Technical information: (202) 691-6567

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

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 05-1976

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT

Thursday, October 20, 2005

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2005

In March 2005, Clark County, Nev., 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. Clark County experienced an over-the-year employment gain of

7.6 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.7 percent. Collier County, Fla., had the largest overthe-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2005, with an increase of 10.7 percent. The

U.S. average weekly wage increased by 2.2 percent over the same time span.

Of the 322 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2004 annual average employment, 118

had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in March 2005, and 186

experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the

national average in 130 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was

below the national average in 173 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 8.5 million employer

reports cover 129.8 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the

nation and for the 322 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2004. 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. March 2005 employment and 2005 first-quarter average weekly wages for all

states are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and

the nation through the fourth quarter of 2004 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/.

Preliminary data for the first quarter of 2005 and final data for 2004 will be available later in October on the

BLS Web site.

Five Counties Added to the 2005 County Employment and Wages News Releases

Counties with employment of 75,000 or more are included in this release. For 2005 data, five

counties have been added to the publication tables: Lake, Fla., Wyandotte, Kan., Harford, Md.,

Washington, Pa., and Whatcom, Wash. All counties published in the 2004 releases continue to

have employment levels of 75,000 or more and will be included in the 2005 releases.
2

Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by March 2005 employment, March 2004-05 employment change,

and March 2004-05 percent change in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,051.2 Maricopa, Ariz. 85.1 Clark, Nev. 7.6

Cook, Ill. 2,466.4 Clark, Nev. 59.9 Lee, Fla. 7.5

New York, N.Y. 2,221.5 Orange, Calif. 32.8 Rutherford, Tenn. 7.1

Harris, Texas 1,840.9 Harris, Texas 30.6 Seminole, Fla. 6.9

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,685.4 Riverside, Calif. 29.8 Montgomery, Texas 6.1

Orange, Calif. 1,477.6 San Bernardino, Calif. 29.2 Benton, Ark. 5.7

Dallas, Texas 1,402.1 Palm Beach, Fla. 25.0 Lake, Fla. 5.4

San Diego, Calif. 1,282.1 Broward, Fla. 24.4 Williamson, Texas 5.4

King, Wash. 1,093.0 Hillsborough, Fla. 22.3 Maricopa, Ariz. 5.3

Miami-Dade, Fla. 994.9 Fairfax, Va. 21.3 Utah, Utah 5.3

Employment in large counties

March 2005 employment

 (thousands)

 Net change in employment,

 March 2004-05

 (thousands)

Percent change in employment,

 March 2004-05

U.S. 129,802.3 U.S. 2,146.7 U.S. 1.7

Large County Employment

In March 2005, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129.8 million, up

by 1.7 percent from March 2004. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for

70.8 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 77.5 percent of total covered wages. These 322

counties had a net job gain of 1,324,000 over the year, accounting for 61.7 percent of the U.S. employment increase. Employment increased in 254 of the large counties from March 2004 to March 2005. Clark

County, Nev., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (7.6 percent). Lee, Fla., had

the next largest increase, 7.5 percent, followed by the counties of Rutherford, Tenn. (7.1 percent), Seminole,

Fla. (6.9 percent), and Montgomery, Texas (6.1 percent). (See table 1.)

Employment declined in 51 counties from March 2004 to March 2005. The largest percentage decline in

employment was in Bibb County, Ga. (-1.9 percent), followed by the counties of McLean, Ill. (-1.7 percent),

Broome, N.Y. (-1.5 percent), and Madison, Ill., and St. Louis City, Mo. (-1.4 percent each).

The largest gains in employment from March 2004 to March 2005 were recorded in the counties of

Maricopa, Ariz. (85,100), Clark, Nev. (59,900), Orange, Calif. (32,800), Harris, Texas (30,600), and

Riverside, Calif. (29,800). (See table A.)

The largest decline in employment occurred in Wayne County, Mich. (-8,300), followed by the counties

of Allegheny, Pa. (-5,400), Erie, N.Y. (-3,500), St. Louis City, Mo. (-3,100), and Milwaukee, Wis.

(-2,800).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2005 was $775. Average weekly wages were

higher than the national average in 101 of the largest 322 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the

top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,025. Fairfield

Whatcom, Wash. 5.3
3

New York, N.Y. $2,025 Fairfield, Conn. $115 Collier, Fla. 10.7

Fairfield, Conn. 1,613 New York, N.Y. 111 Cumberland, Pa. 9.3

Suffolk, Mass. 1,390 Hudson, N.J. 102 Hudson, N.J. 9.0

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,372 Henrico, Va. 69 Henrico, Va. 8.4

San Francisco, Calif. 1,368 Collier, Fla. 68 Fairfield, Conn. 7.7

Somerset, N.J. 1,343 Cumberland, Pa. 67 Rock Island, Ill. 7.7

Arlington, Va. 1,286 Mecklenburg, N.C. 57 Trumbull, Ohio 7.3

Washington, D.C. 1,277 Washington, D.C. 52 Tuscaloosa, Ala. 7.0

Hudson, N.J. 1,236 Rock Island, Ill. 52 Peoria, Ill. 6.8

San Mateo, Calif. 1,220 Harris, Texas 52 Jefferson, Texas 6.5

U.S. $775 U.S. $17 U.S. 2.2

Average weekly wage in large counties

 Average weekly wage,

 first quarter 2005

Percent change in average

 weekly wage, first

 quarter 2004-05

 Change in average weekly

 wage, first quarter 2004-05

Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by first quarter 2005 average weekly wages, first quarter

2004-05 change in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2004-05 percent change in average

weekly wages

County, Conn., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,613, followed by Suffolk, Mass. ($1,390),

Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,372), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,368). (See table B.)

There were 220 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of

2005. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($460), followed by the

counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($463), Horry, S.C. ($479), Webb, Texas ($490), and Yakima, Wash. ($516).

(See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 2.2 percent. Among the largest counties,

Collier, Fla., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 10.7 percent from the

first quarter of 2004. Cumberland, Pa., was second with 9.3 percent growth, followed by the counties of

Hudson, N.J. (9.0 percent), Henrico, Va. (8.4 percent), and Fairfield, Conn., and Rock Island, Ill. (7.7

percent each).

