For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, March 28, 2012 USDL-12-0549 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Third Quarter 2011 

From September 2010 to September 2011, employment increased in 271 of the 322 largest U.S. 

counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Williamson, Tenn., posted the largest 

increase, with a gain of 5.4 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.6 percent. 

Within Williamson, the largest employment increase occurred in professional and business services, 

which gained 1,743 jobs over the year (9.0 percent). Frederick, Md., experienced the largest over-theyear decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 2.6 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 5.3 percent to $916 in the third quarter of 

2011. Among the large counties in the U.S., Lake, Ohio, had the largest over-the-year increase in 

average weekly wages with a gain of 17.1 percent. Within Lake, a total wage increase of $124.7 million 

(48.5 percent) in the manufacturing industry had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year 

increase in average weekly wages. A third quarter acquisition in this industry resulted in large payouts, 

which may include bonuses and stock options. Clay, Mo., experienced the largest decline in average 

weekly wages with a loss of 2.3 percent over the year. County employment and wage data are compiled 

under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, September 2010-11 

(U.S. average = 1.6 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, third quarter 2010-11 

(U.S. average = 5.3 percent) 

5.4

4.8 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Williamson, 

Tenn.

Weld, 

Colo.

Montgomery, 

Texas

Utah, 

Utah

Washington, 

Pa.

Webb, 

Texas

Loudoun, 

Va.

17.1

11.7 11.5 10.2 9.8

0

5

10

15

20

Lake, 

Ohio

Santa Clara, 

Calif.

Oklahoma, 

Okla.

Williamson, 

Texas

Sacramento, 

Calif.
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by September 2011 employment, September 2010-11 employment 

increase, and September 2010-11 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

September 2011 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) September 2010-11 September 2010-11

(thousands)

United States 130,524.7 United States 2,040.9 United States 1.6

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,872.5 Harris, Texas 62.3 Williamson, Tenn. 5.4

Cook, Ill. 2,402.7 New York, N.Y. 60.6 Weld, Colo. 4.8

New York, N.Y. 2,332.5 Cook, Ill. 48.5 Montgomery, Texas 4.8

Harris, Texas 2,054.1 Maricopa, Ariz. 46.0 Utah, Utah 4.5

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,641.4 Dallas, Texas 37.9 Washington, Pa. 4.4

Dallas, Texas 1,448.7 King, Wash. 31.7 Webb, Texas 4.4

Orange, Calif. 1,372.4 Los Angeles, Calif. 31.1 Loudoun, Va. 4.4

San Diego, Calif. 1,252.4 Hennepin, Minn. 28.2 Kern, Calif. 4.2

King, Wash. 1,150.7 Miami-Dade, Fla. 27.6 Fort Bend, Texas 4.2

Miami-Dade, Fla. 970.3 Santa Clara, Calif. 26.4 San Francisco, Calif. 4.1

Large County Employment 

In September 2011, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.5 million, up 

by 1.6 percent or 2.0 million workers, from September 2010. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more 

employees accounted for 70.5 percent of total U.S. employment and 75.9 percent of total wages. These 

322 counties had a net job growth of 1.5 million over the year, accounting for 71.5 percent of the overall 

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

Williamson, Tenn., had the largest percentage increase in employment among the largest U.S. counties 

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

York, N.Y.; Cook, Ill.; Maricopa, Ariz.; and Dallas, Texas. These counties had a combined over-theyear gain of 255,300, or 12.5 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S. 

Employment declined in 39 of the large counties from September 2010 to September 2011. Frederick, 

Md., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-2.6 percent). Within Frederick, 

financial activities was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 2,168 jobs 

(-27.2 percent). Broome, N.Y., had the second largest employment decrease, followed by Monmouth, 

N.J., Mobile, Ala., and Montgomery, Ala. (See table 1.) 
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by third quarter 2011 average weekly wages, third quarter 2010-11 

increase in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2010-11 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

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

third quarter 2011 wage, third quarter 2010-11 weekly wage, third

quarter 2010-11

United States $916 United States $46 United States 5.3

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,857 Santa Clara, Calif. $195 Lake, Ohio 17.1

New York, N.Y. 1,647 Lake, Ohio 123 Santa Clara, Calif. 11.7

Arlington, Va. 1,550 Mercer, N.J. 97 Oklahoma, Okla. 11.5

Washington, D.C. 1,527 Durham, N.C. 96 Williamson, Texas 10.2

San Francisco, Calif. 1,457 Fairfield, Conn. 93 Sacramento, Calif. 9.8

Fairfax, Va. 1,440 Oklahoma, Okla. 93 Yolo, Calif. 9.7

Fairfield, Conn. 1,432 Sacramento, Calif. 91 St. Louis, Minn. 9.5

San Mateo, Calif. 1,426 King, Wash. 90 York, Pa. 9.3

Suffolk, Mass. 1,419 Williamson, Texas 86 Tulsa, Okla. 9.0

Somerset, N.J. 1,338 San Francisco, Calif. 84 Kitsap, Wash. 9.0

Yolo, Calif. 84

Lake, Ill. 84

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 5.3 percent over the year in the third quarter of 

2011. Among the 322 largest counties, 315 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See 

chart 4.) Lake, Ohio, had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties (17.1 percent). 

