For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Wednesday, December 7, 2016 USDL-16-2253 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Second Quarter 2016 

From June 2015 to June 2016, employment increased in 291 of the 344 largest U.S. counties, the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Williamson, Tenn., had the largest percentage increase with a 

gain of 6.7 percent over the year, above the national job growth rate of 1.5 percent. Within Williamson, 

the largest employment increase occurred in professional and business services, which gained 3,033 jobs 

over the year (9.6 percent). Midland, Texas, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in 

employment among the largest counties in the U.S., with a loss of 8.3 percent. Within Midland, natural 

resources and mining had the largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 2,767 jobs (-13.1 percent). 

County employment and wage data are from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) 

program, which provides the only detailed quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by detailed industry. These data 

are published within 6 months following the end of each quarter. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased 2.2 percent over the year, growing to $989 in the second 

quarter of 2016. McLean, Ill., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly wages 

with a gain of 21.0 percent. Within McLean, an average weekly wage gain of $739 (42.2 percent) in 

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

Ventura, Calif., experienced the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 8.4 

percent over the year. Within Ventura, manufacturing had the largest impact on the county’s average 

weekly wage decline with a decrease of $912 (-34.4 percent) over the year. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, June 2015-16 

(U.S. average = 1.5 percent)

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, second quarter 2015-16 

(U.S. average = 2.2 percent) 

4

5

6

7

Williamson,

Tenn.

Utah,

Utah

Loudoun,

Va.

Williamson,

Texas

 Rutherford,

 Tenn.

Denton,

Texas

Percent

5

10

15

20

McLean,

Ill.

Elkhart,

Ind.

King,

Wash.

Washington,

Ore.

Albany,

N.Y.

Percent
- 2 -

Large County Employment 

In June 2016, national employment was 142.7 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the 

year, employment increased 1.5 percent, or 2.1 million. In June 2016, the 344 U.S. counties with 75,000 

or more jobs accounted for 72.5 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.6 percent of total wages. These 

344 counties had a net job growth of 1.7 million over the year, accounting for 82.0 percent of the overall 

U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.) The five counties with the largest increases in employment 

levels had a combined over-the-year employment gain of 254,900 jobs, which was 12.1 percent of the 

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

Employment declined in 46 of the largest counties from June 2015 to June 2016. Midland, Texas, had 

the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-8.3 percent), followed by Lafayette, La.; 

Gregg, Texas; Peoria, Ill.; McLean, Ill.; and Washington, Pa. (See table 1.) 

Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2016 employment, June 2015-16 employment increase, and 

June 2015-16 percent increase in employment 

 

Employment in large counties 

 

June 2016 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) June 2015-16 June 2015-16 

 (thousands) 

United States 142,717.2 United States 2,100.9 United States 1.5 

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,337.3 Los Angeles, Calif. 76.7 Williamson, Tenn. 6.7

Cook, Ill. 2,584.0 Maricopa, Ariz. 51.5 Utah, Utah 6.5

New York, N.Y. 2,415.6 Dallas, Texas 46.2 Loudoun, Va. 5.2

Harris, Texas 2,272.1 King, Wash. 43.8 Williamson, Texas 4.7

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,827.4 New York, N.Y. 36.7 Rutherford, Tenn. 4.6

Dallas, Texas 1,649.4 Fulton, Ga. 31.2 Denton, Texas 4.6

Orange, Calif. 1,557.3 Clark, Nev. 30.7 Lee, Fla. 4.5

San Diego, Calif. 1,405.5 Santa Clara, Calif. 30.0 Seminole, Fla. 4.5

King, Wash. 1,326.1 Orange, Calif. 28.4 Clay, Mo. 4.5

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,088.1 San Diego, Calif. 27.6 York, S.C. 4.5

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $989, a 2.2 percent increase, during the year ending in 

the second quarter of 2016. Among the 344 largest counties, 304 had over-the-year increases in average 

weekly wages. (See chart 4.) McLean, Ill., had the largest percentage wage increase among the largest 

U.S. counties (21.0 percent). (See table B.) 

Of the 344 largest counties, 36 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Ventura, 

Calif., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages (-8.4 percent), followed by Forsyth, 

N.C.; Lafayette, La.; Gregg, Texas; and Midland, Texas. (See table 1.) 