Thirty-five counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Clayton County, Ga.,

had the largest decrease, -6.0 percent, followed by the counties of Marin, Calif. (-5.6 percent), Hamilton,

Ind. (-4.3 percent), McLean, Ill. (-2.8 percent), and St. Louis, Minn. (-2.7 percent).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2004 annual average employment levels), 8 reported increases

in employment, while 2 showed a decline from March 2004 to March 2005. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 5.3 percent increase. Within

Maricopa County, employment rose in every industry group except information. The largest gains were in

construction (15.1 percent) and professional and business services (7.5 percent). (See table 2.) Orange

County, Calif., had the next largest increase in employment, 2.3 percent, followed by Miami-Dade, Fla.
4

(1.9 percent). The smallest employment gain occurred in New York, N.Y. (0.8 percent). Both Cook

County, Ill., and Los Angeles, Calif. experienced a 0.1 percent decrease in employment over the year.

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

County, N.Y., and Harris, Texas, had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, increasing

by 5.8 percent each. Within New York County, wages increased the most in manufacturing (25.7 percent)

and natural resources and mining (14.4 percent). Within Harris County, wages increased most in natural resources and mining (17.4 percent) and manufacturing (12.1 percent). King, Wash., and Miami-Dade, Fla.,

were second in wage growth, increasing by 2.9 percent each. The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest

counties occurred in San Diego County, Calif. (1.4 percent), and Dallas, Texas, and Maricopa, Ariz.

(1.5 percent each).

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows March 2005 employment and the 2005 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest

county in each state. (This table includes two counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that have

employment levels below 75,000.) The employment levels in these counties in March 2005 ranged from

approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest

average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($2,025), while the lowest average weekly

wage was in Yellowstone County, Mont. ($596).

Several BLS regional offices have recently begun issuing QCEW news releases

targeted to local data users. For links to these releases, see http://www.bls.gov/

cew/cewregional.htm.

Regional Quarterly Census of Employment

 and Wages News Releases
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 2005 are preliminary

and subject to revision.

For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as

having employment levels of 75,000 or greater. Each year, these

large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary

annual average of employment for the previous year. The 323

counties presented in this release were derived using 2004

preliminary annual averages of employment. All of the 318

counties that were published in the 2004 releases are included

in the 2005 releases. The following counties grew enough in

2004 to be included in the 2005 releases: Lake, Fla., Wyandotte,

Kan., Harford, Md., Washington, Pa., and Whatcom, Wash.

These counties will be included in all 2005 quarterly 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

of UI data over time and ongoing review and editing. The

individual states determine their data release timetables.

Source Count of UI administrative records Count of longitudinally-linked UI Sample survey: 400,000 establishsubmitted by 8.5 million establish- administrative records submitted by ments

ments 6.5 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 at the MSA, state, and national levwages at the county, MSA, contractions at the national level el by industry

state, and national levels by Future expansions will include

detailed industry data at the county, MSA, and

state level and by size of

establishment

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

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

- Periodic universe counts for - Analysis of employer dynamics indicator

benchmarking sample survey underlying economic expansions - Official time series for

estimates and contractions employment change measures

- Sample frame for BLS - Future: Employment expansion - Input into other major economic

establishment surveys and contraction by size of estab- indicators

lishment

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

Web sites

•

•

•

•

 •

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

 QCEW BED CES

•

UI levels
Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures

The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based

employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these

measures—QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED),

and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the

quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however,

each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage,

estimation procedure, and publication product.

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result

in somewhat different measures of over-the-quarter

employment change. It is important to understand program

differences and the intended uses of the program products.

(See table 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 and for federal civilian workers covered by the

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)

program are compiled from quarterly contribution reports

submitted to the SWAs by employers. In addition to the

quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called

the “Multiple Worksite Report,” which provides detailed

information on the location and industry of each of their

establishments. The employment and wage data included in

this release are derived from microdata summaries of more than

8 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted

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

employment rather than place of residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable

from state to state. In 2004, UI and UCFE programs covered

workers in 129.3 million jobs. The estimated 124.4 million

workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)

represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $5.088 trillion in pay,

representing 94.4 percent of the wage and salary component of

personal income and 43.4 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. Beginning with the first quarter

of 2005, Oregon implemented a change in their state UI laws.

This change extended UI coverage to providers of home care

for the elderly. These providers are now considered state

workers for purposes of UI benefits.

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.

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. When comparing average weekly wage

levels between industries and/or states, 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

2004 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.

The adjusted data do not account for administrative changes

caused by (1) multi-unit employers who start reporting for each

individual establishment rather than as a single entity and (2) the

classification of establishments previously reported in the

unknown county or unknown industry categories.

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 2004 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 2004 version of this news release. Employment and

Wages Annual Averages, 2004 will be available for sale in late

2005 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 2004 bulletin

will be available in a portable document format (PDF) on the

BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn04.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 323 largest counties,

first quarter 20052

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,543.2 129,802.3 1.7 - $775 2.2 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.7 366.3 -0.6 287 788 2.6 105

Madison, AL ....................... 8.1 165.6 2.5 83 799 5.1 17

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.7 165.1 3.3 54 608 3.1 73

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.6 132.3 1.2 156 631 2.1 141

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.2 80.0 3.4 49 626 7.0 8

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.8 139.6 1.2 156 793 1.5 182

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 81.2 1,685.4 5.3 9 746 1.5 182

Pima, AZ ............................ 17.8 350.6 3.2 58 647 3.2 67

Benton, AR ........................ 4.7 88.3 5.7 6 771 -0.5 287

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.4 241.8 1.4 139 683 2.2 131

Washington, AR ................. 5.2 88.0 4.2 32 585 3.2 67

Alameda, CA ...................... 48.5 674.5 0.1 250 997 2.9 86

Contra Costa, CA ............... 27.9 338.4 0.2 248 1,021 5.0 19

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.4 324.6 2.6 80 600 1.4 194

Kern, CA ............................ 16.4 249.0 3.5 45 652 0.0 275

Los Angeles, CA ................ 373.9 4,051.2 -0.1 262 864 2.0 148

Marin, CA ........................... 11.8 108.1 0.8 200 933 -5.6 312

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.0 157.7 0.6 223 697 3.0 83

Orange, CA ........................ 91.4 1,477.6 2.3 92 893 2.2 131

Placer, CA .......................... 9.7 133.5 3.6 41 749 3.5 50

Riverside, CA ..................... 40.0 598.4 5.2 12 652 0.9 230

Sacramento, CA ................ 48.1 616.9 2.3 92 855 2.5 111

San Bernardino, CA ........... 43.7 627.1 4.9 20 654 0.8 240

San Diego, CA ................... 88.4 1,282.1 1.2 156 816 1.4 194

San Francisco, CA ............. 43.5 519.9 0.7 209 1,368 3.8 37

San Joaquin, CA ................ 16.3 215.4 1.3 149 638 -0.6 289

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 8.8 101.3 0.8 200 621 2.1 141

