Technical information: (202) 691-6567

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

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 07-0021

For release: 10:00 A.M. EST

Thursday, January 11, 2007

 Hurricane Katrina

The employment and wages reported in this news release reflect the impact of Hurricane

Katrina and ongoing labor market trends in certain counties. The effects of Hurricane Katrina,

which hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, were first apparent in the September QCEW

employment counts and the wage totals for the third quarter of 2005. This catastrophic storm

continues to affect monthly employment and quarterly wage totals in parts of Louisiana and

Mississippi in the second quarter of 2006. For more information, see the QCEW section of

the Katrina coverage on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/katrina/qcewquestions.htm.

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2006

In June 2006, Collin County, Texas, had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment

among the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Collin County, a Dallas suburb, experienced an over-the-year

employment gain of 8.2 percent, compared with national job growth of 2.0 percent. Orleans County (New

Orleans), La., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2006,

with an increase of 28.0 percent. The high average weekly wage growth rate for Orleans County reflected

the disproportionate job losses in lower-paid industries due to Hurricane Katrina. The U.S. average weekly

wage increased by 4.4 percent over the same time span.

Of the 325 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2005 annual average employment, 142

had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (2.0 percent) in June 2006,

and 167 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) The percent change in average weekly

wages was higher than the national average (4.4 percent) in 141 of the largest U.S. counties, but was below

the national average in 175 counties. (See chart 2.)

The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled under the Quarterly Census of

Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from

reports submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 8.8 million employer

reports cover 135.5 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the

nation and for the 325 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2005.

June 2006 employment and 2006 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4

of this release. Final data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the
2

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,196.7 Maricopa, Ariz. 95.8 Collin, Texas 8.2

Cook, Ill. 2,565.5 Los Angeles, Calif. 80.7 Lafayette, La. 7.0

New York, N.Y. 2,312.6 Harris, Texas 77.1 Utah, Utah 6.7

Harris, Texas 1,941.2 Clark, Nev. 51.0 Lee, Fla. 6.5

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,784.4 New York, N.Y. 49.7 Montgomery, Texas 6.5

Orange, Calif. 1,530.4 Dallas, Texas 46.9 Davis, Utah 6.2

Dallas, Texas 1,462.9 King, Wash. 41.3 Douglas, Colo. 6.0

San Diego, Calif. 1,327.9 Cook, Ill. 35.8 Clark, Nev. 5.9

King, Wash. 1,160.2 Riverside, Calif. 30.4 Lake, Fla. 5.8

Miami-Dade, Fla. 993.7 Santa Clara, Calif. 28.5 Ada, Idaho 5.8

Employment in large counties

 June 2006 employment

 (thousands)

 Growth in employment,

 June 2005-06

 (thousands)

Percent growth in employment,

 June 2005-06

United States 135,481.1 United States 2,678.8 United States 2.0

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by June 2006 employment, June 2005-06 employment

growth, and June 2005-06 percent growth in employment

fourth quarter of 2005 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for

first and second quarters of 2006 will be available later in January on the BLS Web site.

Large County Employment

In June 2006, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 135.5 million, an increase

of 2.0 percent from June 2005. The 325 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.7

percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.5 percent of total covered wages. These 325 counties

had a net job gain of 1,758,531 over the year, accounting for 65.6 percent of the overall U.S. employment

increase. Employment increased in 270 of the large counties from June 2005 to June 2006. Collin, Texas,

had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (8.2 percent). Lafayette, La., had the next

largest increase, 7.0 percent, followed by the counties of Utah, Utah (6.7 percent) and Lee, Fla., and Montgomery, Texas (6.5 percent each). (See table 1.)

Employment declined in 40 counties from June 2005 to June 2006. The largest percentage decline in

employment was in Orleans County, La. (-37.2 percent), followed by the counties of Harrison, Miss. (-14.7

percent) and Jefferson, La. (-10.2 percent). Employment losses in these three Gulf Coast counties reflected

the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Boone, Ky., had the next largest employment decline (-3.2

percent), followed by Oakland, Mich. (-2.8 percent).

The largest gains in the level of employment from June 2005 to June 2006 were recorded in the counties

of Maricopa, Ariz. (95,800), Los Angeles, Calif. (80,700), Harris, Texas (77,100), Clark, Nev. (51,000),

and New York, N.Y. (49,700). (See table A.)

The largest declines in employment levels occurred in the Katrina-affected counties of Orleans, La.

(-90,900) and Jefferson, La. (-22,200), followed by the counties of Oakland, Mich. (-20,100), Wayne,

Mich. (-13,700), and Harrison, Miss. (-13,400).
3

New York, N.Y. $1,453 Orleans, La. $194 Orleans, La. 28.0

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,386 Somerset, N.J. 113 Jefferson, La. 16.3

Arlington, Va. 1,335 New York, N.Y. 105 Harrison, Miss. 15.2

Washington, D.C. 1,300 Jefferson, La. 102 Rock Island, Ill. 10.5

Somerset, N.J. 1,242 Marin, Calif. 85 Somerset, N.J. 10.0

San Francisco, Calif. 1,231 Harrison, Miss. 85 Lafayette, La. 9.9

Suffolk, Mass. 1,228 Alexandria City, Va. 82 Oklahoma, Okla. 9.6

Fairfield, Conn. 1,221 Middlesex, N.J. 81 Calcasieu, La. 9.0

Fairfax, Va. 1,209 New Castle, Del. 77 Middlesex, N.J. 8.8

San Mateo, Calif. 1,203 Hudson, N.J. 76 Marin, Calif. 8.6

New Castle, Del. 8.6

United States $784 United States $33 United States 4.4

Average weekly wage in large counties

 Average weekly wage,

 second quarter 2006

 Percent growth in average

 weekly wage, second

 quarter 2005-06

 Growth in average weekly

 wage, second quarter 2005-06

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by second quarter 2006 average weekly wages, second

quarter 2005-06 growth in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2005-06 percent growth

in average weekly wages

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2006 was $784. Average weekly wages

were higher than the national average in 110 of the largest 325 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y.,

held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,453. Santa

Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,386, followed by Arlington, Va. ($1,335),

Washington, D.C. ($1,300), and Somerset, N.J. ($1,242). (See table B.)

