For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, March 19, 2014 USDL-14-0433 

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 2013 

From September 2012 to September 2013, employment increased in 286 of the 334 largest U.S. 

counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Fort Bend, Texas, had the largest increase, 

with a gain of 6.0 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.7 percent. Within Fort 

Bend, the largest employment increase occurred in leisure and hospitality, which gained 2,234 jobs over 

the year (12.1 percent). Peoria, Ill., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the 

largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 3.7 percent. County employment and wage data are compiled 

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

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

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 1.9 percent to $922 in the third quarter of 

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

9.9 percent. Within San Mateo, an average weekly wage gain of $2,359, or 82.1 percent, in information 

made the largest contribution to the increase in average weekly wages. Pinellas, Fla., experienced the 

largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 4.3 percent over the year. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, September 2012-13 

(U.S. average = 1.7 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, third quarter 2012-13 

(U.S. average = 1.9 percent) 

0

2

4

6

8

Fort Bend,

Texas

Douglas,

Colo.

Brazos,

Texas

Lee,

Fla.

Collier,

Fla.

Percent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

San Mateo,

Calif.

Dane,

Wis.

Collier,

Fla.

Whatcom,

Wash.

Utah,

Utah

Percent
- 2 - 

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

increase, and September 2012-13 percent increase in employment 

 

Employment in large counties 

 

September 2013 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) September 2012-13 September 2012-13 

 (thousands) 

United States 134,957.5 United States 2,277.6 United States 1.7 

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,093.3 Los Angeles, Calif. 95.2 Fort Bend, Texas 6.0

Cook, Ill. 2,445.8 Harris, Texas 61.7 Douglas, Colo. 5.9

New York, N.Y. 2,424.5 Dallas, Texas 47.3 Brazos, Texas 5.7

Harris, Texas 2,192.3 Maricopa, Ariz. 44.6 Lee, Fla. 5.2

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,719.1 King, Wash. 42.8 Collier, Fla. 5.1

Dallas, Texas 1,509.0 Santa Clara, Calif. 37.5 Placer, Calif. 5.0

Orange, Calif. 1,441.4 New York, N.Y. 34.2 Weld, Colo. 5.0

San Diego, Calif. 1,312.2 Orange, Calif. 32.0 Elkhart, Ind. 4.9

King, Wash. 1,212.3 San Diego, Calif. 25.2 Denton, Texas 4.9

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,016.7 Travis, Texas 24.8 Utah, Utah 4.9

Large County Employment 

In September 2013, national employment was 135.0 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over 

the year, employment increased 1.7 percent, or 2.3 million. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more 

jobs accounted for 71.4 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.6 percent of total wages. These 334 

counties had a net job growth of 1.7 million over the year, accounting for 75.8 percent of the overall 

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

Fort Bend, Texas, had the largest percentage increase in employment (6.0 percent) among the largest 

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

Calif.; Harris, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Maricopa, Ariz.; and King, Wash. These counties had a combined 

over-the-year employment gain of 291,600 jobs, which was 12.8 percent of the overall job increase for 

the U.S. (See table A.) 

Employment declined in 44 of the large counties from September 2012 to September 2013. Peoria, Ill., 

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

professional and business services had the largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 2,088 (-11.3 

percent). Caddo, La., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by St. Clair, 

Ill.; Jefferson, Texas; and Lake, Ind. (See table 1.) 

 
- 3 - 

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

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

 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 

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

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

 quarter 2012-13 

United States $922 United States $17 United States 1.9 

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,868 San Mateo, Calif. $153 San Mateo, Calif. 9.9

San Mateo, Calif. 1,698 Dane, Wis. 78 Dane, Wis. 9.3

New York, N.Y. 1,667 Santa Clara, Calif. 72 Collier, Fla. 8.0

Washington, D.C. 1,560 San Francisco, Calif. 71 Whatcom, Wash. 6.9

San Francisco, Calif. 1,549 Collier, Fla. 62 Utah, Utah 6.4

Arlington, Va. 1,478 Yolo, Calif. 53 Washington, Ark. 6.0

Fairfax, Va. 1,434 Whatcom, Wash. 52 Yolo, Calif. 6.0

Suffolk, Mass. 1,429 Alexandria City, Va. 50 Hamilton, Ind. 5.7

Fairfield, Conn. 1,377 Hamilton, Ind. 48 Clay, Mo. 5.1

King, Wash. 1,376 Hartford, Conn. 46 San Francisco, Calif. 4.8

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased 1.9 percent during the year ending in the third quarter of 

2013. Among the 334 largest counties, 291 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See 

chart 4.) San Mateo, Calif., had the largest wage increase among the largest U.S. counties (9.9 percent). 

Of the 334 largest counties, 40 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Pinellas, 

Fla., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wage, with a loss of 4.3 percent. Within 

Pinellas, professional and business services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage 

decrease. Within this industry, average weekly wages declined by $214 (-18.6 percent) over the year. 

Rockland, N.Y., had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by 

Harford, Md.; Douglas, Colo.; and Mercer, N.J. (See table 1.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

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

2013. King, Wash., had the largest gain (3.7 percent). Within King, trade, transportation, and utilities 

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

10,103 jobs, or 4.7 percent. Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.0 percent) 

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

Average weekly wages increased over-the-year in 9 of the 10 largest U.S. counties. Harris, Texas, 

experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (2.9 percent). Within Harris, 

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

Within this industry, average weekly wages increased by $53, or 3.9 percent, over the year. Average 

weekly wages in Orange, Calif., were unchanged over the year. 
- 4 - 

For More Information

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

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

2013 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 9.3 million employer reports cover 135.0 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 2013 will be available later at 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 www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm. 

 

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

on Thursday, June 19, 2014. 

Changes to QCEW Data Files 

BLS discontinued its ftp service on February 28, 2014. As part of this transition, the QCEW data 

file collection was substantially reorganized and improved. For more information, see 

www.bls.gov/cew/dataguide.htm. 
Technical Note 

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

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

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

federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by 

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

the administration of state unemployment insurance programs that 

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

System. Data for 2013 are preliminary and subject to revision. 

For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as having 

employment levels of 75,000 or greater. In addition, data for San 

Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. averages, rankings, or in the analysis in the text. Each year, these large 

counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual average 

of employment for the previous year. The 335 counties presented in 

this release were derived using 2012 preliminary annual averages of 

employment. For 2013 data, six counties have been added to the publication tables: Boone, Ky.; Warren, Ohio; Jackson, Ore.; York, S.C.; 

Midland, Texas; and Potter, Texas. These counties will be included 

in all 2013 quarterly releases. The counties in table 2 are selected and 

sorted each year based on the annual average employment from the 

preceding year. 