Of the 322 largest counties, 3 experienced declines in average weekly wages. Clay, Mo., had the largest 

wage decline with a loss of 2.3 percent over the year due to a 23.8 percent decline (-$49.7 million) in 

manufacturing wages. In the third quarter of 2010, an acquisition in manufacturing had boosted wages. 

Alachua, Fla., and Leon, Fla., had the second and third largest declines in average weekly wages. 

Orleans, La., and Richmond, N.Y., were tied for the smallest over-the-year increase in average weekly 

wages. (See table 1.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent increases in employment in September 

2011. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain in employment (3.1 percent). Within Harris, 

professional and business services had the largest over-the-year level increase among all private industry 

groups with a gain of 19,560 workers (6.1 percent). Los Angeles, Calif., had the smallest percent 

increase in employment among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.) 

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

Calif., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 7.5 percent, largely due 

to significant total wage gains over the year in professional and business services ($261.6 million or 7.8 

percent). Miami-Dade, Fla., had the smallest average weekly wage increase. 
- 4 - 

For More Information 

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 322 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2010. September 2011 employment and 

2011 third quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release. 

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

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

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.1 million employer reports cover 130.5 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the third quarter of 2011 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 fourth quarter 2011 is scheduled to be released 

on Thursday, June 28, 2012. 
Technical Note 

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

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

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

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

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

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

in this release are based on the 2012 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2011 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 323 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2010 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2011 data, four counties, Okaloosa, Fla., Rock Island, Ill., St. Tammany, La., and Potter, Texas, 

which were published in the 2010 releases, will be excluded from 

this and future 2011 releases because their 2010 annual average 

employment levels were less than 75,000.

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

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments in first quarter of 2011

Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.7 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 486,000 establishments

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws

UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers

Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs

Publication frequency

Quarterly

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter

Quarterly

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter

Monthly

— Usually first Friday of following 

month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal database and directly summarizes gross job gains and lossesUses 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/
No counties have been added to the publication tables. 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 9.0 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2010. 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 2010, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 127.8 million jobs. The 

estimated 123.2 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.3 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $5.976 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.1 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. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

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

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

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

can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may 

differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage 

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

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

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

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in 

average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between 

the current quarter and prior year levels. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

taken into consideration. 

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

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

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

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

while in other quarters their wages include payments for seven pay 

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

reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages 

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

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

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

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

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

government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. 

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

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

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

with large concentrations of federal employment. 

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

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

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

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of 
the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also 

are introduced in the first quarter. 

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

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

for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic events, others 

reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation. 

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

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

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

version of the final 2010 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

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

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

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

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

news release. 

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

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

most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of 

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

involving the classification of establishments that were previously 

reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry 

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

account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers 

who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a 

single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

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

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

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

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

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

England states for comparative purposes even though townships are 

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

regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

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

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

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

quarter 2011 version of this news release. Tables and additional 

content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2010 are 

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

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

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

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

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

message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

third quarter 2011 2

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,135.8 130,524.7 1.6 – $916 5.3 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.7 332.9 1.3 151 921 4.4 197

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 178.3 0.0 272 1,035 3.2 267

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 166.1 -1.1 313 836 8.2 18

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.3 127.1 -0.9 312 812 4.2 214

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 84.2 1.1 167 804 3.1 274

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.2 155.5 1.8 109 1,017 4.3 204

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 95.6 1,641.4 2.9 42 901 4.8 164

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.0 343.2 ( 7) – 799 ( 7) – 

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 94.7 ( 7) – 866 3.6 249

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.2 244.7 0.3 249 842 6.2 69

Washington, AR ................. 5.5 91.5 ( 7) – 743 ( 7) – 

Alameda, CA ...................... 56.7 640.9 1.6 128 1,217 5.3 125

Contra Costa, CA ............... 30.3 315.8 -0.5 301 1,105 5.8 90

Fresno, CA ......................... 31.1 346.3 -0.1 278 724 5.7 98

Kern, CA ............................ 18.1 293.3 4.2 8 809 8.2 18

Los Angeles, CA ................ 440.1 3,872.5 0.8 204 1,026 5.2 130

Marin, CA ........................... 11.8 103.6 2.7 54 1,077 5.8 90

Monterey, CA ..................... 13.1 181.4 0.4 236 789 4.9 158

Orange, CA ........................ 104.4 1,372.4 1.7 121 1,036 6.0 78

Placer, CA .......................... 10.9 127.0 2.1 83 901 6.3 65

Riverside, CA ..................... 50.3 553.5 0.8 204 757 5.0 147

Sacramento, CA ................ 54.5 576.9 0.5 226 1,021 9.8 5

San Bernardino, CA ........... 51.8 593.9 0.3 249 795 5.4 118

San Diego, CA ................... 100.7 1,252.4 1.2 158 1,014 7.5 30

San Francisco, CA ............. 55.8 566.9 4.1 10 1,457 6.1 75

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.7 206.2 0.4 236 799 5.0 147

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.7 103.3 2.0 92 756 5.0 147

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.6 327.8 2.4 69 1,426 6.2 69

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.6 183.0 2.1 83 879 5.9 86

Santa Clara, CA ................. 63.4 873.1 3.1 34 1,857 11.7 2

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.2 95.7 -0.1 278 840 5.5 109

