality data

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys

Major uses include:

— Business cycle analysis

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm

Major uses include:

— Principal national economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites

www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/
The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each year based on the 

annual average employment from the preceding year.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

from data released by the individual states. These potential differences result from the states' continuing receipt of UI data over time 

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables.

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures

The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these measures—

QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and publication product.

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

of the program products. (See table.) Additional information on each 

program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the 

table.

Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers on 

behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies

which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to the 

quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on 

the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2011. These reports are based on place of 

employment rather than place of residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and has been basically comparable from state to state since 1978, when the 1976 amendments to the 

Federal Unemployment Tax Act became effective, expanding coverage to include most State and local government employees. In 2011, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 129.4 million jobs. The 

estimated 124.8 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.7 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $6.217 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.2 percent of the gross domestic product.

Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members of the 

Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of 

railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, 

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations.

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

have an impact on the employment and wages reported by employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may affect the 

over-the-year comparisons presented in this news release.

Concepts and methodology

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

worked during or received pay for the pay period including the 12th 

of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of covered firms 

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

Workers on paid vacations and part-time workers also are included.

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

(all employees, as described above) and dividing the result by 13, for 

the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values that 

can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may 

differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage 

data are non-wage cash payments such as bonuses, the cash value of 

meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, and, in 

some states, employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options. Over-the-year 

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in 

average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between 

the current quarter and prior year levels.

Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time to 

part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in highpaying and low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay periods 

within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the work 

force could increase significantly when there is a large decline in the 

number of employees that had been receiving below-average wages. 

Wages may include payments to workers not present in the employment counts because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month. When comparing average weekly wage 

levels between industries, states, or quarters, these factors should be 

taken into consideration.

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that consists of some quarters having more pay periods than others. Most federal employees 

are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result of this schedule, in 

some quarters, federal wages contain payments for six pay periods, 

while in other quarters their wages include payments for seven pay 

periods. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may 

reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages 

may be attributed, in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the 

current year, which include seven pay periods, with year-ago wages 

that reflect only six pay periods. An opposite effect will occur when 

wages in the current period, which contain six pay periods, are compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay periods. The effect 

on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced in federal 

government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. 

This pattern may exist in private sector pay; however, because there 

are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, 

monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect is most visible in counties 

with large concentrations of federal employment.

In order to ensure the highest possible quality of data, states verify 

with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, and 

ownership classification of all establishments on a 4-year cycle. 

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of 

the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also 

are introduced in the first quarter.
QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are 

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect 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. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation.

The over-the-year changes of employment and wages presented in 

this release have been adjusted to account for most of the administrative corrections made to the underlying establishment reports. This is 

done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the overthe-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted 

version of the final 2011 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year percent change 

in employment and wages are not published. These adjusted prioryear levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS 

Web site. Over-the-year change calculations based on data from the 

Web site, or from data published in prior BLS news releases, may 

differ substantially from the over-the-year changes presented in this 

news release.

The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change 

measures presented in this release account for most of the administrative changes—those occurring when employers update the industry, location, and ownership information of their establishments. The 

most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of 

updated information about the county location of individual establishments. Included in these adjustments are administrative changes 

involving the classification of establishments that were previously 

reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry 

categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, adjusted data 

account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers 

who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a 

single entity.

The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change 

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured 

in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data.

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties include those designated as independent cities in some jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where counties 

have not been created. County data also are presented for the New 

England states for comparative purposes even though townships are 

the more common designation used in New England (and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined as census 

regions.

Additional statistics and other information

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2010 edition 

of this publication, which was published in November 2011, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics 

(BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first 

quarter 2011 version of this news release. Tables and additional 

content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2010 are 

now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn10.htm. 

The 2011 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in 2012. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

(202) 691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/); (e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov).

Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; TDD 

message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,211.8 130,175.4 1.8 – $984 5.4 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.6 335.0 1.6 151 978 6.4 100

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 176.9 0.3 276 1,024 4.6 241

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.7 163.8 -0.5 315 790 6.3 110

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.3 126.4 0.0 294 809 6.3 110

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.2 83.9 1.1 203 806 3.7 291

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.4 150.3 2.0 121 1,022 7.2 65

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 95.6 1,665.1 2.6 78 945 5.8 149

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.0 348.1 1.5 159 804 5.0 211

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 96.1 3.1 45 1,166 5.2 194

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.3 241.5 1.0 217 861 5.6 162

