Technical information: (202) 691-6567

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

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 04-6

For release: 10:00 A.M. EST

Wednesday, January 7, 2004

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2003

In June 2003, Loudoun County, Va., had the biggest over-the-year percentage increase 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. Loudoun County, Va., experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 5.2 percent, compared with a national decline of 0.5 percent. Kent County, R.I., had the

biggest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2003, with an increase of

7.9 percent. U.S. average weekly wages increased by 2.2 percent over the same timespan.

Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 184 had rates of over-the-year employment growth

above the national average in June 2003, and 119 experienced declines in employment greater than the

national average. Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 181 of the largest U.S.

counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 119 counties.

The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled from 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. These more than 8.2

million employer reports covered 129.2 million full- and part-time workers in June 2003. 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.

(See Technical Note.) June 2003 employment and 2003 second-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 first

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

second quarter of 2003 and revised data for the first quarter of 2003 will be available later in January on the

BLS Web site.

Large County Employment

The national employment total in June 2003 was 129.2 million, which was 0.5 percent lower than in June

2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.3 percent of total U.S.

covered employment, 76.2 percent of total wages, and 86.2 percent of the net over-the-year employment

decline from June 2002. (San Juan, P.R., is not included in this grouping of U.S. counties.) The biggest

gains in employment from June 2002 to June 2003 were recorded in the counties of Clark, Nev. (26,500),

Riverside, Calif. (22,500), Orange, Calif. (21,300), San Bernardino, Calif. (11,500), and Orange, Fla.

(10,900). (See table A.)
2

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. 26.5 Loudoun, Va. 5.2

Cook, Ill. 2,543.0 Riverside, Calif. 22.5 Yakima, Wash. 4.8

New York, N.Y. 2,214.1 Orange, Calif. 21.3 Lee, Fla. 4.6

Harris, Texas 1,837.2 San Bernardino, Calif. 11.5 St. Charles, Mo. 4.3

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,547.0 Orange, Fla. 10.9 Placer, Calif. 4.2

Dallas, Texas 1,442.7 Maricopa, Ariz. 10.1 Rutherford, Tenn. 4.1

Orange, Calif. 1,433.5 San Joaquin, Calif. 9.1 Pasco, Fla. 3.9

San Diego, Calif. 1,263.1 Lee, Fla. 8.9 Thurston, Wash. 3.7

King, Wash. 1,090.7 San Diego, Calif. 8.7 Hidalgo, Texas 3.6

Miami-Dade, Fla. 966.5 Sacramento, Calif. 7.4 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

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

followed by the counties of Yakima, Wash. (4.8 percent), Lee, Fla. (4.6 percent), St. Charles, Mo. (4.3

percent), and Placer, Calif. (4.2 percent). (See table 1 and chart 1.)

Employment declined in 167 counties from June 2002 to June 2003. The largest percentage decline in

employment was in Sangamon County, Ill. (-5.9 percent), followed by the counties of Catawba, N.C. (-5.3

percent), Santa Clara, Calif., and Tulsa, Okla. (-5.1 percent each), and Wyandotte, Kan. (-4.4 percent).

The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in New York County, N.Y. (-54,600), followed by the

counties of Santa Clara, Calif. (-52,500), Cook, Ill. (-47,600), Dallas, Texas (-45,200), and Los Angeles,

Calif. (-30,800).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2003 was $702, which was 2.2 percent

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

in 114 of the largest 315 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., comprised entirely of the borough of

Manhattan, held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of

$1,250. Santa Clara County, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,224, followed by

Washington, D.C. ($1,150), San Mateo County, Calif. ($1,127), and Arlington County, Va. ($1,092).

(See table B.)

Kent County, R.I., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 7.9 percent.

Norfolk City, Va., and Pasco County, Fla., were second with 7.1 percent growth each, followed by the

counties of Williamson, Texas (6.6 percent), and San Mateo, Calif. (6.3 percent). (See chart 2.)

There were 193 large counties with average weekly wages below the national average. The lowest

average weekly wage (excluding San Juan, P.R.) was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($443), followed

by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($444), Horry, S.C. ($472), Yakima, Wash. ($481), and Tulare, Calif.

($501). (See table 1.)
3

New York, N.Y. $1,250 San Mateo, Calif. $67 Kent, R.I. 7.9

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,224 Washington, D.C. 55 Norfolk City, Va. 7.1

Washington, D.C. 1,150 Kent, R.I. 49 Pasco, Fla. 7.1

San Mateo, Calif. 1,127 Norfolk City, Va. 46 Williamson, Texas 6.6

Arlington, Va. 1,092 Williamson, Texas 46 San Mateo, Calif. 6.3

Fairfield, Conn. 1,074 Chester, Pa. 44 Oklahoma, Okla. 5.5

San Francisco, Calif. 1,051 King, Wash. 38 Prince William, Va. 5.4

Fairfax, Va. 1,044 Ventura, Calif. 38 Ventura, Calif. 5.4

Suffolk, Mass. 1,039 Clayton, Ga. 36 Chester, Pa. 5.2

Morris, N.J. 1,023 Morris, N.J. 36 Dane, Wis. 5.2

Pasco, Fla. 36 Marion, Fla. 5.2

U.S. $702 U.S. $15 U.S. 2.2

Average weekly wages

 Average weekly wages,

 second quarter 2003

Percent change in average

 weekly wages, second

 quarter 2002-03

 Change in average weekly

wages, second quarter 2002-03

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

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

weekly wages

Seven large counties showed over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Brazoria County, Texas,

had the largest decrease, registering a 3.6 percent decline. Shawnee, Kan., was second with a 2.7 percent

decline, followed by the counties of Elkhart, Ind. (-1.9 percent), Rockingham, N.H. (-0.7 percent), and El

Paso, Texas, Erie, Pa., and Sedgwick, Kan. (-0.2 percent each).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 employment levels), 3 experienced increases in employment and 7 experienced declines in employment from June 2002 to June 2003. Orange County, Calif.,

experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a 0.9 percent increase.

