For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, September 26, 2013 USDL-13-1942 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

First Quarter 2013 

From March 2012 to March 2013, employment increased in 282 of the 334 largest U.S. counties, the 

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

of 7.0 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.6 percent. Within Fort Bend, the 

largest employment increase occurred in leisure and hospitality, which gained 2,204 jobs over the year 

(12.5 percent). Sangamon, Ill., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the largest 

counties in the U.S. with a loss of 2.4 percent. County employment and wage data are compiled under 

the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, which produces detailed 

information on county employment and wages within 6 months after the end of each quarter. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 0.6 percent to $989 in the first quarter of 

2013. San Mateo, Calif., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 

14.8 percent. Within San Mateo, an average weekly wage gain of $2,996 or 104.1 percent in information 

had the largest contribution to the increase in average weekly wages. Williamson, Texas, experienced 

the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 13.4 percent over the year. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, March 2012-13 

(U.S. average = 1.6 percent)

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, first quarter 2012-13 

(U.S. average = 0.6 percent)

7.0 6.9

6.0 5.6 5.5

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Fort Bend, 

Texas

Midland,

Texas

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Douglas, 

Colo.

Utah, 

Utah

14.8 14.3

11.8

6.7 6.7

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10

12

14

16

San Mateo, 

Calif.

Benton, 

Ark.

McLean, 

Ill.

Clayton, 

Ga.

Somerset, 

N.J.
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by March 2013 employment, March 2012-13 employment 

increase, and March 2012-13 percent increase in employment

Employment in large counties

March 2013 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) March 2012-13 March 2012-13

(thousands)

United States 132,338.9 United States 2,082.4 United States 1.6

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,041.3 Los Angeles, Calif. 85.7 Fort Bend, Texas 7.0

New York, N.Y. 2,403.9 Harris, Texas 77.7 Midland, Texas 6.9

Cook, Ill. 2,394.0 Maricopa, Ariz. 43.0 Elkhart, Ind. 6.0

Harris, Texas 2,163.6 Dallas, Texas 41.3 Douglas, Colo. 5.6

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,710.2 New York, N.Y. 39.2 Utah, Utah 5.5

Dallas, Texas 1,473.4 Orange, Calif. 38.9 Rutherford, Tenn. 5.3

Orange, Calif. 1,433.5 King, Wash. 35.4 Placer, Calif. 5.2

San Diego, Calif. 1,297.9 Santa Clara, Calif. 33.8 Montgomery, Texas 5.0

King, Wash. 1,175.0 San Diego, Calif. 29.1 Brazos, Texas 4.7

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,016.2 Cook, Ill. 27.4 Weld, Colo. 4.4

Large County Employment 

In March 2013, national employment was 132.3 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the 

year employment was up by 1.6 percent or 2.1 million. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs 

accounted for 71.6 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.7 percent of total wages. These 334 

counties had a net job growth of 1.6 million over the year, accounting for 78.6 percent of the overall 

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

Fort Bend, Texas, had the largest percentage increase in employment (7.0 percent) among the largest 

U.S. counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Los Angeles, 

Calif.; Harris, Texas; Maricopa, Ariz.; Dallas, Texas; and New York, N.Y. These counties had a 

combined over-the-year employment gain of 286,800 jobs, which was 13.8 percent of the overall job 

increase for the U.S. (See table A.)

Employment declined in 46 of the large counties from March 2012 to March 2013. Sangamon, Ill., had 

the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-2.4 percent). Within Sangamon, 

professional and business services had the largest decrease in employment with a loss of 1,630 jobs 

(-14.5 percent). Vanderburgh, Ind., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed 

by Broome, N.Y., and Jefferson, Texas, which tied for the third largest percentage decrease. Two 

counties, Peoria, Ill., and Oneida, N.Y., tied for the fifth largest percentage decrease. (See table 1.)
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by first quarter 2013 average weekly wages, first quarter 2012-13

increase in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2012-13 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

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

first quarter 2013 wage, first quarter 2012-13 weekly wage, first

quarter 2012-13

United States $989 United States $6 United States 0.6

New York, N.Y. $2,448 San Mateo, Calif. $239 San Mateo, Calif. 14.8

Somerset, N.J. 2,009 Benton, Ark. 168 Benton, Ark. 14.3

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,937 Somerset, N.J. 126 McLean, Ill. 11.8

Fairfield, Conn. 1,878 McLean, Ill. 112 Clayton, Ga. 6.7

San Mateo, Calif. 1,859 Mercer, N.J. 89 Somerset, N.J. 6.7

San Francisco, Calif. 1,778 Clayton, Ga. 58 Mercer, N.J. 6.4

Suffolk, Mass. 1,698 Williamson, Tenn. 53 Hampden, Mass. 4.8

Arlington, Va. 1,621 Ramsey, Minn. 49 Williamson, Tenn. 4.6

Washington, D.C. 1,613 Lake, Ill. 41 Winnebago, Wis. 4.6

Morris, N.J. 1,582 Hampden, Mass. 41 Ramsey, Minn. 4.4

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased 0.6 percent during the year ending in the first quarter of 

2013. Among the 334 largest counties, 232 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See 

chart 4.) San Mateo, Calif., had the largest wage increase among the largest U.S. counties (14.8 percent). 

Of the 334 largest counties, 92 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages.

Williamson, Texas, had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 13.4 percent. Within 

Williamson, trade, transportation, and utilities had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly 

wage decrease. Within this industry, average weekly wages declined by $436 (-24.2 percent) over the 

year. Middlesex, N.J., had the second largest decrease in average weekly wages, followed by Peoria, Ill.; 

Washington, Ore.; and Santa Cruz, Calif. (See table 1.)

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in March 2013. 

Harris, Texas, had the largest gain (3.7 percent). Within Harris, professional and business services had 

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

16,474 jobs or 4.7 percent. Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.2 percent) 

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

Three of the 10 largest U.S. counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. King, 

Wash., experienced the largest gain in average weekly wages (1.6 percent). Within King, professional 

and business services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. Within this 

industry, average weekly wages increased by $42 or 2.7 percent over the year. Los Angeles, Calif., had 

the largest average weekly wage decrease (-1.8 percent) among the 10 largest counties.
- 4 - 

For More Information

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

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2012. March 2013 employment and 2013 

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

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

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

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 132.3 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the first quarter of 2013 will be available later at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. 

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

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for second quarter 2013 is scheduled to be released 

on Wednesday, December 18, 2013. 

Updated MSA Definitions

New Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) definitions, and those for other types of Core Based 

Statistical Areas (CBSA), were announced in March 2013. The QCEW program will be using those 

definitions for tabulating data referencing 2013 and future years and will begin releasing that data 

effective with today’s release. Prior year data will not be re-tabulated to the new definitions. 