Solano, CA ......................... 10.1 119.9 0.4 236 917 5.5 109

Sonoma, CA ...................... 19.1 178.8 0.4 236 884 5.0 147

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.3 166.7 0.1 268 784 5.8 90

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.5 150.7 3.7 13 634 2.6 290

Ventura, CA ....................... 24.2 295.9 0.9 193 940 6.0 78

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.1 96.6 -0.1 278 949 9.7 6

Adams, CO ........................ 9.0 156.6 1.9 100 861 4.2 214

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.0 280.5 3.4 24 1,085 6.2 69

Boulder, CO ....................... 13.1 157.8 3.2 30 1,070 3.1 274

Denver, CO ........................ 25.6 426.2 2.0 92 1,125 7.6 29

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.6 92.5 2.8 48 972 5.2 130

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.9 237.2 1.8 109 855 3.6 249

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.9 207.5 2.6 60 944 5.1 139

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.1 131.4 2.2 77 826 5.5 109

Weld, CO ........................... 5.8 83.4 4.8 2 800 6.0 78

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.5 406.2 1.4 143 1,432 6.9 44

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.4 491.1 1.1 167 1,093 2.7 288

New Haven, CT ................. 22.3 351.3 0.5 226 973 3.6 249

New London, CT ................ 6.9 124.5 -0.8 309 929 3.7 242

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.4 266.3 0.8 204 $1,060 4.8 164

Washington, DC ................. 36.3 708.1 2.1 83 1,527 3.9 230

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.5 115.8 0.3 249 761 -0.8 317

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.4 186.2 -0.3 293 893 6.6 52

Broward, FL ....................... 62.4 683.4 0.9 193 861 4.4 197

Collier, FL .......................... 11.5 110.1 3.7 13 787 3.8 235

Duval, FL ........................... 26.8 436.7 0.6 216 869 4.6 184

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.8 119.6 0.2 261 730 5.2 130

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.1 569.7 1.7 121 885 5.1 139

Lake, FL ............................. 7.2 78.4 1.4 143 638 3.2 267

Lee, FL ............................... 18.4 194.1 3.4 24 737 3.9 230

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 137.4 -0.5 301 759 -0.1 316

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.2 99.7 2.2 77 721 4.8 164

Marion, FL .......................... 7.9 88.5 -0.2 288 634 4.3 204

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 86.8 970.3 2.9 42 880 3.3 262

Orange, FL ......................... 35.6 662.0 2.9 42 811 3.8 235

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.0 487.5 1.9 100 876 4.4 197

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.9 97.3 0.4 236 636 4.3 204

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.4 376.0 -0.2 288 805 5.8 90

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 186.0 -0.2 288 712 1.9 308

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.2 132.3 2.3 72 745 3.8 235

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.7 153.9 0.0 272 753 5.6 101

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.2 149.1 0.3 249 650 2.0 306

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 79.6 0.5 226 735 5.9 86

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 129.7 1.0 177 786 5.8 90

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.2 100.3 -0.1 278 825 2.9 280

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.7 290.5 2.2 77 935 2.5 293

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.5 273.8 1.3 151 958 4.8 164

Fulton, GA .......................... 40.2 716.6 1.3 151 1,206 7.3 36

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.6 301.7 2.4 69 919 8.0 24

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 93.5 1.0 177 732 3.1 274

Richmond, GA ................... 4.6 97.4 1.4 143 801 4.7 177

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.4 435.7 1.2 158 871 4.6 184

Ada, ID ............................... 13.9 198.3 2.5 65 799 3.1 274

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 87.8 -0.5 301 804 4.6 184

Cook, IL ............................. 146.8 2,402.7 2.1 83 1,047 4.0 224

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.8 564.8 2.7 54 1,054 4.4 197

Kane, IL ............................. 13.3 194.0 1.2 158 829 5.6 101

Lake, IL .............................. 21.8 317.3 0.7 212 1,143 7.9 26

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 93.6 -0.8 309 785 6.9 44

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 85.7 0.0 272 907 4.5 192

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 95.8 1.0 177 772 4.9 158

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 101.7 0.8 204 877 4.7 177

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 98.3 -0.4 296 819 5.8 90

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 130.8 0.6 216 941 3.3 262

Will, IL ................................ 14.9 201.5 1.3 151 814 5.2 130

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 125.2 0.4 236 799 5.4 118

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 175.1 1.4 143 766 4.2 214

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 104.8 3.2 30 737 3.2 267

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.3 113.3 2.9 42 869 5.0 147

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 188.0 2.9 42 $844 6.2 69

Marion, IN .......................... 23.7 555.7 1.9 100 943 6.9 44

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 117.1 0.3 249 757 5.3 125

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 106.9 1.7 121 742 3.9 230

Linn, IA ............................... 6.2 125.8 1.1 167 884 6.5 56

Polk, IA .............................. 14.5 268.7 1.8 109 912 6.4 59

Scott, IA ............................. 5.1 87.7 2.6 60 754 4.7 177

Johnson, KS ...................... 21.7 303.7 2.5 65 935 4.6 184

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.6 238.2 0.2 261 825 5.6 101

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 95.1 0.9 193 788 8.5 14

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.3 82.8 3.0 39 871 5.3 125

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.4 176.5 ( 7) – 833 6.5 56

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.1 417.6 1.6 128 887 5.1 139

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.4 121.0 0.3 249 772 3.3 262

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.8 82.5 1.0 177 801 5.5 109

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.4 255.0 1.2 158 854 3.6 249

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.7 191.6 -0.6 306 874 5.2 130