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source  Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2013 

 Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by 

7.3 million private-sector employers 

 Sample survey: 557,000 establishments 

Coverage  UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

 UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

 UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

 Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency 

 Quarterly 

— 6 months after the end of each 

quarter 

 Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

 Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file  Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking) 

Principal 

products 

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

MSA, state, and national levels by 

detailed industry 

 Provides quarterly employer dynamics data on establishment openings, 

closings, expansions, and contractions 

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

state private-sector total level 

 Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data 

at the county and MSA level 

 Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses  Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for 

benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

 Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion and contraction by size of 

firm 

 Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites 

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

 
The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

from data released by the individual states. These potential differences 

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

release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures 

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

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

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

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

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

data are derived from microdata summaries of 9.1 million employer 

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

2012. These reports are based on place of employment rather than 

place of residence. 

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and has been basically comparable 

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

include most State and local government employees. In 2012, UI and 

UCFE programs covered workers in 131.7 million jobs. The estimated 

126.9 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.5 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $6.491 trillion in pay, representing 

93.7 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income 

and 40.0 percent of the gross domestic product. 

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

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

employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

have an impact on the employment and wages reported by employers 

covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may affect the 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 2012 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

employment and wages are not published. These adjusted 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. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, adjusted data account 

for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start 

reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity. Beginning with the second quarter of 2011, adjusted data account 

for selected large administrative changes in employment and wages. 

These new adjustments allow QCEW to include county employment 

and wage growth rates in this news release that would otherwise not 

meet publication standards. 

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

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

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

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

even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

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

Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information 

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

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

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

states for comparative purposes even though townships are the more 

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

Additional statistics and other information 

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2012 edition of this 

publication, which was published in September 2013, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on 

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

2013 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from 

Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2012 are now available 

online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn12.htm. The 2013 edition 

of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available 

in September 2014. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

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

BDMInfo@bls.gov). 

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

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

third quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6.............................. 9,294.8 134,957.5 1.7 - $922 1.9 -

Jefferson, AL................................ 17.6 337.2 0.7 239 922 1.4 192

Madison, AL................................. 8.9 181.3 1.2 194 995 -1.2 321

Mobile, AL.................................... 9.5 163.6 -0.3 302 808 1.0 216

Montgomery, AL........................... 6.3 127.8 -0.4 307 794 3.8 25

Tuscaloosa, AL............................. 4.3 86.3 0.7 239 807 1.9 138

Anchorage Borough, AK............... 8.4 156.9 0.0 287 1,036 2.8 59

Maricopa, AZ................................ 93.8 1,719.1 2.7 68 898 1.2 208

Pima, AZ....................................... 18.8 350.5 0.9 225 795 1.0 216

Benton, AR................................... 5.7 99.0 2.0 120 917 3.6 29

Pulaski, AR................................... 14.5 244.2 0.4 266 831 1.3 202

Washington, AR........................... 5.7 95.6 2.1 114 774 6.0 6

Alameda, CA................................ 56.0 681.7 2.5 85 1,199 1.7 161

Contra Costa, CA......................... 29.3 335.1 2.7 68 1,121 -0.2 301

Fresno, CA................................... 30.2 362.8 2.9 60 723 2.0 127

Kern, CA....................................... 17.1 318.3 1.8 140 787 0.4 262

Los Angeles, CA........................... 434.4 4,093.3 2.4 90 1,007 1.0 216

Marin, CA..................................... 11.8 109.4 2.5 85 1,076 0.9 224

Monterey, CA............................... 12.8 188.1 0.9 225 791 0.9 224

Orange, CA.................................. 105.5 1,441.4 2.3 97 1,022 0.0 292

Placer, CA.................................... 11.0 138.3 5.0 6 911 0.6 248

Riverside, CA............................... 51.3 594.5 3.5 34 737 2.1 108

Sacramento, CA........................... 51.3 602.5 1.9 130 1,029 2.1 108

San Bernardino, CA..................... 50.0 632.5 3.3 41 773 -0.1 295

San Diego, CA.............................. 98.4 1,312.2 2.0 120 1,022 2.0 127

San Francisco, CA....................... 56.0 616.0 3.4 37 1,549 4.8 10

San Joaquin, CA.......................... 16.7 216.0 2.2 107 787 0.1 283

San Luis Obispo, CA.................... 9.6 107.2 0.0 287 769 3.5 31

San Mateo, CA............................. 25.2 357.9 3.7 25 1,698 9.9 1

Santa Barbara, CA....................... 14.5 188.5 1.2 194 880 3.7 26

Santa Clara, CA........................... 64.3 947.2 4.1 20 1,868 4.0 17

Santa Cruz, CA............................ 9.0 99.8 1.7 148 858 0.9 224

Solano, CA................................... 10.0 125.8 1.8 140 918 1.4 192

Sonoma, CA................................. 18.7 187.6 3.6 28 875 2.3 92

Stanislaus, CA.............................. 14.1 173.2 2.2 107 787 1.5 181

Tulare, CA.................................... 9.1 147.9 -0.2 295 648 2.0 127

Ventura, CA.................................. 24.4 307.6 2.0 120 926 -0.5 311

Yolo, CA....................................... 5.9 100.3 1.4 174 934 6.0 6

Adams, CO................................... 9.1 174.7 4.3 16 900 2.5 77

Arapahoe, CO.............................. 19.5 298.7 3.7 25 1,067 2.2 98

Boulder, CO.................................. 13.5 165.8 3.1 54 1,095 2.4 87

Denver, CO.................................. 27.2 445.3 3.6 28 1,122 2.1 108

Douglas, CO................................. 10.1 104.1 5.9 2 1,032 -2.5 331

El Paso, CO.................................. 17.2 245.1 2.3 97 841 -0.7 314

Jefferson, CO............................... 18.1 217.3 2.0 120 923 0.4 262

Larimer, CO.................................. 10.4 138.4 2.5 85 831 2.1 108

Weld, CO...................................... 6.0 92.1 5.0 6 832 4.1 15

Fairfield, CT................................. 33.5 415.9 1.5 162 1,377 0.2 275

Hartford, CT.................................. 26.1 497.0 0.3 271 1,124 4.3 13

New Haven, CT............................ 22.9 358.6 0.4 266 968 1.3 202

New London, CT.......................... 7.1 122.9 -0.7 316 909 0.8 236

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE............................ 17.0 271.0 2.2 107 $1,055 2.1 108

