For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Wednesday, January 13, 2010 USDL-10-0009 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Second Quarter 2009 

From June 2008 to June 2009, employment declined in 324 of the 334 largest U.S. counties according 

to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart County, Ind., located 

about 100 miles east of Chicago, posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 21.9 percent over 

the year, compared with a national job decrease of 5.1 percent. Nearly 70 percent of the employment 

decline in Elkhart occurred in manufacturing, which lost 18,400 jobs over the year (-32.2 percent). 

Yakima County, Wash., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment 

among the largest counties in the U.S., with a gain of 1.5 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage fell over the year by 0.1 percent in the second quarter of 2009. This is 

the second consecutive over-the-year decline in average weekly wages and one of only four declines 

dating back to 1978, when these quarterly data were first comparable. (See Technical Note.) Large 

employment and wage losses in both the financial activities and manufacturing supersectors contributed 

significantly to the overall decline in the U.S. average weekly wages this quarter. Average weekly wages 

fell 1.8 percent in financial activities and 0.3 percent in manufacturing. Among the large counties in the 

U.S., Weld County, Colo., had the largest over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages in the second 

quarter of 2009, with a loss of 9.0 percent. Within Weld, trade, transportation, and utilities had the 

largest over-the-year decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 32.0 percent. Olmsted, Minn., 

experienced the largest growth in average weekly wages with a gain of 10.8 percent. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

employment, June 2008-09 

(U.S. average = -5.1 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

average weekly wages, second quarter 2008-09 

(U.S. average = -0.1 percent) 

-21.9

-13.2 -12.2 -11.6 -11.3

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Macomb, 

Mich.

Trumbull, 

Ohio

Wayne, 

Mich.

Collier, 

Fla.

-9.0

-7.6

-6.1 -5.3 -5.2

-11.0

-9.0

-7.0

-5.0

-3.0

-1.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

Weld, 

Colo.

Trumbull, 

Ohio

Douglas, 

Colo.

Brazoria, 

Texas

Santa Clara, 

Calif.
- 2 - 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by June 2009 employment, June 2008-09 employment 

decrease, and June 2008-09 percent decrease in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

June 2009 employment 

(thousands) 

Decrease in employment, 

June 2008-09 

(thousands) 

Percent decrease in 

employment, 

June 2008-09 

 

 

United States 129,674.8 United States -6,941.9 United States -5.1

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,947.3 Los Angeles, Calif. -256.7 Elkhart, Ind. -21.9

Cook, Ill. 2,395.8 Maricopa, Ariz. -149.9 Macomb, Mich. -13.2

New York, N.Y. 2,280.5 Cook, Ill. -137.7 Trumbull, Ohio -12.2

Harris, Texas 2,009.3 Orange, Calif. -119.7 Wayne, Mich. -11.6

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,588.7 New York, N.Y. -113.2 Collier, Fla. -11.3

Dallas, Texas 1,416.7 Clark, Nev. -98.5 Ottawa, Mich. -11.0

Orange, Calif. 1,380.6 Wayne, Mich. -85.5 Clark, Nev. -10.7

San Diego, Calif. 1,258.2 San Diego, Calif. -77.5 Washoe, Nev. -10.5

King, Wash. 1,138.3 Dallas, Texas -71.6 Oakland, Mich. -9.6

Miami-Dade, Fla. 932.3 Oakland, Mich. -65.6 Sarasota, Fla. -9.2

Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2008 annual average employment), 

157 had over-the-year percentage declines in employment greater than or equal to the national average 

(-5.1 percent) in June 2009; 167 large counties experienced smaller declines than the national average, 

while 2 counties experienced no change and 3 counties experienced employment gains. (See chart 3.) 

The percent change in average weekly wages was equal to or lower than the national average (-0.1 

percent) in 140 of the largest U.S. counties and was above the national average in 190 counties. (See 

chart 4.) 

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 9.1 

million employer reports cover 129.7 million full- and part-time workers. 

Large County Employment 

In June 2009, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129.7 million, down by 

5.1 percent from June 2008. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.2 

percent of total U.S. employment and 76.6 percent of total wages. These 334 counties had a net job 

decline of 5,117,900 over the year, accounting for 73.7 percent of the overall U.S. employment decrease. 

Employment declined in 324 counties from June 2008 to June 2009. The largest percentage decline in 

employment was in Elkhart, Ind. (-21.9 percent). Macomb, Mich., had the next largest percentage 

decline (-13.2 percent), followed by the counties of Trumbull, Ohio (-12.2 percent), Wayne, Mich. 

(-11.6 percent), and Collier, Fla. (-11.3 percent). The largest decline in employment levels occurred in 

Los Angeles, Calif. (-256,700), followed by the counties of Maricopa, Ariz. (-149,900), Cook, Ill. 

(-137,700), Orange, Calif. (-119,700), and New York, N.Y. (-113,200). (See table A.) Combined 

employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 777,200 or 11.2 percent of the 

employment decline for the U.S. as a whole. 
- 3 - 

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by second quarter 2009 average weekly wages, second 

quarter 2008-09 decrease in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2008-09 percent decrease in 

average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

Average weekly wage, 

second quarter 2009 

Decrease in average weekly 

wage, second quarter 2008-09 

 

Percent decrease in average 

weekly wage, second 

quarter 2008-09 

 

United States $840 United States -$1 United States -0.1

 

New York, N.Y. $1,520 Santa Clara, Calif. -$79 Weld, Colo. -9.0

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,449 Weld, Colo. -68 Trumbull, Ohio -7.6

Arlington, Va. 1,423 Douglas, Colo. -55 Douglas, Colo. -6.1

Washington, D.C. 1,421 Trumbull, Ohio -53 Brazoria, Texas -5.3

Fairfax, Va. 1,348 New York, N.Y. -49 Santa Clara, Calif. -5.2

Fairfield, Conn. 1,316 Brazoria, Texas -44 Rock Island, Ill. -4.8

San Mateo, Calif. 1,309 Middlesex, Mass. -43 Montgomery, Texas -4.1

San Francisco, Calif. 1,307 Hennepin, Minn. -42 Oakland, Mich. -3.9

Suffolk, Mass. 1,299 Rock Island, Ill. -41 Hennepin, Minn. -3.9

Somerset, N.J. 1,244 Somerset, N.J. -41 Catawba, N.C. -3.8

Employment rose in three of the large counties from June 2008 to June 2009. None of the large counties 

grew by more than two percent over the year. Yakima, Wash., had the largest over-the-year percentage 

increase in employment (1.5 percent) among the largest counties in the U.S. Arlington, Va., had the next 

largest increase (1.4 percent), followed by Bronx, N.Y. (1.2 percent). The largest gains in the level of 

employment from June 2008 to June 2009 were recorded in the counties of Bronx, N.Y. (2,800), 

Arlington, Va. (2,300), and Yakima, Wash. (1,600). 

