Technical information: (202) 691-6567

http://www.bls.gov/cew/

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 04-1200

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT

Thursday, July 8, 2004

(This release was reissued on Tuesday, August 31, 2004, to correct data in the second column

of table A and in the release text associated with table A. See page 5 for corrections to data

from prior releases.)

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FOURTH QUARTER 2003

In December 2003, Clark County, Nev., and Loudoun County, Va., had the largest over-the-year percentage increases in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Clark and Loudoun

counties experienced over-the-year employment gains of 5.2 percent each, compared with zero job growth

in the nation. Collier County, Fla., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the fourth

quarter of 2003, with an increase of 9.7 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.6 percent

over the same time span.

Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 171 had over-the-year growth in employment and

137 experienced declines in employment, while the national average employment level was unchanged.

(See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 166 of the largest U.S.

counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 144 counties. (See chart 2.)

The employment and 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

reports submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 8.3 million employer

reports cover 129.3 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the

nation and for the 315 U.S. counties with employment levels of 75,000 or more. In addition, data for San

Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. averages, or in the analysis in the text.

(See Technical Note.) December 2003 employment and 2003 fourth-quarter average weekly wages for all

states are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, MSAs, counties, and the nation through the

third quarter of 2003 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the

fourth quarter of 2003 and revised data for the first, second, and third quarters of 2003 will be available later

in July on the BLS Web site.

Large County Employment

The national employment total in December 2003 was 129.3 million, unchanged from December 2002.

The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.5 percent of total U.S. covered

employment and 76.6 percent of total wages. These 315 counties had a net job loss of 26,708 over the

year. The biggest gains in employment from December 2002 to December 2003 were recorded in the
2

Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by December 2003 employment, December 2002-03 employment

change, and December 2002-03 percent change in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,075.3 Clark, Nev. 38.5 Clark, Nev. 5.2

Cook, Ill. 2,539.8 Orange, Calif. 18.6 Loudoun, Va. 5.2

New York, N.Y. 2,253.6 Riverside, Calif. 16.5 Prince William, Va. 5.1

Harris, Texas 1,841.5 San Diego, Calif. 15.9 Rutherford, Tenn. 4.6

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,621.2 Fairfax, Va. 15.3 Hidalgo, Texas 4.4

Dallas, Texas 1,450.8 San Bernardino, Calif. 14.7 Montgomery, Texas 4.3

Orange, Calif. 1,436.6 Pinellas, Fla. 10.0 Placer, Calif. 4.3

San Diego, Calif. 1,278.2 Wake, N.C. 8.9 Chesapeake City, Va. 4.2

King, Wash. 1,100.6 Gwinnett, Ga. 8.2 Lee, Fla. 3.9

Miami-Dade, Fla. 980.8 Orange, Fla. 8.0 Frederick, Md. 3.8

Employment in large counties

December 2003 employment

 (thousands)

 Net change in employment,

 December 2002-03

 (thousands)

Percent change in employment,

 December 2002-03

U.S. 129,341.5 U.S. -37.3 U.S. 0.0

counties of Clark, Nev. (38,500), Orange, Calif. (18,600), Riverside, Calif. (16,500), San Diego, Calif.

(15,900), and Fairfax, Va. (15,300). (See table A.)

Employment increased in 171 counties from December 2002 to December 2003. Clark County, Nev.,

and Loudoun County, Va., had the largest over-the-year percentage increases in employment (5.2 percent

each). Prince William County, Va., had the next largest increase, 5.1 percent, followed by the counties of

Rutherford, Tenn. (4.6 percent), and Hidalgo, Texas (4.4 percent). (See table 1.)

Employment declined in 137 counties from December 2002 to December 2003. The largest percentage decline in employment was in San Mateo County, Calif. (-4.7 percent), followed by the counties of

Sangamon, Ill. (-3.9 percent), Santa Clara, Calif. (-3.4 percent), Tulsa, Okla. (-3.0 percent), and Shawnee,

Kan. (-2.9 percent). The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Cook County, Ill. (-30,800),

followed by the counties of Santa Clara, Calif. (-30,500), New York, N.Y. (-21,900), Dallas, Texas

(-20,700), and Middlesex, Mass. (-20,400).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2003 was $767, which was 3.6 percent higher

than in the fourth quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 109 of

the largest 315 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large

counties with an average weekly wage of $1,480. Santa Clara County, Calif., was second with an average

weekly wage of $1,333, followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,308), Suffolk, Mass. ($1,245), and Washington,

D.C. ($1,238). (See table B.)

Collier County, Fla., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 9.7 percent.

Madison County, Ill., was second with 8.8 percent growth, followed by the counties of Washington, Ore.

(8.5 percent), Genesee, Mich. (8.0 percent), and Peoria, Ill. (7.6 percent).
3

New York, N.Y. $1,480 New York, N.Y. $99 Collier, Fla. 9.7

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,333 Santa Clara, Calif. 86 Madison, Ill. 8.8

Fairfield, Conn. 1,308 Suffolk, Mass. 75 Washington, Ore. 8.5

Suffolk, Mass. 1,245 Fairfax, Va. 70 Genesee, Mich. 8.0

Washington, D.C. 1,238 Washington, Ore. 70 Peoria, Ill. 7.6

San Mateo, Calif. 1,234 San Mateo, Calif. 67 Okaloosa, Fla. 7.5

Arlington, Va. 1,199 Collier, Fla. 62 Norfolk City, Va. 7.3

San Francisco, Calif. 1,178 Philadelphia, Pa. 61 New York, N.Y. 7.2

Somerset, N.J. 1,159 Genesee, Mich. 59 Philadelphia, Pa. 7.2

Fairfax, Va. 1,158 Hudson, N.J. 56 Richmond, N.Y. 7.1

U.S. $767 U.S. $27 U.S. 3.6

Average weekly wage in large counties

 Average weekly wage,

 fourth quarter 2003

 Percent change in average

 weekly wage, fourth

 quarter 2002-03

 Change in average weekly

 wage, fourth quarter 2002-03

Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by fourth quarter 2003 average weekly wages, fourth quarter

2002-03 change in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2002-03 percent change in average

weekly wages

There were 206 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average. The lowest average

weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($480), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas

($487), Yakima, Wash. ($515), Horry, S.C. ($523), and Brazos, Texas ($537). (See table 1.)

Six large counties experienced declines in average weekly wages. Broome County, N.Y., and Olmsted

County, Minn., had the largest decreases, -3.3 percent each, followed by the counties of Hamilton, Ind.