San Mateo, CA .................. 22.9 325.0 -0.5 278 1,220 1.2 206

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.3 179.5 0.3 243 733 3.7 41

Santa Clara, CA ................. 53.2 850.1 1.0 177 1,372 2.1 141

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.5 92.3 1.0 177 723 -2.4 307

Solano, CA ......................... 9.7 127.4 1.9 109 715 0.1 271

Sonoma, CA ...................... 17.4 187.8 0.0 255 737 3.7 41

Stanislaus, CA ................... 13.5 169.5 4.0 34 635 1.0 221

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.6 133.2 2.5 83 530 1.0 221

Ventura, CA ....................... 21.0 313.6 1.3 149 861 4.5 26

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.2 96.4 1.2 156 704 4.3 29

Adams, CO ........................ 8.8 144.2 3.0 68 712 0.3 262

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.1 268.0 1.3 149 943 1.5 182

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.0 152.7 3.2 58 919 -0.3 279

Denver, CO ........................ 24.4 418.1 1.0 177 976 3.8 37

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.3 235.2 2.0 105 692 0.9 230

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.2 203.2 1.9 109 795 3.7 41

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.4 121.5 2.2 97 670 1.2 206

Fairfield, CT ....................... 31.8 406.5 0.3 243 1,613 7.7 5

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.4 480.1 1.2 156 1,041 3.4 58

New Haven, CT ................. 22.1 357.9 0.5 236 816 1.0 221

New London, CT ................ 6.7 127.9 1.8 115 784 -0.8 294

New Castle, DE ................. 19.6 278.6 0.1 250 1,005 4.9 20

Washington, DC ................. 30.5 661.7 1.1 168 1,277 4.2 31

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.1 123.0 (7) - $591 (7) - 

Brevard, FL ........................ 13.3 201.1 3.6 41 701 -0.3 279

Broward, FL ....................... 60.0 722.8 3.5 45 732 3.1 73

Collier, FL .......................... 11.1 130.0 2.7 75 702 10.7 1

Duval, FL ........................... 23.9 444.7 3.2 58 766 2.7 96

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.5 128.0 3.1 64 589 3.2 67

Hillsborough, FL ................. 33.2 628.9 3.7 40 732 1.5 182

Lake, FL ............................. 6.0 79.9 5.4 7 536 2.5 111

Lee, FL ............................... 16.6 210.5 7.5 2 649 5.4 16

Leon, FL ............................. 7.6 144.7 0.0 255 625 1.3 198

Manatee, FL ....................... 7.9 129.9 4.4 30 560 3.3 62

Marion, FL .......................... 7.1 96.7 (7) - 541 1.9 153

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 83.6 994.9 1.9 109 748 2.9 86

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 5.8 81.2 4.5 27 593 4.4 27

Orange, FL ......................... 31.4 660.0 (7) - 703 (7) - 

Palm Beach, FL ................. 45.7 549.1 4.8 23 769 5.8 12

Pasco, FL ........................... 8.1 91.9 (7) - 518 (7) - 

Pinellas, FL ........................ 29.6 434.6 -0.3 269 659 3.3 62

Polk, FL .............................. 11.3 201.9 3.6 41 582 2.8 92

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.0 155.3 5.1 16 640 2.4 120

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.0 162.3 6.9 4 691 4.7 25

Volusia, FL ......................... 12.8 162.3 3.5 45 550 3.8 37

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 85.5 -1.9 312 632 2.9 86

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.1 129.5 1.6 127 629 1.5 182

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 108.2 1.8 115 740 -6.0 313

Cobb, GA ........................... 19.9 303.3 0.9 186 830 2.3 126

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.9 288.9 0.8 200 845 2.2 131

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.3 729.7 0.9 186 1,076 3.0 83

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 21.7 309.2 1.6 127 804 0.9 230

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 96.6 0.6 223 606 0.5 254

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 104.5 -0.6 287 625 2.5 111

Honolulu, HI ....................... 23.6 436.2 3.0 68 693 1.5 182

Ada, ID ............................... 13.5 192.2 4.5 27 667 1.7 165

Champaign, IL ................... 4.0 89.7 0.7 209 619 -0.3 279

Cook, IL ............................. 128.4 2,466.4 -0.1 262 983 2.8 92

Du Page, IL ........................ 33.2 569.9 0.9 186 918 3.5 50

Kane, IL ............................. 11.5 197.7 1.8 115 689 1.5 182

Lake, IL .............................. 19.4 315.6 1.0 177 955 2.5 111

McHenry, IL ....................... 7.7 94.0 2.1 99 644 -0.9 297

McLean, IL ......................... 3.4 80.4 -1.7 311 716 -2.8 310

Madison, IL ........................ 5.7 92.8 -1.4 308 640 3.2 67

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.6 99.8 2.4 87 759 6.8 9

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.4 77.2 0.9 186 728 7.7 5

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.1 92.8 0.6 223 591 1.7 165

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.1 128.9 -0.2 267 753 4.0 33

Will, IL ................................ 11.2 161.1 2.1 99 689 0.9 230

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.7 134.5 -1.0 300 652 2.7 96

Allen, IN ............................. 8.9 177.4 0.0 255 658 -0.3 279

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 123.9 3.8 38 635 1.6 169

Hamilton, IN ....................... 6.6 91.4 5.2 12 781 -4.3 311

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Lake, IN ............................. 10.1 190.3 1.2 156 $671 1.8 160