There were 214 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter

of 2006. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($484), followed by

the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($494), Horry, S.C. ($527), and Webb, Texas, and Yakima, Wash. ($530

each). (See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.4 percent. Among the largest counties,

Orleans, La., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 28.0 percent from the

second quarter of 2005. Jefferson, La., was second with growth of 16.3 percent, followed by the counties

of Harrison, Miss. (15.2 percent), Rock Island, Ill. (10.5 percent), and Somerset, N.J. (10.0 percent). The

high average weekly wage growth rates for Orleans, Harrison, and Jefferson Counties were related to the

disproportionate job losses in lower-paid industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. That is, the loss

of low paid jobs due to the storm boosted average wages in those areas.

Ten counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. San Mateo, Calif., and

McLean, Ill., had the largest declines, -5.0 percent each, followed by the counties of Clayton, Ga. (-3.8

percent), Webb, Texas (-2.0 percent), and Rockingham, N.H. (-1.2 percent).
4

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Each of the 10 largest counties (based on 2005 annual average employment levels), reported increases

in employment from June 2005 to June 2006. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the fastest growth in

employment among the largest counties, with a 5.7 percent increase. Within Maricopa County, employment

rose in every industry group except two—natural resources and mining, and information. The largest gains

were in construction (11.6 percent), followed by education and health services, and leisure and hospitality

(6.0 percent each). Harris, Texas, had the next largest increase in employment, 4.1 percent, followed by

King, Wash. (3.7 percent). The smallest employment gains occurred in San Diego, Calif., and Cook County,

Ill. (1.4 percent each), followed by Orange, Calif., and Miami-Dade, Fla. (1.8 percent each). (See table 2.)

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

County, N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 7.8 percent.

Within New York County, N.Y., average weekly wages increased the most in natural resources and mining

(11.2 percent), a very small sector. Increases in financial activities (10.8 percent), however, had a larger

impact on the county’s wage growth. Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth, with a gain of 7.5 percent,

followed by Orange, Calif. (6.3 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in

Miami-Dade, Fla. (3.0 percent), Los Angeles, Calif. (3.6 percent), and Cook, Ill. (4.3 percent).

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows June 2006 employment and the 2006 second quarter average weekly wage in the largest county in each state, which is based on 2005 annual average employment levels. (This table includes

two counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that had employment levels below 75,000.) The

employment levels in these counties in June 2006 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los Angeles

County, Calif., to 42,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties

was in New York, N.Y. ($1,453), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont.

($623).

For More Information

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

Note or visit the QCEW Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW

data also may be obtained by e-mailing QCEWinfo@bls.gov or by calling (202) 691-6567.

Several BLS regional offices are issuing QCEW news releases designed for local data users. For links

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

______________________________

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2006 is scheduled to be released on

Wednesday, April 11.
Technical Note

These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative

program, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

(QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data

are derived from summaries of employment and total pay of

workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance

(UI) legislation and provided by State Workforce Agencies

(SWAs). The summaries are a result of the administration of

state unemployment insurance programs that require most

employers to pay quarterly taxes based on the employment and

wages of workers covered by UI. Data for 2006 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 326 counties presented in this release were

derived using 2005 preliminary annual averages of

employment. For 2006 data, four counties have been added to

the publication tables: Douglas, Colo., Weld, Colo., Boone,

Ky., and Butler, Pa. These counties will be included in all 2006

quarterly releases. One county, Potter, Texas, which was

published in the 2005 releases, no longer has an employment

level of 75,000 or more and will be excluded in the 2006 releases.

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

Source Count of UI administrative records Count of longitudinally-linked UI Sample survey: 400,000 establishsubmitted by 8.8 million establish- administrative records submitted by ments

ments 6.8 million private-sector employers

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

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

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

Other employment, including railroads, religious organizations, and

other non-UI-covered jobs

Publication Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

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

quarter quarter month

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

 lishes each new quarter of UI longitudinal database and directly and annually realigns (benchmarks)

 data summarizes gross job gains sample estimates to first quarter

 and losses

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

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

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

state, and national levels by NAICS supersectors and by size

detailed industry of firm

Future expansions will include data

at the county, MSA, and state level

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

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

- Periodic universe counts for - Analysis of employer dynamics indicator

benchmarking sample survey underlying economic expansions - Official time series for

estimates and contractions employment change measures

- Sample frame for BLS - An analysis of employment ex- - Input into other major economic

establishment surveys pansion and contraction by size indicators

of firm

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

Web sites

•

•

•

•

 •

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

 QCEW BED CES

•

UI levels
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 on the

previous page.) Additional information on each program can

be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table on

the previous page.

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 that are sent to the appropriate

SWA by the specific federal agency. In addition to the

quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called

the “Multiple Worksite Report,” which provides detailed

information on the location and industry of each of their

establishments. The employment and wage data included in

this release are derived from microdata summaries of nearly 9

million employer reports of employment and wages submitted

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

employment rather than place of residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable

from state to state. In 2005, UI and UCFE programs covered

workers in 131.6 million jobs. The estimated 126.7 million

workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)

represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $5.352 trillion in pay,

representing 94.5 percent of the wage and salary component of

personal income and 43.0 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 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 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 over-the-year changes. Percent

changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final

2005 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. The adjusted data do not 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

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features

comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all

states. The 2005 edition of this bulletin contains selected data

produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job

gains and losses, as well as selected data from the fourth

quarter 2005 version of this news release. This edition will also

be the first to include the data on a CD for enhanced access

and usability. As a result of this change, the printed booklet

will contain only selected graphic representations of QCEW

data; the data tables themselves will be published exclusively

in electronic formats as PDF and fixed-width text files.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2005 will be

available for sale in late 2006 from the United States

Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents,

P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone 866-512-1800,

outside of Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the

telephone number is 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512-

2104. Also, the 2005 bulletin will be available in a portable

document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://

www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn05.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 326 largest counties,

second quarter 20062

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,774.8 135,481.1 2.0 - $784 4.4 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.6 375.9 1.4 184 782 2.4 262

Madison, AL ....................... 8.3 173.2 2.7 96 828 4.2 157

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 171.8 2.6 104 668 7.7 23

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.6 139.2 2.6 104 695 7.9 19

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 84.2 3.5 57 679 4.5 133

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.0 150.7 4.4 35 839 3.3 217

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 91.2 1,784.4 5.7 11 794 4.5 133