(-1.5 percent), Arapahoe, Colo. (-1.3 percent), and Santa Cruz, Calif. (-1.2 percent).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 employment levels), 3 reported increases in employment, while declines occurred in 6 from December 2002 to December 2003. Orange County, Calif., and

San Diego County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a

1.3 percent increase each. Orange County showed employment gains in every private industry supersector,

except manufacturing and information. San Diego County had a similar experience, but also reported a decline in the natural resources and mining supersector. Government employment in Orange County declined

by 5.7 percent, whereas government employment in San Diego County increased by 0.1 percent. (See

table 2.) King County, Wash., had the next largest increase in employment, 0.2 percent. The largest decline

in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, -1.4 percent. The next largest declines in employment were recorded in Cook County, Ill., -1.2 percent, and in New York County, N.Y.,

-1.0 percent.

All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York

County, N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 7.2 percent rate.

New York County’s fastest growing supersectors were financial activities, where the average weekly wage

rose by 16.1 percent, and information, with a 7.9 percent increase. Orange County, Calif., was second in

wage growth, increasing by 5.3 percent, followed by Dallas County, Texas, where the average wage in-
4

creased by 4.3 percent. King County, Wash., experienced the smallest increase in average weekly wages

among the largest 10 counties, rising by only 0.2 percent, primarily due to wage decreases in the information

supersector. This was followed by Harris County, Texas, and San Diego County, Calif., with increases in

average weekly wages of 2.1 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively.

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows December 2003 employment and 2003 fourth-quarter average weekly wage in the largest county in each state. This table includes two counties that have employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in December 2003 ranged

from approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The

highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,480), while the lowest average

weekly wage was in Laramie, Wyo. ($597).
5

Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by June 2003 employment, June 2002-03 employment change, and

June 2002-03 percent change in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,060.4 Clark, Nev. 25.4 Loudoun, Va. 5.2

Cook, Ill. 2,543.0 Riverside, Calif. 16.1 Yakima, Wash. 4.8

New York, N.Y. 2,214.1 Orange, Fla. 13.4 Lee, Fla. 4.6

Harris, Texas 1,837.2 Orange, Calif. 13.1 St. Charles, Mo. 4.3

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,547.0 Maricopa, Ariz. 10.5 Placer, Calif. 4.2

Dallas, Texas 1,442.7 Sacramento, Calif. 9.3 Rutherford, Tenn. 4.1

Orange, Calif. 1,433.5 Pinellas, Fla. 9.1 Pasco, Fla. 3.9

San Diego, Calif. 1,263.1 San Bernardino, Calif. 8.5 Thurston, Wash. 3.7

King, Wash. 1,090.7 Lee, Fla. 8.0 Hidalgo, Texas 3.6

Miami-Dade, Fla. 966.5 Kern, Calif. 8.0 Clark, Nev. 3.5

Employment

June 2003 employment

 (thousands)

 Net change in employment,

 June 2002-03

 (thousands)

Percent change in employment,

 June 2002-03

U.S. 129,169.4 U.S. -628.3 U.S. -0.5

Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by September 2003 employment, September 2002-03 employment

change, and September 2002-03 percent change in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,007.2 Clark, Nev. 32.6 Manatee, Fla. 5.7

Cook, Ill. 2,529.5 Maricopa, Ariz. 17.5 Lee, Fla. 5.4

New York, N.Y. 2,184.9 Orange, Calif. 16.1 Loudoun, Va. 5.4

Harris, Texas 1,823.7 Riverside, Calif. 14.8 Gloucester, N.J. 4.6

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,571.3 San Bernardino, Calif. 14.4 Clark, Nev. 4.4

Dallas, Texas 1,438.9 Pinellas, Fla. 11.3 Okaloosa, Fla. 4.4

Orange, Calif. 1,426.5 San Diego, Calif. 10.8 Placer, Calif. 4.3

San Diego, Calif. 1,256.7 Lee, Fla. 9.4 Hidalgo, Texas 4.0

King, Wash. 1,095.4 Fairfax, Va. 9.0 Rutherford, Tenn. 3.9

Miami-Dade, Fla. 965.2 Orange, Fla. 7.8 Pasco, Fla. 3.8

Employment

September 2003 employment

 (thousands)

 Net change in employment,

 September 2002-03

 (thousands)

Percent change in employment,

 September 2002-03

U.S. 128,546.3 U.S. -494.3 U.S. -0.4

 Correction of Data in Prior County Employment and Wages News Releases

In addition to the corrections made to the data in the second column of table A in this release,

corrections also have been made to data originally published in the second column of table A of

the second and third quarter 2003 County Employment and Wages news releases (USDL 04-6

and USDL 04-599). Corrected data from these releases are presented in the tables below. All

data released through Create Customized Tables, Series Report, and FTP tools on the BLS Web

site are unaffected.
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. Data for 2003 are preliminary

and subject to revision.

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 over-the-quarter

employment change. It is important to understand program

differences and the intended uses of the program products.

(See table below.) Additional information on each program can

be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table

below.

Source Count of UI administrative records Count of longitudinally-linked UI Sample survey: 400,000 employers

submitted by 8.3 million employers administrative rocords submited by

6.4 million private sector employers

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including UI coverage, excluding govern- Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

all employers subject to state and ment, private households, and estab- UI coverage, excluding agriculture,

federal UI Laws lishments with zero employment private households, and self-employed

Other employment, including railroads, religious organizations, and

other non-UI-covered jobs

Publication Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

frequency - 7 months after the end of each - 8 months after the end of each - Usually first Friday of following

quarter quarter month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and pub- Links each new UI quarter to Uses UI file as a sampling frame

 lishes each new quarter of UI longitudinal database and directly

 data summarizes gross job gains

 and losses

Principal Provides a quarterly and annual Provides quarterly employer dyna- Provides current monthly estimates

products universe count of estab- mics data on establishment open- of employment, hours, and earnings

lishments, employment, and ings, closings, expansions, and at the MSA, state, and national levwages at the county, MSA, contractions at the national level el by industry

state, and national levels by Future expansions will include

detailed industry data at the county, MSA, and

state level by industry and size

of establishment

Principal uses Major uses include: Major uses include: Major uses include:

- Detailed locality data - Business cycle analysis - Principal national economic

- Periodic universe counts for - Analysis of employer dynamics indicator

benchmarking sample survey underlying economic expansions - Official time series for

estimates and contractions employment change measures

- Sample frame for BLS - Future: employment expansion - Input into other major economic

establishment surveys and contraction by size of estab- indicators

lishment

Program www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/

Web sites

•

•

•

•

 •

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

 QCEW BED CES

•

and annually realigns (benchmarks)

sample estimates to first quarter

UI levels
Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI

laws and for federal civilian workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)

program are compiled from quarterly contribution reports

submitted to the SWAs by employers. 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. The employment and wage data included in

this release are derived from microdata summaries of more than

8 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted

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

employment rather than place of residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable

from state to state. In 2002, UI and UCFE programs covered

workers in 128.2 million jobs. The estimated 123.4 million

workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)

represented 99.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $4.713 trillion in pay,

representing 94.3 percent of the wage and salary component of

personal income and 45.1 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.