Orange County’s growth was due to employment increases in every private industry supersector except

natural resources and mining, manufacturing, and information. Government employment in Orange County

declined by 4.5 percent. (See table 2.) Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest increase with

employment rising by 0.7 percent, followed by San Diego County, Calif., which experienced a 0.4 percent

increase in employment over this period. The largest declines in employment for the 10 largest counties

were in Dallas County, Texas, and New York County, N.Y., which both decreased by 2.4 percent. The

next largest decline in employment was recorded in Cook County, Ill., where employment fell by 1.6 percent.

All of the 10 largest U.S. counties experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. King

County, Wash., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 4.2 percent rate.

King County’s fastest growing supersectors were natural resources and mining, where wages rose by 14.0

percent, and information with a 12.3 percent increase. Orange County, Calif., experienced growth in wages

of 3.5 percent, followed by Miami-Dade County, Fla., with a 3.1 percent increase. New York County,

N.Y., experienced the smallest increase in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, rising by

only 0.6 percent. This was primarily due to wage decreases in the financial activities supersector. This was
4

followed by Dallas County, Texas, and Cook County, Ill., with increases in average weekly wages of 0.8

percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows the June 2003 employment and 2003 second-quarter average weekly wages in the largest

county for 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 June 2003 ranged from approximately 4 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 40,000 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average

weekly wages of these counties were in New York, N.Y. ($1,250), while the lowest average weekly wages

were in Laramie, Wyo. ($553).
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 Employment Security

Agencies (SESAs). 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 8.2 million employers administrative records submitted 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 and annually realigns (benchmarks)

 data

 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

•

sample estimates to first quarter

UI levels

summarizes gross job gains
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 SESAs 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 wages 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,

SESAs 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 the verification 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. For these reasons, some

data, especially at more detailed industry levels, may not be

strictly comparable with earlier years. The 2002 second quarter

data used to calculate the over-the-year changes presented in

this release were adjusted for changes in county classification

to make them comparable with data for the second quarter of

2003. As a result, the adjusted 2002 second quarter data differ

to some extent from the data available on the BLS Web

site.

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.

Change in industry classification systems

Beginning with the release of data for 2001 in 2002,

publications presenting data from the Quarterly Census of

Employment and Wages program use the 2002 version of the

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as the

basis for the assignment and tabulation of economic data by

industry. NAICS is the product of a cooperative effort on the

part of the statistical agencies of the United States, Canada,

and Mexico. The NAICS structure is significantly different

from that of the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

system, which had been used for industry classification

purposes until 2002. Due to the differences in NAICS and SIC

structures, industry data for 2001 are not comparable with the

SIC-based data for earlier years.

NAICS uses a production-oriented approach to categorize

economic units. Units with similar production processes are

classified in the same industry. NAICS focuses on how

products and services are created, as opposed to the SIC focus
on what is produced. This approach yields significantly

different industry groupings than those produced by the SIC

approach.

Data users will be able to work with new NAICS industrial

groupings that better reflect the workings of the U.S. economy.

For example, a new industry sector called Information brings

together units which turn information into a commodity with

units which distribute that commodity. Information’s major

components are publishing, broadcasting, telecommunications, information services, and data processing. Under the

SIC system, these units were spread across the manufacturing,

communications, business services, and amusement services

groups. Another new sector of interest is Professional and

technical services. This sector is comprised of establishments engaged in activities where human capital is the major

input.

Users interested in more information about NAICS

can access the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web page

(http://www.bls.gov/bls/naics.htm) and the U.S. Census

Bureau Web page (http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/

naics.html). The NAICS 2002 manual is available from the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Web page

(http://www.ntis.gov/).

Additional statistics and other information

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features

comprehensive information by detailed industry on

establishments, 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,

second quarter 20032

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,232.5 129,169.4 -0.5 - $702 2.2 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.1 369.4 -1.2 232 700 2.2 183

Madison, AL ....................... 7.5 159.7 2.7 18 766 2.7 132

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.5 162.8 -1.1 226 574 2.5 159

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 129.8 0.1 139 609 3.0 96

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.0 76.0 -0.2 162 589 2.4 170

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.5 143.6 1.8 36 757 2.0 200

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 79.4 1,547.0 0.7 89 710 2.9 108

Pima, AZ ............................ 17.3 317.2 -0.1 149 631 4.3 29

Benton, AR ........................ 3.9 82.3 1.9 32 621 3.2 79

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.1 240.2 0.5 107 634 1.8 221

Washington, AR ................. 4.8 84.2 1.1 65 556 3.9 38

Alameda, CA ...................... 47.2 684.4 -2.5 287 916 1.7 231

Contra Costa, CA ............... 27.2 341.4 -0.8 205 870 1.3 258

Fresno, CA ......................... 28.1 344.1 1.7 40 555 2.6 148

Kern, CA ............................ 15.3 257.6 3.2 11 610 3.0 96

Los Angeles, CA ................ 340.7 4,060.4 -0.3 171 789 2.9 108

Marin, CA ........................... 11.7 111.9 -0.4 178 888 4.0 36

Monterey, CA ..................... 11.7 181.6 0.6 98 629 3.5 60

Orange, CA ........................ 87.1 1,433.5 0.9 80 800 3.5 60

Placer, CA .......................... 9.1 124.7 4.2 5 713 3.9 38

Riverside, CA ..................... 35.5 546.5 3.0 13 609 3.4 64

Sacramento, CA ................ 44.4 605.6 1.6 43 782 2.5 159

San Bernardino, CA ........... 38.8 575.8 1.5 50 634 3.3 69

San Diego, CA ................... 83.1 1,263.1 0.4 116 757 1.9 212

San Francisco, CA ............. 42.6 530.9 -3.1 299 1,051 0.1 299

San Joaquin, CA ................ 15.0 226.0 2.9 15 607 2.0 200

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 8.5 102.7 -0.1 149 578 2.8 122

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.1 334.5 -3.4 302 1,127 6.3 5

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 12.9 188.5 0.7 89 654 3.0 96

Santa Clara, CA ................. 50.7 864.2 -5.1 309 1,224 2.7 132

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.2 103.3 -1.5 245 650 0.5 294

Solano, CA ......................... 9.0 128.7 1.0 70 655 2.2 183

Sonoma, CA ...................... 16.7 192.8 -2.4 283 699 0.7 287

Stanislaus, CA ................... 12.6 171.8 1.0 70 594 2.8 122

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.7 142.8 -0.1 149 501 4.6 22