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation fell 0.1 percent over the year in the second quarter of 2009. This 

is the second consecutive over-the-year decline in average weekly wages and one of only four declines 

dating back to 1978. Among the 334 largest counties, 140 had over-the-year decreases in average 

weekly wages in the second quarter. The largest wage loss occurred in Weld, Colo., with a decline of 9.0 

percent from the second quarter of 2008. Trumbull, Ohio, had the second largest decline (-7.6 percent), 

followed by the counties of Douglas, Colo. (-6.1 percent), Brazoria, Texas (-5.3 percent), and Santa 

Clara, Calif. (-5.2 percent). (See table B.) 

Of the 334 largest counties, 175 experienced growth in average weekly wages. Olmsted, Minn., led the 

nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 10.8 percent from the second quarter of 

2008. Large wage gains occurred in the education and health services supersector where average weekly 

wages grew 19.9 percent over the year. Saginaw, Mich., and Kitsap, Wash., were second with a gain of 

5.1 percent each, followed by the counties of Madison, Ala. (5.0 percent) and Newport News City, Va. 

(4.9 percent). 

The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2009 was $840. Average weekly wages were 

higher than the national average in 109 of the 334 largest U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., held the top 
- 4 - 

position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,520. Santa Clara, 

Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,449, followed by Arlington, Va. ($1,423), 

Washington, D.C. ($1,421), and Fairfax, Va. ($1,348). There were 225 counties with an average weekly 

wage below the national average in the second quarter of 2009. The lowest average weekly wage was 

reported in Horry, S.C. ($520), followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas, and Hidalgo, Texas ($544 

each), Webb, Texas ($558), and Yakima, Wash. ($589). (See table 1.) 

Average weekly wages are affected not only by changes in total wages but also by employment changes 

in high- and low-paying industries. (See Technical Note.) The 0.1-percent over-the-year decrease in 

average weekly wages for the nation was partially due to large employment declines in high-paying 

industries such as manufacturing. (See table 2.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties (based on 2008 annual average employment levels) experienced over-theyear percent declines in employment in June 2009. Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the largest decline in 

employment among the 10 largest counties with an 8.6 percent decrease. Within Maricopa, every private 

industry group except education and health services experienced an employment decline, with 

construction experiencing the largest decline (-31.5 percent). (See table 2.) Orange, Calif., had the next 

largest decline in employment, -8.0 percent, followed by Los Angeles, Calif. (-6.1 percent). Harris, 

Texas, experienced the smallest decline in employment (-3.1 percent) among the 10 largest counties. 

New York, N.Y. (-4.7 percent), and Dallas, Texas (-4.8 percent), had the second and third smallest 

employment losses, respectively. 

Seven of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages. New 

York, N.Y., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties with 

a decrease of 3.1 percent. Within New York County, financial activities sustained the largest total wage 

loss (-$1.9 billion) over the year. Average weekly wages for this supersector fell by 5.4 percent. New 

York’s average weekly wage loss was followed by Harris, Texas (-2.5 percent), and San Diego, Calif. 

(-1.5 percent). King, Wash., had the only wage increase (2.0 percent). Maricopa, Ariz., and Orange, 

Calif., both held the second highest position with average weekly wages unchanged over the year. 

Largest County by State 

Table 3 shows June 2009 employment and the 2009 second quarter average weekly wage in the largest 

county in each state, which is based on 2008 annual average employment levels. The employment levels 

in the counties in table 3 in June 2009 ranged from approximately four million in Los Angeles County, 

Calif., to 43,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in 

New York, N.Y. ($1,520), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Minnehaha, S.D. ($688). 
- 5 - 

For More Information 

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 334 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2008. June 2009 employment and 2009 

second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. 

For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical 

Note. Data for the second quarter of 2009 will be available later at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional 

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

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2009 is scheduled to be released on 

Thursday, April 1, 2010. 
Technical Note 

These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative program, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) 

program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived 

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

provided by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The summaries are 

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

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

in this release are based on the 2007 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2009 are preliminary and subject to 

revision. 

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

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

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

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

large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual 

average of employment for the previous year. The 335 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2008 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2009 data, two counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Johnson, Iowa, and Gregg, 

Texas. These counties will be included in all 2009 quarterly releases. Two counties, Boone, Ky., and St. Tammany, La., which were 

published in the 2008 releases, will be excluded from this and 

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments in first quarter 2009 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.8 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

• Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal database and directly summarizes gross job gains and losses • Uses UI file as a sampling frame and 

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/ 
future 2009 releases because their 2008 annual average employment 

levels were less than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are selected 

and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from 

the preceding year. 

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures 

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

QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a 

somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and 

publication product. 

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown 

in the table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) 

program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly 

reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers 

on behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to 

the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple 

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information 

on the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2008. These reports are based on place 

of employment rather than place of residence. 

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

the Federal Unemployment Tax Act became effective, expanding 

coverage to include most State and local government employees. In 

2008, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 134.8 million 

jobs. The estimated 129.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.5 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received 

$6.142 trillion in pay, representing 93.8 percent of the wage and 

salary component of personal income and 42.5 percent of the gross 

domestic product. 

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

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

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

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes 

may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by 

employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may 

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using 

unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values 

that can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database 

may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly 

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

value of meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, 

and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred 

compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options. Overthe-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages 

between the current quarter and prior year levels. 

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

part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in highpaying and low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay periods within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the 

work force could increase significantly when there is a large decline 

in the number of employees that had been receiving below-average 

wages. Wages may include payments to workers not present in the 

employment counts because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month. When comparing average 

weekly wage levels between industries, states, or quarters, these 

factors should be taken into consideration. 

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that consists of some 

quarters having more pay periods than others. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result of this 

schedule, in some quarters, federal wages contain payments for six 

pay periods, while in other quarters their wages include payments 
for seven pay periods. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average 

weekly wages may be attributed, in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year, which include seven pay periods, with 

year-ago wages that reflect only six pay periods. An opposite effect 

will occur when wages in the current period, which contain six pay 

periods, are compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay 

periods. The effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal 

payroll processing. This pattern may exist in private sector pay; 

however, because there are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect is most 

visible in counties with large concentrations of federal employment. 

In order to ensure the highest possible quality of data, states verify with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, 

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

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

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

the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also 

are introduced in the first quarter. 

QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are 

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a 

point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or 

industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic 

events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change would come from a firm relocating into the county; 

administrative change would come from a company correcting its 

county designation. 