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 from unrounded employment and wage

values so the average wage values that can be calculated from

data from this database may differ from the averages reported,

due to rounding. Included in the quarterly wage data are nonwage 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.

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

to part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in

high-paying and low-paying occupations. When comparing

average weekly wage levels between industries and/or states,

these factors should be taken into consideration. Percent

changes are calculated using the final 2002 quarterly data as

the base data. Final data for 2002 may differ from preliminary

data published earlier.

In order to insure 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 3-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.

These changes in classifications are partially adjusted for in

order to improve the measure of economic change over time,

as presented in this release. Some changes in classification

reflect economic events, while other changes are simply the

result of corrections and other noneconomic events. Changes

of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county

to another or changing its primary economic activity) are not

adjusted for in the over-the-year change, because these

changes are due to an actual event. But to the extent possible,

changes that are not economic in nature (such as a correction

to a previously reported location or industry classification) are

adjusted for in the measures of change presented in this

release.

The adjustment is made by reassigning year-ago data

for establishments with noneconomic changes into the

classification shown in the current data. The year-ago totals are then recreated reflecting this reassignment process.

The adjusted year-ago data are then used to calculate the

over-the-year change. The adjusted year-ago data differ

to some extent from the data available on the BLS Web

site. This process results in a more accurate presentation of

change in local economic activity than what would result

from the simple comparison of current and year-ago data points.

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

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features

comprehensive information by detailed industry on es-
tablishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all

states. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2002 is

available for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O.

Box 2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The

bulletin is now available in a portable document format

(PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/

cewbultn02.htm.

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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,314.1 129,341.5 0.0 - $767 3.6 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.2 374.3 0.3 150 761 2.6 235

Madison, AL ....................... 7.7 160.0 2.5 26 825 4.8 75

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.5 161.7 -0.9 240 625 3.3 185

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.5 130.5 0.1 163 698 4.6 88

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.1 76.7 0.4 138 657 4.3 105

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.8 140.0 1.7 59 787 2.3 256

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 80.9 1,621.2 (7) - 757 4.0 129

Pima, AZ ............................ 17.6 335.6 1.3 74 669 4.5 92

Benton, AR ........................ 4.1 83.1 3.4 14 679 6.3 21

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.2 242.9 1.1 88 716 4.5 92

Washington, AR ................. 4.9 85.6 1.5 66 603 3.1 201

Alameda, CA ...................... 48.2 677.7 -2.3 297 981 3.2 195

Contra Costa, CA ............... 27.7 338.2 -1.0 249 928 2.4 249

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.2 325.7 1.2 83 613 3.4 176

Kern, CA ............................ 15.9 246.2 1.1 88 648 3.3 185

Los Angeles, CA ................ 356.0 4,075.3 -0.5 205 903 4.2 114

Marin, CA ........................... 11.9 111.4 -1.1 257 1,001 5.1 52

Monterey, CA ..................... 11.9 149.9 -0.6 217 672 4.3 105

Orange, CA ........................ 88.8 1,436.6 1.3 74 874 5.3 47

Placer, CA .......................... 9.2 126.9 4.3 6 731 2.8 220

Riverside, CA ..................... 36.9 549.1 3.1 18 646 5.4 40

Sacramento, CA ................ 46.1 598.6 0.7 116 834 2.8 220

San Bernardino, CA ........... 40.8 592.0 2.5 26 674 3.5 171

San Diego, CA ................... 85.3 1,278.2 1.3 74 815 2.6 235

San Francisco, CA ............. 43.8 539.1 -0.9 240 1,178 3.5 171

San Joaquin, CA ................ 15.7 207.5 -0.5 205 675 4.3 105

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 8.6 97.7 0.5 132 632 4.1 122

San Mateo, CA .................. 22.9 327.8 -4.7 312 1,234 5.7 32

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.1 171.1 0.2 158 728 4.9 67

Santa Clara, CA ................. 52.0 855.1 -3.4 310 1,333 6.9 11

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.4 90.3 -1.4 271 715 -1.2 310

Solano, CA ......................... 9.3 126.3 0.3 150 703 4.8 75

Sonoma, CA ...................... 17.1 187.0 -2.8 305 753 2.7 227

Stanislaus, CA ................... 13.1 164.5 1.2 83 636 4.1 122

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.8 133.1 -1.0 249 540 4.2 114

Ventura, CA ....................... 20.4 301.6 0.1 163 812 3.3 185

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.0 93.9 (7) - 702 (7) - 

Adams, CO ........................ 8.5 139.1 -2.8 305 726 2.5 242

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.7 272.0 -1.7 278 918 -1.3 311

Boulder, CO ....................... 11.7 151.5 -1.7 278 924 4.4 99

Denver, CO ........................ 24.1 425.7 -2.3 297 935 3.4 176

El Paso, CO ....................... 15.6 233.8 -0.5 205 705 2.2 263

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.8 204.6 -2.0 289 781 1.0 299

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.0 120.3 0.1 163 708 1.3 295

Fairfield, CT ....................... 31.9 417.3 -0.3 191 1,308 3.2 195

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.3 484.5 -0.9 240 946 3.4 176

New Haven, CT ................. 22.0 362.8 -0.7 224 858 4.5 92

New London, CT ................ 6.6 129.8 1.3 74 816 2.8 220

New Castle, DE ................. 18.0 283.1 0.8 108 917 6.0 27

Washington, DC ................. 30.0 654.8 -0.4 198 1,238 3.9 136

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Alachua, FL ........................ 5.8 124.7 2.3 32 $586 3.4 176

Brevard, FL ........................ 12.1 190.5 2.2 35 714 3.0 209

Broward, FL ....................... 56.5 691.6 -0.2 184 742 4.4 99

Collier, FL .......................... 10.2 122.6 0.6 125 698 9.7 1

Duval, FL ........................... 21.8 431.6 -0.3 191 750 4.9 67

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.1 122.7 0.8 108 595 2.2 263

Hillsborough, FL ................. 30.5 604.3 0.2 158 731 6.4 17

Lee, FL ............................... 14.6 195.3 3.9 9 641 3.7 159

Leon, FL ............................. 7.2 144.1 -0.1 176 653 0.9 300

Manatee, FL ....................... 6.7 120.3 3.7 11 583 3.4 176

Marion, FL .......................... 6.2 88.6 3.3 16 568 3.8 150

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 80.2 980.8 -0.5 205 765 3.5 171