For more information regarding the new area definitions, see 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_statpolicy#ms.

County Changes for the 2013 County Employment and Wages News Releases

Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2012 are included in this release and 

will be included in future 2013 releases. Six counties have been added to the publication tables: 

Boone, Ky.; Warren, Ohio; Jackson, Ore.; York, S.C.; Midland, Texas; and Potter, Texas. 
- 5 - 

Notable Industry Changes

Each first quarter, QCEW incorporates improved industry assignments. Usually this activity is 

distributed across industries. In 2013, the improvements also include substantial changes to two 

specific industries--funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles (NAICS 525) as well as private 

households (NAICS 814110). 

Establishments in funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles are legal entities with little to no 

employment. Establishments with employees who manage such funds are typically coded in other 

financial investment activities (NAICS 5239), although they may also be classified as other industries 

within finance. The QCEW program examined establishments with employment classified within 

funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles and reclassified them into other industries based on each 

establishment’s primary economic activity.

The QCEW program also reviewed establishments that provide non-medical, home-based services 

for the elderly and persons with disabilities and classified these establishments into services for the 

elderly and persons with disabilities (NAICS 624120). Many of these establishments were previously 

classified in the private households industry. 

These changes apply not only to the data published by QCEW, but also data based on QCEW such as 

BLS Current Employment Statistics (CES) and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Personal 

Income. For more information about the industry changes affecting the data in these programs, 

contact the QCEW program at (202) 691-6567, the CES program at (202) 691-6555, or BEA at (202) 

606-9272.
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 2013 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 2012 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2013 data, six counties have been 

added to the publication tables: Boone, Ky.; Warren, Ohio; Jackson, 

Ore.; York, S.C.; Midland, Texas; and Potter, Texas. These counties 

will be included in all 2013 quarterly releases. The counties in table 

2 are selected and sorted each year based on the annual average 

employment from the preceding year.

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

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2013 

Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.8 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 557,000 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

— 6 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 to 

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking)

Principal

products

Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry

Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

the national level by NAICS 

supersectors and by size of firm, and 

at the state private-sector total level 

Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry

Principal uses Major uses include:

— Detailed locality data

— Periodic universe counts for 

benchmarking sample survey estimates

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys

Major uses include:

— Business cycle analysis

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm

Major uses include:

— Principal national economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites

www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/
The 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 2012. 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 2012, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 131.7 million jobs. The 

estimated 126.9 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.5 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $6.491 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.7 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 40.0 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 workforce 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.

Wages measured by QCEW may be subject to periodic and sometimes large fluctuations. This variability may be due to calendar 

effects resulting from some quarters having more pay dates than 

others. The effect is most visible in counties with a dominant employer. In particular, this effect has been observed in counties where

government employers represent a large fraction of overall employment. Similar calendar effects can result from private sector pay

practices. However, these effects are typically less pronounced for 

two reasons: employment is less concentrated in a single private 

employer, and private employers use a variety of pay period types 

(weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly). 

For example, the effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be 

pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result, in some quarters federal wages 

include six pay dates, while in other quarters there are seven pay 

dates. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may also 

reflect this calendar effect. Growth in average weekly wages may be 

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

year, which include seven pay dates, with year-ago wages that reflect 

only six pay dates. An opposite effect will occur when wages in the 

current quarter reflecting six pay dates are compared with year-ago 

wages for a quarter including seven pay dates. 

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 3-year cycle. 

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

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

are introduced in the first quarter.

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 2012 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. Beginning with the second quarter of 2011, adjusted 

data account for selected large administrative changes in employment and wages. These new adjustments allow QCEW to include 

county employment and wage growth rates in this news release that 

would otherwise not meet publication standards.

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 2012 edition 

of this publication, which will be available shortly after this release, 

contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics 

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

news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and 

Wages Annual Averages 2012 will be available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn12.htm. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

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

BDMInfo@bls.gov).

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

message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6.............................. 9,193.5 132,338.9 1.6 - $989 0.6 -