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

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

This is done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the 

over-the-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an 

adjusted version of the final 2008 quarterly data as the base data. 

The adjusted prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year 

percent change in employment and wages are not published. These 

adjusted prior-year levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS Web site. Over-the-year change calculations 

based on data from the Web site, or from data published in prior 

BLS news releases, may differ substantially from the over-the-year 

changes presented in this news release. 

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

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

The most common adjustments for administrative change are the 

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

changes involving the classification of establishments that were 

previously reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, 

adjusted data account for administrative changes caused by multiunit employers who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted 

data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the 

Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown 

as counties include those designated as independent cities in some 

jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where 

counties have not been created. County data also are presented for 

the New England states for comparative purposes even though 

townships are the more common designation used in New England 

(and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined 

as census regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2007 edition 

of this bulletin contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2008 version of this news release. 

Tables and additional content from the 2007 Employment and 

Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn07.htm. These tables present final 

2007 annual averages. The tables are included on the CD which 

accompanies the hardcopy version of the Annual Bulletin. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2007 is available for sale as 

a chartbook from the United States Government Printing Office, 

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 

15250, telephone (866) 512-1800, outside Washington, D.C. Within 

Washington, D.C., the telephone number is (202) 512-1800. The 

fax number is (202) 512-2104. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone (202) 691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/); (e-mail: 

BDMInfo@bls.gov). 

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

TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 2009 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,055.3 129,674.8 -5.1 – $840 -0.1 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.3 337.9 -7.0 269 845 0.6 132

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 179.7 -2.1 24 938 5.0 4

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 165.7 -6.5 257 737 4.4 6

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 131.4 -5.6 208 736 0.1 169

Shelby, AL ......................... 4.9 71.4 -6.9 264 795 2.7 22

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 80.4 -7.1 272 719 -0.6 229

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 148.4 -1.8 22 948 3.6 11

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 98.2 1,588.7 -8.6 309 846 0.0 176

Pima, AZ ............................ 20.2 341.4 -6.7 260 752 0.5 145

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 91.0 -5.3 186 806 2.4 29

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.0 243.6 -3.8 104 781 2.5 27

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 89.6 -4.0 111 710 1.7 55

Alameda, CA ...................... 52.9 640.5 -7.2 278 1,092 -0.3 206

Butte, CA ........................... 7.8 71.8 -5.8 219 666 3.9 8

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.5 325.0 -5.9 223 1,072 1.6 64

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.0 344.1 -6.9 264 689 0.6 132

Kern, CA ............................ 17.7 272.7 -4.9 160 764 1.9 42

Los Angeles, CA ................ 419.7 3,947.3 -6.1 239 940 -0.6 229

Marin, CA ........................... 11.6 103.3 -6.7 260 1,042 -2.3 298

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.6 181.7 -3.0 59 748 -0.5 226

Orange, CA ........................ 100.1 1,380.6 -8.0 300 953 0.0 176

Placer, CA .......................... 10.7 127.0 -8.8 313 821 0.0 176

Riverside, CA ..................... 47.0 570.5 -8.8 313 721 0.4 152

Sacramento, CA ................ 53.3 604.9 -5.0 168 948 0.3 164

San Bernardino, CA ........... 49.0 610.6 -7.6 294 744 0.5 145

San Diego, CA ................... 96.6 1,258.2 -5.8 219 912 -1.5 274

San Francisco, CA ............. 51.3 545.0 -5.5 200 1,307 -2.1 294

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.5 220.0 -5.7 215 740 0.5 145

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.6 100.8 -5.9 223 726 1.4 76

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.7 323.3 -6.3 247 1,309 1.6 64

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.2 184.5 -5.5 200 811 1.4 76

Santa Clara, CA ................. 60.0 853.5 -7.1 272 1,449 -5.2 326

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.9 100.5 -3.6 89 754 -0.1 191

Solano, CA ......................... 9.9 123.3 -4.4 132 859 0.9 111

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.4 179.3 -8.0 300 813 -1.6 279

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.7 168.2 -6.5 257 732 1.9 42

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.4 152.1 -7.3 283 599 1.7 55

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.4 305.3 -5.5 200 885 1.3 86

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.9 99.8 -3.6 89 824 1.6 64

Adams, CO ........................ 9.1 153.4 -5.2 178 763 -0.7 237

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.3 275.7 -4.1 115 965 0.4 152

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.9 153.3 -5.5 200 970 0.8 119

Denver, CO ........................ 25.5 424.1 -6.0 233 1,011 -1.0 256

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.5 92.2 -4.7 147 850 -6.1 328

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.2 236.9 -4.9 160 787 1.9 42

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.3 206.3 -4.7 147 858 -2.3 298

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.2 128.9 -4.1 115 723 -0.6 229

Weld, CO ........................... 6.0 79.5 -6.3 247 686 -9.0 330

Fairfield, CT ....................... 33.0 404.6 -5.3 186 1,316 -0.8 244

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.5 491.8 -4.6 140 1,014 0.1 169

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT ................. 22.6 352.8 -4.7 147 $906 0.9 111

New London, CT ................ 7.0 128.4 -4.1 115 880 -0.2 198

New Castle, DE ................. 18.1 268.1 -5.7 215 959 -0.3 206

Washington, DC ................. 33.7 690.9 -0.1 6 1,421 -0.9 250

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 115.2 -4.7 147 713 2.7 22

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.7 190.3 -6.3 247 820 1.9 42

Broward, FL ....................... 62.9 684.6 -7.6 294 805 0.8 119

Collier, FL .......................... 11.9 104.5 -11.3 325 767 -2.3 298

Duval, FL ........................... 26.7 434.4 -6.0 233 815 1.0 101

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.0 117.3 -6.2 242 688 2.1 37

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.1 562.9 -7.8 298 821 1.9 42

Lake, FL ............................. 7.3 76.7 -6.9 264 607 -1.6 279

Lee, FL ............................... 18.9 187.8 -8.8 313 720 -1.1 261

Leon, FL ............................. 8.1 137.1 -3.5 85 722 1.0 101

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.2 106.5 -6.0 233 665 -1.6 279

Marion, FL .......................... 8.1 91.5 -8.7 312 626 0.5 145

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 83.9 932.3 -5.9 223 833 -0.6 229

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 77.1 -2.5 37 722 3.0 17

Orange, FL ......................... 35.2 638.2 -7.4 287 766 0.1 169

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.3 491.0 -7.8 298 837 -0.1 191

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.8 89.1 -6.3 247 624 -3.7 320

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.0 390.8 -7.5 292 742 1.0 101

Polk, FL .............................. 12.6 185.9 -6.5 257 663 0.0 176

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.8 130.7 -9.2 320 727 -0.1 191

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.2 158.6 -8.8 313 732 -1.7 284