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 5.0 80.7 3.0 21 588 7.5 6

Orange, FL ......................... 29.0 617.2 1.3 74 707 3.5 171

Palm Beach, FL ................. 42.5 521.8 -0.5 205 770 3.6 168

Pasco, FL ........................... 7.2 82.8 1.8 53 558 4.9 67

Pinellas, FL ........................ 27.9 436.7 2.3 32 671 1.5 290

Polk, FL .............................. 10.1 188.3 -0.7 224 617 4.9 67

Sarasota, FL ...................... 12.6 151.1 -1.6 276 648 5.7 32

Seminole, FL ...................... 11.7 150.6 0.8 108 683 2.7 227

Volusia, FL ......................... 11.5 151.2 1.1 88 583 4.5 92

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.8 87.3 2.2 35 642 0.0 308

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.0 126.6 1.6 63 639 1.8 280

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 109.6 -1.7 278 784 3.7 159

Cobb, GA ........................... 19.8 303.4 2.5 26 850 4.3 105

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.1 295.7 -0.2 184 832 2.5 242

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.7 732.5 -1.3 267 990 3.6 168

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 21.4 298.0 2.8 23 823 1.5 290

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 97.0 0.9 99 603 -0.5 309

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 106.0 0.9 99 641 3.7 159

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.5 427.0 0.7 116 704 3.7 159

Ada, ID ............................... 13.0 184.9 1.0 95 685 1.9 278

Champaign, IL ................... 3.9 90.5 -0.6 217 659 2.0 273

Cook, IL ............................. 126.7 2,539.8 -1.2 262 922 3.0 209

Du Page, IL ........................ 32.3 571.2 -0.6 217 921 2.4 249

Kane, IL ............................. 10.8 198.5 0.6 125 718 2.3 256

Lake, IL .............................. 18.8 320.3 -0.5 205 976 3.3 185

McHenry, IL ....................... 7.3 93.2 0.7 116 695 1.9 278

McLean, IL ......................... 3.4 86.0 -0.7 224 758 3.3 185

Madison, IL ........................ 5.6 94.9 -1.7 278 666 8.8 2

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.6 97.1 -1.9 288 749 7.6 5

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.4 77.4 -0.7 224 792 4.9 67

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.1 93.6 1.2 83 605 2.9 215

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.1 136.3 -3.9 311 754 0.3 305

Will, IL ................................ 10.4 155.7 2.4 29 731 0.6 304

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.6 137.1 -1.0 249 672 2.3 256

Allen, IN ............................. 8.7 179.8 -1.7 278 678 2.6 235

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 117.8 1.8 53 685 5.4 40

Hamilton, IN ....................... 6.0 85.9 3.4 14 780 -1.5 312

Lake, IN ............................. 9.9 191.2 -0.9 240 689 5.0 59

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Marion, IN .......................... 23.7 578.1 -0.5 205 $800 3.8 150

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 124.9 -0.1 176 670 5.7 32

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 108.3 -1.0 249 666 5.4 40

Linn, IA ............................... 5.9 115.8 -1.2 262 732 5.0 59

Polk, IA .............................. 13.8 262.7 0.3 150 763 5.0 59

Scott, IA ............................. 5.0 85.5 0.4 138 643 3.9 136

Johnson, KS ...................... 18.8 293.8 0.6 125 783 2.1 267

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 11.6 240.4 -1.6 276 699 1.2 298

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 95.9 -2.9 308 641 4.1 122

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 76.6 -0.4 198 744 4.3 105

Fayette, KY ........................ 8.7 167.5 0.0 173 696 4.7 82

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.4 421.5 -0.3 191 752 3.7 159

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.0 121.1 1.4 67 647 4.0 129

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.5 81.9 -1.8 283 625 3.1 201

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 12.9 246.2 2.1 39 659 2.3 256

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.7 213.8 0.3 150 647 3.4 176

Lafayette, LA ...................... 7.4 120.9 0.7 116 682 2.6 235

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.3 251.3 0.7 116 717 1.6 288

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.3 172.2 1.8 53 718 5.9 31

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 13.1 209.4 1.4 67 797 2.4 249

Baltimore, MD .................... 20.0 361.9 -0.1 176 807 3.1 201

Frederick, MD .................... 5.3 88.7 3.8 10 724 1.7 284

Howard, MD ....................... 7.6 138.5 1.7 59 873 3.2 195

Montgomery, MD ............... 30.8 455.5 0.4 138 1,006 4.7 82

Prince Georges, MD .......... 14.6 316.7 1.4 67 828 4.0 129

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.1 368.7 -0.4 198 870 3.8 150

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.1 88.0 0.9 99 690 2.7 227

Bristol, MA ......................... 14.9 220.4 0.4 138 701 6.4 17

Essex, MA .......................... 20.4 294.1 -2.5 301 844 5.1 52

Hampden, MA .................... 13.7 199.1 -2.1 291 728 5.4 40

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.5 790.6 -2.5 301 1,085 5.0 59

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.7 319.5 -1.3 267 971 5.0 59

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.3 171.3 0.4 138 762 4.4 99

Suffolk, MA ........................ 22.2 563.4 -2.8 305 1,245 6.4 17

Worcester, MA ................... 20.0 319.0 -0.5 205 799 6.3 21

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.6 156.8 -1.5 273 794 8.0 4

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.0 171.7 0.1 163 764 3.9 136

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 116.5 -0.2 184 737 4.5 92

Kent, MI ............................. 14.4 337.3 0.1 163 744 2.2 263

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.0 325.6 -0.4 198 884 3.9 136

Oakland, MI ....................... 41.3 728.5 -1.8 283 984 3.3 185

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 110.0 -0.2 184 720 1.3 295

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.6 92.3 -0.9 240 751 4.7 82

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 197.5 -1.1 257 885 4.2 114

Wayne, MI .......................... 35.2 820.3 -1.5 273 907 5.3 47

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.4 111.7 0.8 108 753 2.0 273

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.7 167.2 1.9 51 760 2.4 249

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.4 829.1 -1.0 249 957 3.8 150

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.3 87.2 0.4 138 762 -3.3 313

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.1 327.5 -0.9 240 871 3.9 136

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.7 92.8 -2.2 294 $621 2.5 242

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.2 77.1 -0.5 205 632 3.9 136

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 89.6 3.1 18 543 3.2 195

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.6 132.4 1.1 88 680 2.6 235

Boone, MO ......................... 4.2 77.3 -0.7 224 600 2.7 227

Clay, MO ............................ 4.8 85.9 -0.4 198 716 3.2 195

Greene, MO ....................... 7.9 145.9 0.7 116 589 3.7 159

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.7 365.6 -2.4 300 780 2.1 267

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.1 108.2 1.8 53 659 3.1 201

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.7 625.2 -1.8 283 820 2.6 235

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.3 227.4 -2.7 303 836 2.6 235

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.0 314.3 -0.3 191 705 2.5 242

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.5 150.5 1.3 74 631 2.1 267

Clark, NV ........................... 36.6 779.9 5.2 1 715 4.8 75

Washoe, NV ....................... 12.2 200.1 2.1 39 739 5.3 47

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.2 195.8 1.1 88 876 4.8 75

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.6 133.8 1.0 95 799 2.4 249

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.6 144.3 1.9 51 698 3.4 176

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.7 455.3 -0.5 205 1,029 5.0 59