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.0 134.5 2.8 48 910 7.1 42

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.9 173.8 3.0 39 931 1.4 314

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.5 171.5 1.9 100 813 2.8 284

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.4 231.9 2.0 92 999 6.3 65

Baltimore, MD .................... 20.9 359.1 0.3 249 957 6.0 78

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 90.6 -2.6 316 895 2.3 302

Harford, MD ....................... 5.5 85.1 3.7 13 915 3.5 258

Howard, MD ....................... 9.0 153.2 3.1 34 1,128 7.3 36

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.6 451.2 1.0 177 1,245 4.5 192

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.5 301.9 0.5 226 1,001 5.6 101

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.7 329.9 1.1 167 1,074 7.2 40

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.4 94.4 -0.8 309 757 5.1 139

Bristol, MA ......................... 17.0 212.2 1.5 134 823 5.1 139

Essex, MA .......................... 22.4 302.2 2.0 92 959 2.8 284

Hampden, MA .................... 15.9 198.5 1.9 100 841 4.6 184

Middlesex, MA ................... 50.9 814.8 1.5 134 1,325 2.5 293

Norfolk, MA ........................ 25.1 319.1 1.4 143 1,058 5.4 118

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.7 173.6 0.4 236 842 4.3 204

Suffolk, MA ........................ 24.2 590.2 3.1 34 1,419 5.7 98

Worcester, MA ................... 22.2 316.2 1.8 109 928 2.3 302

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.2 129.2 1.7 121 774 5.0 147

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.3 154.8 0.3 249 860 1.5 311

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.3 108.2 0.2 261 850 6.6 52

Kent, MI ............................. 13.6 323.7 3.0 39 817 4.7 177

Macomb, MI ....................... 16.7 285.9 2.5 65 926 4.3 204

Oakland, MI ....................... 36.8 641.4 3.6 17 1,013 4.9 158

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.5 108.2 3.5 21 750 4.2 214

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.1 83.4 3.6 17 760 1.5 311

Washtenaw, MI .................. 7.9 190.6 1.4 143 994 3.4 259

Wayne, MI .......................... 30.6 678.7 1.8 109 1,005 5.1 139

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.1 108.7 2.3 72 872 4.7 177

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.7 170.0 1.8 109 885 8.1 22

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.8 835.5 3.5 21 1,125 3.1 274

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 89.1 2.1 83 949 3.2 267

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Ramsey, MN ...................... 13.9 323.4 2.2 77 $1,024 6.1 75

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.6 94.8 1.1 167 785 9.5 7

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.3 80.0 2.3 72 750 3.7 242

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 82.7 0.6 216 687 3.6 249

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.0 122.4 0.6 216 799 4.0 224

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 84.4 2.4 69 733 4.3 204

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 90.2 0.9 193 844 -2.3 318

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 149.4 1.6 128 714 4.4 197

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.3 340.4 -0.4 296 925 6.0 78

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 124.4 1.5 134 731 4.4 197

St. Louis, MO ..................... 31.9 564.3 0.4 236 970 6.4 59

St. Louis City, MO .............. 9.0 219.1 0.6 216 1,013 7.3 36

Yellowstone, MT ................ 6.0 77.5 2.1 83 768 7.7 27

Douglas, NE ....................... 16.0 311.7 0.2 261 865 6.0 78

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.2 154.9 0.8 204 746 5.4 118

Clark, NV ........................... 47.7 804.3 1.4 143 833 2.8 284

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.6 186.5 0.5 226 849 4.8 164

Hillsborough, NH ................ 11.9 187.1 0.7 212 999 5.6 101

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.5 135.6 1.0 177 889 8.0 24

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.7 135.7 -0.4 296 785 2.6 290

Bergen, NJ ......................... 33.2 426.8 1.0 177 1,083 2.6 290

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.0 191.1 0.1 268 971 2.9 280

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.3 192.3 0.0 272 903 3.2 267

Essex, NJ ........................... 20.6 335.0 0.5 226 1,138 4.8 164

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.2 96.7 -0.5 301 815 3.3 262

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.7 230.4 1.0 177 1,283 3.7 242

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 226.3 0.3 249 1,206 8.7 12

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.7 377.9 0.9 193 1,104 4.8 164

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.1 241.5 -1.4 314 929 2.4 297

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.3 268.3 -0.1 278 1,292 4.3 204

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.2 149.7 0.6 216 736 3.1 274

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.2 170.0 0.6 216 916 2.5 293

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.0 168.8 1.7 121 1,338 3.6 249

Union, NJ ........................... 14.5 218.2 0.4 236 1,142 5.9 86

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 312.3 0.2 261 832 4.3 204

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 218.2 0.2 261 968 2.5 293

Bronx, NY .......................... 17.0 234.9 0.3 249 889 ( 7) – 

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 89.9 -1.6 315 738 2.8 284

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 110.9 0.3 249 925 ( 7) – 

Erie, NY ............................. 23.8 457.7 1.3 151 813 5.4 118

Kings, NY ........................... 51.7 507.7 3.3 26 764 1.5 311

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.2 374.6 1.6 128 887 3.9 230

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.7 588.9 1.5 134 987 2.1 304