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.7 147.1 -7.4 287 635 -0.2 198

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 80.1 -7.1 272 668 3.7 10

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.7 129.6 -5.5 200 725 0.7 126

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 108.3 -4.5 139 765 0.0 176

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.6 298.7 -7.1 272 881 0.9 111

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.7 279.6 -6.1 239 889 0.8 119

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.2 696.1 -6.4 255 1,087 0.6 132

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.8 297.5 -7.4 287 819 -2.4 303

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 92.0 -5.2 178 675 0.7 126

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 98.0 -3.6 89 715 ( 7) – 

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.9 434.7 -3.7 96 802 1.6 64

Ada, ID ............................... 14.7 195.9 -8.1 303 734 -1.6 279

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 89.0 -4.1 115 739 3.2 15

Cook, IL ............................. 142.0 2,395.8 -5.4 195 986 -1.4 270

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.2 556.9 -6.9 264 958 -2.4 303

Kane, IL ............................. 12.9 198.0 -7.2 278 754 0.0 176

Lake, IL .............................. 21.3 324.1 -6.1 239 1,042 -0.2 198

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 98.5 -7.3 283 706 -3.4 316

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 84.8 -2.5 37 825 2.4 29

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 90.7 -6.2 242 699 0.7 126

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.8 99.3 -7.1 272 784 -0.6 229

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 75.9 -5.9 223 822 -4.8 325

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 94.6 -3.3 74 713 3.5 13

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 128.3 -2.3 28 862 2.4 29

Will, IL ................................ 14.2 192.2 -5.0 168 748 -1.7 284

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Winnebago, IL .................... 7.0 125.8 -8.6 309 $706 -0.8 244

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 167.2 -8.0 300 703 -0.4 217

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 93.7 -21.9 329 686 -2.4 303

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.9 109.5 -6.4 255 787 -1.0 256

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 185.3 -5.6 208 721 -3.2 312

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 545.2 -5.3 186 850 0.4 152

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 113.9 -8.1 303 713 0.4 152

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 71.8 -5.4 195 716 -0.7 237

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 103.5 -4.0 111 706 1.1 93

Johnson, IA ........................ 3.5 74.7 -1.7 20 779 2.5 27

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 125.3 -1.6 17 796 0.6 132

Polk, IA .............................. 14.8 271.9 -2.8 49 823 0.1 169

Scott, IA ............................. 5.3 85.4 -6.3 247 668 -0.1 191

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.7 304.6 -4.9 160 871 -1.6 279

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.3 247.4 -6.3 247 789 0.4 152

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 94.4 -3.0 59 735 2.7 22

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 79.0 -3.4 80 808 -0.4 217

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.3 170.5 -4.9 160 785 1.6 64

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.1 413.2 -5.1 173 823 0.4 152

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.4 122.1 -2.6 41 719 0.0 176

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 85.5 -3.5 85 722 -1.2 263

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.4 256.1 -1.7 20 805 1.8 50

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.8 195.6 -2.8 49 781 0.8 119

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.9 131.2 -3.6 89 793 -2.1 294

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.4 168.9 -1.2 12 913 -0.9 250

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.2 170.2 -4.0 111 756 0.0 176

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.5 229.3 -3.4 80 912 1.9 42

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.6 368.3 -3.8 104 873 1.4 76

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 93.0 -3.3 74 824 1.7 55

Harford, MD ....................... 5.7 82.3 -2.8 49 782 2.9 18

Howard, MD ....................... 8.8 146.7 -3.3 74 1,009 2.6 26

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.8 449.4 -2.4 32 1,129 1.5 69

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.9 308.3 -3.0 59 932 0.6 132

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.9 328.9 -3.1 64 1,012 1.5 69

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.0 97.4 -4.1 115 727 0.6 132

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.3 210.3 -5.5 200 776 0.4 152

Essex, MA .......................... 20.7 296.2 -3.3 74 891 -1.3 268

Hampden, MA .................... 14.5 194.8 -3.6 89 778 1.8 50

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.2 801.2 -4.4 132 1,194 -3.5 318

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.3 314.7 -4.0 111 994 -1.7 284

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.5 174.4 -3.7 96 842 1.8 50

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.7 576.0 -3.8 104 1,299 -1.0 256

Worcester, MA ................... 20.5 311.3 -4.4 132 858 -1.3 268

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.6 126.0 -9.1 319 720 -0.7 237

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.6 151.4 -6.9 264 828 1.1 93

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 109.3 -6.3 247 767 -0.8 244

Kent, MI ............................. 14.1 305.9 -8.5 308 767 -0.4 217

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.3 268.9 -13.2 328 849 -3.6 319

Oakland, MI ....................... 38.3 618.3 -9.6 321 955 -3.9 322

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.6 98.5 -11.0 324 686 -2.0 293

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.3 78.5 -7.7 296 $725 5.1 2

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 178.5 -4.8 154 898 -0.2 198

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.4 654.9 -11.6 326 920 -3.1 309

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.5 109.4 -5.5 200 838 -0.2 198

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.3 171.1 -4.2 123 852 0.6 132

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.8 811.1 -4.9 160 1,027 -3.9 322

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 89.4 -2.6 41 953 10.8 1

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.8 319.1 -5.2 178 931 1.3 86

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.8 93.7 -5.9 223 694 -2.3 298

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.4 77.9 -5.1 173 680 2.9 18

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 83.7 -4.7 147 669 2.0 40

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.2 125.4 -1.6 17 746 2.1 37

Boone, MO ......................... 4.4 81.3 -2.7 45 678 2.3 34

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 88.5 -2.3 28 788 -0.9 250

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 148.7 -5.3 186 664 0.5 145

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.5 357.1 ( 7) – 862 -0.3 206

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 121.2 -4.4 132 704 0.0 176

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.1 580.7 -5.8 219 893 -1.4 270

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 220.3 ( 7) – 899 ( 7) – 

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.8 77.3 -1.6 17 690 0.0 176

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.8 314.2 -2.8 49 783 -0.8 244

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.1 154.7 -3.1 64 676 0.7 126

Clark, NV ........................... 49.9 820.9 -10.7 323 793 -0.4 217

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.5 188.8 -10.5 322 797 1.1 93

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.1 189.0 -5.0 168 913 -1.8 288

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.8 135.0 -4.6 140 810 -0.9 250

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.0 141.1 -7.5 292 754 0.0 176

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.5 434.1 -4.6 140 1,032 0.1 169

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.5 200.7 -3.1 64 892 -2.2 297

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.1 200.4 -5.3 186 863 -0.8 244

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.4 345.8 -4.4 132 1,066 0.4 152

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.4 101.9 -4.6 140 778 0.0 176