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.1 198.5 2.2 35 819 1.5 290

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.4 207.2 1.6 63 838 (7) - 

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.6 364.0 -0.6 217 1,000 4.6 88

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.1 99.3 3.6 12 713 3.9 136

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.0 236.8 -1.8 283 989 6.0 27

Mercer, NJ ......................... 10.6 223.5 2.4 29 988 4.2 114

Middlesex, NJ .................... 20.8 396.3 -1.3 267 995 4.6 88

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.0 249.9 0.4 138 882 3.9 136

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.8 283.1 -0.2 184 1,135 2.3 256

Ocean, NJ .......................... 11.5 141.4 1.7 59 691 2.7 227

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.6 178.3 -0.7 224 854 2.9 215

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.0 165.8 (7) - 1,159 1.7 284

Union, NJ ........................... 15.2 243.5 2.8 23 991 0.1 307

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.7 313.9 0.5 132 690 5.2 50

Albany, NY ......................... 9.5 232.2 0.9 99 802 5.5 37

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.1 215.1 -2.1 291 744 4.2 114

Broome, NY ....................... 4.4 95.9 -2.2 294 613 -3.3 313

Dutchess, NY ..................... 7.6 116.8 0.4 138 776 2.2 263

Erie, NY ............................. 23.1 461.5 0.1 163 682 4.4 99

Kings, NY ........................... 41.3 448.5 0.1 163 708 4.4 99

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.5 388.2 -0.3 191 748 4.0 129

Nassau, NY ........................ 50.0 608.7 0.2 158 904 6.0 27

New York, NY .................... 111.9 2,253.6 -1.0 249 1,480 7.2 8

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 109.2 -0.3 191 599 3.5 171

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.5 247.5 -0.5 205 734 3.8 150

Orange, NY ........................ 9.0 127.4 0.8 108 664 5.1 52

Queens, NY ....................... 39.7 477.3 -0.7 224 797 3.0 209

Richmond, NY .................... 7.9 90.4 -0.8 234 726 7.1 10

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.2 113.4 0.4 138 832 5.1 52

Suffolk, NY ......................... 46.8 600.6 1.0 95 838 3.3 185

Westchester, NY ................ 34.7 413.0 -0.2 184 1,035 5.6 35

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Buncombe, NC .................. 6.7 106.2 1.4 67 $617 4.8 75

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.3 86.8 -2.7 303 614 4.1 122

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.6 110.8 0.5 132 579 3.0 209

Durham, NC ....................... 6.2 164.4 0.9 99 955 4.3 105

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.4 176.8 0.1 163 730 4.4 99

Guilford, NC ....................... 13.7 267.2 -0.9 240 705 5.4 40

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 27.5 508.9 0.0 173 878 4.9 67

New Hanover, NC .............. 6.3 89.2 2.0 48 629 4.1 122

Wake, NC .......................... 23.2 389.7 2.3 32 783 4.7 82

Cass, ND ........................... 5.2 86.5 1.8 53 630 2.4 249

Butler, OH .......................... 6.9 131.3 1.3 74 690 3.1 201

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 39.2 767.8 -0.8 234 803 4.7 82

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.9 696.5 -0.4 198 765 4.1 122

Hamilton, OH ..................... 25.4 550.2 -0.1 176 828 4.5 92

Lake, OH ............................ 6.8 98.6 0.7 116 641 0.8 303

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 100.9 -0.1 176 677 5.6 35

Lucas, OH .......................... 11.1 228.9 -0.5 205 717 4.8 75

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.6 105.7 -1.1 257 582 3.4 176

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.5 288.7 -1.1 257 755 4.7 82

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 166.8 -2.2 294 609 2.4 249

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 265.2 -0.3 191 724 3.9 136

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.9 86.0 -2.1 291 729 6.6 14

Oklahoma, OK ................... 21.6 404.3 -0.8 234 671 6.2 24

Tulsa, OK ........................... 18.0 319.4 -3.0 309 681 3.0 209

Clackamas, OR .................. 11.2 134.5 0.9 99 722 4.2 114

Lane, OR ........................... 10.3 138.1 -1.2 262 614 2.7 227

Marion, OR ........................ 8.4 126.7 2.0 48 613 1.8 280

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.7 426.0 -0.7 224 780 1.7 284

Washington, OR ................ 14.1 221.7 -0.6 217 889 8.5 3

Allegheny, PA .................... 36.3 695.7 -1.2 262 802 3.8 150

Berks, PA ........................... 8.9 163.1 0.6 125 715 4.1 122

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.3 253.1 0.7 116 763 5.0 59

Chester, PA ....................... 14.2 221.0 1.7 59 964 4.3 105

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.5 125.2 0.5 132 715 3.8 150

Dauphin, PA ....................... 6.9 174.2 -0.4 198 754 6.5 15

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.8 211.4 -2.3 297 852 6.8 12

Erie, PA .............................. 7.1 125.9 0.1 163 613 2.0 273

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.6 98.7 0.8 108 594 5.1 52

Lancaster, PA .................... 11.7 222.5 0.1 163 679 4.6 88

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.2 171.0 1.8 53 783 4.0 129

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 141.6 1.4 67 608 2.7 227

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.4 481.9 -0.8 234 936 5.1 52

Northampton, PA ............... 5.9 92.5 0.6 125 677 4.5 92

Philadelphia, PA ................ 27.8 652.6 -1.1 257 903 7.2 8

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.3 132.7 -0.6 217 612 3.2 195

York, PA ............................. 8.4 166.3 0.9 99 668 3.7 159

Kent, RI .............................. 5.5 81.3 2.1 39 689 3.9 136

Providence, RI ................... 17.4 290.7 0.4 138 763 5.5 37

Charleston, SC .................. 11.3 189.7 2.7 25 633 3.8 150

Greenville, SC .................... 11.9 225.4 0.5 132 683 1.8 280

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Horry, SC ........................... 7.5 97.8 (7) - $523 2.8 220

Lexington, SC .................... 5.2 84.6 0.9 99 595 3.7 159

Richland, SC ...................... 9.2 208.9 0.3 150 659 2.5 242

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.1 117.7 -0.6 217 669 1.8 280

Minnehaha, SD .................. 5.9 109.0 0.8 108 644 4.0 129

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.0 432.3 1.1 88 778 3.7 159

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.3 191.2 1.1 88 683 5.4 40

Knox, TN ............................ 10.2 213.0 1.2 83 679 3.3 185

Rutherford, TN ................... 3.6 86.7 4.6 4 712 6.7 13

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.9 501.5 0.6 125 792 4.9 67

Bell, TX .............................. 4.1 90.2 0.6 125 568 2.9 215

Bexar, TX ........................... 29.5 659.9 0.5 132 675 6.1 25

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.0 75.7 -1.0 249 719 1.4 293