Washington, AR ................. 5.5 90.9 2.9 54 746 2.9 312

Alameda, CA ...................... 57.9 646.5 2.5 86 1,276 7.2 65

Contra Costa, CA ............... 30.7 317.2 0.9 228 1,256 4.0 276

Fresno, CA ......................... 31.8 325.8 1.4 175 736 3.7 291

Kern, CA ............................ 18.4 272.4 4.4 9 853 8.1 31

Los Angeles, CA ................ 448.8 3,925.0 1.4 175 1,090 4.2 265

Marin, CA ........................... 12.0 103.7 2.8 63 1,128 2.5 317

Monterey, CA ..................... 13.2 153.0 3.1 45 834 3.2 306

Orange, CA ........................ 106.0 1,386.8 1.8 137 1,095 5.2 194

Placer, CA .......................... 11.1 128.9 1.7 142 934 6.1 129

Riverside, CA ..................... 52.1 565.6 1.1 203 777 4.3 260

Sacramento, CA ................ 55.3 580.1 0.8 238 1,081 6.0 139

San Bernardino, CA ........... 53.0 602.4 1.0 217 790 5.2 194

San Diego, CA ................... 102.3 1,253.4 1.1 203 1,076 7.5 44

San Francisco, CA ............. 57.2 573.0 4.1 17 1,791 3.6 295

San Joaquin, CA ................ 18.1 199.1 1.0 217 785 4.8 224

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.8 102.6 2.8 63 775 4.3 260

San Mateo, CA .................. 25.1 334.0 2.8 63 1,622 7.4 51

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.8 179.0 2.9 54 924 6.5 93

Santa Clara, CA ................. 64.9 884.7 3.5 28 1,957 5.6 162

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.3 86.9 0.9 228 902 10.0 10

Solano, CA ......................... 10.4 119.0 2.5 86 990 6.6 84

Sonoma, CA ...................... 19.4 172.2 0.6 250 867 3.1 310

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.3 158.7 1.3 184 803 7.4 51

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.6 137.8 2.9 54 649 4.0 276

Ventura, CA ....................... 24.5 305.4 2.2 107 1,034 7.0 69

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.3 87.7 0.6 250 1,010 ( 7) – 

Adams, CO ........................ 8.9 155.6 1.9 126 848 5.0 211

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.8 279.0 2.7 72 1,198 5.9 145

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.9 158.6 3.1 45 1,126 6.6 84

Denver, CO ........................ 25.6 425.2 2.9 54 1,270 4.3 260

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.5 92.1 4.2 10 1,077 -0.3 324

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.7 233.8 0.7 242 857 5.5 166

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.8 208.5 3.0 49 970 7.1 68

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.0 128.3 3.0 49 826 3.6 295

Weld, CO ........................... 5.8 83.2 3.4 33 819 6.0 139

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.6 402.3 1.8 137 1,942 2.9 312

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.5 485.7 1.4 175 1,320 4.4 256

New Haven, CT ................. 22.3 350.9 1.6 151 1,003 5.4 179

New London, CT ................ 6.9 121.4 -0.8 322 987 2.7 315

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 16.7 263.7 0.6 250 $1,244 3.8 284

Washington, DC ................. 35.3 712.1 1.3 184 1,602 4.0 276

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.5 116.3 0.4 269 761 4.4 256

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.5 187.7 -0.4 312 853 6.4 100

Broward, FL ....................... 63.1 699.6 2.3 99 877 5.7 158

Collier, FL .......................... 11.8 124.6 3.2 40 813 6.8 74

Duval, FL ........................... 26.9 437.3 -0.1 297 947 6.3 110

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 119.4 -0.4 312 725 5.4 179

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.9 589.2 2.1 115 920 4.7 233

Lake, FL ............................. 7.2 81.8 1.3 184 620 6.2 122

Lee, FL ............................... 18.7 206.9 2.6 78 739 4.1 270

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 137.5 -0.5 315 750 3.7 291

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.4 106.3 4.2 10 706 5.5 166

Marion, FL .......................... 7.9 89.7 -0.1 297 643 5.2 194

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 88.6 989.5 2.2 107 909 4.1 270

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 76.4 0.9 228 767 8.0 34

Orange, FL ......................... 36.0 676.5 3.0 49 846 5.0 211

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.5 509.4 2.5 86 934 5.2 194

Pasco, FL ........................... 10.0 99.8 0.9 228 624 4.7 233

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.6 382.2 1.0 217 829 7.9 37

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 191.9 -0.1 297 700 4.5 250

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.4 139.4 2.8 63 755 4.6 241

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.7 157.8 2.1 115 774 5.6 162

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.4 152.4 0.6 250 659 4.8 224

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 79.9 1.4 175 732 4.4 256

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 132.0 2.3 99 801 6.2 122

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 111.1 -0.8 322 981 0.1 323

Cobb, GA ........................... 21.3 301.9 2.6 78 1,057 3.9 280

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.8 276.1 0.2 283 1,034 3.5 299

Fulton, GA .......................... 41.1 711.7 2.2 107 1,406 5.1 205

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 24.0 306.3 1.7 142 940 6.3 110

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 92.9 -0.5 315 781 4.6 241

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 99.0 -0.7 318 791 6.3 110

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.5 440.6 0.8 238 870 6.1 129