Washington, DC........................... 35.6 726.2 1.5 162 1,560 3.0 48

Alachua, FL.................................. 6.6 118.2 1.6 156 764 2.1 108

Brevard, FL................................... 14.7 186.7 -0.3 302 845 0.5 255

Broward, FL.................................. 65.4 719.4 2.6 77 846 1.1 212

Collier, FL..................................... 12.3 118.6 5.1 5 837 8.0 3

Duval, FL..................................... 27.8 451.2 2.6 77 865 -0.1 295

Escambia, FL............................... 8.1 121.9 1.1 203 709 1.9 138

Hillsborough, FL........................... 39.3 603.0 3.3 41 874 1.0 216

Lake, FL....................................... 7.5 83.7 3.9 23 640 1.3 202

Lee, FL......................................... 19.5 210.4 5.2 4 729 0.4 262

Leon, FL....................................... 8.3 138.4 0.7 239 757 0.4 262

Manatee, FL................................. 9.7 103.8 2.3 97 699 1.9 138

Marion, FL.................................... 8.0 91.3 1.0 214 639 2.9 51

Miami-Dade, FL............................ 93.4 1,016.7 2.4 90 873 2.1 108

Okaloosa, FL................................ 6.1 77.6 1.1 203 757 0.5 255

Orange, FL................................... 37.8 707.8 3.3 41 804 1.0 216

Palm Beach, FL............................ 51.2 518.4 3.3 41 884 2.6 70

Pasco, FL..................................... 10.1 100.8 2.4 90 635 1.8 146

Pinellas, FL................................... 31.3 390.5 1.5 162 802 -4.3 334

Polk, FL........................................ 12.5 193.1 1.9 130 718 1.8 146

Sarasota, FL................................ 14.7 142.6 4.0 22 744 0.8 236

Seminole, FL................................ 14.1 162.3 2.7 68 762 1.6 172

Volusia, FL................................... 13.4 152.7 1.9 130 650 1.1 212

Bibb, GA....................................... 4.6 80.3 0.8 234 726 2.8 59

Chatham, GA................................ 7.9 136.7 2.3 97 781 0.5 255

Clayton, GA.................................. 4.3 110.5 0.9 225 878 2.9 51

Cobb, GA...................................... 22.1 313.7 3.1 54 963 0.1 283

De Kalb, GA................................. 18.3 274.6 1.6 156 937 2.1 108

Fulton, GA.................................... 43.0 749.2 3.2 48 1,197 1.6 172

Gwinnett, GA................................ 24.6 313.7 3.3 41 898 0.8 236

Muscogee, GA.............................. 4.7 93.5 0.5 255 729 0.3 268

Richmond, GA.............................. 4.7 98.3 -0.6 313 794 -0.3 308

Honolulu, HI.................................. 24.8 451.2 1.4 174 873 1.4 192

Ada, ID......................................... 13.8 208.2 3.6 28 814 2.4 87

Champaign, IL.............................. 4.4 88.6 -0.1 291 838 2.9 51

Cook, IL........................................ 153.0 2,445.8 1.0 214 1,049 1.5 181

Du Page, IL.................................. 37.9 590.1 1.1 203 1,059 0.9 224

Kane, IL........................................ 13.6 205.6 2.2 107 803 0.2 275

Lake, IL........................................ 22.5 331.3 1.4 174 1,148 0.3 268

McHenry, IL.................................. 8.8 95.7 1.4 174 759 0.4 262

McLean, IL.................................... 3.9 85.0 -0.2 295 890 1.7 161

Madison, IL................................... 6.1 95.0 -1.4 327 765 1.6 172

Peoria, IL...................................... 4.7 100.9 -3.7 334 855 0.7 244

St. Clair, IL.................................... 5.7 92.2 -2.3 332 751 -0.4 309

Sangamon, IL............................... 5.3 126.2 0.1 279 958 2.0 127

Will, IL.......................................... 15.7 214.2 2.8 62 812 1.8 146

Winnebago, IL.............................. 6.9 124.4 -0.9 320 781 1.8 146

Allen, IN........................................ 8.9 177.1 1.1 203 758 1.7 161

Elkhart, IN..................................... 4.8 117.0 4.9 8 758 3.3 40

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN.................................. 8.7 121.9 3.6 28 $897 5.7 8

Lake, IN........................................ 10.3 187.9 -1.7 330 839 -2.2 326