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.4 78.0 0.3 150 537 4.3 105

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.0 115.3 -0.1 176 480 3.9 136

Collin, TX ........................... 12.1 198.5 2.1 39 844 1.4 293

Dallas, TX .......................... 68.6 1,450.8 -1.4 271 952 4.3 105

Denton, TX ......................... 8.2 131.6 2.1 39 654 1.7 284

El Paso, TX ........................ 12.5 254.1 -0.8 234 553 5.1 52

Fort Bend, TX .................... 6.2 98.3 0.0 173 766 3.8 150

Galveston, TX .................... 4.7 86.8 -1.8 283 666 0.9 300

Harris, TX ........................... 89.4 1,841.5 -0.9 240 906 2.1 267

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 9.1 186.3 4.4 5 487 3.0 209

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 117.5 -0.1 176 732 6.1 25

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.4 116.4 -0.7 224 574 2.9 215

McLennan, TX ................... 4.7 98.1 0.2 158 605 2.0 273

Montgomery, TX ................ 6.1 88.2 4.3 6 700 0.9 300

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 143.9 -0.1 176 640 3.9 136

Smith, TX ........................... 4.8 85.6 -0.2 184 661 3.1 201

Tarrant, TX ......................... 33.7 693.5 -0.9 240 793 2.3 256

Travis, TX .......................... 24.7 511.4 -1.3 267 863 3.9 136

Williamson, TX ................... 4.8 84.3 3.2 17 751 1.6 288

Davis, UT ........................... 6.0 90.9 2.1 39 615 2.8 220

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 33.8 523.3 0.3 150 700 2.8 220

Utah, UT ............................ 10.5 147.1 2.1 39 589 2.1 267

Weber, UT ......................... 5.1 87.1 1.4 67 578 2.1 267

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.7 95.3 0.4 138 769 4.9 67

Arlington, VA ...................... 6.9 153.5 1.2 83 1,199 4.0 129

Chesterfield, VA ................. 6.6 112.8 2.1 39 697 3.6 168

Fairfax, VA ......................... 30.0 548.1 2.9 22 1,158 6.4 17

Henrico, VA ........................ 8.1 171.5 1.4 67 773 2.7 227

Loudoun, VA ...................... 5.9 108.0 5.2 1 965 3.1 201

Prince William, VA ............. 5.7 91.9 5.1 3 688 4.2 114

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.6 92.2 1.3 74 986 2.5 242

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 4.7 93.3 4.2 8 595 3.3 185

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.7 97.6 1.6 63 694 5.5 37

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.5 146.0 -1.0 249 746 7.3 7

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 159.3 -1.5 273 856 6.3 21

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 10.4 170.5 2.0 48 609 6.5 15

Clark, WA ........................... 10.7 117.7 3.5 13 680 2.9 215

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

King, WA ............................ 81.6 1,100.6 0.2 158 $935 0.2 306

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.3 79.2 3.1 18 678 5.4 40

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.4 246.2 2.2 35 668 4.2 114

Snohomish, WA ................. 16.3 208.0 0.8 108 757 1.3 295

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.2 191.2 0.7 116 604 2.5 242

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.5 89.7 2.4 29 673 2.0 273

Yakima, WA ....................... 9.2 86.0 0.9 99 515 2.8 220

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.2 109.6 -0.7 224 654 2.3 256

Brown, WI .......................... 6.8 146.0 1.3 74 714 3.3 185

Dane, WI ............................ 13.6 290.9 1.0 95 748 3.9 136

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.6 502.0 -1.2 262 772 5.2 50

Outagamie, WI ................... 4.9 98.8 0.4 138 669 3.4 176

Racine, WI ......................... 4.3 76.1 -0.8 234 761 4.8 75

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.4 226.0 0.3 150 791 3.1 201

Winnebago, WI .................. 4.0 87.2 -2.0 289 741 5.0 59

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.0 335.5 2.1 39 512 6.0 27

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

These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.5 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 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-033

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-033

United States5 .................................................... 8,314.1 129,341.5 0.0 $767 3.6

Private industry .............................................. 8,048.7 108,215.1 0.0 769 3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 123.7 1,557.8 0.1 703 4.9

Construction ............................................... 804.9 6,689.5 1.2 837 2.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 376.8 14,307.8 -4.2 943 6.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,853.6 25,957.3 -0.3 665 3.4

Information ................................................. 145.2 3,165.9 -4.0 1,139 3.9

Financial activities ...................................... 767.0 7,874.7 1.2 1,138 5.9

Professional and business services ........... 1,329.4 16,113.2 0.6 945 3.8

Education and health services ................... 732.2 15,974.0 2.1 731 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 669.9 12,042.8 1.7 335 3.4

Other services ............................................ 1,080.6 4,274.1 -0.1 494 3.1

Government ................................................... 265.3 21,126.3 -0.2 757 2.4

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 356.0 4,075.3 -0.5 903 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 352.2 3,486.3 -0.2 898 4.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 11.0 0.7 955 16.9

Construction ............................................... 12.9 133.9 -1.1 883 1.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 17.8 485.2 -7.1 900 6.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 53.9 794.6 -1.2 735 2.7

Information ................................................. 9.2 194.9 -2.0 1,627 5.2

Financial activities ...................................... 23.0 237.9 0.9 1,258 7.0

Professional and business services ........... 40.1 575.0 1.6 1,043 3.7

Education and health services ................... 26.6 456.5 1.9 820 3.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 25.6 375.9 5.6 766 6.5

Other services ............................................ 142.1 220.7 3.5 422 5.0

Government ................................................... 3.8 589.0 -2.3 930 3.3

Cook, IL .............................................................. 126.7 2,539.8 -1.2 922 3.0

Private industry .............................................. 125.5 2,221.9 -0.9 929 3.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.3 -3.6 1,037 3.2

Construction ............................................... 10.5 96.7 0.0 1,169 -0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.9 265.7 -5.1 975 6.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 26.7 499.4 -0.8 753 0.4

Information ................................................. 2.5 66.1 -4.1 1,164 0.1

Financial activities ...................................... 13.8 219.4 -0.8 1,471 8.1

Professional and business services ........... 26.1 405.5 -1.3 1,206 4.1

Education and health services ................... 12.3 350.8 1.0 791 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.5 217.7 2.8 375 -0.3

Other services ............................................ 12.6 95.1 -2.0 655 3.0

Government ................................................... 1.2 317.9 -3.1 871 0.9

New York, NY ..................................................... 111.9 2,253.6 -1.0 1,480 7.2

Private industry .............................................. 111.7 1,800.4 -0.6 1,623 8.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 0.0 1,197 -6.5

Construction ............................................... 2.2 30.0 -4.5 1,567 3.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 46.6 -4.9 1,290 6.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.1 247.6 -1.2 1,164 5.5