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.6 360.7 4.3 37 700 2.5 261

Benton, AR ........................ 5.2 94.7 5.0 20 721 3.1 231

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.1 249.9 2.0 143 707 2.8 248

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 94.9 4.5 32 645 4.2 157

Alameda, CA ...................... 48.8 691.8 1.4 184 1,044 5.7 60

Contra Costa, CA ............... 27.9 352.8 1.9 151 993 4.1 165

Fresno, CA ......................... 28.7 359.6 3.3 67 632 5.0 94

Kern, CA ............................ 17.0 281.8 4.2 39 679 5.9 53

Los Angeles, CA ................ 387.2 4,196.7 2.0 143 882 3.6 198

Marin, CA ........................... 11.7 110.9 1.7 163 1,074 8.6 10

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.1 181.7 -1.3 309 703 4.1 165

Orange, CA ........................ 95.5 1,530.4 1.8 156 916 6.3 44

Placer, CA .......................... 10.4 139.2 2.4 113 772 3.6 198

Riverside, CA ..................... 42.5 644.7 5.0 20 691 5.5 69

Sacramento, CA ................ 49.5 644.6 2.7 96 864 6.0 49

San Bernardino, CA ........... 45.0 659.1 2.8 92 704 4.5 133

San Diego, CA ................... 91.6 1,327.9 1.4 184 850 4.7 117

San Francisco, CA ............. 43.9 541.2 3.5 57 1,231 5.7 60

San Joaquin, CA ................ 16.7 230.2 2.5 110 690 6.0 49

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.0 108.6 3.3 67 644 3.7 195

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.1 337.4 2.1 138 1,203 -5.0 321

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.5 191.9 0.6 234 752 4.2 157

Santa Clara, CA ................. 55.2 887.6 3.3 67 1,386 5.4 74

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.6 103.8 1.7 163 738 3.9 182

Solano, CA ......................... 9.8 133.5 1.9 151 751 4.0 175

Sonoma, CA ...................... 17.6 197.5 2.3 124 781 5.0 94

Stanislaus, CA ................... 13.7 177.4 -0.3 284 670 4.4 142

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.8 153.4 2.7 96 562 6.4 43

Ventura, CA ....................... 21.7 324.1 2.4 113 840 3.2 224

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.3 101.1 1.0 204 731 2.7 253

Adams, CO ........................ 9.3 156.0 4.1 41 730 3.8 189

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.6 279.9 1.5 180 938 5.0 94

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.5 158.6 2.2 130 951 5.8 56

Denver, CO ........................ 25.2 435.4 2.4 113 940 1.7 285

Douglas, CO ...................... 8.8 90.3 6.0 7 777 2.6 257

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.3 250.8 3.3 67 724 3.3 217

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.7 210.8 0.6 234 784 1.8 279

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.0 130.7 1.7 163 686 3.0 237

Weld, CO ........................... 5.9 81.7 4.5 32 649 2.0 276

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.5 425.5 1.5 180 1,221 4.5 133

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.9 503.8 (7) - 969 (7) - 

New Haven, CT ................. 22.3 375.0 (7) - 837 (7) - 

New London, CT ................ 6.8 130.5 -0.3 284 801 -0.2 313

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

second quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 19.5 285.0 1.4 184 $968 8.6 10

Washington, DC ................. 31.2 677.9 0.4 246 1,300 5.3 81

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.4 122.2 2.4 113 642 0.6 303

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.5 209.6 2.1 138 765 4.7 117

Broward, FL ....................... 63.1 753.4 2.9 85 763 3.2 224

Collier, FL .......................... 12.3 128.5 5.5 13 757 6.2 45

Duval, FL ........................... 25.4 461.7 3.4 63 773 5.2 84

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.8 128.3 2.0 143 639 5.1 88

Hillsborough, FL ................. 35.7 633.5 2.1 138 754 6.2 45

Lake, FL ............................. 6.8 80.9 5.8 9 615 7.9 19

Lee, FL ............................... 18.5 220.3 6.5 4 704 4.6 126

Leon, FL ............................. 7.9 144.8 1.0 204 679 5.1 88

Manatee, FL ....................... 8.8 126.3 5.5 13 650 5.2 84

Marion, FL .......................... 7.9 102.8 5.1 19 601 5.6 65

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 84.1 993.7 1.8 156 786 3.0 237

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 84.3 (7) - 660 4.6 126

Orange, FL ......................... 34.3 671.8 3.8 49 747 6.6 41

Palm Beach, FL ................. 48.8 557.7 3.2 76 793 6.0 49

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.3 94.7 5.3 15 607 4.8 107

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.0 448.6 2.6 104 687 3.5 203

Polk, FL .............................. 12.3 204.1 3.0 82 633 4.1 165

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.8 157.3 4.9 23 704 5.1 88

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.4 176.3 4.2 39 720 5.9 53

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.8 164.3 3.3 67 593 3.3 217

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.8 85.5 -1.9 311 639 0.9 300

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.4 136.1 3.0 82 670 5.8 56

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 108.8 (7) - 718 -3.8 320

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.0 311.7 4.8 25 849 3.0 237

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.3 286.9 2.3 124 846 3.2 224

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.6 775.0 2.0 143 1,006 3.4 212

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 22.6 323.2 3.3 67 805 1.8 279

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.9 99.6 1.8 156 606 0.3 307

Richmond, GA ................... 4.9 105.3 -0.3 284 658 3.9 182

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.2 452.3 2.3 124 726 3.7 195

Ada, ID ............................... 14.6 210.6 5.8 9 744 7.4 27

Champaign, IL ................... 4.0 91.0 0.4 246 652 1.6 288

Cook, IL ............................. 134.0 2,565.5 1.4 184 942 4.3 148

Du Page, IL ........................ 34.4 603.7 1.4 184 913 3.6 198

Kane, IL ............................. 12.0 212.6 1.8 156 727 4.5 133

Lake, IL .............................. 20.1 339.1 1.9 151 944 4.8 107

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.1 104.4 3.1 78 696 4.0 175

McLean, IL ......................... 3.5 85.2 1.4 184 760 -5.0 321

Madison, IL ........................ 5.8 95.8 0.5 240 654 3.0 237

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 104.2 2.7 96 741 4.1 165

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.4 79.9 0.5 240 779 10.5 4

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.3 94.8 0.3 253 642 5.1 88

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 133.0 0.0 271 766 4.4 142

Will, IL ................................ 12.4 183.9 5.6 12 723 3.0 237

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 137.9 0.2 260 666 1.2 294

Allen, IN ............................. 8.8 182.7 2.6 104 684 2.4 262

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

second quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 131.1 3.8 49 $698 2.6 257

