For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Tuesday, March 29, 2011 USDL-11-0434 

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 2010 

From September 2009 to September 2010, employment increased in 162 of the 326 largest U.S. 

counties according to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart, Ind., 

posted the largest percentage increase, with a gain of 6.8 percent over the year, compared with national 

job growth of 0.2 percent. Within Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, 

which gained 5,570 jobs over the year (14.2 percent). Sacramento, Calif., experienced the largest overthe-year percentage decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 3.7 

percent. Within Sacramento, state government had the largest percentage decrease in employment with a 

loss of 7.5 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 3.4 percent to $870 in the third quarter of 

2010. Among the large counties in the U.S., Rock Island, Ill., had the largest over-the-year increase in 

average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2010 with a gain of 12.2 percent. Within Rock Island, 

professional and business services had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in 

average weekly wages. Sacramento, Calif., experienced the only decline in average weekly wages 

among the largest U.S. counties with a loss of 2.2 percent over the year. County employment and wage 

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

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, September 2009-10 

(U.S. average = 0.2 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, third quarter 2009-10 

(U.S. average = 3.4 percent) 

6.8

3.2 3.1 3.1 2.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Elkhart,

Ind.

Denton,

Texas

Bell,

Texas

Arlington,

Va.

Washington,

Pa.

12.2

10.4 10.1

8.9 8.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Rock Island,

Ill.

Benton,

Ark.

Santa Clara,

Calif.

Anoka,

Minn.

Butler,

Pa.
- 2 - 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by September 2010 employment, September 2009-10 employment 

increase, and September 2009-10 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

September 2010 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) September 2009-10 September 2009-10

(thousands)

United States 128,440.4 United States 310.8 United States 0.2

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,844.5 New York, N.Y. 26.9 Elkhart, Ind. 6.8

Cook, Ill. 2,354.8 Harris, Texas 21.2 Denton, Texas 3.2

New York, N.Y. 2,273.0 Washington, D.C. 13.7 Bell, Texas 3.1

Harris, Texas 1,995.8 Dallas, Texas 12.7 Arlington, Va. 3.1

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,597.0 Hennepin, Minn. 11.0 Washington, Pa. 2.7

Dallas, Texas 1,415.0 Travis, Texas 10.9 Benton, Wash. 2.6

Orange, Calif. 1,348.8 Kings, N.Y. 9.7 Washtenaw, Mich. 2.5

San Diego, Calif. 1,238.6 Philadelphia, Pa. 9.7 Boone, Mo. 2.5

King, Wash. 1,121.8 Fairfax, Va. 7.5 Brazoria, Texas 2.5

Miami-Dade, Fla. 940.9 Bexar, Texas 7.4 Hamilton, Tenn. 2.4

Collin, Texas 2.4

Large County Employment 

In September 2010, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 128.4 million, up 

by 0.2 percent, or 310,800 workers, from September 2009. The 326 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more 

employees accounted for 70.6 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.1 percent of total wages. These 

326 counties had a net job growth of 80,826 over the year, accounting for 26.0 percent of the overall 

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

Elkhart, Ind., had the largest percentage increase in employment among the largest U.S. counties. The 

top five counties with the greatest increases in employment level (New York, N.Y.; Harris, Texas; 

Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; and Hennepin, Minn.) had a combined over-the-year gain of 85,500, 

or 27.5 percent of the employment increase for the U.S. 

Employment declined in 149 of the large counties from September 2009 to September 2010. 

Sacramento, Calif., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-3.7 percent) in 

the nation. At the supersector level, public administration within state government was the largest 

contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 7.1 percent. San Joaquin, Calif., experienced 

the second largest employment decrease, followed by Marion, Fla., East Baton Rouge, La., and Pinellas, 

Fla. 
- 3 - 

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by third quarter 2010 average weekly wages, third quarter 2009-10 

increase in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2009-10 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 2010 wage, third quarter 2009-10 weekly wage, third

quarter 2009-10

United States $870 United States $29 United States 3.4

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,662 Santa Clara, Calif. $153 Rock Island, Ill. 12.2

New York, N.Y. 1,572 Rock Island, Ill. 105 Benton, Ark. 10.4

Arlington, Va. 1,505 Middlesex, Mass. 98 Santa Clara, Calif. 10.1

Washington, D.C. 1,471 Arlington, Va. 92 Anoka, Minn. 8.9

Fairfax, Va. 1,374 Benton, Ark. 79 Butler, Pa. 8.8

San Francisco, Calif. 1,358 Washington, Ore. 71 Clay, Mo. 8.5

San Mateo, Calif. 1,351 Fairfield, Conn. 70 Middlesex, Mass. 8.3

Suffolk, Mass. 1,346 New York, N.Y. 70 Lake, Ind. 7.4

Fairfield, Conn. 1,339 Clay, Mo. 69 Washington, Ore. 7.3

Middlesex, Mass. 1,285 Anoka, Minn. 68 Tuscaloosa, Ala. 7.1

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 3.4 percent over the year in the third quarter of 

2010. Among the 326 largest counties, 319 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See 

chart 4.) Rock Island, Ill., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties. 

Of the 326 largest counties, only one, Sacramento, Calif., experienced an average weekly wage decline 

with a loss of 2.2 percent over the year. Large declines in total wages (-19.1 percent) within state 

government contributed significantly to the county’s overall average weekly wage loss. Orleans, La., 

had the smallest overall increase among the counties, followed by San Luis Obispo, Calif., Prince 

Georges, Md., and Marion, Ore. 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

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

2010. New York, N.Y., experienced the largest gain in employment among the 10 largest counties with 

a 1.2 percent increase. Within New York, professional and business services had the largest over-theyear increase among all private industry groups with a gain of 8,396 workers (1.9 percent). (See table 2.) 