Ada, ID ............................... 13.7 195.1 2.9 54 810 4.5 250

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 86.9 0.4 269 795 6.1 129

Cook, IL ............................. 147.8 2,373.7 1.5 159 1,195 4.7 233

Du Page, IL ........................ 37.0 559.8 1.9 126 1,161 6.2 122

Kane, IL ............................. 13.3 190.3 2.8 63 815 4.2 265

Lake, IL .............................. 22.0 313.4 1.3 184 1,344 10.3 8

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 91.4 1.8 137 769 6.2 122

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 85.2 0.3 276 949 5.0 211

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 93.5 -1.5 327 775 5.2 194

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 102.1 1.7 142 1,039 10.3 8

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.6 93.1 -0.9 324 753 6.1 129

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 127.8 0.1 291 946 3.4 301

Will, IL ................................ 15.1 198.6 2.2 107 830 5.3 186

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 123.2 0.3 276 818 6.6 84

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 173.3 1.4 175 810 8.0 34

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 106.9 4.1 17 750 7.3 59

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.6 112.1 3.2 40 $952 3.3 305

Lake, IN ............................. 10.4 186.0 2.0 121 852 8.4 26

Marion, IN .......................... 24.1 555.7 2.8 63 1,029 4.1 270

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 114.5 -0.3 306 760 5.6 162

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 77.4 3.3 38 829 6.6 84

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.9 105.8 1.2 197 766 5.7 158

Johnson, IA ........................ 3.6 76.9 1.8 137 836 6.2 122

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 125.2 1.5 159 905 6.7 77

Polk, IA .............................. 15.0 266.8 2.8 63 992 5.4 179

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 86.3 1.6 151 765 5.8 149

Johnson, KS ...................... 22.0 306.9 3.7 25 1,016 6.4 100

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.6 238.7 0.9 228 880 7.6 42

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 94.5 0.5 262 795 6.7 77

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.3 82.8 4.0 19 893 8.2 29

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.4 174.8 1.9 126 849 5.2 194

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.0 418.4 2.4 95 955 8.6 22

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.5 120.2 -0.3 306 769 4.8 224

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 82.8 0.3 276 826 7.4 51

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.8 256.6 1.1 203 877 5.7 158

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.9 190.1 -0.9 324 868 5.1 205

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.1 137.0 3.9 22 918 7.4 51

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.3 177.4 3.2 40 979 1.2 319

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.5 78.8 2.7 72 817 6.4 100

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.6 165.1 0.6 250 868 3.8 284

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.5 234.4 3.6 27 1,042 9.3 17

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.1 361.0 1.3 184 977 6.1 129

Frederick, MD .................... 6.1 91.6 -0.1 297 958 4.6 241

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 86.1 4.7 5 895 5.5 166

Howard, MD ....................... 9.1 155.6 2.8 63 1,202 4.6 241

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.8 447.6 1.1 203 1,355 3.4 301

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.5 298.8 0.5 262 984 5.0 211

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.8 327.7 -0.3 306 1,173 8.5 23

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 80.1 2.0 121 808 6.6 84

Bristol, MA ......................... 16.5 207.6 0.9 228 844 6.7 77

Essex, MA .......................... 22.3 298.0 1.5 159 1,006 4.7 233

Hampden, MA .................... 15.6 194.3 1.2 197 858 5.5 166

Middlesex, MA ................... 50.8 811.5 1.7 142 1,459 6.3 110

Norfolk, MA ........................ 24.2 314.4 1.5 159 1,133 6.5 93

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.5 171.0 1.9 126 858 5.3 186

Suffolk, MA ........................ 24.2 589.7 2.2 107 1,708 4.5 250

Worcester, MA ................... 22.0 313.8 1.3 184 947 4.5 250

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.1 128.5 1.9 126 794 6.6 84

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.2 152.8 0.2 283 916 5.4 179

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.2 108.9 1.1 203 874 7.5 44

Kent, MI ............................. 13.6 325.7 4.6 6 847 7.2 65

Macomb, MI ....................... 16.6 285.4 2.4 95 982 4.4 256

Oakland, MI ....................... 36.6 643.2 3.3 38 1,081 6.0 139

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.4 105.3 4.2 10 747 4.6 241

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.1 81.9 2.0 121 760 0.7 321

Washtenaw, MI .................. 7.8 191.3 1.9 126 974 5.8 149

Wayne, MI .......................... 30.5 677.0 1.9 126 1,070 4.9 218

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.2 107.6 2.6 78 $870 4.8 224

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.9 168.3 0.7 242 954 7.4 51

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.3 833.2 3.4 33 1,274 6.3 110

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.5 88.5 2.9 54 1,001 3.8 284

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.0 312.1 1.0 217 1,116 3.0 311

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.6 90.9 0.0 294 781 8.0 34

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.4 79.6 2.7 72 736 5.1 205

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.4 81.9 -0.3 306 702 5.1 205

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.0 121.5 0.3 276 802 3.4 301