Marion, IN..................................... 23.8 575.7 0.9 225 946 2.2 98

St. Joseph, IN............................... 5.9 116.8 -0.5 310 750 0.1 283

Tippecanoe, IN............................. 3.3 79.3 -0.8 318 766 0.7 244

Vanderburgh, IN........................... 4.8 103.3 -1.2 326 739 2.2 98

Johnson, IA.................................. 3.9 80.6 2.5 85 873 2.2 98

Linn, IA......................................... 6.4 127.6 0.6 246 885 1.3 202

Polk, IA........................................ 15.8 282.1 3.2 48 926 2.1 108

Scott, IA........................................ 5.4 89.1 0.3 271 759 1.7 161

Johnson, KS................................. 21.3 322.4 3.0 57 934 2.0 127

Sedgwick, KS............................... 12.2 242.2 1.4 174 814 0.9 224

Shawnee, KS................................ 4.8 96.3 2.1 114 769 1.1 212

Wyandotte, KS............................. 3.3 84.9 1.9 130 879 2.3 92

Boone, KY................................... 4.0 76.8 0.1 279 804 0.6 248

Fayette, KY................................... 10.2 182.6 1.6 156 839 2.7 65

Jefferson, KY................................ 24.0 435.0 1.5 162 882 0.1 283

Caddo, LA.................................... 7.4 114.6 -3.1 333 759 2.0 127

Calcasieu, LA............................... 5.0 85.9 1.3 187 799 1.8 146

East Baton Rouge, LA.................. 14.8 264.3 2.1 114 886 4.5 12

Jefferson, LA................................ 13.8 191.9 2.1 114 841 -0.1 295

Lafayette, LA................................ 9.3 140.2 2.6 77 902 3.4 37

Orleans, LA.................................. 11.4 178.1 3.3 41 909 1.8 146

St. Tammany, LA.......................... 7.7 81.3 2.4 90 794 3.5 31

Cumberland, ME.......................... 12.8 173.5 0.6 246 812 1.6 172

Anne Arundel, MD........................ 14.7 253.6 1.8 140 1,000 0.4 262

Baltimore, MD............................... 21.2 362.3 1.0 214 934 0.9 224

Frederick, MD............................... 6.2 95.0 -0.2 295 873 -0.2 301

Harford, MD.................................. 5.6 88.3 -0.5 310 868 -2.6 332

Howard, MD................................. 9.4 160.7 0.6 246 1,111 0.9 224

Montgomery, MD.......................... 33.3 454.3 0.4 266 1,214 -1.5 324

Prince Georges, MD..................... 15.7 299.0 -0.3 302 999 1.5 181

Baltimore City, MD....................... 13.9 332.1 -0.6 313 1,094 2.1 108

Barnstable, MA............................. 9.1 97.6 1.2 194 765 2.5 77

Bristol, MA.................................... 16.6 215.4 0.5 255 835 2.0 127

Essex, MA.................................... 22.4 312.1 0.8 234 969 2.4 87

Hampden, MA.............................. 16.2 201.0 1.4 174 839 1.5 181

Middlesex, MA.............................. 50.6 838.6 1.4 174 1,362 3.3 40

Norfolk, MA................................... 23.9 332.3 1.8 140 1,051 1.4 192

Plymouth, MA............................... 14.4 181.5 1.9 130 861 2.6 70

Suffolk, MA................................... 24.8 606.9 1.5 162 1,429 2.1 108

Worcester, MA.............................. 22.3 323.0 0.3 271 946 3.5 31

Genesee, MI................................. 7.2 131.2 0.8 234 764 2.6 70

Ingham, MI................................... 6.3 151.6 1.4 174 868 1.4 192

Kalamazoo, MI............................. 5.3 112.0 1.5 162 855 1.5 181

Kent, MI....................................... 14.1 353.3 3.5 34 811 1.2 208

Macomb, MI.................................. 17.4 303.3 3.3 41 921 2.1 108

Oakland, MI.................................. 38.4 678.4 1.6 156 1,003 0.9 224

Ottawa, MI.................................... 5.6 113.5 3.4 37 759 2.7 65

Saginaw, MI.................................. 4.2 83.7 0.6 246 743 0.1 283

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Washtenaw, MI............................. 8.3 198.0 1.7 148 $996 1.5 181

Wayne, MI.................................... 31.5 688.8 0.5 255 999 0.9 224

Anoka, MN.................................... 7.2 116.4 3.1 54 906 4.0 17

Dakota, MN.................................. 10.0 178.9 2.4 90 892 1.9 138

Hennepin, MN.............................. 42.2 860.0 1.9 130 1,162 2.5 77

Olmsted, MN................................ 3.5 92.0 0.1 279 972 2.1 108

Ramsey, MN................................. 13.9 325.0 1.1 203 1,028 3.7 26

St. Louis, MN................................ 5.6 96.4 1.1 203 793 1.9 138

Stearns, MN................................. 4.4 82.6 1.8 140 750 2.7 65

Harrison, MS................................ 4.5 83.3 0.5 255 677 2.3 92

Hinds, MS..................................... 6.1 119.5 -0.3 302 810 3.1 45

Boone, MO................................... 4.6 89.8 2.6 77 748 1.6 172

Clay, MO...................................... 5.2 90.7 1.5 162 843 5.1 9

Greene, MO.................................. 8.1 156.1 1.3 187 712 2.9 51

Jackson, MO................................ 19.2 348.9 1.0 214 944 2.9 51

St. Charles, MO............................ 8.5 131.5 2.3 97 728 0.8 236

St. Louis, MO................................ 33.0 573.9 1.2 194 958 -0.8 316

St. Louis City, MO........................ 10.1 223.2 0.7 239 1,000 0.8 236

Yellowstone, MT........................... 6.2 78.3 0.6 246 774 2.1 108

Douglas, NE................................. 18.5 322.2 1.7 148 889 4.2 14

Lancaster, NE............................... 9.9 162.1 2.2 107 750 1.2 208

Clark, NV..................................... 50.4 843.3 2.7 68 819 1.9 138

Washoe, NV................................. 13.8 191.5 2.7 68 847 2.5 77

Hillsborough, NH.......................... 12.1 190.7 0.5 255 989 1.9 138

Rockingham, NH.......................... 10.6 139.5 0.7 239 866 2.6 70

Atlantic, NJ................................... 6.6 136.1 -0.2 295 764 0.3 268

Bergen, NJ................................... 33.0 436.2 2.3 97 1,086 0.5 255

Burlington, NJ............................... 11.1 195.6 0.1 279 957 0.9 224

Camden, NJ................................. 12.0 192.6 0.3 271 896 0.2 275

Essex, NJ.................................... 20.5 330.5 -0.5 310 1,158 3.9 23

Gloucester, NJ.............................. 6.1 99.2 1.9 130 809 1.3 202

Hudson, NJ................................... 14.1 236.3 0.9 225 1,250 0.9 224

Mercer, NJ.................................... 11.0 232.4 1.5 162 1,179 -2.4 330

Middlesex, NJ.............................. 21.9 389.5 0.0 287 1,110 4.0 17

Monmouth, NJ.............................. 20.0 244.6 0.7 239 895 0.7 244

Morris, NJ..................................... 17.2 278.0 1.5 162 1,330 2.2 98

Ocean, NJ.................................... 12.5 156.8 2.7 68 738 1.5 181

Passaic, NJ.................................. 12.3 169.2 0.6 246 896 0.6 248

Somerset, NJ............................... 10.1 177.3 1.9 130 1,330 -0.2 301

Union, NJ..................................... 14.3 220.6 -0.1 291 1,130 -0.2 301

Bernalillo, NM............................... 17.8 311.2 0.6 246 808 -0.2 301

Albany, NY................................... 10.1 222.4 0.3 271 977 2.6 70

Bronx, NY..................................... 17.3 244.5 2.8 62 903 2.5 77

Broome, NY.................................. 4.6 88.5 -1.4 327 726 1.5 181

Dutchess, NY............................... 8.4 111.8 1.0 214 923 3.0 48

Erie, NY........................................ 24.4 458.6 0.5 255 811 2.5 77

Kings, NY..................................... 55.5 535.3 2.4 90 760 1.5 181

Monroe, NY.................................. 18.5 374.4 0.2 277 901 3.2 42

Nassau, NY.................................. 53.3 598.7 1.7 148 989 0.3 268

New York, NY............................... 125.1 2,424.5 1.4 174 1,667 2.6 70

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Oneida, NY................................... 5.3 104.1 -1.0 322 $735 3.7 26