Los Angeles, Calif., experienced the largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties. 

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

N.Y., and King, Wash., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages among the 10 largest 

counties with a gain of 4.7 percent each. Within New York, the largest impact on the county’s average 

weekly wage growth occurred in financial activities, where total wages increased by $832.0 million over 

the year (6.7 percent). In King County, information had the largest impact on average weekly wage 

growth with an increase of $227.6 million over the year (6.5 percent). Miami-Dade, Fla., had the 

smallest wage increase 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 326 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2009. September 2010 employment and 

2010 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 9.0 million employer reports cover 128.4 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the third quarter of 2010 will be available later at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. 

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

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for fourth quarter 2010 is scheduled to be released 

on Thursday, June 30, 2011. 
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 2007 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2010 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 327 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2009 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2010 data, two counties have 

been added to the publication tables: St. Tammany Parish, La., and 

Benton, Wash. These counties will be included in all 2010 quarterly 

releases. Ten counties, Shelby, Ala.; Butte, Calif.; Tippecanoe, Ind.; 

Johnson, Iowa; Saratoga, N.Y.; Trumbull, Ohio; Warren, Ohio; 

Kent, R.I.; Gregg, Texas; and Racine, Wis., which were published 

in the 2009 releases, will be excluded from this and

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

QCEW BED CES

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.0 million establishments in first quarter of 2010

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.7 million private-sector employers

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs

Publication frequency • Quarterly

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter

• Quarterly

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter

• Monthly

— Usually first Friday of following 

month

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

• Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal database and directly summarizes gross job gains and losses

• Uses UI file as a sampling frame and 

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels

Principal

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry

Principal uses • Major uses include:

— Detailed locality data

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys

• Major uses include:

— Business cycle analysis

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm

• Major uses include:

— Principal national economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/
future 2010 releases because their 2009 annual average employment 

levels were less than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are selected and 

sorted each year based on the annual average employment from the 

preceding year.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

from data released by the individual states. These potential differences result from the states' continuing receipt of UI data over time 

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables.

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures

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

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

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

of the program products. (See table.) Additional information on each 

program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the 

table.

Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers on 

behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies

which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to the 

quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on 

the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.0 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2009. 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 2009, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 128.6 million jobs. The 

estimated 123.6 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.1 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $5.859 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.4 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.5 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 

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

Concepts and methodology

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

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

can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may 

differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage 

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

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

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

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in 

average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between 

the current quarter and prior year levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

taken into consideration.

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

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

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

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

while in other quarters their wages include payments for seven pay 

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

reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages 

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

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

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

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

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

government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. 

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

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

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

with large concentrations of federal employment.

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

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

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

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

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

are introduced in the first quarter.

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

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

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

reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation. 

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

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

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

version of the final 2009 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

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

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

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

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

news release.

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

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

most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of 

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

involving the classification of establishments that were previously 

reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry 

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

account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers 

who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a 

single entity.

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

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

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

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

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

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

England states for comparative purposes even though townships are 

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

regions.

Additional statistics and other information

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 

features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 

2009 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 first quarter 2010 version of this news 

release. This web-only publication has replaced the annual print 

bulletin, Employment and Wages Annual Averages. The March 2010 

issue of this annual bulletin was the final one to be issued on paper. 

Tables and additional content from the 2009 Employment and Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn09.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. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

third quarter 2010 2

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,044.4 128,440.4 0.2 – $870 3.4 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.8 329.4 -1.0 258 882 2.4 214

Madison, AL ....................... 8.7 178.0 -0.4 203 1,004 3.8 97

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.9 167.0 2.2 16 769 3.2 146

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 128.4 -1.1 264 779 4.3 62

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 83.2 1.4 46 783 7.1 10

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 152.1 1.0 68 975 3.3 137

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 95.0 1,597.0 -0.5 211 859 2.4 214

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.3 341.4 -2.0 309 769 2.1 233

Benton, AR ........................ 5.4 93.0 1.0 68 835 10.4 2

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.1 244.1 0.8 87 797 0.9 301

Washington, AR ................. 5.5 90.6 2.0 18 721 4.3 62

Alameda, CA ...................... 54.6 631.0 -0.8 242 1,155 4.2 71

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.3 314.2 -1.3 276 1,050 2.2 223

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.2 346.4 -0.6 219 684 2.1 233

Kern, CA ............................ 17.7 279.3 1.3 52 747 2.3 221

Los Angeles, CA ................ 427.0 3,844.5 -0.8 242 972 3.1 158

Marin, CA ........................... 11.6 101.7 1.5 37 1,027 1.5 275

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.8 179.1 0.6 107 752 1.1 294

Orange, CA ........................ 101.7 1,348.8 -0.1 172 975 2.8 183

Placer, CA .......................... 10.6 124.6 0.3 131 849 1.3 284

Riverside, CA ..................... 47.8 544.1 -1.4 283 721 1.3 284

Sacramento, CA ................ 52.9 570.8 -3.7 320 920 -2.2 320

San Bernardino, CA ........... 49.6 588.3 -1.3 276 756 1.3 284

San Diego, CA ................... 97.7 1,238.6 0.4 128 943 2.7 193

San Francisco, CA ............. 53.3 549.7 0.9 73 1,358 3.7 108

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.0 203.9 -3.3 319 759 1.9 256

