For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, March 9, 2016 USDL-16-0462 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Third Quarter 2015 

From September 2014 to September 2015, employment increased in 312 of the 342 largest U.S. 

counties (counties with 75,000 or more jobs in 2014), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. 

Williamson, Tenn., had the largest percentage increase, with a gain of 6.5 percent over the year, above 

the national job growth of 1.9 percent. Within Williamson, the largest employment increase occurred in 

professional and business services, which gained 2,538 jobs over the year (8.8 percent). Ector, Texas, 

had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., 

with a loss of 8.3 percent. Within Ector, natural resources and mining had the largest decrease in 

employment, with a loss of 3,752 jobs (-28.4 percent). County employment and wage data are compiled 

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

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

The U.S. average weekly wage increased 2.6 percent over the year, growing to $974 in the third quarter 

of 2015. Rockland, N.Y., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly wages 

with a gain of 24.9 percent. Within Rockland, an average weekly wage gain of $3,170, or 220.4 percent, 

in manufacturing made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in average weekly wages.

Midland, Texas, experienced the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 6.7 

percent over the year. Within Midland, natural resources and mining had the largest impact on the 

county’s average weekly wage decline with a decrease of $163 (-8.1 percent) over the year.

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, September 2014-15 

(U.S. average = 1.9 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, third quarter 2014-15 

(U.S. average = 2.6 percent) 

5

6

7

Williamson,

Tenn.

Utah,

Utah

Denton,

Texas

Chesterfield,

Va.

Lee,

Fla.

Percent

5

10

15

20

25

Rockland,

N.Y.

Lake,

Ill.

Onondaga,

N.Y.

Washington,

Ore.

Marin,

Calif.

Santa Cruz,

Calif.

Percent
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by September 2015 employment, September 2014-15 employment increase, and 

September 2014-15 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

September 2015 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) September 2014-15 September 2014-15

(thousands)

United States 140,442.2 United States 2,679.6 United States 1.9

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,261.8 Los Angeles, Calif. 93.0 Williamson, Tenn. 6.5

Cook, Ill. 2,535.6 Maricopa, Ariz. 65.4 Utah, Utah 6.3

New York, N.Y. 2,370.4 Dallas, Texas 62.9 Denton, Texas 6.1

Harris, Texas 2,287.6 Orange, Calif. 49.0 Chesterfield, Va. 5.7

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,824.7 New York, N.Y. 48.3 Lee, Fla. 5.5

Dallas, Texas 1,616.8 King, Wash. 42.0 Osceola, Fla. 5.4

Orange, Calif. 1,524.0 Santa Clara, Calif. 39.8 Loudoun, Va. 5.3

San Diego, Calif. 1,384.0 San Diego, Calif. 38.7 San Francisco, Calif. 5.2

King, Wash. 1,292.1 Cook, Ill. 37.8 Clay, Mo. 5.1

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,076.1 San Francisco, Calif. 34.0 San Mateo, Calif. 5.0

Large County Employment 

In September 2015, national employment was 140.4 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over 

the year, employment increased 1.9 percent, or 2.7 million. In September 2015, the 342 U.S. counties 

with 75,000 or more jobs accounted for 72.2 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.3 percent of total 

wages. These 342 counties had a net job growth of 2.1 million over the year, accounting for 79.6 percent 

of the overall U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.) 

Williamson, Tenn., had the largest percentage increase in employment (6.5 percent) among the largest 

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

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

combined over-the-year employment gain of 318,600 jobs, which was 11.9 percent of the overall job 

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

Employment declined in 24 of the largest counties from September 2014 to September 2015. Ector, 

Texas, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-8.3 percent). Midland, Texas, 

had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by Gregg, Texas; Lafayette, La.; 

and Atlantic, N.J. (See table 1.)
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by third quarter 2015 average weekly wages, third quarter 2014-15

increase in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2014-15 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

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

third quarter 2015 wage, third quarter 2014-15 weekly wage, third

quarter 2014-15

United States $974 United States $25 United States 2.6

Santa Clara, Calif. $2,090 Rockland, N.Y. $233 Rockland, N.Y. 24.9

San Mateo, Calif. 1,894 Lake, Ill. 136 Lake, Ill. 11.7

New York, N.Y. 1,829 Washington, Ore. 78 Onondaga, N.Y. 6.5

San Francisco, Calif. 1,712 Marin, Calif. 68 Washington, Ore. 6.4

Washington, D.C. 1,667 Santa Clara, Calif. 65 Marin, Calif. 6.1

Arlington, Va. 1,587 San Mateo, Calif. 62 Santa Cruz, Calif. 6.1

Suffolk, Mass. 1,559 Somerset, N.J. 60 Genesee, Mich. 5.6

King, Wash. 1,463 Onondaga, N.Y. 56 Davidson, Tenn. 5.5

Fairfax, Va. 1,462 Davidson, Tenn. 54 Placer, Calif. 5.4

Somerset, N.J. 1,447 Williamson, Tenn. 54 Williamson, Tenn. 5.2

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $974, a 2.6 percent increase, during the year ending in 

the third quarter of 2015. Among the 342 largest counties, 319 had over-the-year increases in average 

weekly wages. (See chart 4.) Rockland, N.Y., had the largest percentage wage increase among the 

largest U.S. counties (24.9 percent). 

Of the 342 largest counties, 20 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Midland, 

Texas, had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, with a loss of 6.7 percent. Ector, 

Texas, had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by Lafayette, La.; 

Stark, Ohio; and Gregg, Texas. (See table 1.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in September

2015. Dallas, Texas, had the largest gain (4.0 percent). Within Dallas, trade, transportation, and utilities 

had the largest over-the-year employment level increase, with a gain of 17,638 jobs, or 5.6 percent. 

Harris, Texas, had the smallest percentage increase in employment (0.8 percent) among the 10 largest 

counties. (See table 2.)

Average weekly wages increased over the year in all of the 10 largest U.S. counties. San Diego, Calif., 

experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (4.2 percent). Within San Diego, 

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

Within this industry, average weekly wages increased by $120, or 8.4 percent, over the year. Harris, 

Texas, had the smallest percentage gain in average weekly wages (0.1 percent) among the 10 largest 

counties. 
- 4 - 

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 342 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2014. September 2015 employment and 

2015 third quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.

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

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

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.6 million employer reports cover 140.4 million full- and parttime workers. The QCEW program provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by detailed industry. Data for the 

third quarter of 2015 will be available electronically later at www.bls.gov/cew/. For additional 

information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note. Additional 

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

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for fourth quarter 2015 is scheduled to be released 

on Wednesday, June 8, 2016. 