Onondaga, NY.............................. 13.1 242.3 -0.1 291 841 1.1 212

Orange, NY.................................. 10.0 133.3 0.9 225 755 -0.1 295

Queens, NY.................................. 48.9 536.0 1.8 140 855 0.1 283

Richmond, NY.............................. 9.3 96.1 4.2 19 802 1.3 202

Rockland, NY............................... 10.1 115.4 0.0 287 954 -4.1 333

Saratoga, NY................................ 5.7 80.4 2.3 97 815 1.4 192

Suffolk, NY................................... 51.7 634.0 1.4 174 1,000 -2.1 325

Westchester, NY.......................... 36.2 408.1 0.8 234 1,163 -0.9 317

Buncombe, NC............................. 8.0 117.5 1.2 194 714 2.1 108

Catawba, NC................................ 4.3 80.8 0.8 234 694 3.0 48

Cumberland, NC........................... 6.1 117.1 -0.7 316 741 -1.1 320

Durham, NC................................. 7.3 184.4 1.6 156 1,189 2.9 51

Forsyth, NC.................................. 8.9 176.3 1.9 130 851 2.0 127

Guilford, NC.................................. 14.0 268.7 1.7 148 809 0.0 292

Mecklenburg, NC.......................... 32.7 586.8 2.8 62 1,055 -0.1 295

New Hanover, NC........................ 7.3 101.4 2.3 97 740 2.2 98

Wake, NC..................................... 29.6 478.9 3.8 24 935 0.8 236

Cass, ND...................................... 6.4 111.3 2.7 68 861 4.0 17

Butler, OH..................................... 7.5 140.0 1.5 162 796 -0.1 295

Cuyahoga, OH.............................. 35.7 707.9 0.7 239 956 2.5 77

Delaware, OH............................... 4.5 82.6 2.8 62 892 2.1 108

Franklin, OH................................. 29.9 692.6 2.4 90 927 1.4 192

Hamilton, OH................................ 23.2 497.6 1.0 214 1,015 -1.2 321

Lake, OH...................................... 6.3 93.6 -0.1 291 760 -2.3 329

Lorain, OH.................................... 6.0 95.4 0.9 225 755 0.5 255

Lucas, OH.................................... 10.1 204.5 1.0 214 794 0.6 248

Mahoning, OH.............................. 6.0 99.0 0.5 255 674 1.0 216

Montgomery, OH.......................... 11.9 242.3 -0.2 295 804 0.8 236

Stark, OH..................................... 8.8 155.7 0.1 279 723 2.8 59

Summit, OH................................. 14.1 258.0 0.6 246 832 1.7 161

Warren, OH................................. 4.3 81.7 3.2 48 789 -1.3 323

Oklahoma, OK.............................. 25.6 436.6 1.2 194 906 1.7 161

Tulsa, OK..................................... 21.0 339.2 1.7 148 865 1.8 146

Clackamas, OR............................ 13.0 144.4 2.0 120 858 2.8 59

Jackson, OR................................ 6.8 80.4 2.7 68 710 2.3 92

Lane, OR...................................... 11.0 139.7 1.2 194 727 1.8 146

Marion, OR................................... 9.5 140.5 3.4 37 731 2.7 65

Multnomah, OR............................ 30.7 455.3 2.8 62 953 1.6 172

Washington, OR........................... 17.0 260.2 3.6 28 1,147 3.5 31

Allegheny, PA............................... 34.4 685.8 0.4 266 1,004 1.8 146

Berks, PA..................................... 8.8 164.8 0.5 255 828 -2.2 326

Bucks, PA..................................... 19.2 248.9 1.2 194 872 0.2 275

Butler, PA..................................... 4.8 84.8 0.5 255 864 2.2 98

Chester, PA.................................. 14.9 239.5 1.1 203 1,141 1.0 216

Cumberland, PA........................... 6.0 124.6 0.1 279 852 2.7 65

Dauphin, PA................................ 7.3 176.7 0.9 225 911 1.7 161

Delaware, PA............................... 13.4 213.3 1.5 162 968 2.2 98

Erie, PA........................................ 7.0 125.0 -0.4 307 740 0.7 244

Lackawanna, PA.......................... 5.7 96.8 -0.8 318 709 1.7 161

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Lancaster, PA............................... 12.7 222.4 0.5 255 $768 2.0 127