Jefferson, AL................................ 17.8 336.6 0.9 199 983 0.5 179

Madison, AL................................. 9.0 180.1 1.8 133 1,030 0.3 200

Mobile, AL.................................... 9.7 163.4 0.0 283 812 2.8 24

Montgomery, AL........................... 6.4 128.7 1.7 142 781 -3.1 328

Tuscaloosa, AL............................. 4.3 85.7 2.0 117 797 -1.0 299

Anchorage Borough, AK............... 8.3 150.7 0.1 273 1,038 1.5 90

Maricopa, AZ................................ 94.3 1,710.2 2.6 74 945 0.0 233

Pima, AZ....................................... 18.9 352.1 0.9 199 809 1.0 133

Benton, AR................................... 5.6 98.4 2.7 63 1,339 14.3 2

Pulaski, AR................................... 14.5 243.8 0.6 232 853 -0.9 296

Washington, AR........................... 5.7 93.7 3.1 41 759 1.6 78

Alameda, CA................................ 54.6 672.8 3.2 36 1,249 -1.6 311

Contra Costa, CA......................... 28.8 328.6 3.0 45 1,251 0.1 216

Fresno, CA................................... 29.1 336.5 3.0 45 736 0.3 200

Kern, CA....................................... 16.8 284.6 3.7 19 848 0.0 233

Los Angeles, CA........................... 412.4 4,041.3 2.2 101 1,061 -1.8 317

Marin, CA..................................... 11.6 106.9 2.9 51 1,138 1.2 115

Monterey, CA............................... 12.2 156.7 1.8 133 834 0.5 179

Orange, CA.................................. 102.8 1,433.5 2.8 57 1,086 -0.5 269

Placer, CA.................................... 10.8 135.9 5.2 7 933 1.4 99

Riverside, CA............................... 48.4 592.6 3.4 29 770 0.1 216

Sacramento, CA........................... 49.0 598.0 1.8 133 1,054 -1.7 314

San Bernardino, CA..................... 47.4 622.4 2.3 91 791 0.4 192

San Diego, CA.............................. 100.4 1,297.9 2.3 91 1,056 -1.7 314

San Francisco, CA....................... 54.6 603.8 4.3 11 1,778 -0.7 283

San Joaquin, CA.......................... 15.9 206.7 2.5 84 785 0.5 179

San Luis Obispo, CA.................... 9.4 107.1 3.5 25 785 1.9 57

San Mateo, CA............................. 24.5 349.0 3.4 29 1,859 14.8 1

Santa Barbara, CA....................... 14.1 183.4 3.3 32 900 -1.9 318

Santa Clara, CA........................... 62.0 923.6 3.8 15 1,937 -0.2 249

Santa Cruz, CA............................ 8.9 91.1 4.2 12 865 -3.4 330

Solano, CA................................... 9.6 123.4 3.1 41 1,019 3.6 12

Sonoma, CA................................. 18.0 179.5 3.4 29 863 0.7 168

Stanislaus, CA.............................. 13.7 165.0 3.8 15 791 -1.0 299

Tulare, CA.................................... 8.7 140.7 1.9 125 649 1.1 122

Ventura, CA.................................. 23.7 312.6 2.1 107 1,027 0.3 200

Yolo, CA....................................... 6.1 89.3 1.7 142 977 -2.8 325

Adams, CO................................... 9.0 169.0 3.7 19 893 1.4 99

Arapahoe, CO.............................. 19.3 290.4 3.7 19 1,193 1.0 133

Boulder, CO.................................. 13.3 161.8 2.7 63 1,120 -0.1 243

Denver, CO.................................. 26.8 432.5 4.0 14 1,265 0.0 233

Douglas, CO................................. 10.0 99.6 5.6 4 1,109 -1.9 318

El Paso, CO.................................. 17.0 239.8 2.3 91 858 -0.5 269

Jefferson, CO............................... 17.9 212.3 2.8 57 946 -2.3 323

Larimer, CO.................................. 10.3 133.5 3.8 15 824 0.1 216

Weld, CO...................................... 5.9 88.2 4.4 10 825 0.5 179

Fairfield, CT................................. 33.1 406.5 0.7 225 1,878 -1.9 318

Hartford, CT.................................. 25.9 489.0 0.4 250 1,315 -0.5 269

New Haven, CT............................ 22.7 352.4 -0.2 290 1,013 1.4 99

New London, CT.......................... 7.0 121.0 -0.7 311 975 -1.1 302

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE............................ 16.7 266.3 1.2 178 $1,235 -0.6 279

Washington, DC........................... 35.5 717.6 1.0 193 1,613 0.5 179

Alachua, FL.................................. 6.7 118.3 0.6 232 769 1.7 71

Brevard, FL................................... 14.7 189.3 0.4 250 848 -0.5 269

Broward, FL.................................. 64.7 716.3 2.4 86 878 0.1 216

Collier, FL..................................... 12.2 127.3 2.3 91 823 1.4 99

Duval, FL..................................... 27.5 446.5 2.4 86 963 1.4 99

Escambia, FL............................... 8.0 121.4 1.4 164 722 -0.1 243

Hillsborough, FL........................... 38.8 603.7 2.1 107 925 0.4 192

Lake, FL....................................... 7.4 83.9 2.7 63 624 1.1 122

Lee, FL......................................... 19.3 213.9 2.7 63 738 0.3 200

Leon, FL....................................... 8.3 136.8 -0.3 295 748 -0.5 269

Manatee, FL................................. 9.5 108.2 2.1 107 705 0.1 216

Marion, FL.................................... 8.0 91.7 0.9 199 649 1.1 122

Miami-Dade, FL............................ 92.2 1,016.2 2.6 74 912 0.9 141

Okaloosa, FL................................ 6.1 77.3 0.2 269 780 0.8 154

Orange, FL................................... 37.1 703.5 3.2 36 846 0.1 216

Palm Beach, FL............................ 50.7 525.7 2.8 57 936 0.5 179

Pasco, FL..................................... 10.1 100.8 1.4 164 638 1.9 57

Pinellas, FL................................... 31.1 390.4 1.9 125 823 -0.8 290

Polk, FL........................................ 12.5 196.9 1.6 150 706 1.1 122

Sarasota, FL................................ 14.6 144.3 3.2 36 763 0.5 179

Seminole, FL................................ 14.0 159.3 1.5 156 792 2.1 47

Volusia, FL................................... 13.4 154.0 0.9 199 659 0.2 210

Bibb, GA....................................... 4.5 79.2 -0.2 290 745 2.1 47

Chatham, GA................................ 7.9 135.6 2.6 74 810 0.2 210

Clayton, GA.................................. 4.3 110.1 0.0 283 920 6.7 4

Cobb, GA...................................... 21.9 309.1 2.0 117 1,092 1.8 65

De Kalb, GA................................. 18.1 272.1 0.4 250 1,011 -0.5 269

Fulton, GA.................................... 42.4 736.5 3.3 32 1,419 -0.7 283

Gwinnett, GA................................ 24.4 307.0 1.6 150 953 1.6 78

Muscogee, GA.............................. 4.7 93.6 -0.5 305 784 0.9 141

Richmond, GA.............................. 4.7 99.6 0.8 212 794 0.0 233

Honolulu, HI.................................. 24.7 451.1 2.1 107 878 1.0 133

Ada, ID......................................... 13.6 202.2 3.5 25 805 -0.4 259

Champaign, IL.............................. 4.3 87.7 0.8 212 826 4.0 11

Cook, IL........................................ 151.0 2,394.0 1.2 178 1,185 -1.0 299

Du Page, IL.................................. 37.7 581.2 1.7 142 1,160 -0.1 243

Kane, IL........................................ 13.5 195.9 1.0 193 823 2.1 47

Lake, IL........................................ 22.4 316.8 0.9 199 1,379 3.1 19

McHenry, IL.................................. 8.7 90.8 -0.4 299 781 2.0 54

McLean, IL.................................... 3.8 84.7 0.9 199 1,059 11.8 3

Madison, IL................................... 6.0 94.4 0.0 283 787 1.3 108

Peoria, IL...................................... 4.7 101.5 -1.8 329 973 -5.5 332

St. Clair, IL.................................... 5.6 92.2 -1.4 324 752 -0.4 259

Sangamon, IL............................... 5.3 123.1 -2.4 334 962 2.2 46

Will, IL.......................................... 15.5 202.5 0.4 250 827 0.7 168

Winnebago, IL.............................. 6.9 122.4 -1.5 326 814 0.0 233

Allen, IN........................................ 9.0 172.3 0.5 243 809 -0.4 259

Elkhart, IN..................................... 4.8 113.3 6.0 3 756 0.9 141

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN.................................. 8.7 116.1 2.6 74 $983 2.9 23