 
- 3 -

Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2016 average weekly wages, second quarter 2015-16 

increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2015-16 percent increase in average weekly wages 

 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 

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

second quarter 2016 wage, second quarter 2015-16 weekly wage, second 

 quarter 2015-16 

United States $989 United States $21 United States 2.2 

Santa Clara, Calif. $2,252 McLean, Ill. $201 McLean, Ill. 21.0

San Mateo, Calif. 1,871 Santa Clara, Calif. 112 Elkhart, Ind. 8.5

New York, N.Y. 1,866 King, Wash. 104 King, Wash. 8.1

San Francisco, Calif. 1,806 Washington, Ore. 89 Washington, Ore. 7.4

Washington, D.C. 1,623 Somerset, N.J. 74 Albany, N.Y. 7.0

Suffolk, Mass. 1,571 San Francisco, Calif. 72 Benton, Ark. 6.5

Arlington, Va. 1,559 Albany, N.Y. 71 Nassau, N.Y. 6.4

Fairfield, Conn. 1,535 Nassau, N.Y. 70 Ingham, Mich. 6.0

Somerset, N.J. 1,508 Elkhart, Ind. 69 Tulare, Calif. 5.8

Fairfax, Va. 1,492 Benton, Ark. 61 Napa, Calif. 5.6

 Kane, Ill. 5.6

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

Among the 10 largest counties, 9 had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June 2016. 

King, Wash., had the largest gain (3.4 percent). Within King, trade, transportation, and utilities had the 

largest over-the-year employment level increase, with a gain of 10,557 jobs, or 4.4 percent. Harris, 

Texas, had the only percentage decrease in employment among the 10 largest counties (-0.8 percent). 

(See table 2.) 

Average weekly wages increased over the year in 8 of the 10 largest U.S. counties. King, Wash., also 

experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (8.1 percent). Within King, trade, 

transportation, and utilities had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. Within 

trade, transportation, and utilities, average weekly wages increased by $257, or 21.9 percent, over the 

year. Harris, Texas, had the only percentage loss in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties 

(-0.1 percent). 

 
- 4 -

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 344 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2015. June 2016 employment and 2016 

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

The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) 

laws. The 9.7 million employer reports cover 142.7 million full- and part-time workers. Data for the 

second quarter of 2016 will be available electronically later at www.bls.gov/cew/. For additional 

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

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

Several BLS regional offices issue 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 third quarter 2016 is scheduled to be released on 

Tuesday, March 7, 2017. 
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 2016 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 345 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2015 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2016 data, four counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Merced, Calif.; Napa, Calif.; 

Bay, Fla.; and Merrimack, N.H. These counties will be included in 

all 2016 quarterly releases. Two counties, Black Hawk, Iowa, and 

Ector, Texas, which were published in the 2015 releases, will be 

excluded from this and future 2016 releases because their 2015 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.

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source  Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.7 million establishments in first quarter of 2016 

 Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by 

7.7 million private-sector employers 

 Sample survey: 623,000 establishments 

Coverage  UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

 UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

 UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

 Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency 

 Quarterly 

— Within 6 months after the end of 

each quarter 

 Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

 Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file  Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

 Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal database and directly summarizes gross job gains and 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 9.5 million employer 

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

2015. 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 2015, UI and 

UCFE programs covered workers in 139.5 million jobs. The estimated 

134.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.5 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $7.385 trillion in pay, representing 

94.0 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income 

and 40.9 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 2015 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

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

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

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

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

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

release. 

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

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

location, and ownership information of their establishments. The most 

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

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

quarter of 2008); selected large administrative changes in employment 

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

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

adjustments allow QCEW to include county employment and wage 

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

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

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

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

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

even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

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

Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information 

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

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

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

states for comparative purposes even though townships are the more 

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

Additional statistics and other information 

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2015 edition of this 

publication, which was published in September 2016, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on 

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

2016 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from 

the 2015 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online 

are now available at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn15.htm. The 

2016 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will 

be available in September 2017. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

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

BDMInfo@bls.gov). 

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

message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339. 
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,