Lehigh, PA.................................... 8.5 179.5 1.4 174 903 3.9 23

Luzerne, PA.................................. 7.5 139.3 -0.4 307 729 2.1 108

Montgomery, PA........................... 26.7 468.6 0.5 255 1,107 -0.4 309

Northampton, PA.......................... 6.5 105.1 1.1 203 814 2.8 59

Philadelphia, PA........................... 33.6 634.2 0.3 271 1,103 1.8 146

Washington, PA............................ 5.3 86.6 0.6 246 893 2.5 77

Westmoreland, PA....................... 9.2 132.9 -1.0 322 745 1.4 192

York, PA....................................... 8.8 172.2 0.4 266 811 0.2 275

Providence, RI.............................. 17.4 274.0 1.0 214 920 3.1 45

Charleston, SC............................. 12.5 219.0 2.1 114 812 1.9 138

Greenville, SC.............................. 12.7 238.9 3.4 37 811 0.1 283

Horry, SC..................................... 7.9 114.2 2.0 120 564 2.0 127

Lexington, SC............................... 5.9 102.9 4.3 16 702 1.0 216

Richland, SC................................ 9.2 207.2 1.4 174 796 1.5 181

Spartanburg, SC........................... 5.9 120.7 3.6 28 777 1.7 161

York, SC....................................... 4.7 78.0 3.2 48 729 2.5 77

Minnehaha, SD............................. 6.7 118.6 1.7 148 798 3.5 31

Davidson, TN................................ 19.1 442.2 2.0 120 947 0.2 275

Hamilton, TN................................ 8.7 187.9 1.3 187 808 0.1 283

Knox, TN...................................... 11.1 221.9 1.1 203 796 0.6 248

Rutherford, TN.............................. 4.6 108.8 4.8 11 796 0.1 283

Shelby, TN.................................... 19.4 469.4 -0.3 302 960 0.0 292

Williamson, TN............................. 6.8 103.5 4.5 14 1,013 2.9 51

Bell, TX......................................... 4.9 111.1 1.4 174 770 2.5 77

Bexar, TX..................................... 36.3 773.3 2.6 77 827 1.2 208

Brazoria, TX................................. 5.1 96.2 3.2 48 908 3.4 37

Brazos, TX.................................... 4.1 94.9 5.7 3 711 -1.0 318

Cameron, TX................................ 6.3 131.9 1.8 140 587 2.3 92

Collin, TX...................................... 20.3 330.3 4.8 11 1,070 0.8 236

Dallas, TX..................................... 70.6 1,509.0 3.2 48 1,115 2.8 59

Denton, TX.................................. 12.1 195.5 4.9 8 837 1.6 172

El Paso, TX.................................. 14.3 282.4 1.5 162 666 2.0 127

Fort Bend, TX............................... 10.5 157.8 6.0 1 969 3.6 29

Galveston, TX............................... 5.6 98.5 2.8 62 805 0.2 275

Gregg, TX..................................... 4.2 77.1 0.9 225 846 4.1 15

Harris, TX..................................... 106.1 2,192.3 2.9 60 1,187 2.9 51

Hidalgo, TX................................... 11.6 231.7 2.6 77 595 2.1 108

Jefferson, TX................................ 5.8 116.9 -2.0 331 921 0.9 224

Lubbock, TX................................. 7.2 129.1 2.3 97 736 2.6 70

McLennan, TX.............................. 5.0 103.3 1.2 194 748 1.4 192

Midland, TX.................................. 5.1 85.3 4.5 14 1,148 3.5 31

Montgomery, TX........................... 9.6 151.4 4.8 11 903 3.4 37

Nueces, TX.................................. 8.1 159.7 1.8 140 817 2.4 87

Potter, TX..................................... 3.9 77.3 1.3 187 778 1.8 146

Smith, TX..................................... 5.8 95.2 2.5 85 784 1.6 172

Tarrant, TX................................... 39.4 812.6 3.0 57 912 0.6 248

Travis, TX..................................... 33.7 637.8 4.1 20 1,028 2.4 87

Webb, TX..................................... 5.0 92.8 1.9 130 636 -0.2 301

Williamson, TX............................. 8.4 139.9 4.3 16 928 1.5 181

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT..................................... 7.5 111.7 2.6 77 $738 -0.7 314

Salt Lake, UT................................ 39.5 611.4 3.0 57 877 2.1 108

Utah, UT....................................... 13.5 190.1 4.9 8 749 6.4 5

Weber, UT.................................... 5.6 93.2 2.0 120 710 4.6 11

Chittenden, VT............................. 6.3 99.3 0.2 277 898 3.2 42

Arlington, VA................................ 8.8 164.9 -1.0 322 1,478 -1.0 318

Chesterfield, VA........................... 8.0 122.0 2.7 68 810 -0.6 312

Fairfax, VA.................................... 35.2 586.1 -0.2 295 1,434 1.8 146

Henrico, VA.................................. 10.3 179.5 0.1 279 912 1.7 161

Loudoun, VA................................ 10.3 146.7 2.0 120 1,085 -0.2 301

Prince William, VA........................ 8.1 116.5 2.6 77 835 0.2 275

Alexandria City, VA...................... 6.3 94.6 -1.6 329 1,315 4.0 17

Chesapeake City, VA................... 5.7 95.7 2.2 107 728 0.6 248

Newport News City, VA................ 3.7 97.4 1.1 203 906 4.0 17

Norfolk City, VA........................... 5.6 136.4 -0.6 313 906 0.3 268

Richmond City, VA....................... 7.1 148.1 0.1 279 1,021 1.8 146

Virginia Beach City, VA................ 11.3 170.5 2.2 107 733 0.3 268

Benton, WA.................................. 6.0 79.9 1.1 203 916 0.3 268

Clark, WA..................................... 14.5 136.1 3.5 34 866 2.2 98

King, WA...................................... 86.3 1,212.3 3.7 25 1,376 1.6 172

Kitsap, WA.................................... 6.9 80.1 -0.2 295 879 -0.6 312

Pierce, WA................................... 22.9 274.0 2.1 114 842 0.5 255

Snohomish, WA............................ 20.5 264.6 1.6 156 1,013 1.4 192

Spokane, WA............................... 16.7 204.2 1.3 187 796 2.2 98

Thurston, WA............................... 7.9 100.1 2.3 97 829 -2.2 326

Whatcom, WA.............................. 7.2 82.7 2.0 120 807 6.9 4

Yakima, WA................................. 9.3 114.8 1.0 214 638 3.2 42

Kanawha, WV............................... 6.0 104.0 -1.0 322 804 1.8 146

Brown, WI..................................... 6.6 149.7 1.0 214 805 3.1 45

Dane, WI...................................... 14.4 310.3 1.3 187 921 9.3 2

Milwaukee, WI.............................. 24.6 481.4 1.0 214 879 0.5 255

Outagamie, WI............................. 5.1 102.3 1.7 148 788 2.3 92

Waukesha, WI.............................. 12.6 230.8 1.3 187 904 1.7 161

Winnebago, WI............................. 3.6 89.9 -0.9 320 839 1.8 146

San Juan, PR............................... 11.5 255.0 -2.9 (7) 598 -0.3 (7)

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

334 U.S. counties comprise 71.4 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.

2 Data are preliminary.

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

4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

Note.