Lake, IN........................................ 10.4 186.9 0.7 225 869 2.4 39

Marion, IN..................................... 24.0 563.3 1.2 178 1,052 2.6 31

St. Joseph, IN............................... 6.0 114.3 -0.5 305 768 1.2 115

Tippecanoe, IN............................. 3.3 78.3 -0.4 299 818 -0.8 290

Vanderburgh, IN........................... 4.8 103.7 -2.0 333 776 1.3 108

Johnson, IA.................................. 3.8 78.7 2.2 101 845 1.1 122

Linn, IA......................................... 6.4 124.9 -0.4 299 926 2.4 39

Polk, IA........................................ 15.4 271.3 1.8 133 1,014 1.5 90

Scott, IA........................................ 5.4 87.0 0.8 212 770 0.8 154

Johnson, KS................................. 20.7 314.6 2.7 63 1,018 -0.1 243

Sedgwick, KS............................... 12.1 240.1 0.7 225 867 -1.6 311

Shawnee, KS................................ 4.7 94.5 -0.2 290 807 1.6 78

Wyandotte, KS............................. 3.2 81.2 0.7 225 891 -0.8 290

Boone, KY................................... 3.9 76.1 1.3 172 817 0.4 192

Fayette, KY................................... 9.9 178.3 2.0 117 844 -0.6 279

Jefferson, KY................................ 23.3 427.0 2.3 91 962 0.7 168

Caddo, LA.................................... 7.4 117.1 -1.6 327 760 -0.7 283

Calcasieu, LA............................... 4.9 85.5 2.2 101 831 0.5 179

East Baton Rouge, LA.................. 14.5 262.3 1.4 164 907 2.8 24

Jefferson, LA................................ 13.6 191.2 0.0 283 856 -0.3 254

Lafayette, LA................................ 9.1 139.4 2.7 63 913 0.0 233

Orleans, LA.................................. 11.1 178.7 2.3 91 965 -1.5 310

St. Tammany, LA.......................... 7.5 79.9 2.1 107 843 2.8 24

Cumberland, ME.......................... 12.6 165.8 0.6 232 896 3.5 15

Anne Arundel, MD........................ 14.9 247.2 1.8 133 1,065 -0.2 249

Baltimore, MD............................... 21.5 359.3 0.8 212 976 0.6 176

Frederick, MD............................... 6.3 94.1 0.8 212 946 -0.9 296

Harford, MD.................................. 5.7 87.6 0.3 260 917 2.5 36

Howard, MD................................. 9.5 157.0 0.6 232 1,188 0.1 216

Montgomery, MD.......................... 33.8 448.2 0.3 260 1,317 -3.1 328

Prince Georges, MD..................... 15.9 299.0 -0.2 290 988 0.2 210

Baltimore City, MD....................... 14.1 331.4 0.8 212 1,161 -1.2 304

Barnstable, MA............................. 8.9 81.4 1.4 164 816 0.9 141

Bristol, MA.................................... 16.2 208.9 0.0 283 850 0.8 154

Essex, MA.................................... 21.9 300.0 0.3 260 1,021 1.7 71

Hampden, MA.............................. 15.6 194.1 -0.4 299 899 4.8 7

Middlesex, MA.............................. 49.5 823.8 1.5 156 1,465 0.4 192

Norfolk, MA................................... 23.5 321.6 1.5 156 1,137 0.4 192

Plymouth, MA............................... 14.1 173.6 1.6 150 878 2.3 42

Suffolk, MA................................... 23.9 598.8 1.7 142 1,698 -0.7 283

Worcester, MA.............................. 21.6 316.7 0.1 273 952 0.8 154

Genesee, MI................................. 7.3 131.0 1.3 172 776 -2.3 323

Ingham, MI................................... 6.4 149.8 0.8 212 949 2.5 36

Kalamazoo, MI............................. 5.4 109.9 0.2 269 907 3.3 17

Kent, MI....................................... 14.2 341.8 3.0 45 839 -1.4 308

Macomb, MI.................................. 17.5 297.2 3.1 41 974 -0.1 243

Oakland, MI.................................. 38.7 668.9 2.7 63 1,072 -0.8 290

Ottawa, MI.................................... 5.7 107.8 2.7 63 755 1.2 115

Saginaw, MI.................................. 4.2 82.0 0.1 273 780 2.8 24

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Washtenaw, MI............................. 8.3 196.7 2.3 91 $989 0.8 154