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.5 98.6 -0.6 219 722 0.3 316

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.8 317.9 0.2 142 1,351 3.4 128

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.3 178.4 -0.2 186 831 4.0 83

Santa Clara, CA ................. 61.0 845.2 0.8 87 1,662 10.1 3

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.0 96.4 -0.9 249 782 3.2 146

Solano, CA ......................... 10.0 122.0 -1.4 283 856 1.5 275

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.6 177.7 -0.2 186 840 2.1 233

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.9 166.1 0.5 120 741 0.5 314

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.3 148.4 -0.7 230 610 1.0 298

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.5 293.6 -0.3 194 887 2.7 193

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.0 97.2 -2.2 313 862 2.6 202

Adams, CO ........................ 9.0 148.4 -1.1 264 813 3.0 167

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.0 270.3 -0.3 194 1,016 2.1 233

Boulder, CO ....................... 13.0 152.5 0.2 142 1,038 6.6 12

Denver, CO ........................ 25.5 423.6 1.5 37 1,049 0.9 301

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.6 90.1 0.1 152 925 2.1 233

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.0 233.2 -0.3 194 825 3.3 137

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.1 202.9 -0.6 219 905 3.1 158

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.1 128.6 1.0 68 783 1.2 291

Weld, CO ........................... 5.9 79.0 -0.1 172 755 5.3 29

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.8 401.1 0.6 107 1,339 5.5 27

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.3 485.1 0.1 152 1,065 4.3 62

New Haven, CT ................. 22.3 349.2 0.2 142 941 3.2 146

New London, CT ................ 7.0 125.0 -1.2 271 899 3.5 122

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.7 263.2 -0.1 172 $1,013 2.8 183

Washington, DC ................. 35.0 693.8 2.0 18 1,471 1.2 291

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 115.3 -0.9 249 773 3.8 97

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.5 186.1 -0.9 249 840 3.8 97

Broward, FL ....................... 62.2 673.2 -0.5 211 824 3.1 158

Collier, FL .......................... 11.6 105.6 0.3 131 762 3.1 158

Duval, FL ........................... 26.7 432.2 0.6 107 832 2.5 209

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.0 119.6 -0.4 203 695 2.1 233

Hillsborough, FL ................. 36.8 556.8 -0.7 230 844 1.7 266

Lake, FL ............................. 7.2 77.3 -1.7 300 620 4.2 71

Lee, FL ............................... 18.5 187.0 -0.7 230 710 0.9 301

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 137.8 -1.1 264 762 2.0 246

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.1 99.3 -0.9 249 681 0.6 310

Marion, FL .......................... 7.9 88.1 -2.6 317 611 0.8 306

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 85.0 940.9 0.3 131 853 1.5 275

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.1 74.5 -2.1 311 727 3.0 167

Orange, FL ......................... 35.2 644.4 0.8 87 782 2.9 175

Palm Beach, FL ................. 48.6 478.0 -0.7 230 841 3.6 116

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.8 95.8 1.3 52 609 3.4 128

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.5 378.5 -2.4 316 760 3.7 108

Polk, FL .............................. 12.3 186.0 -0.6 219 699 2.8 183

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.4 129.7 -1.5 291 720 2.0 246

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.9 154.5 -1.3 276 712 2.0 246

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.3 147.5 -2.2 313 640 3.6 116

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 78.8 -1.7 300 694 1.8 261

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 127.6 0.2 142 746 2.1 233

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 101.7 ( 7) – 800 ( 7) – 

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.7 283.8 0.0 163 911 3.3 137

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.5 271.6 -1.2 271 923 2.7 193

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.7 704.3 0.6 107 1,122 2.2 223

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.5 296.0 0.9 73 848 1.4 282

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 91.6 0.1 152 708 1.3 284

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 96.4 -0.5 211 769 2.4 214

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.8 429.5 0.2 142 834 2.0 246

Ada, ID ............................... 14.2 193.0 0.2 142 778 2.9 175

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 87.9 -0.8 242 770 3.4 128

Cook, IL ............................. 143.4 2,354.8 -0.4 203 1,008 3.2 146

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.3 546.9 ( 7) – 1,010 4.4 59

Kane, IL ............................. 13.0 191.2 -0.9 249 784 2.6 202

Lake, IL .............................. 21.4 311.7 -1.2 271 1,052 5.1 32

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 94.5 -1.5 291 735 4.3 62

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 85.3 ( 7) – 871 3.9 90

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 93.6 0.0 163 735 2.7 193

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 99.8 1.9 23 841 5.1 32

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 74.7 0.5 120 964 12.2 1

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 93.9 -0.1 172 730 2.2 223

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 128.0 1.4 46 907 3.1 158

Will, IL ................................ 14.4 195.7 0.8 87 773 3.5 122

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 123.7 0.1 152 759 2.8 183

Allen, IN ............................. 8.9 171.8 1.1 61 738 5.0 42

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 102.3 6.8 1 $716 5.1 32

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.9 109.2 0.5 120 829 4.1 75

Lake, IN ............................. 10.2 181.9 -1.2 271 786 7.4 8

Marion, IN .......................... 23.5 546.0 -0.1 172 881 3.0 167

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 115.8 0.1 152 716 1.1 294

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 104.6 0.9 73 720 2.7 193

Linn, IA ............................... 6.2 124.6 1.0 68 826 3.3 137

Polk, IA .............................. 14.7 265.0 -1.3 276 856 2.9 175

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 85.4 0.0 163 721 4.9 45

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.9 295.9 -0.7 230 891 3.7 108