New York, NY .................... 122.0 2,332.5 2.7 54 1,647 4.6 184

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 106.2 -0.5 301 726 1.7 309

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 241.9 0.5 226 845 3.9 230

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 131.1 0.4 236 776 3.6 249

Queens, NY ....................... 46.2 509.0 2.7 54 866 2.4 297

Richmond, NY .................... 9.0 91.7 1.1 167 804 1.4 314

Rockland, NY ..................... 10.0 114.0 2.0 92 975 5.0 147

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.7 617.2 0.9 193 1,022 2.7 288

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Westchester, NY ................ 36.1 406.2 1.7 121 $1,146 3.4 259

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.9 111.7 0.5 226 714 4.1 220

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 77.8 1.0 177 698 4.0 224

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 119.1 1.6 128 764 5.2 130

Durham, NC ....................... 7.3 179.7 1.1 167 1,261 8.2 18

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 171.5 0.9 193 851 7.2 40

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.2 262.6 1.5 134 814 4.1 220

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.5 553.5 3.3 26 1,046 8.1 22

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.3 97.0 0.6 216 763 3.8 235

Wake, NC .......................... 29.4 443.1 2.2 77 894 3.8 235

Cass, ND ........................... 6.0 104.2 3.9 12 823 8.4 15

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 140.2 1.0 177 810 3.4 259

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 36.0 692.8 1.0 177 928 5.6 101

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.7 663.8 2.8 48 930 4.5 192

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.4 486.2 0.9 193 1,010 5.2 130

Lake, OH ............................ 6.5 94.9 1.2 158 842 17.1 1

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.1 93.0 -0.1 278 773 8.3 16

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.3 200.2 -0.1 278 795 3.7 242

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.1 98.4 1.4 143 685 8.6 13

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.3 242.1 0.7 212 814 4.0 224

Stark, OH ........................... 8.7 152.0 1.7 121 719 6.4 59

Summit, OH ....................... 14.4 256.0 1.3 151 826 6.4 59

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.3 422.5 2.1 83 903 11.5 3

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.2 329.7 1.5 134 871 9.0 9

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.6 138.7 0.9 193 841 5.0 147

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.6 77.4 1.1 167 686 5.2 130

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 136.4 1.0 177 717 5.6 101

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 135.8 -0.6 306 717 3.8 235

Multnomah, OR .................. 29.2 433.1 2.3 72 937 5.2 130

Washington, OR ................ 16.2 244.2 2.6 60 1,119 7.4 32

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.1 678.8 1.0 177 978 6.8 48

Berks, PA ........................... 8.9 163.7 1.2 158 837 5.7 98

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.5 248.0 -0.2 288 880 4.9 158

Butler, PA ........................... 4.9 83.1 3.5 21 846 6.5 56

Chester, PA ....................... 15.0 235.8 0.5 226 1,134 6.6 52

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 122.1 1.5 134 859 6.2 69

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.5 174.3 -0.7 308 913 8.2 18

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.5 205.9 0.4 236 968 4.8 164

Erie, PA .............................. 7.6 125.7 1.8 109 772 7.5 30

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 97.0 -0.2 288 713 4.9 158

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.5 218.1 -0.1 278 776 4.3 204

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.5 175.4 1.9 100 898 3.2 267

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 138.7 0.5 226 731 4.9 158

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.0 458.4 0.1 268 1,108 4.7 177

Northampton, PA ............... 6.4 100.4 2.2 77 810 3.7 242

Philadelphia, PA ................ 34.2 626.2 -0.3 293 1,114 5.8 90

Washington, PA ................. 5.5 85.0 4.4 5 867 7.0 43

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.3 131.7 -0.4 296 768 6.7 50

York, PA ............................. 9.1 171.1 0.8 204 854 9.3 8

Providence, RI ................... 17.3 269.8 0.3 249 913 6.0 78

Charleston, SC .................. 11.8 211.5 3.3 26 805 5.5 109

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Greenville, SC .................... 12.1 231.5 3.2 30 $806 6.1 75

Horry, SC ........................... 7.6 110.4 1.0 177 561 3.7 242

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 94.2 0.2 261 700 4.6 184

Richland, SC ...................... 8.9 201.1 -0.1 278 813 4.1 220

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.8 112.7 1.8 109 784 4.8 164

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 114.1 1.2 158 776 2.0 306

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.0 425.9 2.5 65 945 6.4 59

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 184.6 1.9 100 815 4.8 164

Knox, TN ............................ 10.7 221.1 1.9 100 786 5.1 139

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 97.1 1.8 109 803 4.6 184

Shelby, TN ......................... 18.8 466.9 1.6 128 948 4.8 164

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 93.0 5.4 1 948 4.4 197

Bell, TX .............................. 4.8 107.4 1.8 109 758 1.7 309

Bexar, TX ........................... 34.4 734.7 2.0 92 823 5.8 90

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.9 90.2 3.7 13 899 7.4 32

Brazos, TX ......................... 4.0 86.1 ( 7) – 719 8.3 16

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 125.7 1.1 167 591 5.5 109

Collin, TX ........................... 18.6 296.6 3.6 17 1,038 4.2 214

Dallas, TX .......................... 68.5 1,448.7 2.7 54 1,102 6.4 59

Denton, TX ......................... 11.2 179.5 2.9 42 814 6.7 50

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.8 274.9 1.2 158 671 5.5 109

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.4 137.1 4.2 8 926 5.1 139

Galveston, TX .................... 5.4 95.2 1.9 100 844 7.7 27

Harris, TX ........................... 101.9 2,054.1 3.1 34 1,156 6.3 65

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 11.2 222.3 2.1 83 602 4.5 192