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.0 102.0 4.0 44 758 2.6 257

Lake, IN ............................. 10.0 195.1 0.7 226 689 0.0 311

Marion, IN .......................... 23.5 582.7 0.8 217 819 4.7 117

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 124.5 -1.1 305 677 3.5 203

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.7 108.5 0.7 226 658 3.9 182

Linn, IA ............................... 6.2 122.4 2.8 92 736 3.1 231

Polk, IA .............................. 14.3 274.0 2.9 85 780 5.8 56

Scott, IA ............................. 5.1 91.0 1.1 200 630 0.6 303

Johnson, KS ...................... 19.8 306.1 0.2 260 812 4.8 107

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.1 249.9 2.7 96 733 4.3 148

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 93.7 -0.9 302 696 5.1 88

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 79.4 3.8 49 787 5.4 74

Boone, KY .......................... 3.3 74.3 -3.2 314 743 1.6 288

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.0 171.4 0.1 266 723 4.8 107

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.1 434.9 1.8 156 778 4.1 165

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 126.9 2.9 85 663 3.9 182

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 85.4 -1.1 305 657 9.0 8

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.7 262.1 4.8 25 699 8.5 12

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.5 194.6 -10.2 315 727 16.3 2

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.2 130.4 7.0 2 724 9.9 6

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.9 153.3 -37.2 317 887 28.0 1

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.0 175.5 1.6 171 708 3.5 203

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.2 228.4 3.1 78 829 4.7 117

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.6 379.8 0.8 217 811 5.6 65

Frederick, MD .................... 5.9 94.0 1.0 204 752 5.3 81

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 84.1 3.3 67 711 1.1 296

Howard, MD ....................... 8.4 145.9 2.6 104 904 4.1 165

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.7 471.2 1.7 163 1,037 4.6 126

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 315.5 0.7 226 854 3.4 212

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.1 350.5 -0.4 289 914 4.9 101

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 100.6 -0.7 297 683 4.3 148

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.5 223.8 -0.4 289 730 6.1 47

Essex, MA .......................... 20.5 303.1 1.0 204 842 4.2 157

Hampden, MA .................... 14.1 202.1 0.0 271 722 4.8 107

Middlesex, MA ................... 46.9 812.0 1.6 171 1,110 4.5 133

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.4 326.1 0.8 217 974 8.2 16

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.7 182.1 0.4 246 777 4.9 101

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.5 575.4 1.6 171 1,228 4.9 101

Worcester, MA ................... 20.3 325.4 1.0 204 815 4.9 101

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.2 148.3 -0.7 297 733 4.0 175

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.0 163.3 2.4 113 766 4.2 157

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 116.7 -0.7 297 712 4.1 165

Kent, MI ............................. 14.4 344.6 0.5 240 723 2.3 266

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.1 331.3 -1.9 311 824 -0.7 316

Oakland, MI ....................... 40.0 709.8 -2.8 313 924 1.1 296

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.8 114.0 -0.6 296 681 1.8 279

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.5 88.9 (7) - 714 5.9 53

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 192.4 -1.0 304 880 2.8 248

Wayne, MI .......................... 33.3 781.6 -1.7 310 904 0.9 300

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

second quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 8.3 117.5 2.0 143 $808 4.1 165

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.9 178.2 3.3 67 790 4.2 157

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.9 850.5 2.0 143 978 4.0 175

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.7 92.0 2.1 138 811 3.2 224

Ramsey, MN ...................... 16.1 335.6 2.2 130 878 3.3 217

St. Louis, MN ..................... 6.1 97.4 1.2 195 667 8.1 17

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.6 80.1 1.8 156 618 2.3 266

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.3 78.0 -14.7 316 646 15.2 3

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 128.5 0.9 213 691 5.5 69

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 82.5 2.0 143 623 1.6 288

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 90.1 0.9 213 744 7.1 30

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 153.8 2.7 96 608 2.7 253

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.6 369.6 0.7 226 802 3.5 203

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.8 123.2 2.9 85 691 1.8 279

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.7 631.6 1.0 204 859 5.3 81

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.0 223.1 -0.2 282 853 -0.4 314

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.3 315.8 1.0 204 749 8.4 14

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.9 155.9 0.8 217 636 4.6 126

Clark, NV ........................... 45.0 919.3 5.9 8 750 0.1 308

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.8 220.4 3.9 48 736 2.1 274

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.5 197.6 0.0 271 847 1.3 293

Rockingham, NH ................ 11.0 142.0 1.9 151 769 -1.2 318

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.9 154.8 1.3 192 711 1.7 285

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.5 454.3 0.4 246 983 3.6 198

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.5 206.8 0.5 240 844 4.7 117

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.6 215.8 1.6 171 822 5.2 84

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.5 362.4 0.3 253 1,008 4.3 148

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.4 107.7 2.8 92 743 6.0 49

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 236.3 -0.4 289 1,063 7.7 23

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 232.5 1.6 171 1,005 7.4 27

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.1 402.6 0.3 253 1,004 8.8 9

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.6 266.1 0.6 234 845 4.3 148

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.1 294.0 0.8 217 1,118 1.4 292

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.0 158.8 1.5 180 684 4.0 175

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.6 180.7 0.0 271 849 1.0 298

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.2 176.8 1.7 163 1,242 10.0 5

Union, NJ ........................... 15.0 232.8 -0.1 278 996 5.5 69

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.0 332.7 3.5 57 704 2.8 248

Albany, NY ......................... 9.8 229.4 0.0 271 815 4.6 126

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.8 224.4 0.8 217 760 3.5 203

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 95.6 -0.5 292 629 1.0 298

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 119.5 -0.1 278 798 1.8 279

Erie, NY ............................. 23.4 458.7 0.0 271 692 3.3 217

Kings, NY ........................... 43.7 464.1 1.6 171 691 3.1 231

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.7 386.1 -0.5 292 788 0.6 303

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.1 607.3 0.2 260 886 2.7 253