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 85.5 3.9 22 724 4.5 250

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 88.6 0.8 238 884 4.9 218

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 152.3 3.9 22 707 7.3 59

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.4 342.4 0.4 269 960 6.5 93

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 124.1 2.5 86 784 5.2 194

St. Louis, MO ..................... 31.8 561.0 0.2 283 1,023 5.7 158

St. Louis City, MO .............. 9.1 217.0 1.3 184 1,155 9.4 14

Yellowstone, MT ................ 6.0 76.2 2.2 107 769 6.5 93

Douglas, NE ....................... 17.1 311.5 1.5 159 898 5.3 186

Lancaster, NE .................... 9.1 155.8 2.9 54 749 5.3 186

Clark, NV ........................... 47.9 807.9 1.5 159 836 5.8 149

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.5 180.3 0.6 250 828 4.9 218

Hillsborough, NH ................ 11.8 186.2 0.6 250 1,031 5.3 186

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.5 131.5 1.5 159 891 4.2 265

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.7 130.8 1.9 126 801 3.8 284

Bergen, NJ ......................... 33.3 423.1 1.7 142 1,207 4.9 218

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.0 191.5 1.1 203 1,008 5.1 205

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.2 191.1 0.5 262 955 5.8 149

Essex, NJ ........................... 20.6 338.1 0.7 242 1,320 7.7 38

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.2 96.3 0.1 291 810 5.3 186

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.9 232.0 1.0 217 1,514 -0.4 325

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.0 228.3 1.3 184 1,391 7.5 44

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.8 380.2 2.3 99 1,338 13.6 2

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.0 237.5 -0.4 312 967 2.7 315

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.4 269.2 1.6 151 1,595 9.5 13

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.2 143.6 2.3 99 769 3.8 284

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.3 169.6 0.7 242 956 5.5 166

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.1 169.3 1.5 159 1,881 -1.6 326

Union, NJ ........................... 14.5 217.5 1.0 217 1,265 5.4 179

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 306.5 -0.3 306 825 5.5 166

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 216.7 0.2 283 973 3.8 284

Bronx, NY .......................... 17.1 234.1 -0.1 297 851 4.0 276

Broome, NY ....................... 4.6 89.6 -0.2 303 728 3.4 301

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 110.0 0.7 242 958 4.6 241

Erie, NY ............................. 23.8 449.4 1.1 203 842 6.0 139

Kings, NY ........................... 52.6 518.1 2.8 63 754 4.1 270

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.2 370.7 1.4 175 892 5.1 205

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.8 587.1 2.4 95 1,058 4.1 270

New York, NY .................... 122.8 2,360.9 2.3 99 2,464 -6.3 327

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 103.8 -0.7 318 739 4.2 265

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.9 238.4 0.5 262 874 5.3 186

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 129.2 0.5 262 789 4.9 218

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Queens, NY ....................... 46.9 513.9 2.9 54 $877 3.7 291

Richmond, NY .................... 9.0 91.3 0.6 250 778 2.8 314

Rockland, NY ..................... 10.0 113.1 0.9 228 1,055 6.2 122

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.5 75.5 3.2 40 836 7.0 69

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.8 608.6 1.6 151 1,046 7.7 38

Westchester, NY ................ 36.2 401.0 0.7 242 1,399 4.7 233

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.0 111.9 1.5 159 714 5.8 149

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 78.3 0.2 283 705 1.9 318

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 119.1 0.3 276 729 5.0 211

Durham, NC ....................... 7.3 182.8 2.5 86 1,381 8.1 31

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 173.5 2.4 95 945 5.5 166

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.1 261.7 1.1 203 854 6.8 74

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.9 563.6 2.9 54 1,274 3.2 306

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.4 95.8 1.4 175 749 3.2 306

Wake, NC .......................... 29.6 448.3 2.7 72 960 4.7 233

Cass, ND ........................... 6.1 103.8 3.7 25 829 8.4 26

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 137.5 1.1 203 831 6.3 110

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 35.6 689.2 1.9 126 1,003 5.4 179

Delaware, OH .................... 4.3 76.8 4.6 6 1,073 7.6 42

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.6 659.6 2.6 78 972 5.5 166

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.1 484.2 1.7 142 1,092 9.7 11

Lake, OH ............................ 6.4 92.1 1.5 159 802 3.8 284

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.0 93.6 2.3 99 796 6.1 129

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.1 198.5 2.2 107 837 5.3 186

Mahoning, OH .................... 5.9 95.7 1.6 151 671 7.0 69

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.1 241.5 1.1 203 831 6.3 110

Stark, OH ........................... 8.8 151.6 1.9 126 745 6.0 139

Summit, OH ....................... 14.3 252.8 2.0 121 897 6.7 77

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.7 424.7 2.6 78 912 9.4 14

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.4 330.3 1.3 184 914 11.3 6

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.7 136.6 1.5 159 840 5.5 166