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.4 237.3 -1.7 300 780 3.3 137

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 92.8 -0.7 230 736 2.2 223

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 80.1 1.7 32 827 1.1 294

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.5 174.1 1.6 33 782 2.2 223

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.4 410.4 0.3 131 845 4.1 75

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.7 120.5 0.5 120 750 6.1 17

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 5.1 81.5 -1.7 300 760 4.4 59

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 15.1 253.1 -2.6 317 825 1.2 291

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.6 192.5 -0.1 172 825 4.8 47

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.4 130.9 1.4 46 851 6.6 12

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.4 169.2 1.5 37 924 0.1 319

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.7 74.8 0.0 163 761 ( 7) – 

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.3 168.2 -0.2 186 791 2.5 209

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.4 228.5 0.7 96 941 ( 7) – 

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.2 360.2 -0.6 219 904 3.2 146

Frederick, MD .................... 5.9 93.0 0.9 73 870 2.6 202

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 81.7 1.1 61 882 5.1 32

Howard, MD ....................... 8.8 147.2 1.8 28 1,045 2.2 223

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.5 446.3 0.9 73 1,189 3.3 137

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 300.8 0.0 163 953 0.3 316

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.6 324.6 -0.4 203 1,001 1.7 266

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 94.9 0.3 131 720 2.1 233

Bristol, MA ......................... 16.2 208.7 0.6 107 785 3.8 97

Essex, MA .......................... 21.4 296.3 1.5 37 932 5.1 32

Hampden, MA .................... 15.0 194.7 0.7 96 805 1.0 298

Middlesex, MA ................... 48.8 804.4 0.6 107 1,285 8.3 7

Norfolk, MA ........................ 24.3 314.2 0.7 96 1,004 4.1 75

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.2 172.4 0.1 152 811 2.8 183

Suffolk, MA ........................ 22.8 572.7 1.2 58 1,346 1.4 282

Worcester, MA ................... 21.3 310.3 0.9 73 905 6.1 17

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.5 126.3 -1.7 300 740 2.9 175

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.5 152.8 1.2 58 852 4.0 83

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.4 107.7 -1.0 258 793 3.4 128

Kent, MI ............................. 13.9 312.7 2.3 12 780 1.7 266

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.1 277.4 1.9 23 889 4.2 71

Oakland, MI ....................... 37.6 614.3 -0.1 172 968 3.1 158

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.6 104.5 1.9 23 720 5.0 42

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.2 80.1 -0.3 194 750 6.8 11

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 187.6 2.5 7 963 0.8 306

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.3 663.0 0.1 152 964 5.1 32

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.1 105.0 -1.1 264 $831 8.9 4

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.6 166.1 0.1 152 821 3.1 158

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.3 806.1 1.4 46 1,090 4.0 83

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.3 87.1 -0.8 242 919 2.9 175

Ramsey, MN ...................... 13.9 317.9 -0.1 172 969 5.4 28

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.6 93.5 0.7 96 717 4.5 55

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.3 78.1 0.7 96 731 4.0 83

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 82.3 -1.6 297 665 2.2 223

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.1 121.8 -2.0 309 771 1.7 266

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 82.7 2.5 7 702 1.6 272

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 90.9 -0.4 203 879 8.5 6

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 146.8 -1.6 297 684 2.7 193

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.1 340.6 -1.4 283 870 2.4 214

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 122.5 2.3 12 703 2.5 209

St. Louis, MO ..................... 31.7 560.8 -1.5 291 913 2.1 233

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.7 216.4 -1.8 306 942 3.4 128

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.9 76.1 -0.6 219 711 3.0 167

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.8 311.0 0.1 152 817 2.8 183

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.1 154.0 -0.1 172 708 1.3 284

Clark, NV ........................... 47.0 792.7 -2.1 311 810 0.6 310

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.6 185.2 -1.5 291 816 2.1 233

Hillsborough, NH ................ 11.9 185.1 -0.3 194 945 1.5 275

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.6 134.3 1.1 61 823 4.0 83

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.8 136.4 -1.4 283 765 3.9 90

Bergen, NJ ......................... 33.6 424.6 -0.1 172 1,058 2.1 233

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.1 191.0 -1.9 308 941 3.9 90

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.7 193.1 -1.5 291 876 3.7 108

Essex, NJ ........................... 20.9 332.8 -1.8 306 1,088 3.1 158

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 97.1 -2.3 315 803 5.9 20

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.8 227.4 -0.8 242 1,234 5.1 32

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 226.9 1.3 52 1,104 3.2 146

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.9 375.8 -0.6 219 1,052 3.0 167

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.3 245.5 -0.2 186 904 1.8 261

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.6 267.5 -0.7 230 1,238 ( 7) – 

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.3 149.4 -0.7 230 712 1.7 266

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.3 169.6 1.8 28 903 1.5 275

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.1 163.9 -0.5 211 1,255 1.0 298

Union, NJ ........................... 14.7 218.1 -0.2 186 1,074 2.5 209

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 312.1 -1.5 291 796 1.9 256

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 217.0 -1.4 283 945 4.8 47

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.8 232.6 0.6 107 876 2.9 175

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 91.5 -1.4 283 716 3.9 90

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.1 110.3 -0.1 172 904 1.8 261