New York, NY .................... 115.7 2,312.6 2.2 130 1,453 7.8 22

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 112.5 1.2 195 614 3.2 224

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.7 253.1 0.1 266 738 4.5 133

Orange, NY ........................ 9.8 131.2 0.2 260 698 2.6 257

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

second quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Queens, NY ....................... 41.6 488.1 1.2 195 $792 5.0 94

Richmond, NY .................... 8.4 91.8 0.2 260 708 2.0 276

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.6 115.7 0.8 217 846 2.3 266

Suffolk, NY ......................... 49.4 630.7 0.7 226 848 4.2 157

Westchester, NY ................ 36.2 420.7 0.4 246 1,058 5.5 69

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.3 112.2 3.6 55 620 3.2 224

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 88.1 2.8 92 621 4.7 117

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.8 118.1 2.2 130 603 4.9 101

Durham, NC ....................... 6.4 175.7 4.5 32 1,002 1.8 279

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.6 182.2 2.4 113 723 2.7 253

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.0 275.2 1.0 204 712 4.4 142

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 28.7 536.8 3.5 57 913 4.0 175

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.0 100.0 4.8 25 633 3.8 189

Wake, NC .......................... 25.1 426.5 5.0 20 776 3.1 231

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 95.6 3.5 57 642 4.7 117

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 145.1 2.3 124 688 0.0 311

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.1 761.4 -0.1 278 824 5.8 56

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.2 685.9 0.9 213 775 2.1 274

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.1 532.0 0.0 271 838 3.7 195

Lake, OH ............................ 6.9 103.0 0.3 253 663 4.7 117

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 102.8 -0.5 292 692 6.8 38

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.9 227.0 -0.5 292 694 0.6 303

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.4 105.5 0.4 246 579 3.8 189

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.0 278.3 -0.7 297 732 1.9 278

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 163.6 -0.9 302 629 5.4 74

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 275.4 1.7 163 721 -0.4 314

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.8 85.7 (7) - 689 3.3 217

Oklahoma, OK ................... 22.8 421.8 2.1 138 708 9.6 7

Tulsa, OK ........................... 18.9 343.3 3.5 57 722 7.1 30

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.3 149.5 2.7 96 735 3.1 231

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.7 84.4 1.7 163 609 4.6 126

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 150.9 2.7 96 626 3.0 237

Marion, OR ........................ 9.1 141.8 1.4 184 627 4.0 175

Multnomah, OR .................. 26.7 442.0 3.4 63 799 3.5 203

Washington, OR ................ 15.6 249.1 4.0 44 866 1.2 294

Allegheny, PA .................... 34.9 692.5 0.8 217 829 4.4 142

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 169.7 2.2 130 711 2.9 245

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.8 268.4 1.3 192 773 3.5 203

Butler, PA ........................... 4.7 77.9 1.1 200 663 5.4 74

Chester, PA ....................... 14.7 238.0 1.8 156 1,030 5.0 94

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.9 126.8 0.7 226 736 3.8 189

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.2 185.0 2.2 130 767 3.6 198

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.5 209.8 0.1 266 829 4.3 148

Erie, PA .............................. 7.2 129.7 -1.1 305 618 2.3 266

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.7 101.3 0.5 240 608 2.4 262

Lancaster, PA .................... 11.9 231.6 0.6 234 672 1.5 291

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.3 178.0 1.6 171 771 3.1 231

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 144.5 -0.1 278 611 0.8 302

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.3 490.4 0.7 226 975 4.8 107

Northampton, PA ............... 6.3 98.7 1.0 204 698 2.9 245

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

second quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Philadelphia, PA ................ 29.0 632.6 0.5 240 $903 4.4 142

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 79.8 2.0 143 673 3.2 224

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.4 140.0 -1.2 308 649 8.3 15

York, PA ............................. 8.8 174.5 1.5 180 707 5.1 88

Kent, RI .............................. 5.6 83.9 0.3 253 714 3.9 182

Providence, RI ................... 18.1 288.9 0.3 253 779 5.7 60

Charleston, SC .................. 13.0 202.1 0.8 217 677 7.1 30

Greenville, SC .................... 13.0 229.7 1.6 171 698 2.9 245

Horry, SC ........................... 8.9 120.5 4.7 28 527 5.6 65

Lexington, SC .................... 6.0 91.2 2.4 113 607 2.2 271

Richland, SC ...................... 10.0 204.2 0.2 260 684 5.4 74

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.6 116.0 0.1 266 693 4.1 165

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.2 114.5 2.2 130 644 3.5 203

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.1 446.8 3.4 63 808 7.9 19

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 192.7 2.2 130 690 5.0 94

Knox, TN ............................ 10.6 224.4 2.9 85 676 2.3 266

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.0 97.5 2.3 124 723 4.3 148

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.0 505.7 1.2 195 795 5.7 60

Bell, TX .............................. 4.4 96.0 2.5 110 601 3.8 189

Bexar, TX ........................... 30.9 701.5 3.6 55 696 6.6 41

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.4 82.4 5.2 16 745 3.9 182

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.7 84.1 (7) - 558 (7) - 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.3 121.8 4.6 29 484 4.8 107

Collin, TX ........................... 15.0 264.8 8.2 1 902 0.1 308

Dallas, TX .......................... 66.6 1,462.9 3.3 67 956 4.9 101

Denton, TX ......................... 9.6 155.8 (7) - 682 4.8 107

El Paso, TX ........................ 12.9 261.8 1.9 151 556 3.0 237

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.5 114.3 2.9 85 815 6.7 40

Galveston, TX .................... 5.0 94.2 4.6 29 703 4.8 107

Harris, TX ........................... 92.0 1,941.2 4.1 41 959 7.5 25

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.0 205.3 3.4 63 494 4.2 157

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 122.1 2.9 85 728 6.9 35

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.6 121.5 2.4 113 604 7.1 30

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 102.6 0.6 234 622 2.8 248

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.3 110.9 6.5 4 727 5.2 84

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 150.9 2.4 113 656 6.8 38

Smith, TX ........................... 5.1 91.8 2.5 110 681 7.1 30

Tarrant, TX ......................... 35.2 741.6 3.0 82 815 5.7 60

Travis, TX .......................... 26.2 545.4 3.1 78 880 4.5 133

Webb, TX ........................... 4.6 84.5 4.6 29 530 -2.0 319

Williamson, TX ................... 6.2 106.9 4.4 35 765 0.1 308

Davis, UT ........................... 7.1 103.6 6.2 6 648 8.0 18

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 38.6 567.2 5.2 16 720 4.5 133