Wayne, MI.................................... 31.7 681.6 0.9 199 1,053 -1.3 307

Anoka, MN.................................... 7.2 111.7 3.0 45 873 0.1 216

Dakota, MN.................................. 10.0 172.9 2.1 107 965 1.6 78

Hennepin, MN.............................. 42.3 846.0 2.6 74 1,274 -0.2 249

Olmsted, MN................................ 3.5 91.3 2.4 86 1,005 0.2 210

Ramsey, MN................................. 13.9 315.3 1.9 125 1,169 4.4 10

St. Louis, MN................................ 5.6 93.7 2.5 84 788 0.9 141

Stearns, MN................................. 4.4 79.7 1.1 186 748 1.8 65

Harrison, MS................................ 4.4 82.2 0.3 260 703 0.7 168

Hinds, MS..................................... 6.0 120.3 -0.7 311 814 1.2 115

Boone, MO................................... 4.6 87.3 2.0 117 739 2.1 47

Clay, MO...................................... 5.2 87.2 -0.6 309 858 1.5 90

Greene, MO.................................. 8.1 153.1 0.8 212 711 0.9 141

Jackson, MO................................ 19.0 346.9 0.8 212 983 1.3 108

St. Charles, MO............................ 8.4 127.7 2.0 117 793 -0.4 259

St. Louis, MO................................ 32.7 563.9 0.8 212 1,031 -0.5 269

St. Louis City, MO........................ 9.7 221.2 0.2 269 1,120 0.2 210

Yellowstone, MT........................... 6.2 76.7 2.1 107 783 1.4 99

Douglas, NE................................. 18.0 315.3 1.2 178 914 1.9 57

Lancaster, NE............................... 9.6 157.4 1.0 193 760 1.6 78

Clark, NV..................................... 49.9 828.7 2.6 74 831 -0.6 279

Washoe, NV................................. 13.7 183.9 1.8 133 832 0.5 179

Hillsborough, NH.......................... 12.0 187.9 0.6 232 1,042 0.8 154

Rockingham, NH.......................... 10.5 132.9 0.9 199 917 2.6 31

Atlantic, NJ................................... 6.6 128.5 -1.4 324 796 -0.7 283

Bergen, NJ................................... 32.9 425.5 1.0 193 1,187 -1.7 314

Burlington, NJ............................... 11.0 196.4 2.6 74 1,013 1.0 133

Camden, NJ................................. 12.0 193.8 0.5 243 962 1.4 99

Essex, NJ.................................... 20.4 335.1 0.3 260 1,326 0.8 154

Gloucester, NJ.............................. 6.1 96.4 0.1 273 823 1.6 78

Hudson, NJ................................... 14.0 235.0 1.4 164 1,521 0.3 200

Mercer, NJ.................................... 10.9 229.5 0.3 260 1,477 6.4 6

Middlesex, NJ.............................. 21.7 386.6 1.0 193 1,257 -5.8 333

Monmouth, NJ.............................. 19.9 237.8 0.5 243 985 1.8 65

Morris, NJ..................................... 17.1 272.5 0.6 232 1,582 0.0 233

Ocean, NJ.................................... 12.3 147.0 1.9 125 786 1.3 108

Passaic, NJ.................................. 12.2 167.8 -0.7 311 964 1.2 115

Somerset, NJ............................... 10.1 173.0 1.1 186 2,009 6.7 4

Union, NJ..................................... 14.3 221.2 1.3 172 1,249 -0.8 290

Bernalillo, NM............................... 17.8 307.4 0.5 243 829 0.1 216

Albany, NY................................... 10.1 221.0 1.2 178 998 2.6 31

Bronx, NY..................................... 17.3 240.9 2.2 101 864 1.2 115

Broome, NY.................................. 4.6 87.9 -1.9 331 734 0.8 154

Dutchess, NY............................... 8.3 109.5 -0.6 309 958 0.1 216

Erie, NY........................................ 24.1 450.6 0.3 260 853 1.1 122

Kings, NY..................................... 54.8 527.5 1.7 142 750 0.8 154

Monroe, NY.................................. 18.4 370.8 -0.2 290 903 1.5 90

Nassau, NY.................................. 53.0 587.1 0.8 212 1,078 0.9 141

New York, NY............................... 124.7 2,403.9 1.7 142 2,448 -0.5 269

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Oneida, NY................................... 5.3 102.1 -1.8 329 $761 3.0 21

Onondaga, NY.............................. 13.0 238.5 0.1 273 882 0.9 141

Orange, NY.................................. 9.9 130.7 0.5 243 789 0.0 233

Queens, NY.................................. 48.3 525.3 2.2 101 894 1.7 71

Richmond, NY.............................. 9.2 93.4 2.8 57 784 0.9 141

Rockland, NY............................... 10.0 114.1 -0.3 295 1,042 -0.6 279

Saratoga, NY................................ 5.6 77.2 1.8 133 861 3.1 19

Suffolk, NY................................... 51.2 614.8 0.6 232 1,033 -1.1 302

Westchester, NY.......................... 36.2 399.8 -0.4 299 1,370 -2.8 325

Buncombe, NC............................. 7.9 115.4 3.0 45 717 0.8 154

Catawba, NC................................ 4.3 79.9 1.1 186 709 1.6 78

Cumberland, NC........................... 6.2 118.6 -0.8 316 748 1.8 65

Durham, NC................................. 7.3 182.4 2.0 117 1,319 -2.2 322

Forsyth, NC.................................. 8.9 175.9 1.7 142 927 -1.2 304

Guilford, NC.................................. 14.0 266.7 1.5 156 867 1.8 65

Mecklenburg, NC.......................... 32.5 579.2 3.0 45 1,315 3.0 21

New Hanover, NC........................ 7.3 98.0 1.2 178 762 2.3 42

Wake, NC..................................... 29.4 465.9 3.2 36 989 1.4 99

Cass, ND...................................... 6.2 107.3 3.5 25 837 1.1 122

Butler, OH..................................... 7.5 136.4 0.4 250 848 1.8 65

Cuyahoga, OH.............................. 35.6 696.5 0.9 199 1,012 0.6 176

Delaware, OH............................... 4.4 78.5 2.3 91 1,084 0.9 141

Franklin, OH................................. 29.7 674.8 1.9 125 985 1.2 115

Hamilton, OH................................ 23.1 485.2 0.1 273 1,109 1.6 78

Lake, OH...................................... 6.3 91.6 -0.3 295 825 3.4 16

Lorain, OH.................................... 6.1 92.4 -1.0 317 794 -0.4 259

Lucas, OH.................................... 10.1 198.3 -0.3 295 852 1.1 122

Mahoning, OH.............................. 5.9 96.1 0.4 250 671 0.1 216

Montgomery, OH.......................... 12.0 239.7 -0.5 305 836 0.8 154

Stark, OH..................................... 8.8 153.2 0.9 199 737 -0.9 296

Summit, OH................................. 14.2 251.4 -0.1 289 895 0.3 200

Warren, OH................................. 4.3 76.3 0.8 212 835 1.7 71

Oklahoma, OK.............................. 25.3 431.9 1.3 172 935 1.7 71

Tulsa, OK..................................... 20.9 334.7 1.4 164 932 2.5 36

Clackamas, OR............................ 13.1 141.0 2.9 51 849 0.6 176

Jackson, OR................................ 6.7 76.5 3.3 32 696 1.5 90

Lane, OR...................................... 11.0 137.1 1.3 172 717 1.1 122

Marion, OR................................... 9.6 130.8 2.3 91 739 1.5 90

Multnomah, OR............................ 30.7 445.6 2.0 117 986 0.8 154

Washington, OR........................... 17.1 250.5 1.8 133 1,161 -3.5 331

Allegheny, PA............................... 35.0 678.0 0.5 243 1,080 1.9 57

Berks, PA..................................... 8.9 163.5 0.6 232 835 0.2 210

Bucks, PA..................................... 19.5 245.2 0.0 283 906 1.3 108

Butler, PA..................................... 4.9 83.2 -0.7 311 894 2.3 42

Chester, PA.................................. 15.2 236.6 0.5 243 1,240 -1.4 308

Cumberland, PA........................... 6.0 123.3 1.1 186 894 2.1 47

Dauphin, PA................................ 7.3 175.0 0.2 269 989 2.6 31

Delaware, PA............................... 13.8 209.0 0.7 225 1,057 -1.2 304

Erie, PA........................................ 7.1 122.1 -1.3 323 758 1.6 78

Lackawanna, PA.......................... 5.8 96.3 0.1 273 721 0.3 200

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Lancaster, PA............................... 12.8 217.5 0.4 250 $787 1.7 71