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 232.0 -3.5 85 1,154 1.1 93

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.2 226.8 -3.2 69 1,103 1.0 101

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.1 384.0 -5.2 178 1,040 -0.4 217

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.9 256.4 -4.6 140 893 0.1 169

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.1 278.1 -4.1 115 1,188 -0.7 237

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.4 154.4 -3.6 89 714 0.1 169

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.6 170.0 -6.2 242 899 1.2 90

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.3 170.4 -4.6 140 1,244 -3.2 312

Union, NJ ........................... 15.0 220.5 -6.2 242 1,054 -0.1 191

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 319.0 -4.8 154 763 1.7 55

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 224.5 -2.6 41 907 2.7 22

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.3 232.5 1.2 3 828 0.5 145

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 94.1 -3.2 69 692 0.6 132

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 113.6 -3.5 85 899 1.9 42

Erie, NY ............................. 23.6 452.5 -3.0 59 746 -0.3 206

Kings, NY ........................... 47.6 480.2 -0.5 7 733 0.5 145

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.0 373.6 -3.7 96 835 1.7 55

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.3 597.8 -2.6 41 977 1.0 101

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New York, NY .................... 118.6 2,280.5 -4.7 147 $1,520 -3.1 309

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 110.4 -2.4 32 683 0.4 152

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 247.0 -3.9 108 797 1.3 86

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 130.7 -2.7 45 773 2.8 20

Queens, NY ....................... 44.1 497.6 -2.8 49 826 -1.5 274

Richmond, NY .................... 8.8 93.6 -1.2 12 745 -1.5 274

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 114.9 -3.3 74 911 -0.4 217

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 77.5 -2.4 32 720 0.4 152

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.4 620.0 -3.8 104 921 -0.2 198

Westchester, NY ................ 36.2 411.0 -4.4 132 1,114 -2.3 298

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.0 109.6 -5.4 195 658 -0.2 198

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.6 77.6 -8.9 317 639 -3.8 321

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 119.7 0.0 4 693 2.1 37

Durham, NC ....................... 7.1 180.7 -2.5 37 1,090 -1.9 290

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.2 176.7 -5.3 186 771 1.2 90

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.7 258.8 -7.2 278 746 -0.3 206

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 33.2 534.4 -5.9 223 937 -1.1 261

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.4 97.9 -5.6 208 697 1.5 69

Wake, NC .......................... 29.1 433.2 -4.2 123 833 -0.7 237

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 99.8 -1.5 16 710 1.4 76

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 136.9 -7.3 283 734 -0.7 237

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 37.1 697.5 -6.2 242 849 -2.4 303

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.6 654.0 -4.3 126 818 0.2 168

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.7 496.9 -4.9 160 897 0.3 164

Lake, OH ............................ 6.6 95.1 -7.4 287 703 1.0 101

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.2 94.0 -7.2 278 674 -1.9 290

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.6 197.2 -8.4 306 732 1.7 55

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.3 97.4 -6.0 233 615 0.8 119

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.7 243.8 -7.4 287 756 -0.3 206

Stark, OH ........................... 9.0 151.5 -6.3 247 649 -1.2 263

Summit, OH ....................... 14.8 256.9 -6.8 263 767 0.0 176

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 67.3 -12.2 327 645 -7.6 329

Warren, OH ........................ 4.2 77.5 -2.7 45 696 0.6 132

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.8 410.4 -3.6 89 765 -1.5 274

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.6 333.8 -5.0 168 763 -0.5 226

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.6 141.5 -7.2 278 778 -0.3 206

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 77.0 -7.1 272 659 1.5 69

Lane, OR ........................... 10.9 137.6 -9.0 318 675 0.9 111

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 136.8 -5.2 178 696 2.8 20

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.0 424.6 -5.9 223 868 0.6 132

Washington, OR ................ 16.0 234.0 -7.0 269 941 -0.2 198

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.0 678.2 -2.9 57 892 -0.6 229

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 161.1 -5.5 200 784 1.7 55

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.8 254.3 -5.6 208 837 -0.9 250

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 79.4 -2.8 49 723 -1.9 290

Chester, PA ....................... 15.2 238.3 -3.7 96 1,105 -0.3 206

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 121.6 -4.9 160 794 1.4 76

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.3 182.3 -2.3 28 824 0.7 126

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 204.5 -3.7 96 885 -0.7 237

Erie, PA .............................. 7.5 122.4 -5.9 223 669 -1.2 263

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 98.5 -3.9 108 $659 1.4 76

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.5 221.4 -5.4 195 706 -1.0 256

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 172.3 -5.1 173 825 -2.1 294

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 139.9 -2.8 49 661 0.9 111

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.5 471.9 -4.8 154 1,040 1.1 93

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 97.7 -3.2 69 741 -0.3 206

Philadelphia, PA ................ 31.4 622.8 -1.8 22 998 0.6 132

Washington, PA ................. 5.4 79.2 -3.4 80 733 -0.8 244

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.4 133.8 -3.9 108 672 -3.2 312

York, PA ............................. 9.1 169.3 -5.2 178 746 0.7 126

Kent, RI .............................. 5.6 75.0 -7.0 269 743 1.0 101

Providence, RI ................... 17.7 269.2 -4.9 160 833 1.0 101

Charleston, SC .................. 11.9 204.6 -5.7 215 729 1.5 69

Greenville, SC .................... 12.4 223.5 -7.7 296 736 -0.1 191

Horry, SC ........................... 8.0 115.5 -8.4 306 520 -3.3 315

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 93.3 -5.4 195 629 -0.9 250

Richland, SC ...................... 9.2 205.4 -5.1 173 753 2.3 34

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.1 111.0 -8.2 305 733 -0.3 206

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.4 114.7 -2.4 32 688 1.0 101

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.4 412.7 -5.3 186 843 -0.6 229

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 178.4 -8.6 309 726 0.6 132

Knox, TN ............................ 11.0 216.3 -5.6 208 716 0.3 164

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 92.5 -7.3 283 748 0.4 152

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.7 472.9 -5.6 208 854 0.4 152

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 84.7 -5.9 223 898 0.0 176

Bell, TX .............................. 4.6 103.0 -0.5 7 684 4.4 6

Bexar, TX ........................... 32.8 718.7 -2.3 28 748 1.8 50

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.7 83.7 -3.7 96 783 -5.3 327

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 84.9 ( 7) – 643 1.4 76

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 123.0 -1.4 15 544 1.5 69

Collin, TX ........................... 17.3 282.1 ( 7) – 975 ( 7) – 

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.7 1,416.7 -4.8 154 1,007 -0.3 206

Denton, TX ......................... 10.7 166.3 -2.8 49 740 1.0 101

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.5 264.7 -2.1 24 608 0.8 119