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 575.1 1.4 139 818 1.0 221

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 124.2 0.5 236 636 1.6 169

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 107.2 0.3 243 644 2.1 141

Linn, IA ............................... 6.1 117.0 2.1 99 725 2.3 126

Polk, IA .............................. 14.1 259.9 1.9 109 792 1.5 182

Scott, IA ............................. 5.1 86.2 3.6 41 607 2.0 148

Johnson, KS ...................... 19.0 294.1 1.7 119 817 0.0 275

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 11.8 239.5 1.1 168 706 3.7 41

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 93.8 -0.9 299 632 1.3 198

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 74.7 1.0 177 728 -0.5 287

Fayette, KY ........................ 8.8 167.5 2.4 87 684 -2.3 305

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.7 415.8 1.0 177 742 -1.1 299

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.1 122.0 2.3 92 600 -1.3 300

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.7 83.0 1.4 139 639 3.4 58

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.1 246.2 0.1 250 654 3.2 67

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.0 213.0 -0.3 269 633 3.3 62

Lafayette, LA ...................... 7.7 120.1 2.7 75 642 2.6 105

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.6 244.5 -1.1 303 738 2.2 131

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.6 165.1 0.0 255 707 1.6 169

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.0 217.9 1.4 139 792 2.5 111

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.2 356.0 0.7 209 785 1.0 221

Frederick, MD .................... 5.7 90.0 0.9 186 725 -2.4 307

Harford, MD ....................... 5.4 79.3 2.0 105 704 6.2 11

Howard, MD ....................... 8.2 135.4 -0.5 278 875 3.1 73

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.4 452.6 1.6 127 1,041 2.6 105

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.5 310.5 -0.4 274 797 1.1 213

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.0 357.5 0.1 250 909 1.6 169

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.4 82.5 -0.8 294 653 0.9 230

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.6 216.0 -0.5 278 661 1.8 160

Essex, MA .......................... 21.1 287.8 -0.7 292 803 1.6 169

Hampden, MA .................... 14.4 195.4 -0.5 278 728 3.1 73

Middlesex, MA ................... 48.9 775.9 0.5 236 1,097 2.2 131

Norfolk, MA ........................ 22.2 311.4 -0.5 278 916 0.1 271

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.0 170.7 2.0 105 705 -0.3 279

Suffolk, MA ........................ 22.6 556.6 0.7 209 1,390 -1.0 298

Worcester, MA ................... 20.7 312.4 -0.6 287 754 1.3 198

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.5 147.0 (7) - 710 (7) - 

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.1 162.4 (7) - 754 (7) - 

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 115.0 -0.1 262 721 -2.3 305

Kent, MI ............................. 14.6 332.0 0.9 186 692 1.6 169

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.0 320.3 -0.3 269 830 0.6 251

Oakland, MI ....................... 40.9 703.0 -0.3 269 932 1.2 206

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.8 109.6 1.4 139 676 3.2 67

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.6 88.0 -0.7 292 686 1.6 169

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.2 193.9 0.4 239 859 -0.8 294

Wayne, MI .......................... 34.4 783.3 -1.1 303 892 0.2 267

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.4 110.5 1.7 119 720 1.0 221

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.7 166.3 1.2 156 755 0.3 262

Hennepin, MN .................... 40.0 815.7 1.4 139 999 1.4 194

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.3 86.1 -0.6 287 $860 1.1 213

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.7 323.1 1.0 177 875 -0.6 289

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.7 91.9 0.9 186 618 -2.7 309

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.2 76.2 0.8 200 583 0.3 262

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 90.7 1.6 127 561 4.3 29

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 128.0 -0.8 294 653 0.9 230

Boone, MO ......................... 4.3 79.0 3.4 49 573 1.2 206

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 86.1 1.1 168 693 1.5 182

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 147.7 2.7 75 576 2.7 96

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.7 360.7 0.6 223 776 1.3 198

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.5 115.7 4.8 23 652 1.2 206

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.9 612.3 0.6 223 819 0.7 246

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.2 219.4 -1.4 308 910 0.9 230

Douglas, NE ....................... 14.9 304.9 0.7 209 708 -0.6 289

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.6 151.5 2.1 99 610 0.2 267

Clark, NV ........................... 40.9 844.7 7.6 1 718 3.5 50

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.1 206.7 4.3 31 705 1.9 153

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.2 192.6 0.7 209 827 2.6 105

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.7 132.0 1.2 156 766 0.4 255

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.7 142.0 1.2 156 676 0.7 246

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.2 442.4 0.0 255 982 1.9 153

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.2 198.2 1.1 168 801 0.4 255

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.5 208.7 1.5 135 756 -0.7 293

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.2 355.6 -0.1 262 1,050 1.1 213

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.2 100.9 3.4 49 679 0.7 246

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.9 235.5 0.4 239 1,236 9.0 3

Mercer, NJ ......................... 10.8 218.9 2.6 80 990 0.4 255

Middlesex, NJ .................... 20.7 386.8 -0.3 269 1,022 0.6 251

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.0 249.0 0.7 209 836 1.6 169

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.7 278.0 -0.8 294 1,190 3.7 41

Ocean, NJ .......................... 11.5 140.3 0.9 186 649 1.9 153

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.5 174.9 0.8 200 805 1.6 169

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.0 166.3 0.1 250 1,343 1.5 182

Union, NJ ........................... 14.9 226.7 (7) - 1,004 (7) - 

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.6 313.7 1.1 168 657 1.9 153

Albany, NY ......................... 9.6 225.7 -0.4 274 780 0.0 275

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.6 219.0 2.6 80 705 2.2 131

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 92.9 -1.5 310 602 2.0 148

Dutchess, NY ..................... 7.9 116.6 0.6 223 801 3.5 50

Erie, NY ............................. 23.2 449.9 -0.8 294 680 0.7 246

Kings, NY ........................... 42.3 451.5 1.7 119 660 -0.3 279

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.6 379.8 0.9 186 744 -1.8 303

Nassau, NY ........................ 51.0 588.0 -0.1 262 860 3.4 58

New York, NY .................... 113.4 2,221.5 0.8 200 2,025 5.8 12

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 107.3 0.7 209 587 0.9 230

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.7 244.7 0.6 223 694 0.1 271

Orange, NY ........................ 9.4 125.7 0.6 223 648 4.0 33

Queens, NY ....................... 40.3 471.5 1.1 168 759 1.9 153

Richmond, NY .................... 8.2 88.2 0.6 223 664 0.8 240

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.4 111.0 1.2 156 806 1.0 221