Utah, UT ............................ 12.7 167.0 6.7 3 600 5.4 74

Weber, UT ......................... 5.8 92.4 3.7 52 602 6.9 35

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.7 95.7 -0.3 284 769 3.9 182

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.4 160.3 2.3 124 1,335 5.5 69

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.1 121.2 3.7 52 702 3.4 212

Fairfax, VA ......................... 31.7 582.2 2.4 113 1,209 2.8 248

Henrico, VA ........................ 8.8 175.8 1.1 200 830 3.4 212

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

second quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Loudoun, VA ...................... 7.6 127.5 2.4 113 $994 5.0 94

Prince William, VA ............. 6.6 107.3 4.3 37 714 5.6 65

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.9 94.9 0.3 253 1,046 8.5 12

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.3 100.9 4.9 23 634 4.6 126

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 99.3 0.9 213 713 3.5 203

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 144.5 -0.7 297 775 6.9 35

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 163.1 1.6 171 881 4.1 165

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.3 184.0 2.6 104 632 7.3 29

Clark, WA ........................... 11.1 131.6 4.1 41 716 3.8 189

King, WA ............................ 74.7 1,160.2 3.7 52 988 6.1 47

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.3 85.8 3.1 78 732 7.5 25

Pierce, WA ......................... 19.6 267.6 3.2 76 707 4.7 117

Snohomish, WA ................. 16.7 235.7 5.2 16 817 5.4 74

Spokane, WA ..................... 14.5 207.5 4.0 44 637 3.4 212

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.4 98.1 4.0 44 704 2.2 271

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.6 81.3 1.2 195 606 2.2 271

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.5 108.5 0.4 246 530 4.3 148

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 109.5 0.7 226 694 3.0 237

Brown, WI .......................... 6.8 150.5 0.6 234 674 -0.7 316

Dane, WI ............................ 14.0 301.2 1.1 200 751 3.3 217

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.6 496.2 0.1 266 788 4.8 107

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 104.1 -0.2 282 677 2.4 262

Racine, WI ......................... 4.3 77.7 -0.3 284 731 4.3 148

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.4 238.8 1.3 192 791 4.4 142

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.9 90.4 1.7 163 733 1.7 285

San Juan, PR ..................... 14.7 304.2 -2.7 (8) 510 3.9 (8) 

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

These 325 U.S. counties comprise 65.6 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 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. 8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

second quarter 20062

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-063

United States5 .................................................... 8,774.8 135,481.1 2.0 $784 4.4

Private industry .............................................. 8,496.4 114,201.0 2.2 774 4.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 123.8 1,904.1 2.7 790 13.3

Construction ............................................... 875.1 7,870.8 5.5 820 5.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 364.2 14,256.1 -0.1 952 4.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,895.9 26,042.5 1.5 682 4.0

Information ................................................. 144.2 3,065.0 -0.1 1,188 4.7

Financial activities ...................................... 846.1 8,219.2 1.9 1,141 5.4

Professional and business services ........... 1,425.8 17,646.2 4.2 944 4.4

Education and health services ................... 794.6 16,871.9 2.7 735 4.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 708.1 13,570.7 2.0 330 4.8

Other services ............................................ 1,109.9 4,446.1 1.2 509 4.3

Government ................................................... 278.3 21,280.1 1.0 836 3.3

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 387.2 4,196.7 2.0 882 3.6

Private industry .............................................. 383.3 3,607.8 2.3 864 4.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 12.0 4.8 1,317 20.6

Construction ............................................... 14.1 158.4 6.1 876 3.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 15.9 468.3 -1.0 938 5.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 55.8 804.7 1.8 749 4.3

Information ................................................. 8.9 210.4 4.6 1,433 -2.9

Financial activities ...................................... 25.1 249.3 1.9 1,368 5.6

Professional and business services ........... 43.2 600.9 (6) 1,007 6.3

Education and health services ................... 28.2 463.3 2.0 810 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.1 394.2 2.4 491 4.9

Other services ............................................ 164.3 246.0 4.0 410 2.8

Government ................................................... 3.9 588.9 0.1 993 0.5

Cook, IL .............................................................. 134.0 2,565.5 1.4 942 4.3

Private industry .............................................. 132.8 2,246.9 1.6 936 4.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.5 -2.4 998 7.3

Construction ............................................... 11.7 100.6 5.3 1,147 6.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.3 246.7 -2.2 960 4.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.4 480.5 0.7 771 4.6

Information ................................................. 2.5 59.5 -2.5 1,308 6.9

Financial activities ...................................... 15.0 220.8 1.1 1,477 7.4

Professional and business services ........... 27.5 436.6 3.7 1,186 2.0

Education and health services ................... 13.2 360.2 1.9 799 4.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.3 240.1 3.3 416 8.9

Other services ............................................ 13.4 96.5 0.0 676 6.0

Government ................................................... 1.2 318.7 0.0 983 0.8

New York, NY ..................................................... 115.7 2,312.6 2.2 1,453 7.8

Private industry .............................................. 115.5 1,860.5 2.8 1,557 7.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 4.2 1,272 11.2

Construction ............................................... 2.2 31.6 7.1 1,386 7.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 39.8 -6.2 1,066 -0.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.3 241.4 1.5 1,100 6.6

Information ................................................. 4.2 132.1 1.4 1,826 6.8

Financial activities ...................................... 17.6 369.5 3.2 2,810 10.8

Professional and business services ........... 23.1 466.0 3.2 1,660 4.5

Education and health services ................... 8.1 279.5 2.1 956 6.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.5 201.2 2.5 711 6.6

Other services ............................................ 16.7 85.2 -0.1 876 7.4

Government ................................................... 0.2 452.1 -0.3 1,028 9.4

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

second quarter 20062 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-063

Harris, TX ........................................................... 92.0 1,941.2 4.1 $959 7.5

Private industry .............................................. 91.6 1,695.4 4.6 976 7.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.4 71.2 8.7 2,680 17.2

Construction ............................................... 6.3 141.6 8.7 912 7.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 176.3 5.4 1,189 4.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 406.2 3.4 862 5.6