Ventura, CA ....................... 20.1 307.2 0.8 85 747 5.4 7

Yolo, CA ............................. 4.9 91.7 1.3 54 (7) (7) - 

Adams, CO ........................ 8.5 142.4 -4.2 307 673 2.0 200

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.7 273.2 -2.7 293 860 2.9 108

Boulder, CO ....................... 11.7 152.5 -3.6 305 846 2.8 122

Denver, CO ........................ 24.2 428.2 -2.9 295 850 2.9 108

El Paso, CO ....................... 15.5 235.9 -1.6 253 664 1.7 231

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.7 206.8 -1.1 226 729 1.8 221

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.0 123.5 -1.5 245 654 1.4 255

Fairfield, CT ....................... 31.8 418.1 -0.9 211 1,074 3.4 64

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.2 485.2 -2.2 278 864 1.9 212

New Haven, CT ................. 21.8 361.2 -2.4 283 774 3.3 69

New London, CT ................ 6.5 131.5 1.8 36 748 2.6 148

New Castle, DE ................. 17.7 279.2 1.0 70 833 3.3 69

Washington, DC ................. 29.4 651.6 -0.6 193 1,150 5.0 13

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Alachua, FL ........................ 5.6 120.0 1.6 43 $560 4.7 19

Brevard, FL ........................ 11.9 185.5 1.1 65 (7) (7) - 

Broward, FL ....................... 55.4 678.9 0.6 98 681 4.4 25

Collier, FL .......................... 10.0 108.4 1.1 65 621 3.0 96

Duval, FL ........................... 21.4 426.3 -0.3 171 687 3.9 38

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.0 119.9 2.3 24 558 3.7 50

Hillsborough, FL ................. 29.9 584.8 1.3 54 664 4.1 34

Lee, FL ............................... 14.3 180.9 4.6 3 590 2.6 148

Leon, FL ............................. 7.1 139.2 1.3 54 609 2.7 132

Manatee, FL ....................... 6.5 (7) (7) - 558 0.9 277

Marion, FL .......................... 6.0 84.5 1.1 65 530 5.2 10

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 78.9 966.5 -1.2 232 689 3.1 84

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 4.8 79.5 0.4 116 (7) (7) - 

Orange, FL ......................... 28.3 596.7 2.3 24 649 1.7 231

Palm Beach, FL ................. 41.5 499.8 0.5 107 703 1.3 258

Pasco, FL ........................... 7.2 75.7 3.9 7 542 7.1 2

Pinellas, FL ........................ 27.5 424.8 2.2 27 619 2.5 159

Polk, FL .............................. 10.0 176.0 -0.7 196 570 3.6 54

Sarasota, FL ...................... 12.4 144.0 -0.3 171 596 3.8 47

Seminole, FL ...................... 11.4 145.4 0.6 98 635 2.4 170

Volusia, FL ......................... (7) (7) (7) - (7) (7) - 

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 85.5 -0.1 149 600 2.2 183

Chatham, GA ..................... 6.9 122.9 -0.3 171 596 3.1 84

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 108.5 -3.5 304 779 4.8 15

Cobb, GA ........................... 19.5 294.3 -1.9 266 781 1.7 231

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.9 292.6 -1.2 232 782 2.9 108

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.2 718.4 -2.0 270 916 1.8 221

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 20.9 289.6 -1.0 218 760 2.2 183

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 96.0 0.7 89 571 0.9 277

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 102.9 -0.3 171 604 3.1 84

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.1 417.9 0.6 98 658 3.3 69

Ada, ID ............................... 13.2 184.0 0.1 139 647 1.6 242

Champaign, IL ................... 3.9 89.6 -0.1 149 604 1.3 258

Cook, IL ............................. 125.8 2,543.0 -1.6 253 836 1.2 267

Du Page, IL ........................ 32.0 571.8 -0.7 196 853 1.7 231

Kane, IL ............................. 10.6 198.2 -0.5 185 647 2.7 132

Lake, IL .............................. 18.5 327.3 0.5 107 847 3.2 79

McHenry, IL ....................... 7.2 94.7 0.6 98 633 2.1 191

McLean, IL ......................... 3.3 84.9 -0.4 178 727 2.8 122

Madison, IL ........................ 5.6 96.4 -0.3 171 589 2.8 122

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.5 97.2 -3.4 302 660 1.7 231

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.3 78.7 -1.1 226 667 3.9 38

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.0 92.7 1.9 32 569 2.7 132

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.0 137.0 -5.9 312 709 1.4 255

Will, IL ................................ 10.2 155.0 1.9 32 664 0.9 277

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.6 136.1 -2.9 295 624 1.8 221

Allen, IN ............................. 8.6 175.3 -2.1 275 638 0.8 284

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 117.4 1.0 70 621 -1.9 307

Hamilton, IN ....................... 5.9 86.2 2.9 15 717 1.3 258

Lake, IN ............................. 9.8 194.5 2.7 18 635 3.4 64

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Marion, IN .......................... 23.4 575.7 -1.2 232 $727 2.0 200

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 123.6 -0.5 185 620 1.8 221

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 109.0 -0.1 149 599 1.0 273

Linn, IA ............................... 5.9 116.1 -2.1 275 672 2.4 170

Polk, IA .............................. 13.6 262.8 -0.7 196 695 3.9 38

Scott, IA ............................. 4.9 85.2 -0.2 162 580 2.5 159

Johnson, KS ...................... 18.5 291.8 -0.1 149 735 2.9 108

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 11.6 239.2 -3.8 306 649 -0.2 303

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 97.1 -2.5 287 602 -2.7 308

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.1 75.3 -4.4 308 691 0.1 299

Fayette, KY ........................ 8.7 164.5 -1.0 218 651 2.5 159

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.4 421.1 -0.2 162 688 2.7 132

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.1 119.6 -0.5 185 601 3.1 84

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.6 82.4 -0.9 211 572 1.4 255

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.2 243.1 1.4 52 614 2.5 159

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.1 212.3 -1.2 232 584 2.8 122