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Suffolk, NY ......................... 48.2 593.6 0.3 243 $787 0.4 255

Westchester, NY ................ 35.6 407.5 0.7 209 1,102 3.1 73

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.0 108.3 3.4 49 575 1.8 160

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.3 86.5 -0.4 274 580 3.6 47

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.8 115.1 4.0 34 558 2.2 131

Durham, NC ....................... 6.2 168.9 1.0 177 1,032 -2.0 304

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.4 177.3 1.8 115 729 -0.3 279

Guilford, NC ....................... 13.7 269.8 1.7 119 686 1.6 169

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 27.4 513.7 3.2 58 1,048 5.8 12

New Hanover, NC .............. 6.6 93.2 5.2 12 611 4.8 23

Wake, NC .......................... 23.7 394.7 2.9 70 765 1.1 213

Cass, ND ........................... 5.5 88.5 3.2 58 610 0.8 240

Butler, OH .......................... 7.0 133.7 0.4 239 679 3.3 62

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.1 740.8 0.0 255 813 2.8 92

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.1 671.3 0.7 209 776 2.0 148

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.6 529.4 -0.5 278 850 2.4 120

Lake, OH ............................ 6.8 98.8 1.3 149 662 4.4 27

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 99.8 -1.3 307 653 2.2 131

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.9 222.0 (7) - 705 (7) - 

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.5 104.2 0.7 209 555 -1.6 302

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.2 279.1 -0.4 274 725 2.7 96

Stark, OH ........................... 9.3 165.1 0.7 209 597 1.0 221

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 266.4 1.7 119 714 -0.4 286

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.8 82.7 -1.0 300 704 7.3 7

Oklahoma, OK ................... 22.2 406.2 1.3 149 657 1.7 165

Tulsa, OK ........................... 18.4 324.5 3.1 64 686 2.2 131

Clackamas, OR .................. 11.7 141.4 4.9 20 695 1.6 169

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.4 80.8 4.9 20 562 1.1 213

Lane, OR ........................... 10.4 143.1 4.2 32 586 2.3 126

Marion, OR ........................ 8.7 131.4 5.0 17 594 0.8 240

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.6 424.2 3.1 64 778 2.2 131

Washington, OR ................ 14.8 230.4 5.0 17 890 -0.6 289

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.7 672.8 -0.8 294 817 1.4 194

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 161.3 1.2 156 667 2.5 111

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.4 255.4 1.4 139 723 1.3 198

Chester, PA ....................... 15.0 225.9 1.6 127 985 3.5 50

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.8 123.3 -1.0 300 784 9.3 2

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.1 173.9 1.9 109 764 0.7 246

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.8 206.8 -0.5 278 799 0.6 251

Erie, PA .............................. 7.2 125.8 1.6 127 582 0.9 230

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 98.3 1.7 119 573 1.1 213

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.0 224.9 1.5 135 640 1.3 198

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.4 172.0 0.8 200 758 2.7 96

Luzerne, PA ....................... 8.2 140.7 0.9 186 590 -0.8 294

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.8 476.1 0.6 223 1,010 0.2 267

Northampton, PA ............... 6.4 92.5 1.3 149 668 2.9 86

Philadelphia, PA ................ 29.7 631.7 1.1 168 895 0.4 255

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 74.1 0.9 186 629 1.6 169

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.7 136.4 1.4 139 591 3.0 83

York, PA ............................. 8.9 171.4 2.8 72 669 0.0 275

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Kent, RI .............................. 5.6 79.8 0.2 248 $682 0.3 262

Providence, RI ................... 18.0 281.0 -0.5 278 764 1.3 198

Charleston, SC .................. 12.1 194.4 2.4 87 629 3.3 62

Greenville, SC .................... 12.4 222.8 1.4 139 658 0.8 240

Horry, SC ........................... 8.2 103.7 4.6 25 479 0.4 255

Lexington, SC .................... 5.7 87.8 5.0 17 570 4.8 23

Richland, SC ...................... 9.6 205.1 2.8 72 643 2.4 120

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.3 115.0 0.3 243 682 3.5 50

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.0 108.2 2.3 92 635 3.8 37

Davidson, TN ..................... 17.9 431.8 1.6 127 765 2.4 120

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.3 191.1 1.2 156 640 2.1 141

Knox, TN ............................ 10.4 215.5 1.5 135 639 1.1 213

Rutherford, TN ................... 3.7 93.9 7.1 3 657 0.9 230

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.7 494.2 0.7 209 759 0.3 262

Bell, TX .............................. 4.2 93.8 (7) - 560 3.5 50

Bexar, TX ........................... 30.0 663.0 1.9 109 688 2.5 111

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.2 78.5 2.1 99 751 1.1 213

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.6 79.0 0.4 239 542 2.7 96

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.2 115.8 -0.5 278 460 3.6 47

Collin, TX ........................... 14.0 238.3 (7) - 908 (7) - 

Dallas, TX .......................... 65.9 1,402.1 1.0 177 954 1.5 182

Denton, TX ......................... 9.2 144.6 3.8 38 650 2.5 111

El Paso, TX ........................ 12.6 254.4 1.4 139 529 3.1 73

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.1 107.5 2.8 72 820 3.1 73

Galveston, TX .................... 4.8 86.5 0.9 186 673 4.0 33

Harris, TX ........................... 89.9 1,840.9 1.7 119 950 5.8 12

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 9.6 197.4 4.6 25 463 2.7 96

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 116.6 0.7 209 718 6.5 10

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.5 118.3 2.4 87 551 0.4 255

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 101.4 1.6 127 605 4.9 20

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.0 100.8 6.1 5 670 2.8 92

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 146.8 1.5 135 614 2.5 111

Potter, TX ........................... 3.7 71.4 -1.1 303 587 2.4 120

Smith, TX ........................... 5.0 89.4 3.3 54 631 1.9 153

Tarrant, TX ......................... 34.6 705.7 2.2 97 775 2.0 148

Travis, TX .......................... 25.0 521.8 3.3 54 866 3.1 73

Webb, TX ........................... 4.4 79.3 1.1 168 490 3.6 47

Williamson, TX ................... 5.8 99.5 5.4 7 802 2.3 126

Davis, UT ........................... 6.5 93.0 3.2 58 594 -1.5 301

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 35.4 529.0 3.4 49 680 1.3 198