Census Area Name Change Effective with BLS Release of Data for Fourth Quarter of 2015

On July 1, 2015, Wade Hampton, Alaska, was officially renamed Kusilvak, Alaska. This census area 

is not part of this release because it has fewer than 75,000 jobs. However, BLS does publish data for 

this census area. This name change is not reflected in this quarter’s data release. The census area 

name change will be implemented by BLS with the fourth quarter 2015 news release. The name 

change will also be retroactively implemented for the third quarter data. Data prior to third quarter 

2015 will still be available under Wade Hampton, Alaska.
Technical Note

These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative program, 

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

also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered by state and 

federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by 

State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The summaries are a result of 

the administration of state unemployment insurance programs that 

require most employers to pay quarterly taxes based on the employment and wages of workers covered by UI. QCEW data in this release are based on the 2012 North American Industry Classification 

System. Data for 2015 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 343 counties presented in 

this release were derived using 2014 preliminary annual averages of 

employment. For 2015 data, three counties have been added to the 

publication tables: Butte, Calif.; Hall, Ga.; and Ector, Texas. These 

counties will be included in all 2015 quarterly releases. The counties 

in table 2 are selected and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from the preceding year.

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

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.5 million establishments in first quarter of 2015 

Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by 

7.6 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 623,000 establishments

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws

UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers

Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs

Publication frequency

Quarterly

— 6 months after the end of each 

quarter

Quarterly

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter

Monthly

— Usually first Friday of following 

month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

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

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking)

Principal

products

Provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, employment, and wages at the county, 

MSA, state, and national levels by 

detailed industry

Provides quarterly employer dynamics data on establishment openings, 

closings, expansions, and contractions 

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

state private-sector total level 

Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data 

at the county and MSA level 

Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry

Principal uses Major uses include:

— Detailed locality data

— Periodic universe counts for 

benchmarking sample survey estimates

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys

Major uses include:

— Business cycle analysis

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions

— Analysis of employment expansion and contraction by size of 

firm

Major uses include:

— Principal national economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites

www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/
The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

from data released by the individual states. These potential differences 

result from the states' continuing receipt of UI data over time and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine their data 

release timetables.

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures

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

QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and publication product.

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is important to understand program differences and the intended uses of the 

program products. (See table.) Additional information on each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table.

Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program, 

employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers on behalf of 

all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies which still 

report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple establishments 

within a state complete a questionnaire, called the "Multiple Worksite 

Report," which provides detailed information on the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW employment and wage 

data are derived from microdata summaries of 9.4 million employer 

reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 

2014. These reports are based on place of employment rather than 

place of residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and has been basically comparable 

from state to state since 1978, when the 1976 amendments to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act became effective, expanding coverage to 

include most state and local government employees. In 2014, UI and 

UCFE programs covered workers in 136.6 million jobs. The estimated 

131.8 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.3 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $7.017 trillion in pay, representing 

93.8 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income 

and 40.5 percent of the gross domestic product.

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

Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, and 

employees of certain small nonprofit organizations.

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

have an impact on the employment and wages reported by employers 

covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may affect the overthe-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 parttime workers as well as the number of individuals in high-paying and 

low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay periods within a 

quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the workforce could 

increase significantly when there is a large decline in the number of 

employees that had been receiving below-average wages. Wages may 

include payments to workers not present in the employment counts 

because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of 

the month. When comparing average weekly wage levels between industries, states, or quarters, these factors should be taken into consideration.

Wages measured by QCEW may be subject to periodic and sometimes large fluctuations. This variability may be due to calendar effects resulting from some quarters having more pay dates than others. 

The effect is most visible in counties with a dominant employer. In 

particular, this effect has been observed in counties where government 

employers represent a large fraction of overall employment. Similar 

calendar effects can result from private sector pay practices. However, 

these effects are typically less pronounced for two reasons: employment is less concentrated in a single private employer, and private employers use a variety of pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly). 

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

pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal 

payroll processing. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly 

pay schedule. As a result, in some quarters federal wages include six 

pay dates, while in other quarters there are seven pay dates. Over-theyear comparisons of average weekly wages may also reflect this calendar effect. Growth in average weekly wages may be attributed, in 

part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year, which 

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

dates. An opposite effect will occur when wages in the current quarter 

reflecting six pay dates are compared with year-ago wages for a quarter including seven pay dates. 

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

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

ownership classification of all establishments on a 3-year cycle. 

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

introduced in the first quarter.

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

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

a number of reasons—some reflecting economic events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation.

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

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

done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the over-theyear changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2014 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

employment and wages are not published. These adjusted prior-year 

levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS Web 

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

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

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

release.

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

measures presented in this release account for most of the administrative changes—those occurring when employers update the industry, 

location, and ownership information of their establishments. The most 

common adjustments for administrative change are the result of updated information about the county location of individual establishments. Included in these adjustments are administrative changes involving the classification of establishments that were previously reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry categories. Adjusted data account for improvements in reporting employment and wages for individual and multi-unit establishments. To accomplish this, adjustments were implemented to account for: administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start reporting 

for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity (first 

quarter of 2008); selected large administrative changes in employment 

and wages (second quarter of 2011); and state verified improvements 

in reporting of employment and wages (third quarter of 2014). These 

adjustments allow QCEW to include county employment and wage 

growth rates in this news release that would otherwise not meet publication standards.

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending points 

(a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may 

not be valid for any time period other than the one featured in a release 

even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data.

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by the 

Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information 

Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties include those designated as independent cities in some jurisdictions and, 

in Alaska, those designated as census areas where counties have not 

been created. County data also are presented for the New England 

states for comparative purposes even though townships are the more 

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

Additional statistics and other information

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2014 edition of this 

publication, which was published in September 2015, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on 

job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 

2015 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from

the 2014 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online 

are now available at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn14.htm. The 

2015 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will 

be available in September 2016. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

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

BDMInfo@bls.gov).