Lafayette, LA ...................... 7.5 119.9 0.0 145 615 2.2 183

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.9 253.3 0.3 124 659 3.3 69

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.0 170.2 -0.1 149 639 2.7 132

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 12.9 208.0 -0.2 162 737 3.9 38

Baltimore, MD .................... 20.0 360.2 -0.2 162 721 2.3 179

Frederick, MD .................... 5.2 87.7 2.2 27 678 2.6 148

Howard, MD ....................... 7.6 137.0 1.0 70 797 3.2 79

Montgomery, MD ............... 30.7 456.9 0.7 89 917 2.7 132

Prince Georges, MD .......... 14.5 312.3 0.8 85 775 3.3 69

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.9 369.2 -0.6 193 803 3.1 84

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.0 101.3 0.7 89 616 3.7 50

Bristol, MA ......................... 14.6 220.6 -0.7 196 645 0.9 277

Essex, MA .......................... 20.1 301.0 -2.2 278 765 2.8 122

Hampden, MA .................... 13.3 202.8 -1.9 266 657 3.1 84

Middlesex, MA ................... 46.8 797.6 -3.2 300 984 1.9 212

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.4 323.0 -1.7 259 857 2.5 159

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.1 173.8 0.0 145 712 5.0 13

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.9 563.8 -3.2 300 1,039 0.3 297

Worcester, MA ................... 19.7 319.1 -0.7 196 737 2.6 148

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.6 155.6 -2.6 291 681 0.7 287

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.1 171.6 -1.4 242 693 1.2 267

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 117.4 -0.2 162 664 4.4 25

Kent, MI ............................. 14.4 332.6 -1.7 259 675 3.1 84

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.0 326.2 -0.9 211 792 0.1 299

Oakland, MI ....................... 41.7 739.7 -1.5 245 874 2.1 191

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 111.9 -1.3 239 655 3.5 60

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.6 92.6 -0.2 162 661 0.6 291

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 192.5 -1.4 242 819 2.4 170

Wayne, MI .......................... 35.4 816.6 -1.8 265 824 1.7 231

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.3 112.8 0.1 139 724 3.9 38

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.6 169.0 3.0 13 713 1.9 212

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.1 827.8 -1.2 232 891 3.1 84

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.3 87.6 0.9 80 779 3.0 96

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.1 330.0 -0.1 149 812 3.2 79

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.7 95.4 0.4 116 $595 0.7 287

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.1 76.8 -0.1 149 584 1.6 242

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 89.9 1.6 43 522 2.8 122

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.6 130.5 -1.9 266 627 3.6 54

Boone, MO ......................... 4.2 76.7 -0.4 178 561 1.3 258

Clay, MO ............................ 4.8 87.0 -0.8 205 670 3.1 84

Greene, MO ....................... 7.9 144.3 1.5 50 559 2.0 200

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.8 368.8 -2.9 295 730 2.0 200

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.0 108.9 4.3 4 611 2.3 179

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.8 630.4 -1.5 245 770 3.1 84

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.4 229.6 -2.9 295 792 2.2 183

Douglas, NE ....................... 14.7 313.3 -1.2 232 657 4.6 22

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.3 150.6 0.3 124 588 2.1 191

Clark, NV ........................... 34.5 750.3 3.5 10 655 3.6 54

Washoe, NV ....................... 11.7 195.7 1.6 43 665 3.3 69

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.1 192.5 1.3 54 769 4.8 15

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.5 133.4 -0.3 171 694 -0.7 306

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.5 147.5 1.2 63 647 3.0 96

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.2 455.7 0.9 80 898 2.4 170

Burlington, NJ .................... (7) (7) (7) - (7) (7) - 

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.1 207.0 1.0 70 727 4.6 22

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.2 362.9 -0.4 178 895 2.3 179

Gloucester, NJ ................... 5.9 97.6 2.7 18 647 2.5 159

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.7 234.6 -1.1 226 900 2.9 108

Mercer, NJ ......................... 10.4 222.8 1.6 43 881 1.1 271

Middlesex, NJ .................... 20.5 395.9 -2.0 270 889 1.7 231

Monmouth, NJ ................... 19.6 252.7 0.1 139 779 2.8 122

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.5 281.2 -0.5 185 1,023 3.6 54

Ocean, NJ .......................... 11.4 148.7 2.1 30 609 2.7 132

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.4 177.7 -0.5 185 765 1.5 250

Somerset, NJ ..................... (7) (7) (7) - (7) (7) - 

Union, NJ ........................... 14.9 242.4 2.5 21 899 2.7 132

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.0 310.8 0.2 134 634 2.9 108

Albany, NY ......................... 9.4 228.5 -0.5 185 744 3.0 96

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.1 214.9 -0.7 196 693 2.7 132

Broome, NY ....................... 4.4 95.8 -2.6 291 604 3.1 84

Dutchess, NY ..................... 7.5 117.1 1.7 40 738 1.2 267

Erie, NY ............................. 23.2 457.6 -0.5 185 625 1.6 242

Kings, NY ........................... 41.1 442.1 0.3 124 626 3.3 69

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.5 387.0 -1.0 218 730 4.4 25

Nassau, NY ........................ 49.7 603.8 0.8 85 805 3.7 50

New York, NY .................... 111.8 2,214.1 -2.4 283 1,250 0.6 291

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 110.1 0.7 89 560 2.6 148

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.4 248.6 -0.1 149 670 2.3 179

Orange, NY ........................ 8.9 126.1 1.3 54 (7) (7) - 

Queens, NY ....................... 39.2 477.5 0.1 139 725 3.0 96

Richmond, NY .................... 7.7 88.7 0.0 145 645 1.7 231

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.1 112.2 0.3 124 775 2.6 148

Suffolk, NY ......................... 46.3 603.9 0.6 98 757 2.9 108

Westchester, NY ................ 34.7 410.5 0.1 139 919 2.5 159

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Buncombe, NC .................. 6.6 104.5 1.7 40 $549 1.9 212

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.3 85.6 -5.3 311 556 0.0 302

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.5 109.2 -0.1 149 548 2.0 200

Durham, NC ....................... 6.1 160.2 -2.1 275 899 2.0 200

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.3 174.1 -1.5 245 672 2.0 200