Information ................................................. 1.3 32.2 0.0 1,150 4.5

Financial activities ...................................... 10.0 116.8 1.6 1,180 7.2

Professional and business services ........... 17.9 317.6 6.3 1,075 6.6

Education and health services ................... 9.6 201.9 3.9 806 4.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 170.6 2.3 366 9.3

Other services ............................................ 10.7 57.1 1.6 553 4.3

Government ................................................... 0.4 245.8 0.9 843 6.3

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 91.2 1,784.4 5.7 794 4.5

Private industry .............................................. 90.7 1,601.1 6.0 782 5.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.8 -2.7 644 18.4

Construction ............................................... 9.2 181.4 11.6 806 6.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 137.5 2.8 1,076 6.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 19.3 361.7 4.7 765 3.9

Information ................................................. 1.5 31.9 -2.7 942 3.6

Financial activities ...................................... 11.0 149.7 4.8 1,020 3.4

Professional and business services ........... 19.5 311.5 5.9 769 5.2

Education and health services ................... 8.7 185.1 6.0 829 6.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 175.9 6.0 383 9.4

Other services ............................................ 6.4 48.2 3.6 556 7.8

Government ................................................... 0.6 183.4 2.8 892 0.2

Orange, CA ........................................................ 95.5 1,530.4 1.8 916 6.3

Private industry .............................................. 94.1 1,375.7 1.7 907 6.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 6.9 0.2 549 -6.8

Construction ............................................... 7.1 109.0 5.8 945 4.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.6 183.8 0.3 1,137 11.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 18.0 270.6 0.8 845 3.8

Information ................................................. 1.4 31.4 -2.6 1,226 3.2

Financial activities ...................................... 11.4 139.5 -1.1 1,381 4.2

Professional and business services ........... 19.3 275.6 2.8 966 8.7

Education and health services ................... 9.9 136.5 3.2 811 4.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 173.4 3.2 392 5.7

Other services ............................................ 14.1 49.0 -0.1 542 4.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 154.6 2.6 995 7.7

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 66.6 1,462.9 3.3 956 4.9

Private industry .............................................. 66.1 1,304.6 3.7 966 5.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.5 4.7 2,925 39.2

Construction ............................................... 4.3 80.4 3.0 924 8.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 148.0 2.7 1,118 5.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 303.9 2.5 916 4.3

Information ................................................. 1.7 53.0 -1.4 1,271 5.0

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 140.3 3.8 1,249 5.4

Professional and business services ........... 13.9 261.4 6.5 1,039 0.8

Education and health services ................... 6.3 137.0 4.2 906 7.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.1 129.7 3.1 422 5.0

Other services ............................................ 6.5 40.5 1.0 604 6.3

Government ................................................... 0.4 158.3 0.5 874 4.0

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

second quarter 20062 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-063

San Diego, CA ................................................... 91.6 1,327.9 1.4 $850 4.7

Private industry .............................................. 90.2 1,105.9 1.7 830 4.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.6 -5.3 522 0.6

Construction ............................................... 7.3 95.9 2.9 862 3.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 105.1 -0.4 1,117 4.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 218.9 2.4 691 2.1

Information ................................................. 1.3 37.2 -1.3 1,839 19.9

Financial activities ...................................... 10.1 84.8 1.2 1,065 1.9

Professional and business services ........... 16.5 215.4 1.0 1,013 5.0

Education and health services ................... 8.0 122.9 1.1 785 4.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 157.8 3.9 376 3.3

Other services ............................................ 21.3 56.3 2.7 468 2.6

Government ................................................... 1.4 222.0 0.1 949 6.5

King, WA ............................................................ 74.7 1,160.2 3.7 988 6.1

Private industry .............................................. 74.2 1,006.5 4.3 996 6.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.4 2.8 1,172 5.7

Construction ............................................... 6.6 67.6 14.5 940 5.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 111.6 4.6 1,368 8.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 220.2 2.3 859 5.3

Information ................................................. 1.7 72.9 5.0 1,754 4.7

Financial activities ...................................... 6.8 76.8 2.3 1,232 6.9

Professional and business services ........... 12.4 180.6 7.5 1,156 8.3

Education and health services ................... 6.2 117.9 2.5 774 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.8 110.0 1.9 417 5.6

Other services ............................................ 17.1 45.5 0.1 532 6.0

Government ................................................... 0.5 153.7 0.0 939 2.1

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 84.1 993.7 1.8 786 3.0

Private industry .............................................. 83.8 860.3 2.0 763 5.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.9 4.1 459 1.1

Construction ............................................... 5.7 51.9 14.6 850 7.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 47.9 -3.2 727 7.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.9 248.7 2.8 731 5.3

Information ................................................. 1.7 21.8 -5.5 1,108 5.4

Financial activities ...................................... 10.0 71.8 4.8 1,096 4.2

Professional and business services ........... 16.8 138.8 -3.8 888 1.8

Education and health services ................... 8.5 131.1 3.4 764 5.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 99.8 -1.1 457 (6) 

Other services ............................................ 7.6 35.0 3.8 497 2.9

Government ................................................... 0.3 133.4 0.1 924 -4.8

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

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

Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, second quarter 20062

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

United States6 .......................... 8,774.8 135,481.1 2.0 $784 4.4

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.6 375.9 1.4 782 2.4

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.0 150.7 4.4 839 3.3

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 91.2 1,784.4 5.7 794 4.5

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.1 249.9 2.0 707 2.8

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 387.2 4,196.7 2.0 882 3.6

Denver, CO .............................. 25.2 435.4 2.4 940 1.7

Hartford, CT .............................. 24.9 503.8 (7) 969 (7) 