Erie, NY ............................. 23.6 450.3 0.3 131 773 4.6 54

Kings, NY ........................... 49.8 489.2 2.0 18 755 2.2 223

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.0 368.4 0.3 131 853 5.7 23

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.5 582.0 -0.2 186 966 4.3 62

New York, NY .................... 120.9 2,273.0 1.2 58 1,572 4.7 50

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 106.6 -1.3 276 713 5.3 29

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 241.1 -1.0 258 816 4.2 71

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 129.8 0.6 107 $751 3.0 167

Queens, NY ....................... 45.2 494.5 0.7 96 845 0.8 306

Richmond, NY .................... 8.9 93.1 1.1 61 782 2.8 183

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 111.4 -0.3 194 928 2.8 183

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.5 607.8 0.5 120 997 4.3 62

Westchester, NY ................ 36.1 399.1 -0.4 203 1,109 4.7 50

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.8 111.3 1.5 37 698 4.5 55

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 77.1 0.9 73 672 4.8 47

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 117.0 -0.8 242 734 6.2 16

Durham, NC ....................... 7.2 177.6 -1.4 283 1,156 0.5 314

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.9 172.2 -1.4 283 792 3.4 128

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.1 257.3 0.2 142 783 3.8 97

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.0 533.8 -0.2 186 972 2.2 223

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.2 96.0 -0.3 194 735 3.2 146

Wake, NC .......................... 28.4 431.8 0.6 107 861 3.2 146

Cass, ND ........................... 5.9 100.2 1.1 61 759 3.4 128

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 138.1 0.6 107 783 5.0 42

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 36.0 686.2 0.0 163 882 3.5 122

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.3 649.5 0.9 73 890 4.5 55

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.3 482.9 -1.1 264 960 3.7 108

Lake, OH ............................ 6.5 93.4 0.8 87 719 3.8 97

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.1 92.8 0.7 96 712 4.7 50

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.4 200.2 0.5 120 768 3.4 128

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.1 97.4 0.2 142 636 3.2 146

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.3 239.5 -0.7 230 784 2.9 175

Stark, OH ........................... 8.8 149.4 0.4 128 678 4.3 62

Summit, OH ....................... 14.5 253.2 0.0 163 777 2.6 202

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.2 411.9 0.8 87 813 1.6 272

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.1 326.9 -1.3 276 795 2.7 193

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.5 137.4 -0.1 172 803 2.6 202

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 76.4 -1.1 264 651 0.9 301

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 134.8 -0.3 194 680 1.3 284

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 136.4 -0.7 230 693 0.3 316

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.7 422.0 0.6 107 893 3.2 146

Washington, OR ................ 16.1 237.4 2.3 12 1,042 7.3 9

Allegheny, PA .................... 34.8 671.7 0.9 73 917 4.4 59

Berks, PA ........................... 8.9 161.8 0.9 73 792 3.9 90

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.5 249.0 0.3 131 842 2.2 223

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 80.3 1.9 23 795 8.8 5

Chester, PA ....................... 14.8 234.8 0.5 120 1,069 3.7 108

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 119.8 -0.5 211 809 3.2 146

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 175.7 -1.2 271 846 3.0 167

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.4 203.8 0.8 87 924 4.3 62

Erie, PA .............................. 7.6 123.7 2.0 18 716 5.9 20

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 97.1 -1.0 258 682 3.5 122

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.3 218.0 0.1 152 745 1.8 261

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.6 171.4 0.9 73 870 2.4 214

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 137.8 0.3 131 699 4.5 55

Montgomery, PA ................ 26.9 458.0 -0.9 249 1,058 3.8 97

Northampton, PA ............... 6.4 97.7 0.4 128 780 4.1 75

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Philadelphia, PA ................ 32.8 627.8 1.6 33 $1,054 3.4 128

Washington, PA ................. 5.5 80.8 2.7 5 809 6.6 12

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.3 132.1 0.7 96 722 5.6 26

York, PA ............................. 9.0 169.4 0.3 131 781 4.3 62

Providence, RI ................... 17.5 268.7 0.7 96 859 4.1 75

Charleston, SC .................. 11.7 204.8 1.6 33 768 3.2 146

Greenville, SC .................... 12.0 224.8 1.8 28 758 3.8 97

Horry, SC ........................... 7.7 108.9 -1.0 258 541 1.5 275

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 92.4 -1.3 276 670 4.0 83

Richland, SC ...................... 8.9 201.6 -0.6 219 785 2.1 233

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.9 110.6 -0.4 203 748 3.6 116

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 112.5 -0.5 211 760 5.1 32

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.1 418.3 0.3 131 886 3.3 137

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 180.8 2.4 10 780 5.1 32

Knox, TN ............................ 10.8 217.4 0.8 87 748 4.0 83

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 94.7 ( 7) – 769 ( 7) – 

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.1 463.8 -1.1 264 903 5.7 23

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 87.8 ( 7) – 901 0.8 306

Bell, TX .............................. 4.7 105.9 3.1 3 748 ( 7) – 

Bexar, TX ........................... 33.5 719.5 1.0 68 778 3.3 137

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.8 86.3 2.5 7 839 5.7 23

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 88.4 ( 7) – 664 1.8 261

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 123.8 1.1 61 560 1.3 284

Collin, TX ........................... 18.0 285.9 2.4 10 999 2.0 246

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.8 1,415.0 0.9 73 1,032 2.0 246