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.6 130.3 ( 7) – 874 ( 7) – 

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 93.2 -4.6 140 801 0.6 132

Gregg, TX .......................... 4.0 72.0 -4.8 154 715 -3.4 316

Harris, TX ........................... 97.9 2,009.3 -3.1 64 1,042 -2.5 307

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.6 216.1 -1.1 10 544 1.3 86

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 119.3 -5.3 186 830 1.1 93

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.8 123.0 -1.1 10 647 1.4 76

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 102.0 -2.1 24 665 0.8 119

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.3 126.2 0.0 4 763 -4.1 324

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 149.6 -4.1 115 716 -1.5 274

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 75.1 -0.6 9 724 0.3 164

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 91.5 -3.7 96 717 -1.2 263

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.2 748.6 -3.4 80 837 -0.4 217

Travis, TX .......................... 29.3 561.0 -3.2 69 916 -1.2 263

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 84.5 -4.8 154 558 -0.5 226

Williamson, TX ................... 7.3 121.1 -2.5 37 798 -0.6 229

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 101.7 -4.1 115 $700 0.9 111

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.5 560.2 -5.3 186 797 2.4 29

Utah, UT ............................ 12.8 165.5 -6.0 233 686 -1.4 270

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 90.1 -5.7 215 648 -1.4 270

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.0 92.5 -3.0 59 834 0.0 176

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.9 159.2 1.4 2 1,423 3.6 11

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 116.5 -4.3 126 768 1.1 93

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.2 576.8 -2.4 32 1,348 1.8 50

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 171.9 -5.2 178 856 -1.8 288

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.2 131.6 -2.7 45 1,020 -2.5 307

Prince William, VA ............. 7.4 103.7 -3.2 69 774 1.2 90

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 99.1 -1.3 14 1,170 -3.1 309

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.8 95.1 -5.1 173 681 1.9 42

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 96.1 -4.3 126 795 4.9 5

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.9 139.9 -3.4 80 848 1.1 93

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.3 150.7 -4.2 123 960 1.4 76

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.5 171.0 -4.7 147 677 2.4 29

Clark, WA ........................... 12.4 128.5 -4.3 126 777 0.9 111

King, WA ............................ 77.1 1,138.3 -5.2 178 1,077 2.0 40

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.5 82.5 -2.9 57 817 5.1 2

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.7 265.6 -4.4 132 790 1.5 69

Snohomish, WA ................. 18.0 243.5 -5.8 219 901 3.1 16

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.4 204.1 -4.3 126 718 3.9 8

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.0 98.6 -3.1 64 797 3.4 14

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.8 79.9 -5.0 168 700 2.2 36

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.2 107.3 1.5 1 589 1.4 76

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 107.1 -2.2 27 765 1.7 55

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 145.6 -4.3 126 724 -0.1 191

Dane, WI ............................ 13.7 297.1 -3.7 96 821 1.7 55

Milwaukee, WI ................... 20.7 474.7 -5.6 208 848 -0.4 217

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 102.0 -5.9 223 706 -0.4 217

Racine, WI ......................... 4.1 72.2 -6.7 260 764 0.9 111

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.9 224.3 -6.0 233 824 -1.0 256

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 88.7 -3.3 74 757 -1.7 284

San Juan, PR ..................... 12.4 270.8 -4.2 ( 8) 582 2.8 ( 8) 

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

These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.2 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

second quarter 2009 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,055.3 129,674.8 -5.1 $840 -0.1

Private industry .............................................. 8,761.5 107,832.0 -6.1 823 -0.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 126.2 1,907.4 -4.7 846 -6.2

Construction ............................................... 844.9 6,116.2 -17.2 906 0.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 353.8 11,730.7 -13.5 1,005 -0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,897.1 24,670.7 -5.9 710 -1.1

Information ................................................. 146.6 2,827.5 -6.7 1,272 -0.9

Financial activities ...................................... 844.5 7,638.6 -5.0 1,185 -1.8

Professional and business services ........... 1,529.4 16,479.3 -8.1 1,060 1.4

Education and health services ................... 865.1 18,256.0 2.0 804 2.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 739.2 13,540.3 -3.3 348 -0.9

Other services ............................................ 1,218.1 4,434.5 -2.9 543 0.0

Government ................................................... 293.9 21,842.9 0.4 922 1.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 419.7 3,947.3 -6.1 940 -0.6

Private industry .............................................. 415.7 3,346.7 -7.0 911 -1.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.6 -7.1 1,018 -22.9

Construction ............................................... 13.8 118.2 -20.1 998 0.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 14.2 392.7 -11.3 1,026 1.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 53.1 735.8 -7.9 757 -1.8

Information ................................................. 8.8 191.7 -12.2 1,636 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 23.6 220.7 -6.9 1,374 -1.9

Professional and business services ........... 42.7 526.1 -10.4 1,120 -0.4

Education and health services ................... 28.5 490.1 1.6 885 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.2 390.7 -4.8 521 -0.8

Other services ............................................ 194.9 260.4 2.6 422 -5.6

Government ................................................... 4.0 600.6 -1.1 1,101 0.5

Cook, IL .............................................................. 142.0 2,395.8 -5.4 986 -1.4

Private industry .............................................. 140.6 2,082.5 -6.2 971 -1.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.1 -3.4 884 -8.0

Construction ............................................... 12.3 77.3 -16.7 1,205 -2.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.9 200.9 -12.1 978 -2.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.6 438.1 -7.1 767 -2.7

Information ................................................. 2.6 52.7 ( 6) 1,415 ( 6) 

Financial activities ...................................... 15.5 195.8 -6.4 1,629 -3.9

Professional and business services ........... 29.3 396.3 -9.7 1,260 1.2

Education and health services ................... 14.3 385.6 2.8 850 0.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.1 234.2 -4.1 431 -2.0

Other services ............................................ 14.8 95.9 -3.0 728 1.1

Government ................................................... 1.4 313.3 0.0 1,084 1.6

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.6 2,280.5 -4.7 1,520 -3.1

Private industry .............................................. 118.3 1,830.8 -5.7 1,629 -3.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.2 -6.7 2,277 -33.5

Construction ............................................... 2.3 33.7 -10.4 1,498 -1.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 28.8 -18.9 1,236 -2.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 228.7 -8.5 1,121 -3.6

Information ................................................. 4.5 127.3 -7.0 1,951 -2.0

Financial activities ...................................... 18.9 348.3 -8.7 2,876 -5.4

Professional and business services ........... 25.1 463.9 -7.3 1,794 -1.9

Education and health services ................... 8.8 289.8 1.2 1,063 3.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.7 215.6 -2.5 731 -1.6

Other services ............................................ 18.2 87.6 -2.4 949 0.3