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 135.4 0.8 238 710 5.8 149

Marion, OR ........................ 9.4 127.5 -0.3 306 728 4.1 270

Multnomah, OR .................. 29.6 437.4 2.7 72 979 6.8 74

Washington, OR ................ 16.4 245.6 2.1 115 1,205 7.3 59

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.8 675.9 1.4 175 1,067 7.7 38

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 162.8 1.3 184 832 6.7 77

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.8 245.0 0.2 283 894 5.2 194

Butler, PA ........................... 4.9 82.2 2.3 99 861 6.7 77

Chester, PA ....................... 15.2 234.1 0.5 262 1,255 8.5 23

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.1 121.7 0.4 269 873 7.4 51

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.5 173.9 0.6 250 966 8.8 21

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.9 209.4 1.0 217 1,082 6.5 93

Erie, PA .............................. 7.7 123.6 1.2 197 746 7.3 59

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 96.0 -0.1 297 719 7.0 69

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.7 216.5 1.0 217 775 5.9 145

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 173.6 1.5 159 950 8.1 31

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 136.9 0.2 283 743 8.9 19

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.5 460.7 0.6 250 1,294 7.4 51

Northampton, PA ............... 6.6 101.7 2.3 99 840 6.3 110

Philadelphia, PA ................ 36.0 626.7 0.0 294 1,148 6.3 110

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Washington, PA ................. 5.7 84.3 4.2 10 $995 12.4 3

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 131.4 1.7 142 761 6.1 129

York, PA ............................. 9.1 170.3 0.9 228 826 4.8 224

Providence, RI ................... 17.2 267.1 1.2 197 970 8.5 23

Charleston, SC .................. 11.8 213.9 3.4 33 834 7.5 44

Greenville, SC .................... 12.0 232.9 2.6 78 820 6.6 84

Horry, SC ........................... 7.6 104.7 2.5 86 559 4.9 218

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 95.2 1.6 151 683 6.1 129

Richland, SC ...................... 9.0 204.6 1.3 184 832 4.7 233

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.8 114.9 3.2 40 802 5.4 179

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 113.8 1.8 137 798 6.5 93

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.3 424.4 2.7 72 1,013 9.0 18

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 183.8 2.6 78 843 7.4 51

Knox, TN ............................ 10.9 218.0 1.2 197 804 7.3 59

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.4 101.5 5.3 3 821 5.9 145

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.1 466.8 2.1 115 970 6.0 139

Williamson, TN ................... 6.2 96.2 5.6 2 1,125 5.9 145

Bell, TX .............................. 4.9 107.2 0.2 283 773 5.0 211

Bexar, TX ........................... 35.0 743.0 1.5 159 886 5.5 166

Brazoria, TX ....................... 5.0 91.8 3.4 33 943 3.2 306

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 86.2 -0.7 318 701 6.4 100

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 129.5 1.7 142 570 5.2 194

Collin, TX ........................... 19.1 302.8 3.4 33 1,197 11.8 5

Dallas, TX .......................... 69.0 1,446.5 2.5 86 1,213 5.5 166

Denton, TX ......................... 11.5 182.6 4.2 10 833 6.4 100

El Paso, TX ........................ 14.1 275.0 0.5 262 669 6.9 73

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.7 140.7 4.6 6 1,025 4.6 241

Galveston, TX .................... 5.4 95.5 0.4 269 867 4.8 224

Gregg, TX .......................... 4.2 78.9 6.0 1 883 10.9 7

Harris, TX ........................... 102.9 2,085.3 3.5 28 1,340 6.4 100

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 11.4 230.1 1.3 184 579 4.7 233

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 122.7 1.2 197 988 7.5 44

Lubbock, TX ....................... 7.1 123.9 -0.7 318 700 7.5 44

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 100.3 0.6 250 766 5.8 149

Montgomery, TX ................ 9.1 138.3 4.9 4 968 8.3 28

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 154.6 2.2 107 821 9.6 12

Smith, TX ........................... 5.7 92.7 0.4 269 766 3.9 280

Tarrant, TX ......................... 38.5 771.7 2.5 86 954 6.6 84

Travis, TX .......................... 31.9 595.9 3.1 45 1,063 6.1 129

Webb, TX ........................... 4.9 90.7 3.5 28 624 5.8 149

Williamson, TX ................... 7.9 131.7 2.5 86 1,213 27.4 1

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 105.0 4.2 10 763 8.2 29

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.0 578.7 3.5 28 911 6.4 100

Utah, UT ............................ 12.7 171.4 4.2 10 724 6.5 93

Weber, UT ......................... 5.4 89.8 2.1 115 682 6.2 122

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.1 95.9 3.0 49 915 4.6 241

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.5 164.9 -1.3 326 1,617 4.3 260

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.8 115.1 1.3 184 857 3.6 295

Fairfax, VA ......................... 35.1 585.1 2.1 115 1,562 5.5 166

Henrico, VA ........................ 10.2 175.4 1.6 151 1,031 1.1 320

Loudoun, VA ...................... 10.0 137.6 1.7 142 1,161 6.7 77

Prince William, VA ............. 8.0 110.8 4.0 19 831 6.4 100

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.3 94.3 1.1 203 $1,286 4.8 224