Denton, TX ......................... 11.0 172.6 3.2 2 761 1.7 266

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.6 271.1 2.2 16 636 2.7 193

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.0 131.0 1.3 52 879 2.3 221

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 94.1 1.5 37 809 0.9 301

Harris, TX ........................... 100.0 1,995.8 1.1 61 1,083 3.9 90

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.8 216.8 1.5 37 575 2.0 246

Jefferson, TX ..................... 6.0 120.0 1.8 28 867 3.3 137

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.9 122.1 -0.3 194 666 3.9 90

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 100.7 -0.9 249 727 5.1 32

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.6 128.0 2.3 12 808 5.2 31

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 152.4 1.5 37 745 3.8 97

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 74.2 0.7 96 745 3.5 122

Smith, TX ........................... 5.4 91.5 0.8 87 767 4.1 75

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.5 743.5 0.7 96 881 4.9 45

Travis, TX .......................... 29.9 568.4 2.0 18 967 3.6 116

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 85.2 1.4 46 595 3.7 108

Williamson, TX ................... 7.5 120.2 1.5 37 793 1.1 294

Davis, UT ........................... 7.1 101.5 0.9 73 699 2.5 209

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 36.7 559.2 0.5 120 822 2.0 246

Utah, UT ............................ 12.7 165.9 0.9 73 687 3.5 122

Weber, UT ......................... 5.5 87.9 -1.0 258 661 0.6 310

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 93.9 1.9 23 870 2.0 246

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.1 163.2 3.1 3 1,505 6.5 15

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 112.8 -0.5 211 806 3.6 116

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.2 576.7 1.3 52 1,374 4.1 75

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 168.0 -0.1 172 $882 3.6 116

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.4 131.4 1.6 33 1,038 2.4 214

Prince William, VA ............. 7.5 104.1 1.3 52 801 1.5 275

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 95.3 -1.6 297 1,247 3.1 158

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 95.1 0.2 142 708 1.9 256

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 95.0 -0.4 203 803 1.9 256

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 135.8 -0.9 249 849 2.9 175

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.2 148.1 -0.5 211 964 1.6 272

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.4 164.0 -0.6 219 692 3.7 108

Benton, WA ........................ 5.7 81.8 2.6 6 959 6.1 17

Clark, WA ........................... 13.4 127.6 0.0 163 799 2.7 193

King, WA ............................ 83.0 1,121.8 0.1 152 1,234 4.7 50

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.8 80.7 -0.9 249 821 3.0 167

Pierce, WA ......................... 22.0 264.4 -0.2 186 821 2.6 202

Snohomish, WA ................. 19.2 240.5 -0.6 219 937 5.9 20

Spokane, WA ..................... 16.3 197.7 -1.7 300 737 2.4 214

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.4 96.4 -0.7 230 813 0.6 310

Whatcom, WA .................... 7.1 78.2 -0.6 219 709 2.6 202

Yakima, WA ....................... 9.1 111.3 -0.8 242 599 2.0 246

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 105.4 0.0 163 772 2.8 183

Brown, WI .......................... 6.5 144.1 0.6 107 773 3.8 97

Dane, WI ............................ 13.8 294.4 0.6 107 837 1.9 256

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.2 467.3 -0.7 230 856 2.8 183

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 100.4 -0.1 172 737 4.1 75

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.7 220.6 0.2 142 865 3.8 97

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 89.0 1.4 46 792 2.1 233

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.6 256.5 -3.8 ( 8) 608 2.5 ( 8) 

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

These 326 U.S. counties comprise 70.6 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. 8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

third quarter 2010 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,044.4 128,440.4 0.2 $870 3.4

Private industry .............................................. 8,746.3 107,007.4 0.4 861 4.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 126.9 1,926.7 3.3 884 5.7

Construction ............................................... 796.6 5,686.9 -4.6 946 1.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 343.4 11,584.3 -0.3 1,074 6.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,877.4 24,381.8 -0.2 742 4.4

Information ................................................. 144.5 2,701.5 -2.3 1,416 7.4

Financial activities ...................................... 818.0 7,379.9 -1.7 1,235 4.6

Professional and business services ........... 1,544.9 16,869.8 3.3 1,093 3.1

Education and health services ................... 893.5 18,661.9 1.9 842 2.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 748.6 13,292.8 0.7 370 3.6

Other services ............................................ 1,267.9 4,342.8 -0.1 562 3.5

Government ................................................... 298.0 21,433.0 -0.8 918 1.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 427.0 3,844.5 -0.8 972 3.1

Private industry .............................................. 421.4 3,311.1 -0.3 948 3.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.8 5.9 1,903 45.9

Construction ............................................... 13.0 104.2 -9.3 1,010 -1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 13.5 374.1 -1.7 1,079 4.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 52.2 732.2 0.1 783 2.9

Information ................................................. 8.5 196.9 1.2 1,644 3.1

Financial activities ...................................... 22.4 209.4 -1.1 1,456 8.4

Professional and business services ........... 42.0 528.2 0.9 1,145 1.1

Education and health services ................... 29.0 508.8 2.6 931 2.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.1 390.4 0.9 544 2.6

Other services ............................................ 200.8 248.5 -5.9 451 7.9

Government ................................................... 5.6 533.4 -4.0 1,123 1.1

Cook, IL .............................................................. 143.4 2,354.8 -0.4 1,008 3.2

Private industry .............................................. 142.0 2,055.8 -0.1 1,000 3.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.0 -8.4 1,051 7.5

Construction ............................................... 12.2 67.2 -10.0 1,228 -3.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.7 194.3 -1.0 1,069 6.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.7 428.9 0.2 784 3.2