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 123.6 3.6 17 919 5.0 147

Lubbock, TX ....................... 7.0 123.8 1.0 177 703 5.9 86

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 101.0 0.4 236 756 4.0 224

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.8 135.1 4.8 2 869 6.2 69

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 153.4 0.8 204 797 6.8 48

Smith, TX ........................... 5.6 92.1 0.4 236 788 2.9 280

Tarrant, TX ......................... 38.0 766.3 3.1 34 917 3.6 249

Travis, TX .......................... 31.0 583.3 3.3 26 1,010 5.4 118

Webb, TX ........................... 4.8 89.2 4.4 5 629 5.5 109

Williamson, TX ................... 7.7 129.1 2.6 60 933 10.2 4

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 106.6 ( 7) – 744 6.0 78

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.0 574.7 2.8 48 868 5.6 101

Utah, UT ............................ 12.8 172.8 4.5 4 715 4.2 214

Weber, UT ......................... 5.5 89.2 0.8 204 686 2.1 304

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 96.6 2.6 60 892 2.4 297

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.3 167.7 1.8 109 1,550 2.4 297

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 113.0 0.0 272 829 3.6 249

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.4 584.9 2.0 92 1,440 5.0 147

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.8 173.4 2.7 54 912 3.8 235

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.7 137.8 4.4 5 1,114 7.4 32

Prince William, VA ............. 7.7 108.2 3.2 30 845 5.4 118

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 95.6 1.3 151 1,268 2.4 297

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.6 95.0 -0.1 278 736 5.3 125

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.8 97.3 2.8 48 876 8.8 11

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.6 138.8 1.5 134 904 6.9 44

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.1 150.3 2.0 92 1,011 5.5 109

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.2 163.0 -0.3 293 $725 4.8 164

Benton, WA ........................ 5.6 82.9 1.1 167 991 2.9 280

Clark, WA ........................... 13.5 129.1 1.5 134 836 4.1 220

King, WA ............................ 83.3 1,150.7 2.8 48 1,323 7.3 36

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.8 81.2 0.6 216 894 9.0 9

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.7 263.5 0.0 272 841 3.2 267

Snohomish, WA ................. 19.2 250.7 4.0 11 987 5.3 125

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.9 199.4 0.7 212 782 6.3 65

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.5 96.4 0.1 268 849 4.7 177

Whatcom, WA .................... 7.0 80.7 2.3 72 756 4.0 224

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.8 110.8 -0.4 296 619 3.3 262

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 105.7 1.0 177 804 3.7 242

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 145.6 0.6 216 823 6.6 52

Dane, WI ............................ 14.1 301.3 2.1 83 880 5.0 147

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.6 473.0 0.9 193 917 7.4 32

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 101.6 0.9 193 770 4.5 192

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.7 225.4 1.8 109 901 4.8 164

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 90.5 1.2 158 825 4.3 204

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.9 257.7 0.4 ( 8) 604 0.2 ( 8) 

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

These 322 large U.S. counties comprise 70.5 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 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,

third quarter 2011 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 4

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,135.8 130,524.7 1.6 $916 5.3

Private industry .............................................. 8,838.2 109,309.0 2.1 907 5.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 128.4 2,023.6 5.0 988 11.6

Construction ............................................... 768.5 5,725.3 0.5 991 4.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 338.3 11,806.5 1.9 1,127 4.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,880.5 24,834.9 1.8 779 5.0

Information ................................................. 143.4 2,674.8 -1.0 1,522 7.3

Financial activities ...................................... 809.1 7,435.0 0.7 1,323 7.1

Professional and business services ........... 1,569.8 17,513.3 3.7 1,149 5.1

Education and health services ................... 913.3 19,080.1 2.2 882 4.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 760.4 13,605.1 2.2 389 5.1

Other services ............................................ 1,330.5 4,410.3 1.4 587 4.4

Government ................................................... 297.6 21,215.7 -1.0 965 5.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 440.1 3,872.5 0.8 1,026 5.2

Private industry .............................................. 434.4 3,347.1 1.2 1,000 5.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 9.5 -6.2 2,296 22.0

Construction ............................................... 12.3 107.5 3.5 1,049 4.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 12.8 366.4 -1.6 1,108 3.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 50.6 743.1 1.6 828 6.2

Information ................................................. 8.3 190.0 -4.0 1,720 3.6

Financial activities ...................................... 21.9 208.9 -0.3 1,549 7.0

Professional and business services ........... 41.2 546.6 2.8 1,227 6.6

Education and health services ................... 29.1 516.0 2.3 984 5.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.9 402.5 2.8 577 5.9

Other services ............................................ 209.2 239.5 -3.3 474 1.7

Government ................................................... 5.7 525.4 -1.5 1,191 5.7

Cook, IL .............................................................. 146.8 2,402.7 2.1 1,047 4.0

Private industry .............................................. 145.4 2,104.8 2.4 1,038 3.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.0 2.6 1,001 -2.5

Construction ............................................... 12.4 67.7 1.5 1,291 5.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.6 194.4 0.0 1,093 2.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 28.6 438.6 2.0 831 5.9

Information ................................................. 2.6 51.9 0.0 1,549 6.7

Financial activities ...................................... 15.5 185.6 -1.0 1,741 5.2