Information ................................................. 4.3 130.6 -5.1 1,751 7.9

Financial activities ...................................... 16.7 352.0 -2.0 3,034 16.1

Professional and business services ........... 22.6 439.7 0.5 1,702 2.6

Education and health services ................... 7.8 273.8 2.4 918 7.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.1 188.2 0.4 787 6.1

Other services ............................................ 16.0 82.9 -1.1 871 6.1

Government ................................................... 0.2 453.2 -2.2 912 0.1

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-033

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-033

Harris, TX ........................................................... 89.4 1,841.5 -0.9 $906 2.1

Private industry .............................................. 89.0 1,595.2 -1.2 929 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.2 62.5 (6) 2,185 (6) 

Construction ............................................... 6.3 135.5 -5.0 919 2.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.7 164.0 -4.9 1,106 2.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.1 403.2 -2.1 821 1.0

Information ................................................. 1.4 33.8 -3.9 1,098 0.4

Financial activities ...................................... 9.7 113.1 1.7 1,181 4.9

Professional and business services ........... 17.0 279.0 -1.7 1,073 3.2

Education and health services ................... 8.8 188.3 1.5 812 1.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 155.2 0.7 335 -0.9

Other services ............................................ 10.3 56.3 -3.1 539 0.4

Government ................................................... 0.4 246.3 1.1 759 3.1

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 80.9 1,621.2 (6) 757 4.0

Private industry .............................................. 80.5 1,401.8 2.2 755 3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.8 -2.6 545 4.4

Construction ............................................... 8.4 131.7 5.9 779 2.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 128.0 -2.5 1,050 8.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 18.6 336.4 1.5 712 3.2

Information ................................................. 1.6 36.6 -4.1 872 0.5

Financial activities ...................................... 9.5 133.3 1.5 933 3.7

Professional and business services ........... 18.1 261.5 4.2 776 3.5

Education and health services ................... 7.6 160.5 5.6 842 5.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 155.8 0.8 364 2.8

Other services ............................................ 5.7 44.7 -2.6 500 2.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 219.4 1.6 766 3.7

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 68.6 1,450.8 -1.4 952 4.3

Private industry .............................................. 68.2 1,294.6 -1.4 970 4.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.8 (6) 2,680 (6) 

Construction ............................................... 4.5 73.0 -2.2 909 5.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 144.9 -3.1 1,075 6.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.8 326.1 -3.3 898 5.2

Information ................................................. 1.9 64.0 -5.1 1,272 8.7

Financial activities ...................................... 8.6 140.0 1.2 1,215 2.9

Professional and business services ........... 14.0 237.7 0.0 1,152 4.2

Education and health services ................... 6.3 131.4 2.4 887 2.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.2 127.5 0.0 432 4.3

Other services ............................................ 6.7 40.5 -3.4 587 2.8

Government ................................................... 0.4 156.2 -1.8 800 -0.1

Orange, CA ........................................................ 88.8 1,436.6 1.3 874 5.3

Private industry .............................................. 87.4 1,305.5 2.1 875 5.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.3 6.1 8.3 579 0.2

Construction ............................................... 6.4 85.5 4.4 969 5.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.1 179.9 -3.0 1,036 11.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.3 278.8 0.6 802 2.7

Information ................................................. 1.5 33.8 -4.4 1,152 5.3

Financial activities ...................................... 9.7 127.8 9.9 1,354 6.2

Professional and business services ........... 17.4 261.0 1.0 942 2.8

Education and health services ................... 9.1 126.6 6.1 849 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.6 159.9 2.5 358 3.8

Other services ............................................ 12.9 46.0 6.3 518 3.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 131.1 -5.7 859 6.0

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-033

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-033

San Diego, CA ................................................... 85.3 1,278.2 1.3 $815 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 83.9 1,060.2 1.5 809 2.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.9 11.0 -5.4 491 1.0

Construction ............................................... 6.4 81.1 4.7 869 0.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 105.4 -4.2 1,129 11.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.2 220.4 2.2 655 0.9

Information ................................................. 1.4 36.7 -4.5 1,582 -2.0

Financial activities ...................................... 8.8 81.6 4.8 1,058 0.4

Professional and business services ........... 14.9 208.1 1.5 989 2.8

Education and health services ................... 7.6 122.6 1.6 778 5.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 141.5 3.5 346 2.4

Other services ............................................ 19.5 51.6 1.8 449 2.7

Government ................................................... 1.3 218.0 0.1 843 2.9

King, WA ............................................................ 81.6 1,100.6 0.2 935 0.2

Private industry .............................................. 81.0 945.5 0.1 944 -0.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.8 -11.3 1,109 0.8

Construction ............................................... 6.2 53.4 -0.4 921 1.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.7 101.9 -8.2 1,176 -2.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 225.5 1.1 804 2.6

Information ................................................. 1.5 69.2 0.8 1,829 -15.7

Financial activities ...................................... 6.1 77.5 2.4 1,114 3.5

Professional and business services ........... 11.7 158.3 0.7 1,160 8.4

Education and health services ................... 5.9 108.3 1.5 746 4.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.4 100.5 2.9 390 3.7

Other services ............................................ 26.4 48.1 1.2 463 0.4

Government ................................................... 0.6 155.1 1.0 882 3.6

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 80.2 980.8 -0.5 765 3.5

Private industry .............................................. 79.9 827.5 -0.7 742 3.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.9 -1.8 421 4.0

Construction ............................................... 4.9 40.7 0.3 788 2.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 49.4 -9.8 695 5.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.2 247.2 -1.7 689 4.2

Information ................................................. 1.7 28.5 -3.2 990 1.7

Financial activities ...................................... 8.2 65.5 0.7 1,062 -1.1

Professional and business services ........... 15.9 132.0 -0.2 948 5.2

Education and health services ................... 7.8 123.4 1.4 748 2.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.3 92.8 2.1 432 9.9

Other services ............................................ 7.5 34.5 -1.8 450 3.0

Government ................................................... 0.3 153.3 0.5 886 2.8