Utah, UT ............................ 11.5 152.8 5.3 9 560 2.9 86

Weber, UT ......................... 5.5 87.8 1.1 168 538 0.2 267

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.7 93.4 0.8 200 766 4.9 20

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.1 152.4 0.9 186 1,286 3.5 50

Chesterfield, VA ................. 6.8 112.9 2.0 105 694 3.9 36

Fairfax, VA ......................... 30.4 555.9 4.0 34 1,181 2.1 141

Henrico, VA ........................ 8.4 170.4 2.9 70 891 8.4 4

Loudoun, VA ...................... 6.8 116.3 5.2 12 1,005 3.1 73

Prince William, VA ............. 6.2 97.4 3.5 45 654 2.7 96

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.7 92.3 0.6 223 972 5.1 17

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.0 93.9 2.4 87 $576 1.2 206

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.8 98.4 2.1 99 672 3.1 73

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.6 145.4 0.9 186 723 0.8 240

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 157.5 0.6 223 907 0.1 271

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 10.8 172.8 3.1 64 584 2.6 105

Clark, WA ........................... 10.2 123.1 4.5 27 675 2.1 141

King, WA ............................ 73.3 1,093.0 1.7 119 948 2.9 86

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.1 80.8 2.3 92 659 (7) - 

Pierce, WA ......................... 18.9 253.7 3.3 54 683 2.4 120

Snohomish, WA ................. 15.8 216.6 4.0 34 761 3.7 41

Spokane, WA ..................... 14.0 194.1 2.5 83 609 1.5 182

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.1 92.6 2.7 75 676 2.7 96

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.3 77.2 5.3 9 578 2.3 126

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.4 90.3 2.7 75 516 2.6 105

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.2 106.3 -1.1 303 660 1.7 165

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 143.7 -0.2 267 689 4.2 31

Dane, WI ............................ 13.8 291.6 2.5 83 740 1.8 160

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.5 485.6 -0.6 287 785 1.8 160

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 99.1 1.3 149 667 1.2 206

Racine, WI ......................... 4.3 74.5 0.0 255 677 1.0 221

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.3 225.2 0.6 223 765 3.4 58

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.9 85.6 0.8 200 753 1.6 169

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.9 316.4 0.6 (8) 511 5.8 (8) 

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

These 322 U.S. counties comprise 70.8 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,

first quarter 20052

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-053

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-053

United States5 .................................................... 8,543.2 129,802.3 1.7 $775 2.2

Private industry .............................................. 8,267.3 108,445.3 1.9 777 2.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 122.8 1,586.6 2.3 781 8.0

Construction ............................................... 834.9 6,782.2 4.1 750 2.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 368.2 14,153.4 -0.2 940 2.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,865.7 25,176.2 1.5 657 1.7

Information ................................................. 142.4 3,036.8 -2.5 1,245 1.5

Financial activities ...................................... 803.4 7,921.1 1.4 1,479 4.6

Professional and business services ........... 1,359.5 16,499.3 3.7 938 3.3

Education and health services ................... 759.1 16,348.2 2.1 665 1.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 686.2 12,308.8 2.3 313 0.6

Other services ............................................ 1,102.7 4,280.6 0.4 474 1.3

Government ................................................... 276.0 21,357.0 0.7 767 1.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 373.9 4,051.2 -0.1 864 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 370.0 3,464.6 0.0 848 2.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 11.6 1.6 1,115 -19.7

Construction ............................................... 13.4 142.2 4.7 808 3.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 16.6 467.1 -4.3 895 4.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 53.4 778.4 1.3 712 2.7

Information ................................................. 8.8 199.4 -9.3 1,562 6.5

Financial activities ...................................... 23.3 239.3 0.5 1,559 5.3

Professional and business services ........... 40.4 565.8 1.9 983 4.2

Education and health services ................... 27.3 459.0 -0.7 729 2.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 25.9 370.9 2.1 452 -3.2

Other services ............................................ 160.0 229.8 3.0 395 1.3

Government ................................................... 3.9 586.6 -0.2 965 -0.2

Cook, IL .............................................................. 128.4 2,466.4 -0.1 983 2.8

Private industry .............................................. 127.2 2,147.6 0.1 992 3.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.2 -0.1 971 0.7

Construction ............................................... 10.7 85.4 -2.3 1,135 5.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.5 253.2 -1.4 962 6.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 26.8 468.0 -0.2 746 2.9

Information ................................................. 2.5 60.8 -2.2 1,495 4.0

Financial activities ...................................... 14.3 214.1 -0.5 2,150 2.0

Professional and business services ........... 26.3 403.4 2.1 1,241 3.1

Education and health services ................... 12.7 353.5 1.2 713 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.7 209.2 -1.1 358 1.4

Other services ............................................ 12.8 93.7 -2.2 627 2.3

Government ................................................... 1.2 318.7 -0.9 921 1.1

New York, NY ..................................................... 113.4 2,221.5 0.8 2,025 5.8

Private industry .............................................. 113.2 1,776.9 1.1 2,303 6.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 7.1 2,002 14.4

Construction ............................................... 2.1 28.4 0.7 1,327 3.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 43.2 -6.4 1,437 25.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.7 232.0 1.1 1,072 2.5

Information ................................................. 4.1 127.1 -0.1 2,238 5.2

Financial activities ...................................... 17.0 348.7 0.0 6,199 9.3

Professional and business services ........... 22.5 438.7 1.3 1,907 6.5

Education and health services ................... 8.0 276.2 1.1 884 3.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.3 190.1 1.8 678 1.0

Other services ............................................ 16.2 82.5 0.5 855 5.9

Government ................................................... 0.2 444.6 -0.3 922 -4.9

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

first quarter 20052 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-053

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-053

Harris, TX ........................................................... 89.9 1,840.9 1.7 $950 5.8

Private industry .............................................. 89.4 1,594.4 1.9 978 6.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.3 65.1 5.9 3,004 17.4

Construction ............................................... 6.2 132.0 -0.2 837 1.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 164.2 1.4 1,270 12.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.9 385.5 0.8 870 2.7

Information ................................................. 1.3 31.8 -4.6 1,174 4.1