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

message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

third quarter 2015

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

United States4.............................. 9,633.8 140,442.2 1.9 - $974 2.6 -

Jefferson, AL................................ 17.8 338.3 0.7 266 962 0.8 311

Madison, AL................................. 9.2 186.5 1.7 186 1,053 1.5 265

Mobile, AL.................................... 9.7 166.6 0.4 292 835 1.7 253

Montgomery, AL........................... 6.3 128.7 0.7 266 819 1.0 300

Shelby, AL.................................... 5.5 83.6 1.0 231 914 4.2 33

Tuscaloosa, AL............................. 4.4 92.2 1.6 192 811 -0.4 326

Anchorage Borough, AK............... 8.4 156.9 0.5 284 1,084 1.6 259

Maricopa, AZ................................ 95.7 1,824.7 3.7 45 929 1.4 274

Pima, AZ....................................... 19.1 354.7 0.6 276 816 0.0 320

Benton, AR................................... 5.9 111.7 4.8 12 949 2.4 178

Pulaski, AR................................... 14.5 247.2 1.7 186 869 2.1 215

Washington, AR........................... 5.8 101.3 4.2 22 786 2.3 193

Alameda, CA................................ 59.6 734.5 3.3 71 1,289 2.3 193

Butte, CA..................................... 8.0 79.1 1.8 172 731 3.8 53

Contra Costa, CA......................... 30.9 349.0 2.4 128 1,168 3.2 91

Fresno, CA................................... 32.5 375.9 2.2 143 772 3.3 82

Kern, CA....................................... 17.7 323.2 -0.5 325 828 -0.5 328

Los Angeles, CA........................... 457.6 4,261.8 2.2 143 1,074 3.7 60

Marin, CA..................................... 12.3 112.3 2.6 117 1,185 6.1 5

Monterey, CA............................... 13.2 202.3 2.3 137 825 3.3 82

Orange, CA.................................. 112.3 1,524.0 3.3 71 1,077 2.1 215

Placer, CA.................................... 12.0 149.9 3.9 39 989 5.4 9

Riverside, CA............................... 57.0 659.5 4.8 12 781 3.0 117

Sacramento, CA........................... 54.3 629.7 2.8 104 1,068 1.6 259

San Bernardino, CA..................... 53.8 686.9 3.2 81 815 3.0 117

San Diego, CA.............................. 104.5 1,384.0 2.9 101 1,071 4.2 33

San Francisco, CA....................... 59.2 684.1 5.2 8 1,712 1.4 274

San Joaquin, CA.......................... 17.1 238.6 4.2 22 834 4.0 44

San Luis Obispo, CA.................... 10.1 114.6 2.9 101 814 4.1 37

San Mateo, CA............................. 27.1 387.8 5.0 10 1,894 3.4 77

Santa Barbara, CA....................... 14.9 197.6 1.6 192 934 3.9 47

Santa Clara, CA........................... 68.6 1,026.6 4.0 32 2,090 3.2 91

Santa Cruz, CA............................ 9.4 103.4 2.3 137 888 6.1 5

Solano, CA................................... 10.6 132.7 3.5 58 981 2.4 178

Sonoma, CA................................. 19.3 200.6 2.8 104 935 4.7 19

Stanislaus, CA.............................. 14.8 183.5 3.2 81 840 4.3 30

Tulare, CA.................................... 9.5 158.9 1.7 186 685 3.6 64

Ventura, CA.................................. 25.5 313.4 1.5 204 961 1.6 259

Yolo, CA....................................... 6.4 102.8 1.1 227 1,006 3.1 104

Adams, CO................................... 10.1 194.1 4.1 25 952 3.0 117

Arapahoe, CO.............................. 21.0 318.6 2.9 101 1,117 1.3 279

Boulder, CO.................................. 14.4 173.8 2.7 112 1,158 3.1 104

Denver, CO.................................. 29.9 483.7 3.6 49 1,194 2.0 228

Douglas, CO................................. 11.2 112.9 3.3 71 1,033 -1.0 333

El Paso, CO.................................. 18.2 259.7 3.5 58 876 1.9 241

Jefferson, CO............................... 19.2 230.2 2.8 104 992 4.5 25

Larimer, CO.................................. 11.3 149.5 3.7 45 892 3.8 53

Weld, CO...................................... 6.7 101.2 -1.3 331 861 -1.4 335

Fairfield, CT................................. 34.7 422.5 0.8 252 1,406 0.4 316

Hartford, CT.................................. 27.2 506.0 0.4 292 1,142 1.9 241

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT............................ 23.5 361.0 0.0 313 $1,021 3.2 91

New London, CT.......................... 7.3 122.6 0.2 307 943 1.6 259

New Castle, DE............................ 18.8 284.0 1.9 162 1,066 -0.7 332

Washington, DC........................... 38.2 743.6 1.4 211 1,667 2.3 193

Alachua, FL.................................. 6.8 124.4 1.9 162 805 2.0 228

Brevard, FL................................... 15.0 193.9 1.9 162 873 2.5 165

Broward, FL.................................. 66.3 759.7 2.4 128 898 3.3 82

Collier, FL..................................... 12.9 128.7 4.0 32 815 1.2 286

Duval, FL..................................... 27.7 474.0 3.6 49 909 2.0 228

Escambia, FL............................... 8.0 126.6 1.5 204 760 3.5 72

Hillsborough, FL........................... 39.4 641.6 3.6 49 914 2.0 228

Lake, FL....................................... 7.6 90.2 4.0 32 680 3.7 60

Lee, FL......................................... 20.4 236.2 5.5 5 766 3.1 104

Leon, FL....................................... 8.3 142.4 0.2 307 795 2.4 178

Manatee, FL................................. 10.0 111.9 4.4 18 740 4.8 13

Marion, FL.................................... 8.1 96.4 1.3 217 658 2.0 228

Miami-Dade, FL............................ 93.2 1,076.1 2.8 104 924 3.9 47

Okaloosa, FL................................ 6.2 80.2 2.1 145 816 4.7 19

Orange, FL................................... 38.7 765.8 4.0 32 854 4.1 37

Osceola, FL.................................. 6.2 85.1 5.4 6 671 2.8 138

Palm Beach, FL............................ 52.7 559.3 3.6 49 924 2.2 204

Pasco, FL..................................... 10.3 109.2 3.1 89 676 4.5 25

Pinellas, FL................................... 31.4 407.8 2.8 104 846 2.3 193

Polk, FL........................................ 12.5 203.5 3.7 45 740 1.5 265

Sarasota, FL................................ 15.2 158.1 3.6 49 777 3.2 91

Seminole, FL................................ 14.1 174.9 3.6 49 803 3.2 91

Volusia, FL................................... 13.7 160.7 3.0 95 697 5.0 11

Bibb, GA....................................... 4.5 82.9 1.4 211 760 3.0 117

Chatham, GA................................ 8.4 146.7 3.2 81 821 2.5 165

Clayton, GA.................................. 4.4 117.0 3.3 71 912 2.5 165

Cobb, GA...................................... 23.2 334.6 3.1 89 1,006 2.2 204

DeKalb, GA................................. 19.2 291.1 2.5 124 977 3.1 104

Fulton, GA.................................... 45.8 796.3 3.2 81 1,266 2.3 193

Gwinnett, GA................................ 26.2 335.6 2.8 104 962 2.2 204

Hall, GA....................................... 4.6 80.5 4.3 19 825 3.3 82

Muscogee, GA.............................. 4.9 93.3 -0.7 328 761 1.9 241

Richmond, GA.............................. 4.8 104.7 2.1 145 819 2.4 178

Honolulu, HI.................................. 25.2 462.1 1.1 227 932 3.1 104

Ada, ID......................................... 14.1 219.2 4.1 25 841 1.1 294

Champaign, IL.............................. 4.6 90.3 -0.2 319 877 3.4 77

Cook, IL........................................ 165.4 2,535.6 1.5 204 1,108 3.4 77

DuPage, IL................................. 40.2 603.6 0.6 276 1,121 4.8 13

Kane, IL........................................ 14.5 209.2 0.5 284 867 4.5 25

Lake, IL........................................ 23.8 334.6 0.7 266 1,298 11.7 2

McHenry, IL.................................. 9.3 97.7 0.3 301 808 2.9 129

McLean, IL.................................... 4.0 84.7 0.5 284 895 0.3 317

Madison, IL................................... 6.4 98.8 -0.4 324 794 3.1 104

Peoria, IL...................................... 4.9 100.7 0.7 266 910 3.8 53

St. Clair, IL.................................... 5.8 93.3 1.0 231 787 2.3 193

Sangamon, IL............................... 5.5 129.3 -0.5 325 1,001 1.1 294

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Will, IL.......................................... 17.1 224.7 1.9 162 $858 2.4 178