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

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

third quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-134

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-134

United States5................................................................. 9,294.8 134,957.5 1.7 $922 1.9

 Private industry............................................................. 9,000.5 113,874.9 2.1 914 1.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 133.4 2,130.2 0.9 1,019 3.7

 Construction............................................................... 750.3 6,067.8 4.4 1,005 2.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 336.2 12,055.6 0.4 1,125 1.7

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 1,908.2 25,615.1 1.7 781 1.6

 Information................................................................. 145.6 2,691.1 0.7 1,622 4.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 820.6 7,629.0 1.6 1,346 2.4

 Professional and business services........................... 1,644.1 18,635.0 2.8 1,172 1.8

 Education and health services................................... 1,469.8 20,222.2 1.6 864 1.5

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 785.1 14,478.2 3.0 388 1.8

 Other services............................................................ 797.0 4,152.7 1.1 623 2.5

 Government.................................................................. 294.2 21,082.6 -0.2 970 1.7

Los Angeles, CA.............................................................. 434.4 4,093.3 2.4 1,007 1.0

 Private industry............................................................. 428.5 3,566.9 2.7 977 0.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 9.9 7.3 1,799 -20.7

 Construction............................................................... 12.4 117.2 5.5 1,065 1.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 12.5 366.8 0.1 1,126 -0.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 51.9 769.9 1.7 826 1.0

 Information................................................................. 8.4 194.5 4.3 1,760 0.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 22.6 210.1 -0.5 1,514 3.6

 Professional and business services........................... 44.0 599.2 4.0 1,222 0.5

 Education and health services................................... 200.1 701.3 2.2 782 0.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 28.1 441.0 4.5 552 0.5

 Other services............................................................ 25.3 141.1 1.6 674 1.0

 Government.................................................................. 5.8 526.4 0.1 1,220 3.3

Cook, IL........................................................................... 153.0 2,445.8 1.0 1,049 1.5

 Private industry............................................................. 151.7 2,150.3 1.1 1,037 1.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.1 0.9 2.6 1,017 1.8

 Construction............................................................... 12.6 67.3 3.1 1,333 3.4

 Manufacturing............................................................ 6.6 187.8 -2.1 1,094 1.8

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 30.2 446.6 0.7 830 -0.4

 Information................................................................. 2.7 53.5 -2.1 1,572 4.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 15.8 184.7 0.1 1,763 3.6

 Professional and business services........................... 32.5 436.8 2.1 1,318 2.1

 Education and health services................................... 16.1 419.6 1.7 902 0.3

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.7 253.2 2.4 477 0.8

 Other services............................................................ 16.8 95.7 0.7 801 2.0

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 295.5 -0.2 1,146 2.4

New York, NY.................................................................. 125.1 2,424.5 1.4 1,667 2.6

 Private industry............................................................. 124.8 1,988.8 1.8 1,782 2.7

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.0 0.2 6.7 2,087 39.4

 Construction............................................................... 2.2 33.7 3.3 1,684 3.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.3 26.1 0.3 1,134 4.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 21.0 257.8 1.8 1,229 0.2

 Information................................................................. 4.5 144.5 1.5 2,320 7.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 19.1 349.4 -1.0 3,126 3.9

 Professional and business services........................... 26.4 502.1 2.2 2,006 3.0

 Education and health services................................... 9.6 313.5 2.2 1,243 2.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.5 260.3 2.6 783 2.1

 Other services............................................................ 19.6 94.9 2.3 1,014 2.5

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 435.7 -0.1 1,137 1.1

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-134

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-134

Harris, TX........................................................................ 106.1 2,192.3 2.9 $1,187 2.9

 Private industry............................................................. 105.6 1,936.9 3.0 1,203 2.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 1.8 96.0 7.9 2,898 0.3

 Construction............................................................... 6.6 144.6 2.2 1,187 3.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.6 195.5 2.5 1,441 1.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 23.9 453.6 3.3 1,060 3.9

 Information................................................................. 1.2 28.3 -1.8 1,320 -6.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.8 117.5 3.1 1,478 2.1

 Professional and business services........................... 21.3 375.8 2.1 1,405 3.9

 Education and health services................................... 14.6 263.0 2.4 967 4.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.8 200.7 3.8 405 1.0

 Other services............................................................ 11.5 61.0 2.7 701 2.8

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 255.4 2.4 1,066 2.4

Maricopa, AZ.................................................................... 93.8 1,719.1 2.7 898 1.2

 Private industry............................................................. 93.1 1,510.6 3.0 892 1.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 7.0 2.1 919 4.0

 Construction............................................................... 7.5 93.1 3.7 943 1.0

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.2 113.1 -0.5 1,280 0.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 20.7 341.3 2.4 825 0.7

 Information................................................................. 1.6 31.4 3.0 1,191 2.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.9 149.1 4.9 1,126 0.9

 Professional and business services........................... 21.9 288.3 3.2 964 3.2

 Education and health services................................... 10.8 254.6 2.5 915 1.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.4 184.3 4.7 427 0.2

 Other services............................................................ 6.5 46.7 0.9 624 3.5

 Government.................................................................. 0.7 208.5 0.2 954 1.5

Dallas, TX........................................................................ 70.6 1,509.0 3.2 1,115 2.8

 Private industry............................................................. 70.1 1,343.1 3.5 1,120 2.8

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.6 9.2 5.0 3,404 0.0

 Construction............................................................... 4.0 74.3 6.8 1,031 1.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.7 107.8 -3.7 1,296 5.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 15.3 306.0 4.2 1,028 2.3

 Information................................................................. 1.4 48.1 5.4 1,719 3.2

 Financial activities...................................................... 8.6 149.5 4.7 1,456 2.9

 Professional and business services........................... 15.7 291.1 3.5 1,249 4.0

 Education and health services................................... 8.6 176.3 2.6 1,021 1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.0 140.5 4.8 489 -0.2

 Other services............................................................ 6.7 39.7 4.0 718 2.9

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 165.9 1.4 1,080 2.8

Orange, CA...................................................................... 105.5 1,441.4 2.3 1,022 0.0

 Private industry............................................................. 104.2 1,308.3 2.4 1,008 -0.3

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.2 3.3 7.9 729 1.8

 Construction............................................................... 6.1 79.1 7.0 1,133 -0.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.8 156.7 -1.2 1,300 2.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 16.3 251.1 1.5 930 -0.9

 Information................................................................. 1.2 24.9 3.4 1,514 -7.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.8 111.9 2.8 1,568 1.0

 Professional and business services........................... 19.4 264.8 1.5 1,152 1.5

 Education and health services................................... 25.6 180.2 3.3 866 -1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.5 190.5 3.7 443 -5.7

 Other services............................................................ 6.2 40.9 0.8 641 1.9

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 133.1 1.5 1,171 3.2

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-134

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-134

San Diego, CA................................................................ 98.4 1,312.2 2.0 $1,022 2.0

 Private industry............................................................. 97.0 1,092.9 2.0 987 1.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.7 10.6 1.1 637 7.6

 Construction............................................................... 5.9 61.6 6.5 1,053 2.0

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.9 94.3 -1.2 1,359 -8.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 13.8 210.0 1.2 785 0.5

 Information................................................................. 1.1 23.8 -1.8 1,723 9.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 8.6 70.8 1.1 1,316 9.3