Lehigh, PA.................................... 8.6 175.3 0.7 225 944 -0.4 259

Luzerne, PA.................................. 7.6 137.4 -0.4 299 746 0.5 179

Montgomery, PA........................... 27.1 464.6 0.4 250 1,290 -0.5 269

Northampton, PA.......................... 6.6 103.1 0.9 199 844 1.6 78

Philadelphia, PA........................... 34.9 634.0 0.7 225 1,158 0.8 154

Washington, PA............................ 5.4 84.3 0.1 273 991 0.3 200

Westmoreland, PA....................... 9.3 130.4 -1.0 317 760 0.1 216

York, PA....................................... 8.9 168.9 -0.7 311 838 1.3 108

Providence, RI.............................. 17.4 266.9 0.3 260 999 2.7 28

Charleston, SC............................. 12.2 215.3 1.9 125 839 1.0 133

Greenville, SC.............................. 12.4 234.7 2.1 107 834 0.5 179

Horry, SC..................................... 7.7 107.1 2.1 107 564 0.9 141

Lexington, SC............................... 5.8 100.6 2.7 63 715 2.6 31

Richland, SC................................ 9.0 205.5 0.8 212 835 1.5 90

Spartanburg, SC........................... 5.8 118.5 2.1 107 794 -0.3 254

York, SC....................................... 4.7 75.9 1.3 172 762 0.1 216

Minnehaha, SD............................. 6.6 116.0 2.3 91 809 1.3 108

Davidson, TN................................ 18.7 435.7 2.4 86 1,008 -0.3 254

Hamilton, TN................................ 8.6 185.3 1.0 193 838 -0.8 290

Knox, TN...................................... 11.0 218.4 0.3 260 831 3.6 12

Rutherford, TN.............................. 4.6 106.7 5.3 6 815 -0.2 249

Shelby, TN.................................... 19.3 471.0 1.1 186 979 0.1 216

Williamson, TN............................. 6.6 100.7 3.8 15 1,201 4.6 8

Bell, TX......................................... 4.9 109.2 1.2 178 788 1.9 57

Bexar, TX..................................... 35.8 764.9 2.9 51 891 0.7 168

Brazoria, TX................................. 5.1 94.7 2.8 57 966 3.2 18

Brazos, TX.................................... 4.0 91.3 4.7 9 696 -0.1 243

Cameron, TX................................ 6.3 131.0 0.6 232 573 1.1 122

Collin, TX...................................... 19.9 320.4 3.7 19 1,173 -2.9 327

Dallas, TX..................................... 69.7 1,473.4 2.9 51 1,215 0.4 192

Denton, TX.................................. 11.9 190.8 3.5 25 868 2.7 28

El Paso, TX.................................. 14.2 280.1 1.5 156 664 -0.4 259

Fort Bend, TX............................... 10.2 153.7 7.0 1 1,029 0.1 216

Galveston, TX............................... 5.6 98.0 2.7 63 882 2.1 47

Gregg, TX..................................... 4.2 78.0 1.6 150 845 -1.9 318

Harris, TX..................................... 104.9 2,163.6 3.7 19 1,333 -0.4 259

Hidalgo, TX................................... 11.6 234.6 1.9 125 580 0.0 233

Jefferson, TX................................ 5.8 119.3 -1.9 331 979 -0.5 269

Lubbock, TX................................. 7.1 127.4 2.6 74 714 2.1 47

McLennan, TX.............................. 4.9 101.6 1.2 178 767 0.3 200

Midland, TX.................................. 5.1 82.9 6.9 2 1,207 0.5 179

Montgomery, TX........................... 9.5 146.8 5.0 8 998 1.0 133

Nueces, TX.................................. 8.0 160.2 3.2 36 835 2.0 54

Potter, TX..................................... 3.9 76.9 1.5 156 755 0.4 192

Smith, TX..................................... 5.8 94.3 1.6 150 763 0.1 216

Tarrant, TX................................... 39.1 795.6 2.4 86 960 0.7 168

Travis, TX..................................... 33.1 625.3 4.1 13 1,058 -0.4 259

Webb, TX..................................... 5.0 91.9 1.5 156 632 1.0 133

Williamson, TX............................. 8.2 136.7 3.3 32 1,053 -13.4 334

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT..................................... 7.4 107.2 2.2 101 $769 0.7 168

Salt Lake, UT................................ 38.1 598.8 3.6 24 916 0.5 179

Utah, UT....................................... 13.1 181.3 5.5 5 729 0.8 154

Weber, UT.................................... 5.4 92.8 2.6 74 687 0.1 216

Chittenden, VT............................. 6.2 96.3 0.1 273 930 1.6 78

Arlington, VA................................ 8.8 164.7 -1.6 327 1,621 -0.3 254

Chesterfield, VA........................... 8.0 119.1 2.6 74 860 1.4 99

Fairfax, VA.................................... 35.5 586.2 0.9 199 1,565 0.4 192

Henrico, VA.................................. 10.4 178.9 1.6 150 1,039 1.0 133

Loudoun, VA................................ 10.3 143.7 2.9 51 1,198 2.4 39

Prince William, VA........................ 8.2 115.1 2.9 51 831 -0.4 259

Alexandria City, VA...................... 6.4 95.4 1.4 164 1,296 0.7 168

Chesapeake City, VA................... 5.8 94.7 0.4 250 764 1.9 57

Newport News City, VA................ 3.7 96.6 0.9 199 962 3.6 12

Norfolk City, VA........................... 5.7 135.8 -1.1 320 936 1.5 90

Richmond City, VA....................... 7.1 146.8 -0.5 305 1,111 -0.7 283

Virginia Beach City, VA................ 11.4 165.8 1.7 142 755 0.3 200

Benton, WA.................................. 5.9 77.4 -1.2 322 948 -0.7 283

Clark, WA..................................... 14.1 131.0 2.7 63 867 1.9 57

King, WA...................................... 84.1 1,175.0 3.1 41 1,288 1.6 78

Kitsap, WA.................................... 6.8 79.3 0.1 273 876 0.9 141

Pierce, WA................................... 22.3 264.9 1.4 164 864 2.7 28

Snohomish, WA............................ 19.9 260.2 2.8 57 1,085 1.7 71

Spokane, WA............................... 16.3 199.6 2.0 117 814 0.9 141

Thurston, WA............................... 7.8 98.6 1.8 133 846 2.3 42

Whatcom, WA.............................. 7.1 81.0 0.4 250 802 1.1 122

Yakima, WA................................. 9.1 96.0 1.9 125 641 1.9 57

Kanawha, WV............................... 6.0 103.9 -1.1 320 821 -1.6 311

Brown, WI..................................... 6.5 144.7 0.6 232 838 -0.2 249

Dane, WI...................................... 14.2 303.7 1.1 186 938 -0.3 254

Milwaukee, WI.............................. 23.7 469.8 0.6 232 975 0.0 233

Outagamie, WI............................. 5.0 100.8 1.5 156 805 2.0 54

Waukesha, WI.............................. 12.5 224.5 1.1 186 971 1.5 90

Winnebago, WI............................. 3.6 88.3 -1.0 317 909 4.6 8

San Juan, PR............................... 11.2 260.7 -1.0 (7) 617 -0.3 (7)

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

334 U.S. counties comprise 71.6 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 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

first quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-134

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-134

United States5................................................................. 9,193.5 132,338.9 1.6 $989 0.6

 Private industry............................................................. 8,899.6 110,877.4 2.0 995 0.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 132.2 1,880.6 1.8 1,190 -0.3

 Construction............................................................... 745.2 5,476.8 3.4 979 0.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 335.3 11,908.5 0.9 1,227 0.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 1,897.2 25,080.6 1.3 819 0.9