Guilford, NC ....................... 13.6 266.5 -0.7 196 644 1.6 242

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 26.9 504.9 -1.0 218 807 1.1 271

New Hanover, NC .............. 6.2 88.3 0.3 124 568 0.4 295

Wake, NC .......................... 22.5 381.8 0.5 107 716 0.7 287

Cass, ND ........................... 5.1 86.6 3.2 11 568 2.5 159

Butler, OH .......................... 6.8 130.7 1.6 43 630 1.6 242

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.8 772.3 -0.4 178 731 2.7 132

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.8 687.3 -1.5 245 714 2.4 170

Hamilton, OH ..................... 25.3 552.3 0.4 116 753 1.8 221

Lake, OH ............................ 6.7 98.7 -0.9 211 617 4.8 15

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.2 102.8 0.4 116 621 1.5 250

Lucas, OH .......................... 11.0 226.9 -1.6 253 662 2.6 148

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.5 106.4 -0.7 196 534 2.5 159

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.4 289.7 -1.0 218 682 2.1 191

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 169.2 -2.0 270 574 1.8 221

Summit, OH ....................... 14.8 259.3 -0.8 205 664 2.9 108

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.9 87.6 -2.2 278 637 1.8 221

Oklahoma, OK ................... 21.5 398.8 -2.7 293 618 5.5 6

Tulsa, OK ........................... 18.1 317.8 -5.1 309 642 4.2 32

Clackamas, OR .................. 10.9 133.9 -1.7 259 675 3.2 79

Lane, OR ........................... 10.1 138.1 -1.4 242 579 3.6 54

Marion, OR ........................ 8.2 132.2 0.7 89 575 2.1 191

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.1 419.4 -2.5 287 732 1.0 273

Washington, OR ................ 13.8 221.5 -1.9 266 793 0.6 291

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.6 701.5 -1.6 253 738 2.2 183

Berks, PA ........................... 8.7 160.9 -2.3 282 669 3.9 38

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.7 256.0 1.9 32 696 3.7 50

Chester, PA ....................... 14.5 219.4 1.0 70 895 5.2 10

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.5 125.0 0.2 134 687 3.8 47

Dauphin, PA ....................... 6.8 177.6 -0.2 162 694 3.4 64

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.7 210.4 -1.7 259 772 4.7 19

Erie, PA .............................. 7.1 126.6 -1.0 218 565 -0.2 303

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.6 98.3 0.3 124 551 2.0 200

Lancaster, PA .................... 11.4 223.3 0.3 124 625 3.3 69

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.1 172.6 1.0 70 706 0.4 295

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 141.9 0.5 107 576 2.7 132

Montgomery, PA ................ 26.9 479.8 -0.9 211 849 3.0 96

Northampton, PA ............... 5.9 92.6 1.1 65 627 1.5 250

Philadelphia, PA ................ 27.3 646.9 -1.6 253 813 3.8 47

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.2 133.3 -2.0 270 575 2.1 191

York, PA ............................. 8.4 164.4 -0.4 178 622 2.0 200

Kent, RI .............................. 5.4 79.8 2.5 21 672 7.9 1

Providence, RI ................... 17.3 289.7 0.2 134 681 2.6 148

Charleston, SC .................. 12.9 188.7 1.8 36 591 4.4 25

Greenville, SC .................... 13.3 223.5 0.4 116 628 0.3 297

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Horry, SC ........................... 8.6 108.3 2.3 24 $472 1.7 231

Lexington, SC .................... 6.1 83.7 0.5 107 546 1.5 250

Richland, SC ...................... 10.5 203.6 -0.1 149 612 2.7 132

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.9 115.4 -0.7 196 629 1.3 258

Minnehaha, SD .................. 5.8 109.6 0.5 107 586 3.9 38

Davidson, TN ..................... 17.9 424.3 1.3 54 696 0.9 277

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.2 187.3 0.8 85 629 3.3 69

Knox, TN ............................ 10.2 211.0 1.3 54 611 2.9 108

Rutherford, TN ................... 3.5 83.1 4.1 6 674 2.9 108

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.9 497.4 0.9 80 710 2.2 183

Bell, TX .............................. 4.1 88.9 -0.6 193 543 4.8 15

Bexar, TX ........................... 29.1 657.8 0.3 124 604 2.7 132

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.0 75.8 0.3 124 665 -3.6 309

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.4 73.7 0.5 107 511 4.3 29

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.0 114.5 -0.8 205 443 3.0 96

Collin, TX ........................... 11.5 192.8 1.4 52 783 0.8 284

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.3 1,442.7 -2.4 283 853 0.8 284

Denton, TX ......................... 7.9 127.5 0.4 116 601 2.4 170

El Paso, TX ........................ 12.3 248.8 -1.3 239 510 -0.2 303

Fort Bend, TX .................... 6.0 97.2 -1.0 218 699 1.0 273

Galveston, TX .................... 4.7 90.7 1.3 54 614 1.3 258

Harris, TX ........................... 87.7 1,837.2 -1.1 226 818 2.0 200

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 8.9 180.4 3.6 9 444 2.8 122

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 117.2 -1.0 218 642 4.7 19

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.4 114.4 -1.3 239 531 2.9 108

McLennan, TX ................... 4.6 98.3 0.2 134 558 4.1 34

Montgomery, TX ................ 6.0 86.8 2.8 17 628 1.9 212

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 143.4 -0.5 185 571 2.1 191

Smith, TX ........................... 4.8 84.8 0.4 116 593 0.9 277

Tarrant, TX ......................... 33.1 692.9 -1.7 259 726 1.0 273

Travis, TX .......................... 24.0 509.3 -2.0 270 792 2.9 108

Williamson, TX ................... 4.7 82.8 2.2 27 741 6.6 4

Davis, UT ........................... 5.8 91.4 0.6 98 576 4.3 29

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 32.9 514.3 -0.8 205 646 1.3 258