 Professional and business services........................... 16.9 223.3 3.4 1,441 5.0

 Education and health services................................... 26.7 177.6 1.1 869 0.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.3 170.3 2.3 438 0.5

 Other services............................................................ 6.6 46.1 2.4 564 1.1

 Government.................................................................. 1.4 219.3 1.6 1,207 3.6

King, WA......................................................................... 86.3 1,212.3 3.7 1,376 1.6

 Private industry............................................................. 85.7 1,056.4 3.9 1,402 1.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 2.7 -10.9 1,232 -7.4

 Construction............................................................... 5.5 55.5 7.7 1,164 1.5

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.2 106.1 2.2 1,513 2.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.4 223.3 4.7 1,076 3.3

 Information................................................................. 1.8 83.3 3.3 4,670 2.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 6.3 65.6 3.5 1,441 0.4

 Professional and business services........................... 14.5 201.3 4.4 1,459 -1.2

 Education and health services................................... 26.2 155.8 2.8 910 2.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.6 123.1 4.9 499 2.7

 Other services............................................................ 8.0 39.7 1.4 779 5.3

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 155.9 1.8 1,202 2.3

Miami-Dade, FL............................................................... 93.4 1,016.7 2.4 873 2.1

 Private industry............................................................. 93.0 879.6 2.9 854 1.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 7.2 -4.4 542 2.1

 Construction............................................................... 5.3 33.9 10.8 850 3.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.7 36.4 2.1 813 0.7

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 27.6 260.5 2.3 795 1.7

 Information................................................................. 1.6 17.5 2.8 1,367 2.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.6 68.9 4.9 1,308 4.3

 Professional and business services........................... 19.8 136.0 3.7 1,016 1.0

 Education and health services................................... 10.2 159.4 0.8 908 3.3

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.1 123.2 3.6 524 -1.9

 Other services............................................................ 8.1 36.2 2.3 569 4.0

 Government.................................................................. 0.4 137.1 -1.0 995 3.0

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

2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2012 annual average employment.

3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,

third quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 3

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-13

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-13

United States4.......................................... 9,294.8 134,957.5 1.7 $922 1.9

Alabama.................................................... 116.4 1,847.6 0.8 794 1.3

Alaska........................................................ 22.0 345.0 0.4 990 3.0

Arizona...................................................... 146.9 2,490.9 2.2 859 1.5

Arkansas................................................... 87.2 1,156.5 0.1 723 2.1

California................................................... 1,356.2 15,526.4 2.7 1,057 2.1

Colorado.................................................... 176.1 2,355.7 3.1 952 1.7

Connecticut............................................... 113.4 1,650.3 0.7 1,109 1.9

Delaware................................................... 28.2 416.8 2.1 941 2.1

District of Columbia................................... 35.6 726.2 1.5 1,560 3.0

Florida....................................................... 628.3 7,501.8 2.6 808 1.1

Georgia...................................................... 276.1 3,928.2 2.3 867 1.5

Hawaii........................................................ 38.8 617.7 1.7 839 1.6

Idaho......................................................... 53.7 644.7 2.3 703 2.3

Illinois........................................................ 402.1 5,731.7 0.7 959 1.5

Indiana....................................................... 159.5 2,883.6 1.2 784 1.6

Iowa........................................................... 98.1 1,512.0 1.5 772 2.1

Kansas...................................................... 85.1 1,347.6 1.8 776 2.0

Kentucky.................................................... 118.4 1,794.5 1.0 760 1.1

Louisiana................................................... 129.2 1,893.4 1.4 827 2.9

Maine......................................................... 49.6 601.5 0.7 735 1.8

Maryland.................................................... 166.8 2,546.4 0.6 1,011 0.4

Massachusetts.......................................... 229.0 3,318.3 1.2 1,131 2.6

Michigan.................................................... 239.2 4,069.7 2.1 875 1.5

Minnesota.................................................. 171.8 2,724.2 1.7 938 2.6

Mississippi................................................. 70.7 1,099.1 0.8 688 2.5

Missouri..................................................... 181.5 2,661.0 1.3 805 1.4

Montana.................................................... 43.4 446.7 1.2 705 2.3

Nebraska................................................... 70.8 937.5 1.3 766 3.4

Nevada...................................................... 74.7 1,169.4 2.5 836 2.0

New Hampshire......................................... 49.9 624.5 0.6 895 2.4

New Jersey............................................... 265.3 3,851.9 1.2 1,068 1.3

New Mexico............................................... 55.7 793.7 0.5 766 0.7

New York.................................................. 617.3 8,724.8 1.3 1,108 1.7

North Carolina........................................... 255.9 4,006.4 1.7 817 1.4

North Dakota............................................. 30.9 436.7 3.4 921 5.5

Ohio........................................................... 288.5 5,147.5 1.4 837 1.2

Oklahoma.................................................. 105.9 1,572.6 1.4 797 2.4

Oregon...................................................... 135.6 1,709.8 2.4 856 2.6

Pennsylvania............................................. 341.6 5,622.4 0.3 913 1.6

Rhode Island............................................. 35.6 465.2 1.3 878 2.6

South Carolina.......................................... 118.1 1,859.3 2.3 751 1.9

South Dakota............................................ 31.8 408.9 0.9 706 3.4

Tennessee................................................. 144.9 2,712.8 1.5 819 0.6

Texas......................................................... 609.6 11,091.9 2.8 952 2.5

Utah........................................................... 88.2 1,265.5 2.9 791 3.1

Vermont..................................................... 24.6 302.5 0.0 788 3.4

Virginia...................................................... 240.6 3,650.1 0.6 971 1.1

Washington............................................... 246.7 3,017.9 2.4 1,044 2.1

West Virginia............................................. 49.7 710.3 -0.7 751 3.7

Wisconsin.................................................. 163.9 2,752.7 1.1 793 3.0

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

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

third quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2013

(thousands)

September

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2012-13

Third

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

third quarter

2012-13

Wyoming................................................... 25.7 286.1 0.2 $840 1.4

Puerto Rico............................................... 49.4 910.9 -2.5 501 -0.6

Virgin Islands............................................ 3.4 37.9 -1.9 706 -0.6

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

programs.

2 Data are preliminary.

3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 March 2014

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

September 2012-13 (U.S. average = 1.7 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 March 2014

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

or more employees, third quarter 2012-13 (U.S. average = 1.9 percent)