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county

by state, fourth quarter 20032

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

United States6 .................... 8,314.1 129,341.5 0.0 $767 3.6

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.2 374.3 0.3 761 2.6

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.8 140.0 1.7 787 2.3

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 80.9 1,621.2 (7) 757 4.0

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.2 242.9 1.1 716 4.5

Los Angeles, CA ................ 356.0 4,075.3 -0.5 903 4.2

Denver, CO ........................ 24.1 425.7 -2.3 935 3.4

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.3 484.5 -0.9 946 3.4

New Castle, DE ................. 18.0 283.1 0.8 917 6.0

Washington, DC ................. 30.0 654.8 -0.4 1,238 3.9

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 80.2 980.8 -0.5 765 3.5

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.7 732.5 -1.3 990 3.6

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.5 427.0 0.7 704 3.7

Ada, ID ............................... 13.0 184.9 1.0 685 1.9

Cook, IL ............................. 126.7 2,539.8 -1.2 922 3.0

Marion, IN .......................... 23.7 578.1 -0.5 800 3.8

Polk, IA .............................. 13.8 262.7 0.3 763 5.0

Johnson, KS ...................... 18.8 293.8 0.6 783 2.1

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.4 421.5 -0.3 752 3.7

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.3 251.3 0.7 717 1.6

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.3 172.2 1.8 718 5.9

Montgomery, MD ............... 30.8 455.5 0.4 1,006 4.7

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.5 790.6 -2.5 1,085 5.0

Wayne, MI .......................... 35.2 820.3 -1.5 907 5.3

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.4 829.1 -1.0 957 3.8

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.6 132.4 1.1 680 2.6

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.7 625.2 -1.8 820 2.6

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.6 69.1 1.3 609 4.1

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.0 314.3 -0.3 705 2.5

Clark, NV ........................... 36.6 779.9 5.2 715 4.8

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.2 195.8 1.1 876 4.8

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.7 455.3 -0.5 1,029 5.0

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.7 313.9 0.5 690 5.2

New York, NY .................... 111.9 2,253.6 -1.0 1,480 7.2

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 27.5 508.9 0.0 878 4.9

Cass, ND ........................... 5.2 86.5 1.8 630 2.4

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 39.2 767.8 -0.8 803 4.7

Oklahoma, OK ................... 21.6 404.3 -0.8 671 6.2

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.7 426.0 -0.7 780 1.7

Allegheny, PA .................... 36.3 695.7 -1.2 802 3.8

Providence, RI ................... 17.4 290.7 0.4 763 5.5

Greenville, SC .................... 11.9 225.4 0.5 683 1.8

Minnehaha, SD .................. 5.9 109.0 0.8 644 4.0

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.9 501.5 0.6 792 4.9

Harris, TX ........................... 89.4 1,841.5 -0.9 906 2.1

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 33.8 523.3 0.3 700 2.8

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.7 95.3 0.4 769 4.9

Fairfax, VA ......................... 30.0 548.1 2.9 1,158 6.4

King, WA ............................ 81.6 1,100.6 0.2 935 0.2

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.2 109.6 -0.7 654 2.3

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.6 502.0 -1.2 772 5.2

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county

by state, fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-034

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-034

Laramie, WY ...................... 2.8 39.5 2.6 $597 1.5

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.0 335.5 2.1 512 6.0

St. Thomas, VI ................... 1.7 23.3 1.4 594 3.3

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

Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

fourth quarter 20032

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-03

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-03

United States4 .................... 8,314.1 129,341.5 0.0 $767 3.6

Alabama ............................. 111.8 1,838.1 -0.1 657 4.0

Alaska ................................ 20.0 282.7 1.1 746 1.1

Arizona ............................... 126.9 2,352.1 2.2 710 3.8

Arkansas ............................ 75.2 1,133.6 0.5 587 4.1

California ............................ 1,190.8 14,922.3 0.0 869 3.8

Colorado ............................ 160.0 2,134.6 -1.1 784 2.0

Connecticut ........................ 109.1 1,648.9 -0.7 992 3.8

Delaware ............................ 27.1 408.4 0.5 825 5.0

District of Columbia ............ 30.0 654.8 -0.4 1,238 3.9

Florida ................................ 504.1 7,424.5 0.8 685 3.8

Georgia .............................. 245.6 3,845.6 0.2 734 2.8

Hawaii ................................ 37.4 583.0 1.3 678 3.7

Idaho .................................. 48.5 577.5 0.6 579 1.8

Illinois ................................. 325.7 5,738.7 -1.2 827 3.2

Indiana ............................... 152.1 2,852.2 -0.3 675 3.5

Iowa ................................... 90.6 1,418.5 0.0 626 4.7

Kansas ............................... 82.2 1,298.3 -0.9 631 2.8

Kentucky ............................ 105.7 1,740.6 0.3 645 3.5

Louisiana ........................... 114.0 1,870.9 0.5 628 2.4

Maine ................................. 47.4 595.8 0.7 631 4.6

Maryland ............................ 150.4 2,466.4 0.7 831 3.6

Massachusetts ................... 206.6 3,154.6 -1.9 954 5.2

Michigan ............................ 251.3 4,365.8 -1.1 806 3.9

Minnesota .......................... 159.0 2,591.9 -0.5 777 3.2

Mississippi ......................... 65.6 1,108.1 0.4 559 3.7

Missouri ............................. 165.4 2,633.6 -0.7 676 2.4

Montana ............................. 42.0 396.6 1.1 549 4.0

Nebraska ........................... 55.3 884.4 0.6 613 3.2

Nevada .............................. 60.3 1,111.2 4.4 721 5.1

New Hampshire ................. 47.0 614.9 0.6 788 4.0

New Jersey ........................ 268.1 3,912.8 0.1 945 3.4

New Mexico ....................... 50.4 757.1 1.4 612 4.1

New York ........................... 550.3 8,379.2 -0.4 959 5.2

North Carolina .................... 227.8 3,759.6 -0.1 679 4.5

North Dakota ...................... 24.0 317.6 0.9 563 4.3

Ohio ................................... 294.2 5,322.4 -0.7 713 3.8

Oklahoma .......................... 91.6 1,423.4 -1.3 597 4.2

Oregon ............................... 118.8 1,579.8 0.2 694 3.3

Pennsylvania ..................... 326.9 5,524.5 -0.2 750 4.7

Rhode Island ...................... 34.7 480.5 1.2 738 5.1

South Carolina ................... 108.4 1,781.0 0.3 623 3.1

South Dakota ..................... 28.1 365.4 0.3 559 4.1

Tennessee ......................... 128.4 2,648.0 0.4 689 4.2

Texas ................................. 505.3 9,300.1 -0.3 754 3.1

Utah ................................... 73.9 1,066.2 1.2 630 2.3

Vermont ............................. 24.1 300.7 0.3 661 5.1

Virginia ............................... 202.6 3,477.5 1.2 786 5.2

Washington ........................ 222.7 2,654.7 1.0 759 1.3

West Virginia ...................... 47.2 685.2 0.1 587 2.1

Wisconsin .......................... 157.6 2,715.4 0.0 683 4.1

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

fourth quarter 20032 — Continued

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

December

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2002-03

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2002-03

Wyoming ............................ 22.0 241.6 1.7 $616 4.1

Puerto Rico ........................ 50.2 1,074.1 3.5 450 4.7

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.2 42.5 -0.2 629 2.4

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.
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employe

December 2002-03 (U.S. Average = 0.0%)

Source

July 20

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

but are included because they are the largest county in their state

or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wages in counties with 75,00

more, fourth quarter 2002-03 (U.S. Average = 3.6%)

Source

July 20

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

but are included because they are the largest county in their state

or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.