Utah, UT ............................ 10.1 142.7 0.0 145 550 2.6 148

Weber, UT ......................... 5.0 86.0 0.5 107 540 1.9 212

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.6 95.2 -0.8 205 702 3.5 60

Arlington, VA ...................... 6.8 150.7 -1.7 259 1,092 1.6 242

Chesterfield, VA ................. 6.5 111.3 -0.2 162 640 0.9 277

Fairfax, VA ......................... 29.5 538.5 0.9 80 1,044 3.1 84

Henrico, VA ........................ 7.9 167.8 -0.4 178 737 1.5 250

Loudoun, VA ...................... 5.7 106.1 5.2 1 924 1.3 258

Prince William, VA ............. 5.5 90.8 2.1 30 626 5.4 7

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.5 92.4 1.2 63 903 2.7 132

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 4.6 90.4 2.4 23 552 3.4 64

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.6 96.3 0.6 98 642 1.9 212

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.5 144.6 -1.5 245 691 7.1 2

Richmond City, VA ............. 6.9 159.4 -2.2 278 782 1.2 267

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 10.3 168.5 0.7 89 543 3.6 54

Clark, WA ........................... 11.1 116.5 1.3 54 657 1.7 231

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

King, WA ............................ 86.3 1,090.7 -1.5 245 $950 4.2 32

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.6 77.7 1.0 70 638 2.1 191

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.3 244.7 1.6 43 642 3.0 96

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.1 209.3 0.3 124 725 2.4 170

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.7 193.0 1.0 70 573 1.6 242

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.8 90.1 3.7 8 653 1.9 212

Yakima, WA ....................... 9.5 102.8 4.8 2 481 2.1 191

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 109.6 -0.9 211 624 1.8 221

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 144.9 0.6 98 650 3.0 96

Dane, WI ............................ 13.4 283.9 0.7 89 707 5.2 10

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.4 504.1 -1.1 226 701 1.6 242

Outagamie, WI ................... 4.9 99.6 1.8 36 619 1.8 221

Racine, WI ......................... 4.3 76.9 -1.6 253 676 4.0 36

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.2 227.1 0.2 134 722 2.6 148

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.9 87.8 -2.5 287 671 2.4 170

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.4 306.7 -0.9 211 460 5.3 9

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

These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.3 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,

second quarter 20032

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages4

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-033

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-033

United States5 .................................................... 8,232.5 129,169.4 -0.5 $702 2.2

Private industry .............................................. 7,966.5 108,223.1 -0.7 691 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 124.3 1,798.8 0.2 617 2.2

Construction ............................................... 801.8 6,855.5 -0.4 733 1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 380.4 14,546.7 -5.2 851 2.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,856.9 25,042.2 -1.0 617 2.0

Information ................................................. 146.9 3,187.6 -6.0 1,069 3.0

Financial activities ...................................... 759.0 7,884.4 1.8 996 3.5

Professional and business services ........... 1,317.2 15,946.2 -0.9 829 2.0

Education and health services ................... 723.5 15,714.0 2.5 654 3.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 663.9 12,657.0 0.9 299 1.7

Other services ............................................ 1,047.4 4,344.2 0.2 458 2.2

Government ................................................... 266.0 20,946.3 0.5 761 3.3

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 340.7 4,060.4 -0.3 789 2.9

Private industry .............................................. 336.9 3,461.0 0.1 768 2.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 12.1 0.9 865 11.9

Construction ............................................... 12.8 134.8 1.2 775 -1.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 18.1 503.7 -6.8 787 1.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 53.5 767.1 -0.5 686 3.2

Information ................................................. 9.2 199.3 -4.2 1,298 3.8

Financial activities ...................................... 22.7 236.1 1.3 1,151 2.0

Professional and business services ........... 39.6 568.1 1.4 896 5.7

Education and health services ................... 26.1 446.9 3.6 716 3.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 24.9 372.5 3.4 462 3.1

Other services ............................................ 129.0 219.2 5.1 394 1.5

Government ................................................... 3.9 599.4 -2.1 905 3.5

Cook, IL .............................................................. 125.8 2,543.0 -1.6 836 1.2

Private industry .............................................. 124.7 2,213.0 -1.9 826 1.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.6 0.4 880 1.7

Construction ............................................... 10.3 99.6 -0.8 1,027 2.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.9 269.1 -6.0 858 2.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 26.6 480.7 -1.6 693 0.6

Information ................................................. 2.5 66.6 -6.9 1,094 1.1

Financial activities ...................................... 13.6 220.2 -0.3 1,283 0.9

Professional and business services ........... 25.9 404.5 -3.7 1,034 1.5

Education and health services ................... 12.1 343.6 0.0 709 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.4 225.4 2.8 357 1.7

Other services ............................................ 12.7 97.2 -1.7 605 2.7

Government ................................................... 1.1 330.0 -0.2 902 -0.3

New York, NY ..................................................... 111.8 2,214.1 -2.4 1,250 0.6

Private industry .............................................. 111.6 1,762.3 -2.2 1,343 0.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 12.7 1,052 -7.1

Construction ............................................... 2.2 31.3 -3.4 1,270 0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 47.7 -10.5 985 10.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.5 235.2 -0.3 967 1.0

Information ................................................. 4.5 130.2 -8.3 1,576 3.5

Financial activities ...................................... 17.0 352.4 -3.3 2,284 -2.8

Professional and business services ........... 22.8 426.7 -3.8 1,510 3.2

Education and health services ................... 7.8 267.3 1.5 821 2.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.1 180.0 0.6 623 1.3

Other services ............................................ 16.0 82.0 0.6 742 3.1

Government ................................................... 0.2 451.8 -2.9 889 4.2

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages4

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-033

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-033

Harris, TX ........................................................... 87.7 1,837.2 -1.1 $818 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 87.3 1,596.6 -1.8 830 1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.2 60.8 4.4 1,870 2.4

Construction ............................................... 6.3 142.8 -2.2 789 -0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.7 167.9 -5.5 1,051 3.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.9 390.5 -3.7 779 3.7

Information ................................................. 1.4 34.5 -4.6 1,025 0.6

Financial activities ...................................... 9.2 112.0 0.3 1,016 1.3

Professional and business services ........... 16.7 278.8 -3.0 904 1.1

Education and health services ................... 8.6 185.8 1.7 721 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 161.5 2.3 315 -2.2

Other services ............................................ 10.3 58.2 -3.4 502 1.8