Information ................................................. 2.6 51.0 -3.5 1,439 6.4

Financial activities ...................................... 15.4 187.9 -2.8 1,644 7.6

Professional and business services ........... 30.2 407.7 2.6 1,259 1.7

Education and health services ................... 14.9 391.0 ( 6) 903 ( 6) 

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.4 230.9 0.2 463 4.5

Other services ............................................ 15.4 92.5 ( 6) 761 5.3

Government ................................................... 1.4 298.9 -2.5 1,067 1.5

New York, NY ..................................................... 120.9 2,273.0 1.2 1,572 4.7

Private industry .............................................. 120.6 1,834.9 1.6 1,685 4.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -5.0 1,853 -9.3

Construction ............................................... 2.2 30.5 -7.0 1,608 3.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 26.7 -2.5 1,256 6.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.1 233.4 2.2 1,130 2.4

Information ................................................. 4.4 131.0 -0.8 2,042 7.8

Financial activities ...................................... 19.0 348.8 1.3 2,903 5.5

Professional and business services ........... 25.6 458.2 1.9 1,880 3.8

Education and health services ................... 9.1 290.0 1.7 1,147 5.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.3 223.3 3.2 756 3.7

Other services ............................................ 18.6 86.3 0.2 1,026 9.5

Government ................................................... 0.3 438.1 -0.6 1,098 3.8

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

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 100.0 1,995.8 1.1 $1,083 3.9

Private industry .............................................. 99.4 1,734.1 1.0 1,095 4.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.6 75.2 4.0 2,692 3.9

Construction ............................................... 6.5 133.6 -3.4 1,038 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 169.0 0.4 1,357 6.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.5 415.8 0.2 969 5.4

Information ................................................. 1.3 27.9 -5.1 1,298 6.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.4 111.4 -2.8 1,283 5.5

Professional and business services ........... 19.8 322.3 2.8 1,310 4.6

Education and health services ................... 11.1 238.7 3.5 902 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.0 179.2 1.2 398 2.3

Other services ............................................ 13.2 59.8 3.0 620 2.1

Government ................................................... 0.6 261.7 ( 6) 1,003 ( 6) 

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 95.0 1,597.0 -0.5 859 2.4

Private industry .............................................. 94.3 1,382.4 -0.3 851 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.5 -12.0 787 9.8

Construction ............................................... 8.9 80.4 -10.0 892 2.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 106.6 -2.6 1,250 9.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.0 328.7 -1.0 797 4.2

Information ................................................. 1.5 26.7 1.3 1,118 2.2

Financial activities ...................................... 11.3 131.2 -2.1 1,025 2.9

Professional and business services ........... 22.0 259.5 0.7 896 0.4

Education and health services ................... 10.4 231.5 ( 6) 919 ( 6) 

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 165.5 0.3 409 3.0

Other services ............................................ 6.8 45.1 -0.3 571 2.5

Government ................................................... 0.7 214.6 -1.8 915 -0.7

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.8 1,415.0 0.9 1,032 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 67.3 1,246.2 0.9 1,035 2.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.4 10.9 2,861 0.1

Construction ............................................... 4.0 69.2 -3.6 944 -0.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 113.1 -3.8 1,174 2.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 279.8 0.1 961 2.9

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.1 -0.3 1,507 3.5

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 136.0 -0.8 1,329 2.5

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 261.7 3.7 1,175 1.2

Education and health services ................... 7.0 165.3 3.4 962 2.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.5 128.5 1.7 462 2.0

Other services ............................................ 7.0 38.2 1.7 642 1.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 168.9 1.0 1,005 1.5

Orange, CA ........................................................ 101.7 1,348.8 -0.1 975 2.8

Private industry .............................................. 100.4 1,215.9 0.3 966 3.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 3.9 -1.9 620 -2.7

Construction ............................................... 6.4 67.9 -5.0 1,073 -3.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.0 151.0 -0.4 1,244 9.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.4 243.5 -0.4 905 4.3

Information ................................................. 1.3 24.3 -8.2 1,463 8.0

Financial activities ...................................... 9.8 104.0 0.2 1,363 5.2

Professional and business services ........... 18.8 244.0 2.0 1,092 0.3

Education and health services ................... 10.4 154.5 2.9 940 1.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 171.7 0.1 431 4.9

Other services ............................................ 20.7 48.4 0.5 539 2.5

Government ................................................... 1.4 132.9 -2.9 1,060 0.2

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

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 97.7 1,238.6 0.4 $943 2.7

Private industry .............................................. 96.3 1,021.5 0.4 917 2.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 10.7 5.6 582 0.7

Construction ............................................... 6.4 55.7 -5.5 1,045 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 93.0 0.1 1,326 7.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.7 196.4 -0.3 742 1.6

Information ................................................. 1.2 25.0 -2.8 1,572 10.1

Financial activities ...................................... 8.6 66.9 -1.4 1,119 4.0

Professional and business services ........... 16.2 210.8 1.8 1,223 0.2

Education and health services ................... 8.4 145.5 2.8 907 2.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 157.4 0.3 425 4.9

Other services ............................................ 27.3 57.7 0.1 540 11.6

Government ................................................... 1.4 217.1 0.2 1,069 ( 6) 

King, WA ............................................................ 83.0 1,121.8 0.1 1,234 4.7

Private industry .............................................. 82.4 967.6 0.1 1,248 4.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.9 -4.4 1,162 9.5

Construction ............................................... 6.0 49.1 -8.8 1,134 1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.3 97.3 -2.4 1,455 10.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 204.5 0.4 977 6.8