Government ................................................... 0.3 449.7 -0.5 1,076 2.2

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

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 97.9 2,009.3 -3.1 $1,042 -2.5

Private industry .............................................. 97.3 1,751.1 -3.9 1,056 -3.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 81.1 ( 6) 2,663 -13.2

Construction ............................................... 6.7 143.9 -10.1 1,060 0.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 174.4 -8.1 1,254 -3.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.3 415.3 -3.4 924 -0.6

Information ................................................. 1.4 30.8 -4.8 1,194 -3.6

Financial activities ...................................... 10.4 115.8 -4.5 1,205 -6.9

Professional and business services ........... 19.5 315.7 -7.5 1,239 1.4

Education and health services ................... 10.5 228.1 4.3 880 1.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.7 184.5 0.6 379 -0.3

Other services ............................................ 12.0 59.9 -1.9 616 -2.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 258.2 2.8 947 1.5

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 98.2 1,588.7 -8.6 846 0.0

Private industry .............................................. 97.5 1,409.2 -9.4 826 0.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.6 -5.6 671 -12.1

Construction ............................................... 10.0 95.4 -31.5 871 -0.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 108.3 -13.4 1,157 0.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.1 338.1 -8.3 781 -0.3

Information ................................................. 1.5 28.8 -6.2 1,028 -0.4

Financial activities ...................................... 12.0 135.7 -5.6 1,014 -2.4

Professional and business services ........... 21.7 261.6 -12.2 885 2.5

Education and health services ................... 10.1 214.0 2.3 903 1.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 169.2 -6.1 397 0.0

Other services ............................................ 7.0 48.1 -6.5 569 -2.1

Government ................................................... 0.7 179.5 -1.7 979 -0.9

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.7 1,416.7 -4.8 1,007 -0.3

Private industry .............................................. 67.2 1,251.5 -5.4 1,012 -0.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.4 1.8 2,809 -10.4

Construction ............................................... 4.3 75.0 -13.3 904 -2.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 120.8 -10.9 1,158 0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 284.6 ( 6) 930 -1.2

Information ................................................. 1.6 46.1 -6.8 1,431 2.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 139.4 ( 6) 1,287 ( 6) 

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 251.1 -9.5 1,136 1.0

Education and health services ................... 6.7 156.8 ( 6) 978 1.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.4 130.0 ( 6) 469 1.7

Other services ............................................ 6.8 38.5 -3.7 641 3.6

Government ................................................... 0.5 165.2 -0.3 970 0.7

Orange, CA ........................................................ 100.1 1,380.6 -8.0 953 0.0

Private industry .............................................. 98.7 1,225.7 -8.6 933 -0.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 4.3 -19.5 593 1.9

Construction ............................................... 6.8 75.0 -19.0 1,082 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.3 154.6 -11.8 1,132 1.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.9 247.5 -9.4 896 0.4

Information ................................................. 1.3 27.5 -7.6 1,292 -5.3

Financial activities ...................................... 10.4 105.5 ( 6) 1,326 -1.6

Professional and business services ........... 19.1 239.8 -11.2 1,083 1.4

Education and health services ................... 10.2 149.6 0.1 871 1.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 170.9 -5.4 408 -1.2

Other services ............................................ 18.7 47.8 -4.7 523 -2.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 154.9 -2.6 1,107 0.7

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

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 96.6 1,258.2 -5.8 $912 -1.5

Private industry .............................................. 95.3 1,029.9 -6.9 877 -2.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 11.0 -5.5 535 -4.5

Construction ............................................... 6.8 61.9 -20.6 990 2.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 95.5 -9.0 1,248 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.1 198.0 -8.0 722 ( 6) 

Information ................................................. 1.2 37.3 -4.3 1,627 -29.3

Financial activities ...................................... 9.1 70.6 -6.5 1,064 -2.2

Professional and business services ........... 16.3 196.7 -8.9 1,144 2.3

Education and health services ................... 8.3 141.5 3.3 859 1.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 156.2 -7.2 389 -4.0

Other services ............................................ 26.2 58.2 -1.4 476 0.8

Government ................................................... 1.3 228.3 -0.3 1,071 0.9

King, WA ............................................................ 77.1 1,138.3 -5.2 1,077 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 76.6 977.8 -6.3 1,080 2.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.0 -4.8 1,156 -12.6

Construction ............................................... 6.4 56.1 -21.6 1,101 3.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 102.2 -8.9 1,386 4.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 205.8 -6.3 926 1.6

Information ................................................. 1.8 80.1 0.9 1,923 1.1

Financial activities ...................................... 6.8 69.5 -6.9 1,313 1.4

Professional and business services ........... 13.8 173.4 -10.8 1,273 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 6.7 131.2 3.9 880 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.3 109.9 -5.0 427 ( 6) 

Other services ............................................ 17.3 46.7 0.1 610 -1.1

Government ................................................... 0.5 160.5 1.8 1,056 2.1

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 83.9 932.3 -5.9 833 -0.6

Private industry .............................................. 83.6 799.9 -6.6 802 -0.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.5 -9.9 480 0.6

Construction ............................................... 5.8 35.9 -24.0 870 3.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 37.1 -17.5 746 -0.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.9 234.2 -6.8 756 0.1

Information ................................................. 1.5 18.1 -8.0 1,216 -12.2

Financial activities ...................................... 9.6 62.8 -8.5 1,148 -1.2

Professional and business services ........... 17.5 121.9 -9.3 978 -0.6

Education and health services ................... 9.4 145.5 2.6 834 2.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.0 101.7 -1.8 475 1.3

Other services ............................................ 7.5 34.9 -5.3 539 1.3

Government ................................................... 0.3 132.3 -1.1 1,009 -2.6

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

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

state, second quarter 2009 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,055.3 129,674.8 -5.1 $840 -0.1

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.3 337.9 -7.0 845 0.6

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 148.4 -1.8 948 3.6

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 98.2 1,588.7 -8.6 846 0.0

Pulaski, AR ............................... 15.0 243.6 -3.8 781 2.5

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 419.7 3,947.3 -6.1 940 -0.6