Government ................................................... 0.4 240.6 3.6 738 4.2

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 79.4 1,547.0 0.7 710 2.9

Private industry .............................................. 78.9 1,354.9 0.2 694 3.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.4 -1.4 456 0.9

Construction ............................................... 8.4 127.5 1.6 712 3.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 126.0 -7.3 972 4.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 18.7 315.7 -0.4 684 2.2

Information ................................................. 1.6 37.5 -2.6 858 3.0

Financial activities ...................................... 9.3 131.3 2.5 882 6.4

Professional and business services ........... 17.8 253.7 1.0 683 2.4

Education and health services ................... 7.4 154.5 5.2 729 3.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.5 151.8 0.8 334 0.9

Other services ............................................ 5.6 44.9 -2.9 481 2.6

Government ................................................... 0.5 192.2 4.0 816 3.2

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.3 1,442.7 -2.4 853 0.8

Private industry .............................................. 66.9 1,285.9 -3.1 862 0.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.4 (6) 2,421 (6) 

Construction ............................................... 4.5 75.4 -5.4 808 4.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 146.5 -6.6 988 -3.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.6 319.6 -3.6 835 2.0

Information ................................................. 1.8 64.9 -9.4 1,156 -2.0

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 139.1 0.5 1,087 2.9

Professional and business services ........... 13.8 232.2 -3.5 954 2.0

Education and health services ................... 6.1 129.8 3.5 767 1.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.0 127.2 -1.6 383 1.1

Other services ............................................ 6.7 42.4 -3.1 535 0.9

Government ................................................... 0.4 156.8 4.2 780 1.8

Orange, CA ........................................................ 87.1 1,433.5 0.9 800 3.5

Private industry .............................................. 85.7 1,283.4 1.6 789 3.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 8.3 -8.3 494 1.6

Construction ............................................... 6.4 84.4 6.4 851 2.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.1 183.3 -6.1 919 5.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.3 265.5 0.3 751 0.0

Information ................................................. 1.5 34.3 -7.5 1,092 3.1

Financial activities ...................................... 9.5 123.7 11.7 1,228 10.8

Professional and business services ........... 17.2 253.2 3.0 829 -0.1

Education and health services ................... 8.9 123.9 6.5 728 -0.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.6 160.4 0.0 352 5.7

Other services ............................................ 11.8 46.0 3.8 480 0.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 150.1 -4.5 891 6.2

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages4

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-033

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-033

San Diego, CA ................................................... 83.1 1,263.1 0.4 $757 1.9

Private industry .............................................. 81.8 1,040.5 0.4 737 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.9 12.0 -1.6 469 1.1

Construction ............................................... 6.3 80.0 1.5 785 1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 107.2 -6.9 1,007 5.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.1 206.2 0.9 635 1.4

Information ................................................. 1.4 37.0 -2.6 1,328 -6.3

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 81.0 6.2 1,002 5.5

Professional and business services ........... 14.6 201.2 -0.6 883 -0.5

Education and health services ................... 7.5 120.7 2.3 677 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 142.1 1.3 330 3.8

Other services ............................................ 18.1 52.9 5.4 426 1.7

Government ................................................... 1.4 222.6 0.0 849 4.9

King, WA ............................................................ 86.3 1,090.7 -1.5 950 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 85.7 936.5 -1.8 966 4.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 3.1 -12.9 1,187 14.0

Construction ............................................... 6.9 54.5 -2.3 866 -0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 104.4 -10.7 1,097 2.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.9 216.0 -1.7 759 0.3

Information ................................................. 1.7 67.3 -2.2 2,794 12.3

Financial activities ...................................... 6.3 76.6 2.3 1,082 8.6

Professional and business services ........... 12.8 155.1 -1.6 1,076 6.1

Education and health services ................... 6.1 107.9 1.2 700 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 101.9 0.6 374 0.5

Other services ............................................ 27.1 49.7 2.4 435 -2.2

Government ................................................... 0.6 154.1 0.7 855 3.0

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 78.9 966.5 -1.2 689 3.1

Private industry .............................................. 78.6 814.3 -1.6 659 2.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.8 4.3 381 -7.5

Construction ............................................... 4.8 40.1 0.8 704 -1.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 51.4 -7.9 622 3.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.2 239.3 -2.2 630 1.4

Information ................................................. 1.7 27.4 -9.2 946 3.6

Financial activities ...................................... 8.1 64.8 1.9 933 1.5

Professional and business services ........... 15.5 130.8 -5.8 782 5.7

Education and health services ................... 7.7 123.0 2.4 681 5.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.2 91.1 1.4 377 3.3

Other services ............................................ 7.4 34.9 -1.4 424 2.4

Government ................................................... 0.3 152.1 1.0 851 4.8