Winnebago, IL.............................. 7.1 128.1 0.0 313 811 1.8 247

Allen, IN........................................ 8.7 183.8 2.4 128 796 2.7 147

Elkhart, IN..................................... 4.7 125.0 3.2 81 790 1.2 286

Hamilton, IN.................................. 8.9 134.8 3.9 39 913 2.6 154

Lake, IN........................................ 10.3 187.8 0.2 307 841 -0.6 329

Marion, IN..................................... 23.8 586.7 1.8 172 966 1.7 253

St. Joseph, IN............................... 5.8 122.4 3.1 89 795 2.3 193

Tippecanoe, IN............................. 3.3 82.1 0.9 243 831 3.6 64

Vanderburgh, IN........................... 4.7 106.4 0.5 284 786 3.6 64

Black Hawk, IA............................ 3.9 74.0 -2.5 335 808 0.9 305

Johnson, IA.................................. 4.1 82.1 1.0 231 920 3.0 117

Linn, IA......................................... 6.6 129.4 0.6 276 929 1.5 265

Polk, IA........................................ 16.8 289.6 0.8 252 981 2.4 178

Scott, IA........................................ 5.5 91.6 0.8 252 799 4.7 19

Johnson, KS................................. 22.4 334.6 1.9 162 968 1.3 279

Sedgwick, KS............................... 12.7 247.5 1.0 231 831 0.8 311

Shawnee, KS................................ 5.0 97.5 0.5 284 783 2.1 215

Wyandotte, KS............................. 3.4 90.4 2.3 137 942 3.2 91

Boone, KY................................... 4.3 81.9 4.3 19 826 2.6 154

Fayette, KY................................... 10.6 190.8 2.6 117 879 4.4 29

Jefferson, KY................................ 24.8 453.3 1.6 192 933 3.9 47

Caddo, LA.................................... 7.3 114.9 0.4 292 799 0.6 314

Calcasieu, LA............................... 5.0 92.0 3.3 71 881 0.9 305

East Baton Rouge, LA.................. 14.9 270.6 0.5 284 914 3.3 82

Jefferson, LA................................ 13.6 192.5 -0.2 319 876 1.9 241

Lafayette, LA................................ 9.3 136.7 -3.9 337 919 -3.2 339

Orleans, LA.................................. 12.1 190.0 3.2 81 922 -0.2 322

St. Tammany, LA.......................... 7.8 86.2 3.8 42 833 1.8 247

Cumberland, ME.......................... 13.1 176.9 1.0 231 857 3.1 104

Anne Arundel, MD........................ 15.0 261.8 2.4 128 1,048 2.9 129

Baltimore, MD............................... 21.2 371.9 1.2 221 980 1.9 241

Frederick, MD............................... 6.4 99.4 2.4 128 911 0.9 305

Harford, MD.................................. 5.7 90.7 1.4 211 923 2.6 154

Howard, MD................................. 9.9 166.0 1.8 172 1,181 -1.3 334

Montgomery, MD.......................... 32.7 461.1 0.9 243 1,277 2.7 147

Prince George's, MD.................... 15.7 308.6 1.0 231 1,058 2.1 215

Baltimore City, MD....................... 13.6 335.1 -0.2 319 1,152 2.3 193

Barnstable, MA............................. 9.3 101.0 1.7 186 808 3.3 82

Bristol, MA.................................... 17.0 221.9 0.3 301 882 5.0 11

Essex, MA.................................... 23.7 320.9 1.0 231 1,009 0.8 311

Hampden, MA.............................. 17.2 204.1 0.8 252 884 2.9 129

Middlesex, MA.............................. 53.3 874.9 2.0 151 1,419 2.6 154

Norfolk, MA................................... 24.7 344.2 1.4 211 1,112 2.5 165

Plymouth, MA............................... 15.1 188.3 0.8 252 909 4.0 44

Suffolk, MA................................... 27.5 639.1 2.0 151 1,559 3.1 104

Worcester, MA.............................. 23.8 334.7 0.8 252 969 3.2 91

Genesee, MI................................. 7.0 132.7 0.0 313 816 5.6 7

Ingham, MI................................... 6.0 147.3 0.4 292 898 1.8 247

Kalamazoo, MI............................. 5.1 114.7 0.8 252 898 2.4 178

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Kent, MI....................................... 14.1 373.7 3.3 71 $875 3.6 64