Denver, CO .............................. 25.5 424.1 -6.0 1,011 -1.0

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.5 491.8 -4.6 1,014 0.1

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.1 268.1 -5.7 959 -0.3

Washington, DC ....................... 33.7 690.9 -0.1 1,421 -0.9

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 83.9 932.3 -5.9 833 -0.6

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.2 696.1 -6.4 1,087 0.6

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.9 434.7 -3.7 802 1.6

Ada, ID ..................................... 14.7 195.9 -8.1 734 -1.6

Cook, IL .................................... 142.0 2,395.8 -5.4 986 -1.4

Marion, IN ................................. 24.0 545.2 -5.3 850 0.4

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.8 271.9 -2.8 823 0.1

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.7 304.6 -4.9 871 -1.6

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.1 413.2 -5.1 823 0.4

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.4 256.1 -1.7 805 1.8

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.2 170.2 -4.0 756 0.0

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.8 449.4 -2.4 1,129 1.5

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.2 801.2 -4.4 1,194 -3.5

Wayne, MI ................................ 31.4 654.9 -11.6 920 -3.1

Hennepin, MN .......................... 42.8 811.1 -4.9 1,027 -3.9

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.2 125.4 -1.6 746 2.1

St. Louis, MO ............................ 32.1 580.7 -5.8 893 -1.4

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.8 77.3 -1.6 690 0.0

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.8 314.2 -2.8 783 -0.8

Clark, NV .................................. 49.9 820.9 -10.7 793 -0.4

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.1 189.0 -5.0 913 -1.8

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.5 434.1 -4.6 1,032 0.1

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.6 319.0 -4.8 763 1.7

New York, NY ........................... 118.6 2,280.5 -4.7 1,520 -3.1

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 33.2 534.4 -5.9 937 -1.1

Cass, ND .................................. 5.8 99.8 -1.5 710 1.4

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 37.1 697.5 -6.2 849 -2.4

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.8 410.4 -3.6 765 -1.5

Multnomah, OR ........................ 28.0 424.6 -5.9 868 0.6

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.0 678.2 -2.9 892 -0.6

Providence, RI .......................... 17.7 269.2 -4.9 833 1.0

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.4 223.5 -7.7 736 -0.1

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.4 114.7 -2.4 688 1.0

Shelby, TN ................................ 19.7 472.9 -5.6 854 0.4

Harris, TX ................................. 97.9 2,009.3 -3.1 1,042 -2.5

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 37.5 560.2 -5.3 797 2.4

Chittenden, VT ......................... 6.0 92.5 -3.0 834 0.0

Fairfax, VA ................................ 34.2 576.8 -2.4 1,348 1.8

King, WA .................................. 77.1 1,138.3 -5.2 1,077 2.0

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.0 107.1 -2.2 765 1.7

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 20.7 474.7 -5.6 848 -0.4

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, second quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 43.5 -2.9 $723 2.4

San Juan, PR ........................... 12.4 270.8 -4.2 582 2.8

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.9 22.8 -4.1 668 1.2

 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 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 2009 2

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09

United States 4 ................... 9,055.3 129,674.8 -5.1 $840 -0.1

Alabama ............................. 117.8 1,836.9 -6.1 733 1.8

Alaska ................................ 21.3 326.3 -1.4 892 3.7

Arizona ............................... 155.0 2,335.1 -8.2 807 0.1

Arkansas ............................ 86.0 1,136.5 -4.1 668 1.1

California ............................ 1,338.0 14,794.5 -6.1 949 -0.6

Colorado ............................ 176.1 2,222.2 -5.3 851 -0.8

Connecticut ........................ 112.6 1,636.4 -4.8 1,034 -0.3

Delaware ............................ 29.1 408.4 -5.2 858 -0.3

District of Columbia ............ 33.7 690.9 -0.1 1,421 -0.9

Florida ................................ 599.7 7,085.9 -6.8 766 0.4

Georgia .............................. 271.6 3,806.5 -6.2 791 0.6

Hawaii ................................ 39.3 594.0 -5.0 775 1.6

Idaho .................................. 56.4 624.8 -6.9 633 -0.5

Illinois ................................. 374.3 5,610.6 -5.4 883 -1.1

Indiana ............................... 159.8 2,701.2 -7.0 710 -0.7

Iowa ................................... 94.4 1,470.4 -3.5 686 0.4

Kansas ............................... 87.7 1,331.4 -4.1 718 -0.3

Kentucky ............................ 109.1 1,723.7 -5.2 722 0.6

Louisiana ........................... 123.8 1,853.6 -2.4 753 0.3

Maine ................................. 50.2 595.8 -4.0 681 0.7

Maryland ............................ 165.0 2,500.8 -3.0 935 1.6

Massachusetts ................... 213.0 3,182.7 -4.1 1,028 -1.5

Michigan ............................ 255.7 3,804.8 -8.7 809 -1.8

Minnesota .......................... 170.2 2,608.6 -4.7 842 -0.8

Mississippi ......................... 70.5 1,083.4 -4.9 639 0.6

Missouri ............................. 173.7 2,645.0 -4.2 747 -0.8

Montana ............................. 42.8 434.1 -3.6 637 1.1

Nebraska ........................... 59.9 911.4 -2.6 674 -0.3

Nevada .............................. 76.0 1,141.7 -10.2 799 0.4

New Hampshire ................. 48.8 615.8 -4.1 829 -0.7

New Jersey ........................ 273.5 3,869.8 -4.4 1,002 -0.2

New Mexico ....................... 54.4 798.9 -4.5 724 1.0

New York ........................... 587.1 8,475.8 -3.3 1,026 -1.3

North Carolina .................... 257.6 3,842.8 -5.6 734 -0.3

North Dakota ...................... 25.8 356.2 -0.1 666 1.7

Ohio ................................... 290.4 4,980.6 -6.3 754 -0.3

Oklahoma .......................... 101.1 1,498.5 -3.8 695 -1.0

Oregon ............................... 130.7 1,635.4 -6.3 767 0.4

Pennsylvania ..................... 342.5 5,519.9 -3.9 829 0.2

Rhode Island ...................... 35.4 458.0 -4.9 806 1.3

South Carolina ................... 113.6 1,782.7 -6.7 685 0.6

South Dakota ..................... 30.8 400.8 -2.0 614 1.3

Tennessee ......................... 141.8 2,569.3 -6.6 749 0.5

Texas ................................. 564.5 10,168.5 -3.3 839 -1.2

Utah ................................... 85.6 1,165.7 -5.5 723 1.0

Vermont ............................. 24.9 294.0 -4.0 725 1.0

Virginia ............................... 231.3 3,588.9 -3.5 899 1.6

Washington ........................ 222.1 2,884.3 -4.0 881 2.2

West Virginia ...................... 48.6 697.0 -2.6 710 2.2

Wisconsin .......................... 156.8 2,690.4 -5.3 729 0.0

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 2009 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2008-09

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2008-09

Wyoming ............................ 25.2 283.8 -4.5 $768 -1.5

Puerto Rico ........................ 53.0 955.5 -4.5 485 2.5

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.6 43.4 -5.6 720 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.
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

 NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 

2008 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2010

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

June 2008-09 (U.S. average = -5.1 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

 NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 

2008 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2010

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

or more employees, second quarter 2008-09 (U.S. average = -0.1 percent)