 Information................................................................. 143.8 2,682.6 0.1 1,772 3.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 815.6 7,539.8 1.8 1,924 1.1

 Professional and business services........................... 1,622.7 18,132.5 2.9 1,288 -0.6

 Education and health services................................... 1,415.9 20,157.2 1.9 837 1.2

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 777.2 13,703.0 2.8 382 -0.3

 Other services............................................................ 794.2 4,100.7 0.6 620 1.5

 Government.................................................................. 293.9 21,461.5 -0.4 958 0.9

Los Angeles, CA.............................................................. 412.4 4,041.3 2.2 1,061 -1.8

 Private industry............................................................. 406.7 3,503.8 2.9 1,037 -2.1

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 10.3 7.5 1,615 -7.1

 Construction............................................................... 12.2 112.7 5.6 1,039 0.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 12.5 365.4 -0.3 1,219 0.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 51.7 761.6 1.8 851 0.2

 Information................................................................. 8.4 193.9 3.7 1,922 -7.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 22.3 210.4 0.7 1,931 -3.0

 Professional and business services........................... 43.1 581.0 2.6 1,297 -2.2

 Education and health services................................... 179.3 690.5 5.2 782 -2.1

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 27.9 424.0 4.7 541 -3.4

 Other services............................................................ 25.2 138.8 -2.6 635 3.3

 Government.................................................................. 5.7 537.5 -2.3 1,216 0.4

Cook, IL........................................................................... 151.0 2,394.0 1.2 1,185 -1.0

 Private industry............................................................. 149.6 2,095.7 1.4 1,191 -1.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.1 0.7 -6.4 823 -5.0

 Construction............................................................... 12.4 56.2 -0.3 1,297 -0.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 6.6 187.1 -1.4 1,171 -0.5

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 29.7 443.3 1.9 900 -0.2

 Information................................................................. 2.7 53.7 -1.4 1,958 3.5

 Financial activities...................................................... 15.6 181.8 -0.7 2,788 -5.0

 Professional and business services........................... 32.0 420.6 2.8 1,524 -0.2

 Education and health services................................... 15.9 415.6 1.4 872 1.0

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.4 238.9 3.1 447 -2.2

 Other services............................................................ 16.5 94.1 -0.9 819 2.9

 Government.................................................................. 1.4 298.3 -0.2 1,140 0.5

New York, NY.................................................................. 124.7 2,403.9 1.7 2,448 -0.5

 Private industry............................................................. 124.4 1,965.8 2.0 2,744 -0.8

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.0 0.1 8.8 2,201 -20.4

 Construction............................................................... 2.1 32.7 7.3 1,674 1.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.3 25.5 -0.7 1,488 -8.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 20.9 251.2 1.8 1,318 -1.3

 Information................................................................. 4.4 139.5 1.1 2,939 3.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 18.9 348.1 -1.1 7,659 2.3

 Professional and business services........................... 26.0 494.3 3.0 2,444 -4.4

 Education and health services................................... 9.4 318.0 2.4 1,175 4.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.1 254.6 1.8 791 0.1

 Other services............................................................ 19.5 93.8 3.3 1,040 -0.2

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 438.1 0.2 1,119 0.5

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-134

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-134

Harris, TX........................................................................ 104.9 2,163.6 3.7 $1,333 -0.4

 Private industry............................................................. 104.4 1,906.2 4.1 1,376 -0.8

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 1.7 92.2 8.0 3,984 -5.8

 Construction............................................................... 6.5 145.9 6.3 1,258 3.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.6 193.0 4.6 1,641 -1.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 23.6 444.5 3.2 1,248 -0.9

 Information................................................................. 1.2 28.0 -4.0 1,455 2.5

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.8 114.6 2.5 1,967 2.1

 Professional and business services........................... 21.0 370.4 4.7 1,526 -1.9

 Education and health services................................... 14.4 258.8 3.2 936 1.2

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.7 197.6 4.7 410 -2.6

 Other services............................................................ 11.3 60.1 3.9 712 0.1

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 257.4 0.7 1,016 2.0

Maricopa, AZ.................................................................... 94.3 1,710.2 2.6 945 0.0

 Private industry............................................................. 93.6 1,501.1 2.9 953 0.0

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.3 3.5 1,180 -7.3

 Construction............................................................... 7.4 88.2 6.2 940 0.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.1 113.2 1.4 1,473 -3.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 20.7 335.9 0.3 871 -2.0

 Information................................................................. 1.6 31.5 2.6 1,289 2.2

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.7 148.7 5.5 1,439 4.9

 Professional and business services........................... 21.7 283.9 4.2 1,004 0.3

 Education and health services................................... 10.6 251.4 2.0 892 -0.7

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.3 188.6 3.1 433 0.7

 Other services............................................................ 6.4 47.2 0.3 620 1.8

 Government.................................................................. 0.7 209.1 0.4 889 0.6

Dallas, TX........................................................................ 69.7 1,473.4 2.9 1,215 0.4

 Private industry............................................................. 69.2 1,310.3 3.3 1,237 0.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.6 9.0 7.1 4,291 -17.9

 Construction............................................................... 3.9 70.0 5.9 1,041 3.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.7 110.0 -1.4 1,547 2.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 15.1 294.6 2.5 1,038 -1.3

 Information................................................................. 1.5 46.6 3.4 2,323 4.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 8.5 145.8 4.0 1,921 2.0

 Professional and business services........................... 15.4 286.2 4.4 1,314 -0.5

 Education and health services................................... 8.5 174.0 3.4 1,006 1.0

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.0 134.9 4.2 472 -3.3

 Other services............................................................ 6.6 38.6 1.8 714 3.0

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 163.1 -0.3 1,039 1.6

Orange, CA...................................................................... 102.8 1,433.5 2.8 1,086 -0.5

 Private industry............................................................. 101.5 1,291.0 3.2 1,064 -0.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.2 3.5 5.2 664 -11.5

 Construction............................................................... 6.0 73.7 7.2 1,120 0.4

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.8 157.1 0.2 1,357 -0.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 16.3 248.3 1.9 979 -0.1

 Information................................................................. 1.2 24.9 1.5 1,730 3.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.7 111.7 4.8 1,789 0.2

 Professional and business services........................... 19.1 262.0 3.2 1,235 0.1

 Education and health services................................... 23.3 179.4 3.6 861 -1.1

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.5 185.2 4.9 432 -2.0

 Other services............................................................ 6.1 40.1 -0.8 622 2.1

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 142.5 -0.8 1,288 -1.7

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-134

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-134

San Diego, CA................................................................ 100.4 1,297.9 2.3 $1,056 -1.7

 Private industry............................................................. 99.0 1,079.3 2.8 1,032 -1.7