Macomb, MI.................................. 17.5 317.3 2.4 128 950 1.1 294

Oakland, MI.................................. 38.8 709.0 1.6 192 1,061 3.0 117

Ottawa, MI.................................... 5.6 122.8 3.1 89 818 2.0 228

Saginaw, MI.................................. 4.0 84.8 1.0 231 777 2.4 178

Washtenaw, MI............................. 8.2 202.0 0.9 243 1,052 2.7 147

Wayne, MI.................................... 30.6 700.9 0.9 243 1,059 3.1 104

Anoka, MN.................................... 6.6 119.3 0.7 266 968 3.5 72

Dakota, MN.................................. 9.3 184.0 0.3 301 944 2.8 138

Hennepin, MN.............................. 37.1 888.5 2.0 151 1,198 2.0 228

Olmsted, MN................................ 3.2 94.2 1.7 186 1,113 3.4 77

Ramsey, MN................................. 12.7 330.0 1.2 221 1,073 1.7 253

St. Louis, MN................................ 5.1 97.7 -0.2 319 836 1.6 259

Stearns, MN................................. 4.1 84.9 0.2 307 825 4.8 13

Washington, MN........................... 5.2 79.4 2.8 104 810 3.6 64

Harrison, MS................................ 4.4 83.2 0.6 276 701 1.2 286

Hinds, MS..................................... 5.9 120.0 0.8 252 832 2.2 204

Boone, MO................................... 4.9 92.5 1.8 172 795 3.7 60

Clay, MO...................................... 5.4 99.2 5.1 9 856 3.0 117

Greene, MO.................................. 8.5 162.0 1.1 227 753 3.9 47

Jackson, MO................................ 21.0 358.0 2.0 151 989 2.6 154

St. Charles, MO............................ 8.9 141.2 4.8 12 774 1.2 286

St. Louis, MO................................ 35.8 593.3 1.6 192 1,004 0.9 305

St. Louis City, MO........................ 12.6 228.3 1.9 162 1,045 1.6 259

Yellowstone, MT........................... 6.4 81.5 2.4 128 845 4.7 19

Douglas, NE................................. 18.9 333.2 2.1 145 928 4.7 19

Lancaster, NE............................... 10.2 167.3 1.6 192 797 3.8 53

Clark, NV..................................... 53.9 913.4 3.5 58 843 2.4 178

Washoe, NV................................. 14.4 205.1 4.3 19 877 2.5 165

Hillsborough, NH.......................... 12.3 197.5 1.3 217 1,031 1.5 265

Rockingham, NH.......................... 10.8 146.0 2.7 112 938 2.2 204

Atlantic, NJ................................... 6.5 127.8 -2.8 336 814 2.5 165

Bergen, NJ................................... 32.8 444.0 0.6 276 1,135 2.9 129

Burlington, NJ............................... 10.9 197.9 1.1 227 994 3.0 117

Camden, NJ................................. 11.9 198.5 2.0 151 943 4.8 13

Essex, NJ.................................... 20.1 333.1 0.6 276 1,177 2.0 228

Gloucester, NJ.............................. 6.2 103.2 1.8 172 835 2.1 215

Hudson, NJ................................... 14.2 244.8 3.2 81 1,280 1.0 300

Mercer, NJ.................................... 11.1 239.9 2.7 112 1,234 1.3 279

Middlesex, NJ.............................. 21.8 404.6 1.0 231 1,142 2.1 215

Monmouth, NJ.............................. 19.9 255.5 2.6 117 932 1.7 253

Morris, NJ..................................... 16.8 286.4 1.6 192 1,380 2.4 178

Ocean, NJ.................................... 12.8 163.4 2.7 112 766 1.7 253

Passaic, NJ.................................. 12.3 164.1 -0.6 327 944 2.6 154

Somerset, NJ............................... 10.0 182.4 1.2 221 1,447 4.3 30

Union, NJ..................................... 14.2 217.0 (5) - 1,188 (5) -

Bernalillo, NM............................... 18.1 320.1 1.2 221 842 1.3 279

Albany, NY................................... 10.5 228.9 0.5 284 1,038 3.1 104

Bronx, NY..................................... 18.7 297.9 0.3 301 938 2.4 178

Broome, NY.................................. 4.6 86.6 -1.6 333 753 2.2 204

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Dutchess, NY............................... 8.5 111.4 1.6 192 $926 -0.6 329

Erie, NY........................................ 24.8 466.1 0.7 266 856 2.4 178

Kings, NY..................................... 60.5 658.2 3.4 66 835 2.1 215

Monroe, NY.................................. 18.8 379.9 0.9 243 929 2.5 165

Nassau, NY.................................. 54.2 615.4 1.4 211 1,063 3.6 64

New York, NY............................... 129.9 2,370.4 2.1 145 1,829 2.5 165

Oneida, NY................................... 5.4 104.5 0.7 266 740 -0.3 323

Onondaga, NY.............................. 13.1 243.9 0.4 292 913 6.5 3

Orange, NY.................................. 10.3 139.7 0.9 243 807 3.9 47

Queens, NY.................................. 51.6 637.6 3.5 58 930 3.3 82

Richmond, NY.............................. 9.8 113.1 2.0 151 877 4.3 30

Rockland, NY............................... 10.5 119.7 2.6 117 1,168 24.9 1

Saratoga, NY................................ 5.9 83.4 2.4 128 864 2.0 228

Suffolk, NY................................... 52.7 651.7 1.6 192 1,053 2.1 215

Westchester, NY.......................... 36.7 421.4 2.0 151 1,222 1.3 279

Buncombe, NC............................. 8.6 125.2 3.4 66 760 4.0 44

Catawba, NC................................ 4.3 83.5 1.8 172 746 4.2 33

Cumberland, NC........................... 6.3 116.8 0.1 311 767 2.7 147

Durham, NC................................. 8.0 190.5 1.7 186 1,231 2.9 129

Forsyth, NC.................................. 9.4 181.9 1.8 172 886 -0.3 323

Guilford, NC.................................. 14.3 277.3 2.5 124 857 1.5 265

Mecklenburg, NC.......................... 35.5 638.2 3.7 45 1,119 4.2 33

New Hanover, NC........................ 7.7 107.7 3.8 42 769 2.8 138

Wake, NC..................................... 32.0 514.6 4.0 32 983 2.5 165

Cass, ND...................................... 6.9 116.9 0.8 252 910 1.3 279

Butler, OH..................................... 7.6 146.4 2.3 137 850 1.8 247

Cuyahoga, OH.............................. 35.5 713.1 0.7 266 985 1.1 294

Delaware, OH............................... 4.9 84.8 0.8 252 929 1.0 300

Franklin, OH................................. 30.7 722.9 2.1 145 982 3.5 72

Hamilton, OH................................ 23.4 509.0 1.9 162 1,055 2.2 204

Lake, OH...................................... 6.2 94.7 0.3 301 795 1.5 265

Lorain, OH.................................... 6.1 96.4 -0.9 329 775 1.4 274

Lucas, OH.................................... 10.1 208.7 1.8 172 839 1.2 286

Mahoning, OH.............................. 5.9 98.0 -1.6 333 707 3.8 53

Montgomery, OH.......................... 11.9 249.6 1.4 211 837 3.0 117

Stark, OH..................................... 8.6 158.4 0.3 301 740 -2.1 338

Summit, OH................................. 14.1 264.7 0.6 276 876 3.2 91

Warren, OH................................. 4.7 88.6 3.1 89 854 3.4 77

Cleveland, OK.............................. 5.5 82.0 2.0 151 719 1.1 294

Oklahoma, OK.............................. 27.2 451.6 1.0 231 934 -1.4 335

Tulsa, OK..................................... 22.1 347.9 0.8 252 904 1.2 286

Clackamas, OR............................ 14.1 153.0 3.0 95 926 4.8 13

Jackson, OR................................ 7.0 84.8 3.5 58 764 4.1 37

Lane, OR...................................... 11.7 147.7 2.6 117 775 2.9 129

Marion, OR................................... 10.1 150.2 3.6 49 788 3.7 60

Multnomah, OR............................ 32.7 481.4 3.4 66 1,006 2.9 129

Washington, OR........................... 18.3 275.3 2.5 124 1,288 6.4 4

Allegheny, PA............................... 35.5 687.5 0.4 292 1,051 2.6 154

Berks, PA..................................... 8.9 171.3 1.8 172 866 1.5 265

Bucks, PA..................................... 19.8 255.6 0.7 266 909 1.8 247

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Butler, PA..................................... 5.0 85.6 0.4 292 $920 3.5 72