New Castle, DE ........................ 19.5 285.0 1.4 968 8.6

Washington, DC ....................... 31.2 677.9 0.4 1,300 5.3

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 84.1 993.7 1.8 786 3.0

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.6 775.0 2.0 1,006 3.4

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.2 452.3 2.3 726 3.7

Ada, ID ..................................... 14.6 210.6 5.8 744 7.4

Cook, IL .................................... 134.0 2,565.5 1.4 942 4.3

Marion, IN ................................. 23.5 582.7 0.8 819 4.7

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.3 274.0 2.9 780 5.8

Johnson, KS ............................. 19.8 306.1 0.2 812 4.8

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.1 434.9 1.8 778 4.1

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 13.7 262.1 4.8 699 8.5

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.0 175.5 1.6 708 3.5

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.7 471.2 1.7 1,037 4.6

Middlesex, MA .......................... 46.9 812.0 1.6 1,110 4.5

Wayne, MI ................................ 33.3 781.6 -1.7 904 0.9

Hennepin, MN .......................... 43.9 850.5 2.0 978 4.0

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.5 128.5 0.9 691 5.5

St. Louis, MO ............................ 33.7 631.6 1.0 859 5.3

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.5 75.6 3.7 623 3.0

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.3 315.8 1.0 749 8.4

Clark, NV .................................. 45.0 919.3 5.9 750 0.1

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.5 197.6 0.0 847 1.3

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.5 454.3 0.4 983 3.6

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.0 332.7 3.5 704 2.8

New York, NY ........................... 115.7 2,312.6 2.2 1,453 7.8

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 28.7 536.8 3.5 913 4.0

Cass, ND .................................. 5.8 95.6 3.5 642 4.7

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 38.1 761.4 -0.1 824 5.8

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 22.8 421.8 2.1 708 9.6

Multnomah, OR ........................ 26.7 442.0 3.4 799 3.5

Allegheny, PA ........................... 34.9 692.5 0.8 829 4.4

Providence, RI .......................... 18.1 288.9 0.3 779 5.7

Greenville, SC .......................... 13.0 229.7 1.6 698 2.9

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.2 114.5 2.2 644 3.5

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.0 505.7 1.2 795 5.7

Harris, TX ................................. 92.0 1,941.2 4.1 959 7.5

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 38.6 567.2 5.2 720 4.5

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.7 95.7 -0.3 769 3.9

Fairfax, VA ................................ 31.7 582.2 2.4 1,209 2.8

King, WA .................................. 74.7 1,160.2 3.7 988 6.1

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 109.5 0.7 694 3.0

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.6 496.2 0.1 788 4.8

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

state, second quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-064

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-064

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.1 42.5 3.0 $644 8.4

San Juan, PR ........................... 14.7 304.2 -2.7 510 3.9

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.2 0.9 640 2.7

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

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

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 20062

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-06

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-06

United States4 .................... 8,774.8 135,481.1 2.0 $784 4.4

Alabama ............................. 116.5 1,944.8 2.3 672 4.3

Alaska ................................ 20.8 327.2 3.8 788 4.2

Arizona ............................... 148.7 2,581.3 5.7 753 4.1

Arkansas ............................ 81.1 1,185.3 2.4 612 3.2

California ............................ 1,249.0 15,733.0 2.4 888 4.5

Colorado ............................ 174.2 2,277.7 2.8 794 3.3

Connecticut ........................ 111.5 1,700.6 1.5 971 2.8

Delaware ............................ 30.0 430.4 2.0 851 6.8

District of Columbia ............ 31.2 677.9 0.4 1,300 5.3

Florida ................................ 586.6 7,889.6 3.2 722 4.8

Georgia .............................. 263.8 4,054.1 3.2 743 3.1

Hawaii ................................ 37.4 621.8 2.5 704 4.0

Idaho .................................. 54.7 660.0 5.7 612 7.4

Illinois ................................. 347.4 5,912.4 1.7 837 4.1

Indiana ............................... 154.6 2,917.5 0.9 684 3.0

Iowa ................................... 92.5 1,502.9 1.9 639 4.1

Kansas ............................... 84.8 1,339.5 1.2 667 5.0

Kentucky ............................ 109.2 1,797.2 1.2 672 3.4

Louisiana ........................... 122.2 1,831.7 -3.9 680 10.2

Maine ................................. 49.1 616.0 0.8 632 3.8

Maryland ............................ 162.9 2,567.8 1.6 855 4.7

Massachusetts ................... 207.8 3,256.7 1.1 963 5.1

Michigan ............................ 256.7 4,320.8 -1.0 783 1.8

Minnesota .......................... 173.0 2,731.9 2.3 789 4.0

Mississippi ......................... 68.6 1,127.4 0.9 587 5.6

Missouri ............................. 171.7 2,743.6 1.6 703 3.7

Montana ............................. 41.2 442.8 4.3 575 4.0

Nebraska ........................... 57.4 915.6 1.1 632 5.7

Nevada .............................. 70.7 1,284.6 5.2 748 1.4

New Hampshire ................. 48.6 639.1 1.2 774 2.5

New Jersey ........................ 277.5 4,053.9 1.0 948 5.1

New Mexico ....................... 52.6 824.4 5.0 653 4.6

New York ........................... 570.4 8,566.2 1.0 962 5.4

North Carolina .................... 241.1 3,965.0 3.0 690 3.8

North Dakota ...................... 25.3 342.4 2.7 591 5.3

Ohio ................................... 291.5 5,396.5 0.4 716 3.3

Oklahoma .......................... 96.2 1,512.5 3.0 639 7.4

Oregon ............................... 127.9 1,732.5 3.0 710 3.3

Pennsylvania ..................... 332.2 5,675.5 1.0 766 3.9

Rhode Island ...................... 35.9 490.7 0.6 755 4.7

South Carolina ................... 125.0 1,858.5 1.5 646 4.2

South Dakota ..................... 29.6 396.1 2.3 563 4.3

Tennessee ......................... 136.1 2,749.2 2.2 703 4.9

Texas ................................. 532.8 9,965.6 3.8 781 5.8

Utah ................................... 86.4 1,182.9 5.6 655 5.3

Vermont ............................. 24.6 307.7 1.1 665 3.1

Virginia ............................... 219.6 3,697.5 2.1 822 4.4

Washington ........................ 210.9 2,911.9 3.0 799 5.1

West Virginia ...................... 48.3 714.3 1.6 636 3.9

Wisconsin .......................... 162.6 2,828.3 1.1 685 3.3

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

second quarter 20062 — Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

June

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2005-06

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2005-06

Wyoming ............................ 23.9 278.6 5.1 $685 10.3

Puerto Rico ........................ 60.0 1,039.6 -0.4 435 4.1

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.4 45.3 3.2 679 5.6

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

Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 emp

June 2005–06 (U.S. Average = 2.0%)

Note: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 2005

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

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

So

Ja
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75

or more, June 2005–06 (U.S. Average = 4.4%)

Note: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 2005

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

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

So

Ja