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.7 10.0 -2.5 577 0.7

 Construction............................................................... 5.9 58.7 5.4 1,030 -3.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.9 94.6 0.3 1,533 -1.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 13.8 207.4 2.0 867 3.0

 Information................................................................. 1.1 24.0 -1.3 1,615 -3.2

 Financial activities...................................................... 8.5 71.0 3.2 1,542 -1.5

 Professional and business services........................... 16.5 225.3 3.5 1,433 -4.8

 Education and health services................................... 29.2 177.6 2.4 859 0.1

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.3 161.5 3.7 425 -1.2

 Other services............................................................ 6.5 44.5 1.5 556 1.1

 Government.................................................................. 1.4 218.6 -0.1 1,179 -0.8

King, WA......................................................................... 84.1 1,175.0 3.1 1,288 1.6

 Private industry............................................................. 83.6 1,017.5 3.6 1,308 1.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 2.5 -5.5 1,708 20.5

 Construction............................................................... 5.3 49.9 11.2 1,164 0.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.2 104.1 3.3 1,738 1.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.3 214.6 4.4 1,109 2.5

 Information................................................................. 1.8 80.6 0.9 2,507 -1.5

 Financial activities...................................................... 6.3 64.0 2.7 1,852 3.6

 Professional and business services........................... 14.1 193.6 4.6 1,586 2.7

 Education and health services................................... 25.1 154.8 0.9 890 1.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.4 114.3 4.2 453 1.8

 Other services............................................................ 7.8 38.8 1.8 792 3.3

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 157.5 0.2 1,162 2.1

Miami-Dade, FL............................................................... 92.2 1,016.2 2.6 912 0.9

 Private industry............................................................. 91.9 878.0 3.0 897 0.8

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 9.4 -7.2 525 10.1

 Construction............................................................... 5.2 31.7 7.8 814 -4.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.6 35.4 -1.3 872 2.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 27.2 258.4 2.2 841 0.8

 Information................................................................. 1.5 17.3 2.2 1,471 1.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.4 67.8 2.9 1,632 5.4

 Professional and business services........................... 19.3 136.5 5.1 1,066 -2.4

 Education and health services................................... 10.2 159.4 1.0 887 1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.0 124.8 5.3 514 -0.2

 Other services............................................................ 8.1 36.4 3.4 552 2.0

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 138.2 -0.1 1,012 2.3

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 2012 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.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,

first quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 3

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-13

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-13

United States4.......................................... 9,193.5 132,338.9 1.6 $989 0.6

Alabama.................................................... 117.4 1,840.4 1.0 812 0.5

Alaska........................................................ 21.8 317.9 0.5 988 1.5

Arizona...................................................... 146.8 2,494.6 2.2 891 0.6

Arkansas................................................... 86.6 1,151.1 0.0 765 2.4

California................................................... 1,315.6 15,168.9 3.0 1,116 -0.2

Colorado.................................................... 173.7 2,298.0 3.0 1,004 0.1

Connecticut............................................... 112.3 1,618.4 0.4 1,319 -0.5

Delaware................................................... 27.8 403.7 1.4 1,070 -0.2

District of Columbia................................... 35.5 717.6 1.0 1,613 0.5

Florida....................................................... 621.6 7,540.7 2.2 843 0.7

Georgia...................................................... 273.7 3,878.7 1.8 940 1.0

Hawaii........................................................ 38.6 616.3 2.4 842 1.2

Idaho......................................................... 53.2 613.4 3.0 695 0.6

Illinois........................................................ 398.1 5,601.4 0.7 1,058 -0.2

Indiana....................................................... 160.6 2,808.1 1.1 832 1.2

Iowa........................................................... 96.9 1,463.2 1.0 799 1.8

Kansas...................................................... 83.9 1,322.0 0.7 807 0.4

Kentucky.................................................... 115.1 1,765.2 0.9 791 0.8

Louisiana................................................... 127.1 1,885.8 1.0 847 1.3

Maine......................................................... 49.4 561.6 0.0 771 1.8

Maryland.................................................... 170.0 2,509.0 0.8 1,066 -0.6

Massachusetts.......................................... 222.9 3,218.5 1.0 1,236 0.7

Michigan.................................................... 239.1 3,950.7 2.1 922 0.3

Minnesota.................................................. 170.2 2,632.9 1.9 1,002 1.2

Mississippi................................................. 70.0 1,088.9 0.4 696 1.2

Missouri..................................................... 179.8 2,610.3 0.7 842 0.6

Montana.................................................... 42.9 427.4 1.9 707 0.1

Nebraska................................................... 68.7 914.9 1.0 777 1.7

Nevada...................................................... 74.2 1,144.1 2.3 844 -0.2

New Hampshire......................................... 48.9 606.0 0.7 938 1.6

New Jersey............................................... 262.7 3,780.4 1.1 1,234 0.6

New Mexico............................................... 55.8 784.7 0.6 778 -0.6

New York.................................................. 612.6 8,565.7 1.0 1,362 0.4

North Carolina........................................... 255.1 3,934.4 1.6 884 1.7

North Dakota............................................. 30.2 415.0 4.4 885 3.1

Ohio........................................................... 287.7 5,004.8 0.7 884 1.1

Oklahoma.................................................. 105.3 1,551.3 1.2 823 2.4

Oregon...................................................... 136.1 1,644.4 1.9 864 0.0

Pennsylvania............................................. 348.2 5,543.3 0.1 968 0.9

Rhode Island............................................. 35.4 445.3 0.8 954 2.4

South Carolina.......................................... 114.9 1,823.7 1.4 773 1.2

South Dakota............................................ 31.5 394.3 1.0 709 0.9

Tennessee................................................. 143.6 2,675.0 1.5 854 0.8

Texas......................................................... 602.5 10,928.5 3.0 1,015 0.3

Utah........................................................... 85.7 1,233.4 3.3 804 0.6

Vermont..................................................... 24.4 299.3 0.7 791 2.3

Virginia...................................................... 243.0 3,616.8 0.9 1,027 0.8

Washington............................................... 240.7 2,890.8 2.3 1,028 1.8

West Virginia............................................. 49.6 701.0 -0.7 767 -0.1

Wisconsin.................................................. 160.7 2,664.9 0.9 833 0.8

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,

first quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2013

(thousands)

March

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2012-13

First

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

first quarter

2012-13

Wyoming................................................... 25.5 272.2 0.1 $859 0.8

Puerto Rico............................................... 48.3 931.3 0.0 515 -1.2

Virgin Islands............................................ 3.4 39.8 -6.7 726 0.4

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

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 September 2013

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

March 2012-13 (U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
Largest Counties

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 September 2013

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

or more employees, first quarter 2012-13 (U.S. average = 0.6 percent)