Chester, PA.................................. 15.3 244.7 1.2 221 1,208 4.1 37

Cumberland, PA........................... 6.3 131.2 2.7 112 883 2.0 228

Dauphin, PA................................ 7.4 178.0 0.5 284 962 2.4 178

Delaware, PA............................... 13.9 218.0 0.8 252 1,010 2.0 228

Erie, PA........................................ 7.1 126.0 0.9 243 775 2.8 138

Lackawanna, PA.......................... 5.8 97.3 -0.2 319 749 1.9 241

Lancaster, PA............................... 13.2 230.9 2.0 151 815 3.2 91

Lehigh, PA.................................... 8.6 185.2 1.5 204 938 1.4 274

Luzerne, PA.................................. 7.5 142.9 -0.1 317 779 2.6 154

Montgomery, PA........................... 27.4 479.5 1.8 172 1,158 2.0 228

Northampton, PA.......................... 6.7 108.5 1.9 162 849 3.2 91

Philadelphia, PA........................... 34.9 651.7 0.9 243 1,160 3.0 117

Washington, PA............................ 5.5 87.3 -1.3 331 948 0.9 305

Westmoreland, PA....................... 9.3 134.1 0.6 276 785 2.1 215

York, PA....................................... 9.0 176.2 2.0 151 849 3.2 91

Providence, RI.............................. 17.5 283.8 1.0 231 961 2.6 154

Charleston, SC............................. 13.8 235.9 3.4 66 873 4.1 37

Greenville, SC.............................. 13.8 257.7 3.5 58 859 2.4 178

Horry, SC..................................... 8.6 121.1 3.0 95 598 3.6 64

Lexington, SC............................... 6.4 112.8 4.1 25 741 2.1 215

Richland, SC................................ 9.6 214.1 2.1 145 833 2.3 193

Spartanburg, SC........................... 6.0 128.1 3.0 95 814 2.8 138

York, SC....................................... 5.1 84.9 4.1 25 763 0.5 315

Minnehaha, SD............................. 7.0 123.5 1.5 204 850 3.3 82

Davidson, TN................................ 20.7 459.2 3.3 71 1,030 5.5 8

Hamilton, TN................................ 9.2 194.7 3.0 95 865 4.5 25

Knox, TN...................................... 11.6 233.2 1.6 192 834 2.3 193

Rutherford, TN.............................. 5.1 117.2 3.9 39 843 2.1 215

Shelby, TN.................................... 19.9 483.8 1.5 204 979 1.5 265

Williamson, TN............................. 7.8 116.9 6.5 1 1,101 5.2 10

Bell, TX......................................... 5.1 116.2 4.2 22 823 2.6 154

Bexar, TX..................................... 38.2 821.4 3.3 71 874 2.2 204

Brazoria, TX................................. 5.4 103.4 4.0 32 992 2.8 138

Brazos, TX.................................... 4.3 99.8 4.5 16 734 -0.4 326

Cameron, TX................................ 6.4 135.7 1.2 221 615 2.2 204

Collin, TX...................................... 22.4 366.9 4.9 11 1,126 2.5 165

Dallas, TX..................................... 73.2 1,616.8 4.0 32 1,157 1.4 274

Denton, TX.................................. 13.4 221.4 6.1 3 885 3.0 117

Ector, TX..................................... 4.0 72.0 -8.3 340 1,037 -4.9 340

El Paso, TX.................................. 14.6 292.0 3.1 89 698 2.6 154

Fort Bend, TX............................... 11.9 170.6 3.6 49 949 -0.3 323

Galveston, TX............................... 5.8 102.8 3.5 58 853 3.5 72

Gregg, TX..................................... 4.3 76.1 -4.2 338 846 -1.5 337

Harris, TX..................................... 111.2 2,287.6 0.8 252 1,240 0.1 319

Hidalgo, TX................................... 11.9 243.9 2.5 124 624 1.0 300

Jefferson, TX................................ 5.9 123.1 0.4 292 1,003 2.7 147

Lubbock, TX................................. 7.4 135.0 2.4 128 779 2.1 215

McLennan, TX.............................. 5.1 108.1 1.9 162 792 2.2 204

Midland, TX.................................. 5.4 86.8 -7.3 339 1,177 -6.7 341

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Montgomery, TX........................... 10.5 165.3 3.2 81 $957 0.0 320

Nueces, TX.................................. 8.2 163.0 0.8 252 861 1.2 286

Potter, TX..................................... 4.0 79.1 1.6 192 804 0.2 318

Smith, TX..................................... 6.1 100.2 4.1 25 810 -0.6 329

Tarrant, TX................................... 41.1 844.9 2.6 117 967 2.5 165

Travis, TX..................................... 37.3 692.4 4.6 15 1,122 3.9 47

Webb, TX..................................... 5.1 97.7 2.6 117 658 0.9 305

Williamson, TX............................. 9.5 150.8 4.5 16 937 1.7 253

Davis, UT..................................... 8.0 119.8 3.5 58 785 2.7 147

Salt Lake, UT................................ 42.4 649.8 3.6 49 933 4.1 37

Utah, UT....................................... 14.6 211.7 6.3 2 767 2.8 138

Weber, UT.................................... 5.8 98.7 3.3 71 744 3.2 91

Chittenden, VT............................. 6.6 101.7 0.9 243 928 1.8 247

Arlington, VA................................ 9.4 171.3 3.0 95 1,587 1.5 265

Chesterfield, VA........................... 8.6 131.8 5.7 4 833 1.1 294

Fairfax, VA.................................... 37.1 589.0 2.0 151 1,462 1.2 286

Henrico, VA.................................. 11.2 188.3 4.1 25 945 2.5 165

Loudoun, VA................................ 11.6 156.0 5.3 7 1,126 2.0 228

Prince William, VA........................ 9.1 123.3 4.1 25 860 2.1 215

Alexandria City, VA...................... 6.7 96.4 1.6 192 1,372 2.2 204

Chesapeake City, VA................... 6.0 97.3 0.4 292 766 2.8 138

Newport News City, VA................ 3.8 97.3 -0.1 317 957 3.1 104

Norfolk City, VA........................... 5.8 140.1 0.1 311 1,002 2.9 129

Richmond City, VA....................... 7.5 150.9 1.8 172 1,089 4.1 37

Virginia Beach City, VA................ 11.9 174.0 1.5 204 767 2.5 165

Benton, WA.................................. 5.6 84.5 3.3 71 965 3.1 104

Clark, WA..................................... 13.9 147.9 3.8 42 915 3.0 117

King, WA...................................... 84.3 1,292.1 3.4 66 1,463 1.0 300

Kitsap, WA.................................... 6.6 85.6 2.3 137 921 2.4 178

Pierce, WA................................... 21.5 288.5 1.9 162 898 3.6 64

Snohomish, WA............................ 20.1 277.8 2.8 104 1,050 3.2 91

Spokane, WA............................... 15.5 211.6 1.8 172 842 2.3 193

Thurston, WA............................... 7.8 107.1 2.3 137 919 4.8 13

Whatcom, WA.............................. 7.1 84.9 1.8 172 801 2.7 147

Yakima, WA................................. 7.7 121.3 (5) - 679 2.9 129

Kanawha, WV............................... 5.9 102.6 -1.2 330 839 1.3 279

Brown, WI..................................... 6.7 152.3 1.0 231 856 3.8 53

Dane, WI...................................... 14.7 322.8 1.8 172 938 4.6 24

Milwaukee, WI.............................. 25.7 484.9 0.0 313 925 2.8 138

Outagamie, WI............................. 5.1 105.4 1.3 217 835 3.3 82

Waukesha, WI.............................. 12.6 237.0 1.3 217 953 3.8 53

Winnebago, WI............................. 3.7 90.6 0.7 266 888 3.1 104

San Juan, PR............................... 10.6 250.4 0.4 (6) 614 1.7 (6)

1 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.