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, second quarter 20032

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

United States6 .................... 8,232.5 129,169.4 -0.5 $702 2.2

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.1 369.4 -1.2 700 2.2

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.5 143.6 1.8 757 2.0

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 79.4 1,547.0 0.7 710 2.9

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.1 240.2 0.5 634 1.8

Los Angeles, CA ................ 340.7 4,060.4 -0.3 789 2.9

Denver, CO ........................ 24.2 428.2 -2.9 850 2.9

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.2 485.2 -2.2 864 1.9

New Castle, DE ................. 17.7 279.2 1.0 833 3.3

Washington, DC ................. 29.4 651.6 -0.6 1,150 5.0

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 78.9 966.5 -1.2 689 3.1

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.2 718.4 -2.0 916 1.8

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.1 417.9 0.6 658 3.3

Ada, ID ............................... 13.2 184.0 0.1 647 1.6

Cook, IL ............................. 125.8 2,543.0 -1.6 836 1.2

Marion, IN .......................... 23.4 575.7 -1.2 727 2.0

Polk, IA .............................. 13.6 262.8 -0.7 695 3.9

Johnson, KS ...................... 18.5 291.8 -0.1 735 2.9

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.4 421.1 -0.2 688 2.7

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.9 253.3 0.3 659 3.3

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.0 170.2 -0.1 639 2.7

Montgomery, MD ............... 30.7 456.9 0.7 917 2.7

Middlesex, MA ................... 46.8 797.6 -3.2 984 1.9

Wayne, MI .......................... 35.4 816.6 -1.8 824 1.7

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.1 827.8 -1.2 891 3.1

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.6 130.5 -1.9 627 3.6

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.8 630.4 -1.5 770 3.1

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.7 69.9 0.6 572 4.2

Douglas, NE ....................... 14.7 313.3 -1.2 657 4.6

Clark, NV ........................... 34.5 750.3 3.5 655 3.6

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.1 192.5 1.3 769 4.8

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.2 455.7 0.9 898 2.4

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.0 310.8 0.2 634 2.9

New York, NY .................... 111.8 2,214.1 -2.4 1,250 0.6

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 26.9 504.9 -1.0 807 1.1

Cass, ND ........................... 5.1 86.6 3.2 568 2.5

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.8 772.3 -0.4 731 2.7

Oklahoma, OK ................... 21.5 398.8 -2.7 618 5.5

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.1 419.4 -2.5 732 1.0

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.6 701.5 -1.6 738 2.2

Providence, RI ................... 17.3 289.7 0.2 681 2.6

Greenville, SC .................... 13.3 223.5 0.4 628 0.3

Minnehaha, SD .................. 5.8 109.6 0.5 586 3.9

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.9 497.4 0.9 710 2.2

Harris, TX ........................... 87.7 1,837.2 -1.1 818 2.0

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 32.9 514.3 -0.8 646 1.3

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.6 95.2 -0.8 702 3.5

Fairfax, VA ......................... 29.5 538.5 0.9 1,044 3.1

King, WA ............................ 86.3 1,090.7 -1.5 950 4.2

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 109.6 -0.9 624 1.8

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.4 504.1 -1.1 701 1.6

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

by state, second quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-034

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-034

Laramie, WY ...................... 2.8 40.0 3.0 $553 3.6

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.4 306.7 -0.9 460 5.3

St. Thomas, VI ................... 1.7 22.9 0.1 577 8.9

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.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 20032

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages3

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-03

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-03

United States4 .................... 8,232.5 129,169.4 -0.5 $702 2.2

Alabama ............................. 110.4 1,828.1 -0.6 602 2.7

Alaska ................................ 19.4 305.7 1.9 723 2.3

Arizona ............................... 123.8 2,221.9 0.7 673 3.2

Arkansas ............................ 74.8 1,123.3 -0.9 546 2.1

California ............................ 1,145.6 15,065.0 -0.1 790 2.3

Colorado ............................ 159.7 2,144.6 -2.2 724 2.3

Connecticut ........................ 108.8 1,652.3 -1.6 874 2.7

Delaware ............................ 26.5 408.9 0.4 748 2.9

District of Columbia ............ 29.4 651.6 -0.6 1,150 5.0

Florida ................................ 494.0 7,181.1 1.2 630 2.9

Georgia .............................. 242.1 3,790.5 -1.0 684 2.1

Hawaii ................................ 36.8 569.6 0.9 635 3.6

Idaho .................................. 49.2 590.5 0.7 538 2.1

Illinois ................................. 323.7 5,773.8 -1.4 751 1.5

Indiana ............................... 152.0 2,839.7 -0.5 623 1.6

Iowa ................................... 89.7 1,428.3 -1.1 572 2.7

Kansas ............................... 82.0 1,298.4 -2.2 591 1.2

Kentucky ............................ 106.0 1,727.5 -0.5 608 2.7

Louisiana ........................... 116.6 1,867.2 0.0 579 2.1

Maine ................................. 46.9 605.5 -0.7 569 3.1

Maryland ............................ 149.9 2,470.0 0.3 761 3.1

Massachusetts ................... 203.2 3,200.1 -2.2 849 1.6

Michigan ............................ 251.4 4,399.7 -1.5 728 2.0

Minnesota .......................... 157.6 2,631.6 -0.1 723 2.7

Mississippi ......................... 64.9 1,095.5 -1.7 521 3.0

Missouri ............................. 165.8 2,655.3 -0.4 639 2.1

Montana ............................. 42.0 404.9 1.1 521 3.8

Nebraska ........................... 54.9 887.5 -0.4 565 3.5

Nevada .............................. 57.3 1,077.2 2.8 658 3.6

New Hampshire ................. 46.3 614.7 0.1 692 2.2

New Jersey ........................ 263.2 3,935.7 -0.1 850 2.7

New Mexico ....................... 50.8 755.2 1.1 579 1.6

New York ........................... 549.8 8,347.6 -0.7 851 1.8

North Carolina .................... 224.6 3,728.6 -1.1 621 1.0

North Dakota ...................... 23.8 319.1 0.6 516 3.4

Ohio ................................... 292.6 5,348.4 -0.9 654 2.2

Oklahoma .......................... 91.5 1,404.4 -3.1 566 4.2

Oregon ............................... 116.1 1,586.4 -1.1 651 1.4

Pennsylvania ..................... 324.2 5,548.3 -0.6 689 2.8

Rhode Island ...................... 34.5 482.2 0.8 671 3.4

South Carolina ................... 123.5 1,786.8 -0.3 578 1.9

South Dakota ..................... 27.8 374.9 0.1 507 3.3

Tennessee ......................... 127.8 2,611.7 -0.2 628 1.9

Texas ................................. 498.5 9,250.4 -0.7 686 1.6

Utah ................................... 71.5 1,047.9 -0.1 588 1.9

Vermont ............................. 24.0 297.8 -0.9 609 3.2

Virginia ............................... 200.2 3,453.2 -0.1 719 2.7

Washington ........................ 233.2 2,701.1 0.6 747 2.9

West Virginia ...................... 46.9 685.7 -0.6 573 3.1

Wisconsin .......................... 155.0 2,741.3 -0.3 628 2.3

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

second quarter 20032 — Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages3

June

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2002-03

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

second quarter

2002-03

Wyoming ............................ 21.9 252.7 0.9 $563 2.9

Puerto Rico ........................ 43.6 977.0 -1.1 400 5.0

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.2 41.5 -3.7 602 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.
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employe

June 2002-03 (U.S. Average = -0.5%)

Source

January 

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, second quarter 2002-03 (U.S. Average = 2.2%)

Source

January 

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.