Financial activities ...................................... 9.8 114.7 1.6 1,318 4.0

Professional and business services ........... 17.3 291.6 5.1 1,019 5.9

Education and health services ................... 9.2 192.1 2.1 720 -1.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.7 158.9 0.9 339 4.0

Other services ............................................ 10.4 54.5 -1.9 520 0.0

Government ................................................... 0.5 246.5 0.1 768 1.9

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 81.2 1,685.4 5.3 746 1.5

Private industry .............................................. 80.6 1,476.6 5.8 747 1.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.0 2.6 574 2.3

Construction ............................................... 8.4 152.6 15.1 724 2.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 130.5 1.9 1,116 4.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 18.4 342.6 5.1 720 0.0

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.3 -7.2 967 5.5

Financial activities ...................................... 9.9 142.7 6.3 1,058 7.5

Professional and business services ........... 17.8 280.2 7.5 717 -3.5

Education and health services ................... 8.0 172.5 5.7 748 1.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.8 165.6 2.6 346 -1.7

Other services ............................................ 5.6 45.9 0.8 494 2.7

Government ................................................... 0.6 208.9 2.2 736 2.9

Orange, CA ........................................................ 91.4 1,477.6 2.3 893 2.2

Private industry .............................................. 90.0 1,325.4 2.4 881 2.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 6.7 -11.7 541 0.4

Construction ............................................... 6.7 94.2 3.2 915 4.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.8 183.8 0.7 1,023 0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.3 267.0 1.4 816 -1.2

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.7 -1.6 1,256 1.0

Financial activities ...................................... 10.3 139.0 4.9 1,549 7.9

Professional and business services ........... 17.8 261.2 5.6 897 1.1

Education and health services ................... 9.4 130.9 1.4 769 3.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 161.8 1.0 343 -1.2

Other services ............................................ 14.1 47.4 2.0 507 0.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 152.1 1.0 996 1.3

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 65.9 1,402.1 1.0 954 1.5

Private industry .............................................. 65.4 1,243.2 1.0 972 1.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.9 2.0 2,614 8.2

Construction ............................................... 4.3 74.2 3.9 833 5.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 143.3 0.5 1,172 6.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 298.3 1.0 874 0.8

Information ................................................. 1.7 54.1 -5.1 1,369 -6.1

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 133.7 1.2 1,496 4.8

Professional and business services ........... 13.6 237.4 1.0 1,017 -0.1

Education and health services ................... 6.1 130.7 0.7 801 -1.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 4.9 121.8 1.1 437 -5.6

Other services ............................................ 6.5 40.1 -0.8 569 1.6

Government ................................................... 0.5 158.9 1.4 809 2.1

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

first quarter 20052 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-053

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-053

San Diego, CA ................................................... 88.4 1,282.1 1.2 $816 1.4

Private industry .............................................. 87.0 1,062.6 1.4 806 2.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.1 -4.8 465 2.0

Construction ............................................... 6.8 88.8 3.6 811 2.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 104.3 0.6 1,095 1.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.2 212.6 1.3 673 3.9

Information ................................................. 1.3 37.4 2.9 1,633 -6.0

Financial activities ...................................... 9.2 82.0 0.1 1,224 5.2

Professional and business services ........... 15.1 207.7 1.8 954 1.6

Education and health services ................... 7.8 120.8 -0.8 711 2.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.6 143.3 2.2 356 3.2

Other services ............................................ 21.5 54.2 3.0 433 -0.9

Government ................................................... 1.4 219.5 0.2 867 -1.1

King, WA ............................................................ 73.3 1,093.0 1.7 948 2.9

Private industry .............................................. 72.7 939.9 2.0 957 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.3 4.2 1,269 6.5

Construction ............................................... 6.2 55.8 3.6 889 2.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 103.8 2.6 1,214 7.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.5 213.7 1.7 832 2.3

Information ................................................. 1.6 68.7 1.2 1,666 1.6

Financial activities ...................................... 6.3 74.2 -1.0 1,370 3.8

Professional and business services ........... 11.9 162.4 4.9 1,109 -1.6

Education and health services ................... 6.1 113.2 3.4 708 2.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.5 99.7 0.5 426 8.7

Other services ............................................ 17.8 45.0 -3.6 490 5.8

Government ................................................... 0.5 153.1 -0.2 892 3.4

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 83.6 994.9 1.9 748 2.9

Private industry .............................................. 83.3 841.3 2.2 726 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 11.1 -2.6 380 4.1

Construction ............................................... 5.3 43.6 9.1 759 7.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.7 49.3 -4.0 688 3.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 24.0 241.5 1.2 688 3.0

Information ................................................. 1.8 23.6 (6) 1,155 (6) 

Financial activities ...................................... 9.1 68.0 3.4 1,207 0.8

Professional and business services ........... 16.5 141.7 7.1 829 1.7

Education and health services ................... 8.2 124.9 0.9 704 -2.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 98.5 1.5 420 4.7

Other services ............................................ 7.6 34.7 -0.1 439 1.6

Government ................................................... 0.3 153.6 0.3 867 6.1