2 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note.

4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

5 Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

6 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.

Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees

(UCFE) programs. These 342 U.S. counties comprise 72.2 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

third quarter 2015

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-152

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-152

United States3................................................................. 9,633.8 140,442.2 1.9 $974 2.6

 Private industry............................................................. 9,335.3 119,146.1 2.2 965 2.7

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 138.2 2,071.5 -6.3 1,024 -4.7

 Construction............................................................... 770.3 6,645.3 4.0 1,084 4.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 343.0 12,338.5 0.7 1,170 1.8

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 1,927.7 26,664.0 2.1 823 2.6

 Information................................................................. 154.0 2,743.1 1.1 1,783 2.7

 Financial activities...................................................... 849.6 7,846.0 1.9 1,444 3.7

 Professional and business services........................... 1,739.8 19,704.3 2.3 1,241 3.0

 Education and health services................................... 1,539.9 21,123.8 2.3 905 2.7

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 810.2 15,377.8 3.0 413 3.5

 Other services............................................................ 829.3 4,303.4 1.4 666 3.7

 Government.................................................................. 298.5 21,296.1 0.5 1,029 2.5

Los Angeles, CA.............................................................. 457.6 4,261.8 2.2 1,074 3.7

 Private industry............................................................. 451.6 3,707.3 2.3 1,035 3.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.6 -2.1 1,344 -0.7

 Construction............................................................... 13.6 127.9 6.1 1,129 6.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 12.4 357.2 -1.5 1,167 2.8

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 53.7 803.0 1.8 876 2.5

 Information................................................................. 9.8 202.6 0.9 1,957 5.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 24.9 212.8 1.3 1,717 4.0

 Professional and business services........................... 48.0 595.8 0.8 1,317 5.5

 Education and health services................................... 211.3 731.3 2.7 821 2.5

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 31.6 488.8 2.9 591 2.6

 Other services............................................................ 27.8 147.2 0.9 691 5.8

 Government.................................................................. 6.0 554.4 1.5 1,348 5.2

New York, NY.................................................................. 129.9 2,370.4 2.1 1,829 2.5

 Private industry............................................................. 129.0 2,107.5 2.2 1,892 2.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.0 0.2 -4.3 1,928 -40.9

 Construction............................................................... 2.2 38.0 5.4 1,789 4.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.2 27.3 2.1 1,346 7.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 20.2 257.3 -0.9 1,276 1.4

 Information................................................................. 4.9 151.6 0.6 2,571 7.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 19.2 367.7 1.6 3,292 0.2

 Professional and business services........................... 27.4 542.5 3.3 2,122 2.6

 Education and health services................................... 9.8 326.8 1.8 1,309 3.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.7 284.4 2.3 854 4.0

 Other services............................................................ 20.4 99.7 0.7 1,098 4.6

 Government.................................................................. 0.8 263.0 1.2 1,312 1.8

Cook, IL........................................................................... 165.4 2,535.6 1.5 1,108 3.4

 Private industry............................................................. 164.1 2,240.3 1.7 1,111 3.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.1 1.1 18.4 1,222 10.3

 Construction............................................................... 13.6 73.3 2.4 1,430 3.4

 Manufacturing............................................................ 6.8 186.6 0.4 1,155 1.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 32.5 467.5 1.9 898 3.2

 Information................................................................. 2.8 55.0 2.2 1,640 0.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 16.5 188.0 0.6 1,923 4.6

 Professional and business services........................... 35.2 465.6 1.3 1,425 5.4

 Education and health services................................... 17.1 432.6 1.5 939 1.8

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 15.0 270.1 3.1 512 6.7

 Other services............................................................ 18.8 95.0 -0.1 876 3.7

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 295.3 0.5 1,084 0.6

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

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-152

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-152

Harris, TX........................................................................ 111.2 2,287.6 0.8 $1,240 0.1

 Private industry............................................................. 110.7 2,023.3 0.6 1,252 -0.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 1.8 84.1 -11.5 2,990 -3.4

 Construction............................................................... 7.1 164.9 3.2 1,302 3.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.8 185.5 -7.3 1,459 -2.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 24.9 474.9 1.7 1,109 0.5

 Information................................................................. 1.2 27.4 0.5 1,393 1.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 11.5 120.4 0.6 1,570 4.7

 Professional and business services........................... 22.5 394.5 -0.6 1,527 1.3

 Education and health services................................... 15.3 283.0 4.7 1,017 4.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 9.4 222.4 5.3 440 5.0

 Other services............................................................ 11.7 65.3 2.6 800 6.4

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 264.3 2.3 1,147 2.5

Maricopa, AZ.................................................................... 95.7 1,824.7 3.7 929 1.4

 Private industry............................................................. 95.0 1,614.6 4.2 922 1.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 7.5 7.0 926 0.2

 Construction............................................................... 7.1 97.1 3.6 966 2.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.2 115.8 0.5 1,307 0.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 19.7 361.0 3.8 856 2.9

 Information................................................................. 1.5 34.2 2.8 1,226 -0.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 11.0 160.6 4.9 1,190 4.1

 Professional and business services........................... 21.7 307.4 3.5 1,002 0.2

 Education and health services................................... 10.8 273.5 4.1 948 1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.5 199.3 4.4 435 0.5

 Other services............................................................ 6.1 49.0 1.9 670 3.4

 Government.................................................................. 0.7 210.2 0.4 989 1.7

Dallas, TX........................................................................ 73.2 1,616.8 4.0 1,157 1.4

 Private industry............................................................. 72.7 1,445.7 4.2 1,161 1.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.6 9.2 -2.8 3,478 -9.2

 Construction............................................................... 4.2 82.0 6.2 1,141 5.0

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.7 105.9 -0.4 1,256 -0.6

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 15.8 330.0 5.6 1,051 2.1

 Information................................................................. 1.4 48.5 1.0 1,752 2.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 8.9 157.7 2.7 1,563 2.2

 Professional and business services........................... 16.4 328.5 4.5 1,338 3.4

 Education and health services................................... 9.0 187.8 4.2 1,048 1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.3 154.4 6.6 477 -0.6

 Other services............................................................ 6.9 41.0 2.0 760 -0.8

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 171.1 2.4 1,126 1.1

Orange, CA...................................................................... 112.3 1,524.0 3.3 1,077 2.1

 Private industry............................................................. 110.9 1,384.4 3.3 1,062 2.0

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.2 3.0 -8.9 831 1.7

 Construction............................................................... 6.6 92.1 8.9 1,221 4.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.9 155.4 0.1 1,321 1.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 16.8 255.4 1.2 943 1.3

 Information................................................................. 1.3 25.0 0.6 1,654 1.2

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.9 117.0 3.6 1,666 5.2

 Professional and business services........................... 20.5 282.5 1.5 1,284 0.8

 Education and health services................................... 29.0 193.7 4.2 907 2.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.1 205.0 4.0 468 2.9

 Other services............................................................ 7.0 44.5 2.4 674 4.3