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 95.0 1.5 159 757 4.8 224

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.8 96.8 1.5 159 926 12.1 4

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 137.9 0.4 269 927 7.5 44

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.1 148.4 1.0 217 1,113 3.9 280

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.4 161.2 0.9 228 745 3.9 280

Benton, WA ........................ 5.7 77.4 -3.9 328 959 0.6 322

Clark, WA ........................... 13.6 127.2 1.9 126 848 6.3 110

King, WA ............................ 82.7 1,144.4 3.0 49 1,265 6.4 100

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.7 79.6 -0.2 303 868 8.9 19

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.8 260.8 0.6 250 840 4.5 250

Snohomish, WA ................. 19.3 252.8 4.0 19 1,061 9.4 14

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.9 195.5 0.7 242 806 7.3 59

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.5 96.3 -0.2 303 829 3.6 295

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.9 80.2 3.5 28 796 6.6 84

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.8 95.2 0.9 228 632 4.3 260

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 104.7 1.1 203 836 4.8 224

Brown, WI .......................... 6.5 144.3 1.1 203 836 4.2 265

Dane, WI ............................ 13.9 299.7 1.4 175 941 7.7 38

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.8 464.0 0.1 291 981 5.5 166

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 100.2 1.0 217 793 5.2 194

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.5 222.4 0.7 242 953 6.1 129

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.6 88.0 0.3 276 869 3.5 299

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.3 265.0 1.7 ( 8) 618 3.7 ( 8) 

 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.

These 328 large U.S. counties comprise 71.1 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. 8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 4

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,211.8 130,175.4 1.8 $984 5.4

Private industry .............................................. 8,914.4 108,645.8 2.4 991 5.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 129.5 1,847.8 8.6 1,197 7.5

Construction ............................................... 752.9 5,282.2 2.8 972 6.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 335.9 11,792.7 2.0 1,230 5.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,881.9 24,782.6 1.9 815 6.4

Information ................................................. 143.9 2,668.0 -0.1 1,717 6.8

Financial activities ...................................... 810.1 7,424.5 0.9 1,905 1.1

Professional and business services ........... 1,582.7 17,536.7 3.5 1,292 6.5

Education and health services ................... 923.9 19,362.2 2.0 841 6.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 765.0 13,295.4 3.5 384 5.8

Other services ............................................ 1,358.3 4,418.2 1.5 582 5.4

Government ................................................... 297.4 21,529.7 -1.1 949 5.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 448.8 3,925.0 1.4 1,090 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 443.1 3,375.9 2.0 1,070 3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 10.0 1.4 1,660 0.2

Construction ............................................... 12.0 105.7 3.0 1,042 4.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 12.6 365.0 -0.6 1,218 6.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 50.3 742.9 1.6 853 5.8

Information ................................................. 8.2 188.5 -2.2 2,092 4.3

Financial activities ...................................... 21.6 208.1 0.6 1,987 3.9

Professional and business services ........... 41.1 560.8 3.7 1,323 4.3

Education and health services ................... 29.2 528.6 2.0 952 4.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.9 400.5 3.7 562 -2.1

Other services ............................................ 213.8 243.3 0.0 452 2.5

Government ................................................... 5.7 549.1 -2.1 1,212 6.1

Cook, IL .............................................................. 147.8 2,373.7 1.5 1,195 4.7

Private industry .............................................. 146.4 2,074.4 1.9 1,204 4.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.7 0.1 843 10.5

Construction ............................................... 12.3 56.8 0.0 1,307 2.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.6 192.3 -0.1 1,175 6.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 28.7 435.5 1.2 907 6.6

Information ................................................. 2.6 53.5 1.3 1,894 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 15.5 183.3 -0.7 2,930 2.1

Professional and business services ........... 31.2 412.1 3.7 1,510 6.3

Education and health services ................... 15.5 409.6 1.7 865 3.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 13.0 231.4 4.2 458 8.5

Other services ............................................ 16.3 95.7 1.4 797 6.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 299.3 -0.9 1,134 6.7

New York, NY ..................................................... 122.8 2,360.9 2.3 2,464 -6.3

Private industry .............................................. 122.5 1,924.1 2.9 2,771 -7.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 9.7 2,784 -11.1

Construction ............................................... 2.1 29.9 1.3 1,650 2.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 26.7 0.2 1,663 4.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.8 244.7 3.9 1,321 5.6

Information ................................................. 4.4 139.5 3.0 2,835 5.3

Financial activities ...................................... 18.9 351.5 0.2 7,511 -13.7

Professional and business services ........... 25.3 475.3 3.5 2,560 -0.9

Education and health services ................... 9.2 309.5 0.8 1,128 6.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.9 248.2 5.9 793 4.2

Other services ............................................ 18.9 90.6 3.4 1,045 6.3