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, first quarter 20052

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

United States6 .................... 8,543.2 129,802.3 1.7 $775 2.2

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.7 366.3 -0.6 788 2.6

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.8 139.6 1.2 793 1.5

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 81.2 1,685.4 5.3 746 1.5

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.4 241.8 1.4 683 2.2

Los Angeles, CA ................ 373.9 4,051.2 -0.1 864 2.0

Denver, CO ........................ 24.4 418.1 1.0 976 3.8

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.4 480.1 1.2 1,041 3.4

New Castle, DE ................. 19.6 278.6 0.1 1,005 4.9

Washington, DC ................. 30.5 661.7 1.1 1,277 4.2

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 83.6 994.9 1.9 748 2.9

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.3 729.7 0.9 1,076 3.0

Honolulu, HI ....................... 23.6 436.2 3.0 693 1.5

Ada, ID ............................... 13.5 192.2 4.5 667 1.7

Cook, IL ............................. 128.4 2,466.4 -0.1 983 2.8

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 575.1 1.4 818 1.0

Polk, IA .............................. 14.1 259.9 1.9 792 1.5

Johnson, KS ...................... 19.0 294.1 1.7 817 0.0

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.7 415.8 1.0 742 -1.1

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.6 244.5 -1.1 738 2.2

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.6 165.1 0.0 707 1.6

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.4 452.6 1.6 1,041 2.6

Middlesex, MA ................... 48.9 775.9 0.5 1,097 2.2

Wayne, MI .......................... 34.4 783.3 -1.1 892 0.2

Hennepin, MN .................... 40.0 815.7 1.4 999 1.4

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 128.0 -0.8 653 0.9

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.9 612.3 0.6 819 0.7

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.3 71.2 3.4 596 5.1

Douglas, NE ....................... 14.9 304.9 0.7 708 -0.6

Clark, NV ........................... 40.9 844.7 7.6 718 3.5

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.2 192.6 0.7 827 2.6

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.2 442.4 0.0 982 1.9

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.6 313.7 1.1 657 1.9

New York, NY .................... 113.4 2,221.5 0.8 2,025 5.8

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 27.4 513.7 3.2 1,048 5.8

Cass, ND ........................... 5.5 88.5 3.2 610 0.8

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.1 740.8 0.0 813 2.8

Oklahoma, OK ................... 22.2 406.2 1.3 657 1.7

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.6 424.2 3.1 778 2.2

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.7 672.8 -0.8 817 1.4

Providence, RI ................... 18.0 281.0 -0.5 764 1.3

Greenville, SC .................... 12.4 222.8 1.4 658 0.8

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.0 108.2 2.3 635 3.8

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.7 494.2 0.7 759 0.3

Harris, TX ........................... 89.9 1,840.9 1.7 950 5.8

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 35.4 529.0 3.4 680 1.3

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.7 93.4 0.8 766 4.9

Fairfax, VA ......................... 30.4 555.9 4.0 1,181 2.1

King, WA ............................ 73.3 1,093.0 1.7 948 2.9

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.2 106.3 -1.1 660 1.7

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.5 485.6 -0.6 785 1.8

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

by state, first quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-054

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-054

Laramie, WY ...................... 2.9 39.5 1.3 $601 2.6

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.9 316.4 0.6 511 5.8

St. Thomas, VI ................... 1.7 23.2 -1.1 583 4.3

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

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

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

first quarter 20052

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-05

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-05

United States4 .................... 8,543.2 129,802.3 1.7 $775 2.2

Alabama ............................. 116.0 1,871.5 2.0 642 2.6

Alaska ................................ 20.3 290.3 2.0 744 1.5

Arizona ............................... 129.3 2,459.7 5.0 698 2.3

Arkansas ............................ 77.5 1,144.8 1.7 579 2.8

California ............................ 1,247.9 15,064.5 1.9 872 2.0

Colorado ............................ 166.7 2,158.6 2.4 787 2.2

Connecticut ........................ 109.8 1,624.7 0.8 1,084 3.9

Delaware ............................ 29.7 407.9 1.2 878 4.0

District of Columbia ............ 30.5 661.7 1.1 1,277 4.2

Florida ................................ 547.0 7,731.0 3.5 679 3.5

Georgia .............................. 252.9 3,877.0 1.5 742 1.9

Hawaii ................................ 36.1 597.6 3.1 669 2.0

Idaho .................................. 50.9 594.2 4.2 561 1.6

Illinois ................................. 333.4 5,644.9 0.5 848 2.9

Indiana ............................... 155.3 2,838.7 1.1 667 0.9

Iowa ................................... 91.5 1,419.5 1.9 616 1.7

Kansas ............................... 82.9 1,290.7 0.9 631 1.4

Kentucky ............................ 107.4 1,741.2 1.8 628 0.6

Louisiana ........................... 118.0 1,873.8 0.6 619 2.8

Maine ................................. 48.1 573.2 -0.5 614 1.7

Maryland ............................ 159.5 2,458.0 1.1 831 2.0

Massachusetts ................... 214.7 3,094.8 0.1 964 1.2

Michigan ............................ 255.8 4,218.3 -0.4 780 1.2

Minnesota .......................... 156.7 2,559.7 1.3 783 0.8

Mississippi ......................... 67.6 1,113.1 1.3 545 2.3

Missouri ............................. 170.0 2,644.2 1.8 671 0.9

Montana ............................. 39.8 403.8 3.2 533 3.5

Nebraska ........................... 55.8 879.8 1.5 600 0.8

Nevada .............................. 66.1 1,187.6 6.7 714 2.6

New Hampshire ................. 47.3 606.9 0.8 745 2.8

New Jersey ........................ 269.5 3,863.5 0.8 963 1.8

New Mexico ....................... 50.6 765.0 2.2 596 2.1

New York ........................... 558.2 8,242.3 0.8 1,096 3.7

North Carolina .................... 233.1 3,808.0 2.3 687 2.7

North Dakota ...................... 24.5 320.4 2.6 550 1.5

Ohio ................................... 290.7 5,228.6 0.4 706 2.0

Oklahoma .......................... 93.9 1,453.9 2.5 591 1.9

Oregon ............................... 122.1 1,621.6 4.2 685 1.5

Pennsylvania ..................... 338.0 5,481.0 1.0 747 1.5

Rhode Island ...................... 35.4 466.9 0.5 736 1.2

South Carolina ................... 116.1 1,800.3 1.5 611 2.5

South Dakota ..................... 28.9 365.1 2.0 544 2.4

Tennessee ......................... 131.7 2,665.2 1.8 660 1.4

Texas ................................. 517.4 9,454.6 2.2 760 3.1

Utah ................................... 78.9 1,091.9 3.9 607 1.3

Vermont ............................. 24.4 297.5 0.9 639 3.9

Virginia ............................... 211.3 3,525.7 2.4 794 2.7

Washington ........................ 204.2 2,702.3 2.6 766 2.4

West Virginia ...................... 47.6 683.6 1.1 583 2.5

Wisconsin .......................... 159.5 2,687.0 1.4 668 1.7

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

first quarter 20052 — Continued

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

March

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2004-05

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2004-05

Wyoming ............................ 22.8 246.2 3.0 $606 3.9

Puerto Rico ........................ 55.5 1,048.2 1.4 433 3.3

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.4 44.2 2.1 650 13.4

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.
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 emp

March 200405 (U.S. Average = 1.7%)

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

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

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

So

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

or more, first quarter 200405 (U.S. Average = 2.2%)

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

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

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

So

Oc