 Government.................................................................. 1.4 139.6 3.7 1,237 2.9

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

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-152

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-152

San Diego, CA................................................................ 104.5 1,384.0 2.9 $1,071 4.2

 Private industry............................................................. 102.7 1,157.0 3.2 1,031 4.7

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.7 9.7 -7.3 630 1.3

 Construction............................................................... 6.5 71.5 9.5 1,115 3.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.1 104.8 2.6 1,404 -0.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.3 215.7 1.2 813 3.7

 Information................................................................. 1.2 23.5 -4.4 1,773 1.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.6 70.9 2.9 1,343 6.3

 Professional and business services........................... 18.2 229.5 2.4 1,541 8.4

 Education and health services................................... 29.0 187.4 3.5 900 3.1

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.8 185.3 2.6 482 5.9

 Other services............................................................ 7.4 50.3 1.8 582 2.6

 Government.................................................................. 1.8 227.0 1.4 1,287 2.4

King, WA......................................................................... 84.3 1,292.1 3.4 1,463 1.0

 Private industry............................................................. 83.8 1,129.2 3.4 1,487 0.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 3.1 18.1 1,196 -5.2

 Construction............................................................... 6.2 64.8 7.0 1,263 4.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.4 107.0 -0.1 1,568 1.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.6 243.4 4.2 1,186 5.3

 Information................................................................. 2.1 91.3 3.8 4,798 -5.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 6.5 66.7 1.8 1,556 4.1

 Professional and business services........................... 16.4 216.6 5.2 1,538 2.1

 Education and health services................................... 19.4 161.5 (4) 964 (4)

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.9 132.1 4.4 545 6.0

 Other services............................................................ 8.9 42.7 3.0 821 4.5

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 162.9 3.2 1,299 2.9

Miami-Dade, FL............................................................... 93.2 1,076.1 2.8 924 3.9

 Private industry............................................................. 92.8 940.9 3.2 905 3.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 7.0 -6.2 572 0.0

 Construction............................................................... 5.7 40.4 9.3 937 6.4

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.7 39.1 3.2 860 4.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 25.9 274.1 2.0 838 4.2

 Information................................................................. 1.4 17.6 -2.6 1,444 2.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.9 73.7 3.5 1,421 3.9

 Professional and business services........................... 20.0 147.7 5.0 1,080 2.8

 Education and health services................................... 9.9 168.7 2.5 953 4.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.8 131.0 2.6 548 5.0

 Other services............................................................ 8.0 39.8 5.1 586 1.9

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 135.2 -0.1 1,058 4.1

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

2 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note.

3 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

4 Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Note: Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2014 annual average employment. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance

(UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,

third quarter 2015

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-15

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-15

United States2.......................................... 9,633.8 140,442.2 1.9 $974 2.6

Alabama.................................................... 119.6 1,893.6 1.2 830 1.8

Alaska........................................................ 22.5 346.4 0.4 1,041 2.2

Arizona...................................................... 152.6 2,613.9 2.9 889 1.5

Arkansas................................................... 88.3 1,193.4 1.9 756 2.6

California................................................... 1,436.2 16,474.4 3.0 1,134 3.4

Colorado.................................................... 187.9 2,513.0 2.9 1,006 2.4

Connecticut............................................... 116.5 1,668.3 0.2 1,147 2.0

Delaware................................................... 30.6 436.3 2.1 963 0.3

District of Columbia................................... 38.2 743.6 1.4 1,667 2.3

Florida....................................................... 644.2 8,023.2 3.5 852 3.1

Georgia...................................................... 291.9 4,171.1 2.8 916 2.8

Hawaii........................................................ 39.8 635.4 1.4 896 3.1

Idaho......................................................... 55.9 680.3 3.3 736 2.1

Illinois........................................................ 432.2 5,888.6 1.3 1,020 3.9

Indiana....................................................... 160.3 2,971.7 1.6 818 2.4

Iowa........................................................... 101.2 1,535.9 0.4 823 3.0

Kansas...................................................... 87.6 1,370.9 0.6 809 1.8

Kentucky.................................................... 122.3 1,852.5 1.4 804 2.9

Louisiana................................................... 127.4 1,926.3 -0.2 858 0.7

Maine......................................................... 51.3 609.7 0.7 779 3.3

Maryland.................................................... 167.6 2,607.8 1.3 1,067 2.4

Massachusetts.......................................... 241.6 3,446.9 1.4 1,197 3.0

Michigan.................................................... 242.0 4,203.0 1.6 921 2.7

Minnesota.................................................. 159.4 2,800.7 1.4 990 2.6

Mississippi................................................. 72.1 1,118.9 1.2 706 1.3

Missouri..................................................... 193.3 2,737.9 1.9 846 2.2

Montana.................................................... 45.5 457.9 1.9 759 3.7

Nebraska................................................... 72.6 964.0 1.4 811 4.2

Nevada...................................................... 79.0 1,254.5 3.2 862 2.5

New Hampshire......................................... 51.3 642.8 1.5 952 2.7

New Jersey............................................... 265.4 3,933.9 1.4 1,116 2.6

New Mexico............................................... 57.0 809.2 0.6 798 1.3

New York.................................................. 639.5 9,065.4 1.8 1,180 3.1

North Carolina........................................... 267.8 4,194.1 2.5 863 3.0

North Dakota............................................. 32.3 438.0 -3.8 956 -2.3

Ohio........................................................... 291.4 5,282.7 1.2 878 1.9

Oklahoma.................................................. 109.4 1,598.0 0.2 825 0.0

Oregon...................................................... 144.8 1,812.8 3.0 924 4.4

Pennsylvania............................................. 353.4 5,722.1 0.8 961 2.5

Rhode Island............................................. 36.6 477.4 1.2 919 2.6

South Carolina.......................................... 123.5 1,959.7 2.9 788 2.6

South Dakota............................................ 32.6 419.5 0.9 756 3.1

Tennessee................................................. 150.8 2,850.6 2.7 864 3.2

Texas......................................................... 640.7 11,681.0 2.1 999 1.1

Utah........................................................... 94.1 1,353.9 3.7 829 3.2

Vermont..................................................... 24.8 308.2 0.5 829 3.0

Virginia...................................................... 258.8 3,759.7 2.5 1,014 2.5

Washington............................................... 235.4 3,187.6 2.5 1,111 2.2

West Virginia............................................. 50.1 702.4 -1.1 785 0.9

Wisconsin.................................................. 168.5 2,815.7 0.9 834 3.5

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

third quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2015

(thousands)

September

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2014-15

Third

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

third quarter

2014-15

Wyoming................................................... 26.2 287.4 -1.5 $866 -1.1

Puerto Rico............................................... 45.4 891.1 -0.7 512 1.4

Virgin Islands............................................ 3.4 36.8 -2.1 738 2.1

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

2 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for

Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,

September 2014-15 (U.S. average = 1.9 percent)

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Largest Counties

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 or more

employees, third quarter 2014-15 (U.S. average = 2.6 percent)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Largest Counties