Information ................................................. 1.8 79.9 1.0 3,605 6.4

Financial activities ...................................... 6.6 64.6 -4.4 1,297 -1.3

Professional and business services ........... 14.3 177.8 3.2 1,329 4.7

Education and health services ................... 7.0 130.3 0.2 930 3.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 109.8 -0.1 456 0.2

Other services ............................................ 22.8 51.4 8.6 572 -4.7

Government ................................................... 0.6 154.2 0.1 1,142 ( 6) 

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 85.0 940.9 0.3 853 1.5

Private industry .............................................. 84.7 797.9 0.7 819 1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.8 -0.2 489 0.6

Construction ............................................... 5.3 31.4 -9.3 859 -0.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 34.7 -4.3 805 5.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 24.1 236.4 1.9 757 1.6

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.1 -1.5 1,289 5.5

Financial activities ...................................... 9.0 60.4 -1.0 1,216 5.6

Professional and business services ........... 17.8 121.5 0.4 993 -2.8

Education and health services ................... 9.6 149.6 1.0 862 4.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.3 104.8 3.7 497 4.6

Other services ............................................ 7.7 34.8 1.5 553 2.6

Government ................................................... 0.4 143.0 -1.8 1,047 1.1

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

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

third quarter 2010 2

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10

United States 4 ................... 9,044.4 128,440.4 0.2 $870 3.4

Alabama ............................. 116.8 1,813.9 -0.1 774 4.0

Alaska ................................ 21.4 333.5 1.3 926 4.4

Arizona ............................... 147.2 2,342.3 -0.9 821 2.6

Arkansas ............................ 85.6 1,147.0 0.8 684 3.8

California ............................ 1,347.5 14,469.7 -0.3 982 3.3

Colorado ............................ 173.2 2,183.8 -0.2 898 2.5

Connecticut ........................ 111.4 1,611.9 0.0 1,069 4.3

Delaware ............................ 28.4 404.7 0.8 902 2.4

District of Columbia ............ 35.0 693.8 2.0 1,471 1.2

Florida ................................ 595.2 7,045.3 0.0 780 2.8

Georgia .............................. 268.2 3,749.9 -0.1 823 2.7

Hawaii ................................ 38.9 585.6 -0.1 804 2.2

Idaho .................................. 55.0 616.8 -1.1 667 3.1

Illinois ................................. 378.6 5,539.5 0.0 916 4.0

Indiana ............................... 157.2 2,736.7 0.8 742 3.9

Iowa ................................... 94.3 1,439.8 -0.5 719 3.6

Kansas ............................... 87.5 1,296.1 -1.0 731 3.5

Kentucky ............................ 110.1 1,728.3 0.8 729 3.3

Louisiana ........................... 131.0 1,834.8 0.0 790 3.9

Maine ................................. 49.2 589.4 -0.6 714 3.6

Maryland ............................ 163.8 2,469.7 0.5 966 2.7

Massachusetts ................... 221.1 3,169.8 0.8 1,069 4.5

Michigan ............................ 247.6 3,825.9 0.9 840 3.8

Minnesota .......................... 164.7 2,574.3 0.4 875 4.7

Mississippi ......................... 69.5 1,077.4 0.0 653 2.8

Missouri ............................. 174.5 2,596.8 -0.5 764 2.7

Montana ............................. 42.4 428.7 0.0 647 1.6

Nebraska ........................... 60.0 899.8 -0.2 708 2.8

Nevada .............................. 71.2 1,106.8 -1.7 815 1.2

New Hampshire ................. 48.4 608.9 0.1 854 2.9

New Jersey ........................ 265.6 3,759.0 -0.4 1,024 2.8

New Mexico ....................... 54.8 785.9 -1.0 745 2.9

New York ........................... 591.6 8,364.2 0.5 1,057 4.3

North Carolina .................... 251.7 3,806.2 -0.3 768 3.1

North Dakota ...................... 26.4 366.1 3.0 726 6.8

Ohio ................................... 286.4 4,942.1 0.3 791 3.4

Oklahoma .......................... 102.2 1,487.5 -0.2 726 4.0

Oregon ............................... 131.0 1,620.5 0.3 791 3.1

Pennsylvania ..................... 341.0 5,500.9 0.9 860 4.1

Rhode Island ...................... 35.2 456.0 0.8 826 4.2

South Carolina ................... 111.4 1,763.7 0.5 714 3.9

South Dakota ..................... 30.9 393.7 0.4 660 4.3

Tennessee ......................... 139.6 2,578.3 0.8 777 4.3

Texas ................................. 572.4 10,204.5 1.5 876 3.7

Utah ................................... 83.7 1,160.6 0.5 740 2.2

Vermont ............................. 24.4 294.3 0.5 752 2.6

Virginia ............................... 232.9 3,544.1 0.4 930 3.8

Washington ........................ 237.0 2,855.7 -0.3 953 4.0

West Virginia ...................... 48.4 699.4 1.1 702 4.3

Wisconsin .......................... 157.6 2,657.7 0.5 752 3.6

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

third quarter 2010 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2009-10

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2009-10

Wyoming ............................ 25.2 278.9 0.0 $793 4.9

Puerto Rico ........................ 49.6 910.0 -2.7 502 1.6

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.6 43.5 2.3 754 4.3

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

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

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 March 2011

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

September 2009-10 (U.S. average = 0.2 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 March 2011

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

or more employees, third quarter 2009-10 (U.S. average = 3.4 percent)