Government ................................................... 0.3 436.9 -0.5 1,112 1.7

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 4

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 102.9 2,085.3 3.5 $1,340 6.4

Private industry .............................................. 102.4 1,829.7 4.5 1,388 6.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.7 85.2 9.6 4,242 2.0

Construction ............................................... 6.5 139.2 5.6 1,198 9.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 185.3 7.0 1,686 5.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.1 433.0 3.4 1,263 8.6

Information ................................................. 1.3 27.9 -0.5 1,456 5.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.6 112.2 0.7 1,929 4.8

Professional and business services ........... 20.5 348.1 6.0 1,549 5.3

Education and health services ................... 11.6 248.2 2.9 934 6.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.4 188.8 5.0 420 9.4

Other services ............................................ 13.7 60.8 1.7 684 4.0

Government ................................................... 0.6 255.6 -3.4 996 3.0

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 95.6 1,665.1 2.6 945 5.8

Private industry .............................................. 94.9 1,456.7 3.0 953 6.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.1 8.0 1,268 9.4

Construction ............................................... 8.1 82.4 4.4 935 5.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 111.8 2.3 1,519 5.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.9 338.7 2.5 895 5.8

Information ................................................. 1.6 28.1 2.2 1,247 3.3

Financial activities ...................................... 11.0 141.4 3.6 1,359 7.0

Professional and business services ........... 22.6 269.0 2.3 1,005 8.8

Education and health services ................... 10.6 246.0 3.7 898 3.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 182.2 3.2 429 5.1

Other services ............................................ 6.6 46.8 0.2 610 5.5

Government ................................................... 0.7 208.3 -0.7 884 3.6

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 69.0 1,446.5 2.5 1,213 5.5

Private industry .............................................. 68.5 1,283.1 3.2 1,237 5.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 9.5 14.5 4,827 8.4

Construction ............................................... 4.0 67.1 1.1 1,007 4.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 111.4 0.3 1,510 2.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 289.9 3.7 1,058 7.5

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.9 0.7 2,179 4.6

Financial activities ...................................... 8.6 141.0 2.7 1,896 1.8

Professional and business services ........... 15.2 278.0 5.6 1,324 6.3

Education and health services ................... 7.4 170.5 2.6 1,003 7.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.8 129.9 3.0 489 4.9

Other services ............................................ 7.3 39.3 0.6 670 7.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 163.4 -3.2 1,024 5.0

Orange, CA ........................................................ 106.0 1,386.8 1.8 1,095 5.2

Private industry .............................................. 104.6 1,243.4 2.2 1,070 4.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 3.5 -16.1 735 20.1

Construction ............................................... 6.0 68.6 2.4 1,128 6.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.8 156.8 1.8 1,368 6.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.8 241.5 0.6 981 6.1

Information ................................................. 1.2 23.7 -0.9 1,668 -8.5

Financial activities ...................................... 9.5 106.2 1.4 1,789 6.9

Professional and business services ........... 18.4 246.5 1.9 1,253 4.5

Education and health services ................... 10.4 162.5 2.6 920 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 176.8 4.4 431 5.9

Other services ............................................ 22.4 49.8 ( 6) 534 4.3

Government ................................................... 1.4 143.4 -1.8 1,310 7.9

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12 4

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 102.3 1,253.4 1.1 $1,076 7.5

Private industry .............................................. 100.9 1,035.8 1.7 1,052 6.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 10.0 0.4 575 7.9

Construction ............................................... 5.8 55.1 1.3 1,067 3.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 93.1 -0.8 1,557 6.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.4 201.0 1.4 842 5.5

Information ................................................. 1.1 24.3 -1.6 1,662 3.1

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 68.8 1.9 1,565 17.8

Professional and business services ........... 15.8 210.9 2.0 1,505 5.8

Education and health services ................... 8.6 154.6 2.3 922 4.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 154.2 2.4 430 12.0

Other services ............................................ 29.5 57.1 -0.6 521 4.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 217.6 -1.5 1,190 11.4

King, WA ............................................................ 82.7 1,144.4 3.0 1,265 6.4

Private industry .............................................. 82.2 987.2 3.6 1,287 7.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.3 2.7 8.7 1,430 -2.1

Construction ............................................... 5.4 44.9 4.2 1,159 4.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.2 101.1 4.9 1,715 7.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.5 208.1 3.3 1,082 5.9

Information ................................................. 1.8 80.3 1.8 2,546 11.4

Financial activities ...................................... 6.2 62.7 0.2 1,794 4.5

Professional and business services ........... 13.9 185.2 4.3 1,540 7.3

Education and health services ................... 7.3 138.8 3.6 945 7.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 110.2 4.6 443 5.5

Other services ............................................ 24.0 53.2 3.3 612 4.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 157.2 -0.1 1,127 1.8

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 88.6 989.5 2.2 909 4.1

Private industry .............................................. 88.3 851.2 3.2 895 4.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.9 -4.0 484 16.9