Professional and business services ........... 30.9 423.9 4.8 1,298 3.4

Education and health services ................... 15.3 403.4 2.7 926 2.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.9 240.7 3.6 482 4.1

Other services ............................................ 16.1 95.0 2.6 779 2.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 297.9 -0.4 1,114 5.1

New York, NY ..................................................... 122.0 2,332.5 2.7 1,647 4.6

Private industry .............................................. 121.7 1,897.5 3.5 1,766 4.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 8.5 1,530 -17.5

Construction ............................................... 2.2 31.2 1.9 1,644 1.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 26.0 -0.7 1,214 -0.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.0 242.6 3.5 1,183 4.3

Information ................................................. 4.3 138.0 4.0 2,108 3.9

Financial activities ...................................... 19.1 356.4 2.1 3,096 6.5

Professional and business services ........... 25.5 471.8 3.9 1,982 4.3

Education and health services ................... 9.3 296.5 2.3 1,208 5.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.8 238.2 5.1 770 2.1

Other services ............................................ 18.9 89.7 3.2 1,008 -1.9

Government ................................................... 0.3 435.0 -0.9 1,125 2.6

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

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 4

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 101.9 2,054.1 3.1 $1,156 6.3

Private industry .............................................. 101.4 1,800.8 3.9 1,173 6.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.6 83.2 10.6 3,015 12.0

Construction ............................................... 6.5 134.8 -0.3 1,134 7.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 179.3 6.5 1,427 5.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.9 428.5 3.1 1,028 6.1

Information ................................................. 1.3 28.1 0.0 1,343 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 113.1 1.7 1,412 9.2

Professional and business services ........... 20.2 341.2 6.1 1,361 3.7

Education and health services ................... 11.5 244.8 2.4 952 5.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.3 185.0 4.3 415 4.0

Other services ............................................ 13.6 62.0 3.3 661 7.1

Government ................................................... 0.6 253.4 -2.3 1,037 2.1

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 95.6 1,641.4 2.9 901 4.8

Private industry .............................................. 94.9 1,428.6 3.5 895 5.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.7 7.1 880 10.3

Construction ............................................... 8.5 83.3 3.2 941 5.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 109.1 1.3 1,332 6.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.1 335.3 3.4 846 6.3

Information ................................................. 1.6 27.0 2.1 1,172 5.7

Financial activities ...................................... 11.1 137.0 4.8 1,090 5.9

Professional and business services ........... 22.7 267.5 3.1 937 4.3

Education and health services ................... 10.6 242.8 3.7 942 2.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.3 172.1 4.1 435 6.4

Other services ............................................ 6.7 47.0 3.7 609 6.3

Government ................................................... 0.7 212.9 -0.8 947 3.4

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 68.5 1,448.7 2.7 1,102 6.4

Private industry .............................................. 68.0 1,284.3 3.4 1,107 6.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.6 -0.4 3,396 12.5

Construction ............................................... 3.9 68.7 0.8 1,031 9.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 115.1 1.1 1,251 5.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 288.2 3.2 1,025 6.8

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.3 -0.4 1,661 10.3

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 140.2 2.7 1,429 7.5

Professional and business services ........... 15.1 275.5 5.2 1,230 4.3

Education and health services ................... 7.3 169.5 3.6 1,013 5.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.7 131.9 4.6 510 10.6

Other services ............................................ 7.2 40.5 6.2 680 6.1

Government ................................................... 0.5 164.5 -2.6 1,062 5.8

Orange, CA ........................................................ 104.4 1,372.4 1.7 1,036 6.0

Private industry .............................................. 103.0 1,240.2 2.0 1,022 5.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 3.4 -4.7 727 10.8

Construction ............................................... 6.1 71.2 3.2 1,131 4.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.9 154.0 2.0 1,308 7.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.9 244.4 0.1 970 4.8

Information ................................................. 1.2 23.2 -2.2 1,554 6.2

Financial activities ...................................... 9.5 105.3 1.3 1,525 11.0

Professional and business services ........... 18.4 247.3 1.7 1,146 4.5

Education and health services ................... 10.4 158.7 2.9 968 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 178.0 3.5 440 2.3

Other services ............................................ 22.0 48.6 0.0 564 5.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 132.2 -1.0 1,173 11.0

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

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11 4

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 100.7 1,252.4 1.2 $1,014 7.5

Private industry .............................................. 99.3 1,035.5 1.5 973 6.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 10.0 -9.4 615 7.9

Construction ............................................... 6.0 55.8 0.8 1,090 4.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 93.4 0.5 1,391 5.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.4 200.4 1.6 784 5.4

Information ................................................. 1.2 24.2 -2.4 1,617 2.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 67.5 1.6 1,173 4.5

Professional and business services ........... 16.0 212.6 0.3 1,311 7.4

Education and health services ................... 8.5 148.3 3.1 988 8.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 159.7 1.4 451 6.4

Other services ............................................ 28.8 58.3 ( 6) 580 7.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 216.8 -0.4 1,220 13.9

King, WA ............................................................ 83.3 1,150.7 2.8 1,323 7.3

Private industry .............................................. 82.8 997.8 3.4 1,346 7.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.9 8.3 1,286 8.9

Construction ............................................... 5.8 48.9 -0.5 1,181 3.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.3 101.6 4.5 1,504 3.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 210.6 3.7 1,018 5.2

Information ................................................. 1.8 80.8 2.3 4,177 15.1

Financial activities ...................................... 6.3 64.8 -1.4 1,376 5.1