Construction ............................................... 5.0 29.0 -7.2 862 -0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 36.3 1.5 851 5.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 25.5 254.1 4.2 844 4.6

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.2 0.1 1,438 5.9

Financial activities ...................................... 9.0 66.6 4.9 1,567 -0.8

Professional and business services ........... 18.4 124.8 0.8 1,108 9.1

Education and health services ................... 9.9 157.2 2.0 875 6.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.7 119.0 7.1 518 8.6

Other services ............................................ 7.9 35.1 4.1 540 4.4

Government ................................................... 0.4 138.3 -3.6 988 0.7

 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2011 annual average employment. 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. See

Technical Note. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

first quarter 2012 2

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12

United States 4 ................... 9,211.8 130,175.4 1.8 $984 5.4

Alabama ............................. 116.1 1,822.8 0.8 808 5.6

Alaska ................................ 21.9 316.4 1.9 973 6.7

Arizona ............................... 146.4 2,437.2 2.1 887 5.7

Arkansas ............................ 85.2 1,151.5 1.5 747 4.6

California ............................ 1,422.7 14,670.6 2.0 1,125 5.5

Colorado ............................ 170.4 2,230.4 2.4 1,003 5.4

Connecticut ........................ 110.6 1,613.1 1.5 1,330 3.8

Delaware ............................ 27.4 398.8 0.8 1,071 4.2

District of Columbia ............ 35.3 712.1 1.3 1,602 4.0

Florida ................................ 605.4 7,377.3 2.0 837 5.4

Georgia .............................. 268.3 3,815.5 1.3 931 5.2

Hawaii ................................ 38.4 600.3 0.9 834 5.7

Idaho .................................. 53.5 596.7 1.1 692 5.0

Illinois ................................. 388.7 5,557.5 1.5 1,061 5.9

Indiana ............................... 161.6 2,777.0 2.2 822 6.3

Iowa ................................... 95.0 1,448.3 1.9 784 6.4

Kansas ............................... 87.8 1,314.2 1.8 803 7.2

Kentucky ............................ 108.3 1,750.3 1.9 785 6.4

Louisiana ........................... 128.5 1,863.1 1.2 836 4.9

Maine ................................. 49.3 561.4 0.5 757 4.7

Maryland ............................ 165.1 2,492.4 1.7 1,071 6.0

Massachusetts ................... 228.7 3,178.7 1.7 1,227 5.7

Michigan ............................ 241.6 3,865.8 2.6 920 5.5

Minnesota .......................... 169.9 2,586.3 2.1 989 6.1

Mississippi ......................... 69.1 1,083.5 0.8 687 5.9

Missouri ............................. 175.1 2,593.7 1.2 838 6.5

Montana ............................. 42.1 419.5 1.8 706 7.8

Nebraska ........................... 65.8 905.3 2.1 765 6.1

Nevada .............................. 72.0 1,118.4 1.4 846 5.5

New Hampshire ................. 48.3 602.1 1.0 923 5.4

New Jersey ........................ 264.5 3,749.0 1.5 1,228 5.9

New Mexico ....................... 55.0 779.7 0.4 782 5.8

New York ........................... 603.0 8,479.4 1.7 1,357 -0.8

North Carolina .................... 256.9 3,874.9 1.7 869 5.3

North Dakota ...................... 28.5 397.4 9.0 857 14.6

Ohio ................................... 287.0 4,967.8 2.0 873 6.6

Oklahoma .......................... 103.9 1,525.5 2.0 806 9.4

Oregon ............................... 132.9 1,613.0 1.4 864 6.4

Pennsylvania ..................... 354.1 5,531.1 1.2 960 7.1

Rhode Island ...................... 35.0 443.5 1.1 931 8.0

South Carolina ................... 112.0 1,797.7 1.7 764 6.0

South Dakota ..................... 31.2 390.4 2.1 703 6.7

Tennessee ......................... 141.3 2,636.7 2.4 847 6.8

Texas ................................. 591.5 10,605.2 2.6 1,013 7.2

Utah ................................... 83.8 1,193.1 3.2 799 6.1

Vermont ............................. 24.5 296.6 1.5 774 4.6

Virginia ............................... 239.3 3,586.3 1.4 1,019 5.3

Washington ........................ 235.5 2,831.9 1.9 1,009 6.5

West Virginia ...................... 49.4 705.5 2.4 768 6.2

Wisconsin .......................... 158.9 2,639.0 1.1 827 6.2

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

first quarter 2012 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2011-12

First

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

first quarter

2011-12

Wyoming ............................ 25.3 271.8 2.4 $850 5.2

Puerto Rico ........................ 48.8 931.3 0.6 521 4.6

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.4 42.7 -5.4 722 -2.0

 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.
Largest Counties

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 September 2012

Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,

March 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.8 percent)
Largest Counties

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 September 2012

Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 or more 

employees, first quarter 2011-12 (U.S. average = 5.4 percent)