Professional and business services ........... 14.3 184.9 4.8 1,435 7.9

Education and health services ................... 7.3 135.6 4.0 993 6.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 114.6 4.9 484 6.1

Other services ............................................ 23.2 53.2 2.5 603 4.3

Government ................................................... 0.6 152.9 -0.9 1,171 2.9

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 86.8 970.3 2.9 880 3.3

Private industry .............................................. 86.5 829.2 3.7 858 4.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.3 5.0 534 9.9

Construction ............................................... 5.0 30.1 -4.5 882 5.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 35.9 1.2 877 10.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 24.9 248.0 4.7 796 5.4

Information ................................................. 1.4 17.1 -1.0 1,387 6.9

Financial activities ...................................... 9.0 62.2 3.8 1,292 5.9

Professional and business services ........... 18.1 126.5 4.6 1,036 3.9

Education and health services ................... 9.7 154.6 2.5 900 4.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.6 110.7 4.9 515 3.8

Other services ............................................ 7.8 36.0 4.5 568 2.7

Government ................................................... 0.4 141.1 -1.4 1,009 -3.4

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2010 annual average employment. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

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

third quarter 2011 2

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11

United States 4 ................... 9,135.8 130,524.7 1.6 $916 5.3

Alabama ............................. 116.6 1,823.2 0.5 803 3.7

Alaska ................................ 21.7 341.5 2.1 963 4.0

Arizona ............................... 146.0 2,391.6 2.1 860 4.9

Arkansas ............................ 86.2 1,151.0 0.4 715 4.5

California ............................ 1,394.4 14,686.3 1.5 1,051 6.8

Colorado ............................ 171.8 2,234.4 2.3 948 5.6

Connecticut ........................ 110.7 1,626.5 0.9 1,118 4.7

Delaware ............................ 28.2 406.1 0.2 949 5.4

District of Columbia ............ 36.3 708.1 2.1 1,527 3.9

Florida ................................ 597.4 7,167.5 1.7 812 4.2

Georgia .............................. 267.3 3,799.6 1.3 867 5.3

Hawaii ................................ 38.3 593.6 1.2 836 4.0

Idaho .................................. 54.1 623.8 1.1 697 4.7

Illinois ................................. 386.7 5,629.1 1.6 958 4.6

Indiana ............................... 159.5 2,797.5 2.1 785 5.8

Iowa ................................... 93.3 1,466.9 1.6 760 5.6

Kansas ............................... 88.5 1,311.7 1.1 772 5.6

Kentucky ............................ 108.3 1,757.4 1.7 764 4.8

Louisiana ........................... 125.2 1,852.3 0.9 821 3.9

Maine ................................. 49.4 595.6 0.9 734 2.9

Maryland ............................ 163.0 2,497.6 1.1 1,023 5.9

Massachusetts ................... 231.3 3,227.8 1.8 1,114 4.1

Michigan ............................ 243.1 3,920.5 2.4 876 4.4

Minnesota .......................... 167.9 2,642.8 2.5 916 4.8

Mississippi ......................... 69.2 1,081.3 0.1 681 4.4

Missouri ............................. 175.1 2,610.3 0.6 804 5.2

Montana ............................. 42.2 433.9 1.3 687 6.2

Nebraska ........................... 60.8 905.0 0.5 747 5.7

Nevada .............................. 72.0 1,122.0 1.3 845 3.8

New Hampshire ................. 48.5 613.2 0.7 903 5.6

New Jersey ........................ 263.5 3,774.1 0.6 1,069 4.3

New Mexico ....................... 55.1 788.7 0.4 779 4.7

New York ........................... 599.6 8,511.6 1.7 1,099 4.0

North Carolina .................... 255.9 3,863.6 1.3 809 5.3

North Dakota ...................... 27.6 390.8 6.7 820 12.9

Ohio ................................... 288.7 5,015.3 1.4 834 5.6

Oklahoma .......................... 102.7 1,518.5 1.8 785 8.3

Oregon ............................... 131.8 1,645.0 1.4 835 5.7

Pennsylvania ..................... 345.7 5,550.9 0.9 912 6.2

Rhode Island ...................... 35.0 456.8 0.3 871 5.3

South Carolina ................... 111.9 1,789.9 1.4 746 4.8

South Dakota ..................... 31.2 398.9 1.3 684 3.6

Tennessee ......................... 139.1 2,631.4 2.1 819 5.3

Texas ................................. 583.2 10,480.4 2.7 931 6.2

Utah ................................... 84.2 1,192.9 2.9 779 5.1

Vermont ............................. 24.2 297.0 0.8 778 3.3

Virginia ............................... 234.2 3,602.5 1.6 974 4.7

Washington ........................ 235.4 2,905.4 1.7 1,011 6.1

West Virginia ...................... 48.8 710.8 1.6 742 5.8

Wisconsin .......................... 159.7 2,697.9 1.4 792 5.6

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

third quarter 2011 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2010-11

Third

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

third quarter

2010-11

Wyoming ............................ 25.3 284.0 1.6 $832 5.1

Puerto Rico ........................ 50.8 910.3 -0.2 506 1.2

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.6 42.7 -1.5 718 -5.2

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

Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Largest Counties

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 March 2012

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

September 2010-11 (U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
Largest Counties

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 March 2012

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

or more employees, third quarter 2010-11 (U.S. average = 5.3 percent)