second quarter 2016

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

United States4.............................. 9,741.4 142,717.2 1.5 - $989 2.2 -

Jefferson, AL................................ 18.1 341.2 0.6 257 967 2.3 172

Madison, AL................................. 9.4 191.7 2.7 76 1,050 -0.2 311

Mobile, AL.................................... 9.9 170.3 1.4 179 844 2.2 181

Montgomery, AL........................... 6.4 132.0 1.7 148 834 1.5 241

Shelby, AL.................................... 5.6 84.5 0.6 257 922 2.8 107

Tuscaloosa, AL............................. 4.4 91.2 -0.2 303 811 0.1 304

Anchorage Borough, AK............... 8.3 152.3 -2.1 335 1,050 -1.8 333

Maricopa, AZ................................ 94.8 1,827.4 2.9 66 970 2.2 181

Pima, AZ....................................... 18.7 351.9 1.1 204 827 0.0 305

Benton, AR................................... 6.1 115.3 2.8 69 994 6.5 6

Pulaski, AR................................... 14.4 247.5 1.3 188 896 1.8 224

Washington, AR........................... 5.9 104.2 3.4 36 809 3.5 66

Alameda, CA................................ 61.1 753.8 2.4 95 1,301 3.4 73

Butte, CA..................................... 8.2 80.6 2.2 112 749 3.0 100

Contra Costa, CA......................... 31.5 361.2 3.2 48 1,203 3.5 66

Fresno, CA................................... 33.5 383.4 2.6 84 775 4.0 52

Kern, CA....................................... 18.0 315.3 1.2 200 824 2.0 201

Los Angeles, CA........................... 467.7 4,337.3 1.8 142 1,079 2.8 107

Marin, CA..................................... 12.4 115.3 1.4 179 1,268 2.8 107

Merced, CA................................. 6.3 78.0 1.6 160 761 5.5 12

Monterey, CA............................... 13.5 204.4 2.2 112 839 4.1 47

Napa, CA..................................... 5.8 77.5 0.6 257 977 5.6 10

Orange, CA.................................. 114.8 1,557.3 1.9 134 1,103 1.8 224

Placer, CA.................................... 12.4 157.2 4.3 12 997 4.2 41

Riverside, CA............................... 59.5 688.0 3.8 23 811 -1.6 330

Sacramento, CA........................... 55.3 639.5 2.9 66 1,069 2.7 122

San Bernardino, CA..................... 55.6 703.7 2.5 87 843 2.7 122

San Diego, CA.............................. 106.7 1,405.5 2.0 128 1,073 0.0 305

San Francisco, CA....................... 59.7 700.3 4.0 18 1,806 4.2 41

San Joaquin, CA.......................... 17.4 238.4 1.6 160 829 4.3 35

San Luis Obispo, CA.................... 10.2 116.0 2.1 125 836 4.6 28

San Mateo, CA............................. 27.5 390.7 2.8 69 1,871 -0.8 321

Santa Barbara, CA....................... 15.2 197.7 0.1 287 947 -0.7 320

Santa Clara, CA........................... 70.2 1,047.1 3.0 59 2,252 5.2 17

Santa Cruz, CA............................ 9.5 107.8 1.4 179 902 4.6 28

Solano, CA................................... 10.9 136.8 2.5 87 1,014 1.4 246

Sonoma, CA................................. 19.6 202.6 2.3 105 936 4.9 21

Stanislaus, CA.............................. 14.9 185.4 3.0 59 819 1.9 216

Tulare, CA.................................... 9.9 165.1 1.4 179 706 5.8 9

Ventura, CA.................................. 26.1 321.1 0.5 270 986 -8.4 344

Yolo, CA....................................... 6.5 100.7 1.5 169 1,058 5.5 12

Adams, CO................................... 10.4 200.6 3.0 59 956 2.7 122

Arapahoe, CO.............................. 21.3 323.5 1.9 134 1,118 2.4 156

Boulder, CO.................................. 14.7 178.2 2.3 105 1,140 0.2 302

Denver, CO.................................. 30.6 495.0 2.4 95 1,175 -0.3 313

Douglas, CO................................. 11.4 119.2 2.2 112 1,084 -3.0 338

El Paso, CO.................................. 18.6 266.7 3.1 53 877 1.6 235

Jefferson, CO............................... 19.4 235.7 1.9 134 1,004 2.4 156

Larimer, CO.................................. 11.6 155.6 3.6 32 866 2.6 133

Weld, CO...................................... 6.9 100.2 -1.3 329 849 -1.8 333

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Fairfield, CT................................. 35.0 431.6 0.1 287 $1,535 2.5 146

Hartford, CT.................................. 27.4 511.2 -0.4 308 1,194 2.6 133

New Haven, CT............................ 23.7 365.2 0.3 276 1,045 3.7 59

New London, CT.......................... 7.4 124.2 -0.1 298 1,004 4.4 31

New Castle, DE............................ 19.4 287.5 0.6 257 1,099 -1.7 331

Washington, DC........................... 38.1 756.0 1.7 148 1,623 1.1 265

Alachua, FL.................................. 7.0 124.1 2.4 95 855 3.4 73

Bay, FL......................................... 5.5 78.6 1.7 148 730 3.4 73

Brevard, FL................................... 15.2 199.4 3.2 48 875 1.9 216

Broward, FL.................................. 67.6 770.4 2.2 112 926 2.1 189

Collier, FL..................................... 13.3 131.4 4.0 18 868 2.7 122

Duval, FL..................................... 28.5 484.2 3.0 59 933 2.1 189

Escambia, FL............................... 8.0 128.5 2.4 95 784 2.6 133

Hillsborough, FL........................... 40.5 656.9 3.4 36 950 3.1 93

Lake, FL....................................... 7.8 88.7 3.5 35 681 2.4 156

Lee, FL......................................... 21.0 242.0 4.5 7 803 3.6 61

Leon, FL....................................... 8.5 143.7 1.4 179 816 2.1 189

Manatee, FL................................. 10.3 114.5 2.4 95 776 3.5 66

Marion, FL.................................... 8.1 98.3 3.4 36 718 5.4 14

Miami-Dade, FL............................ 95.7 1,088.1 2.5 87 958 2.6 133

Okaloosa, FL................................ 6.3 82.0 3.1 53 828 3.1 93

Orange, FL................................... 40.3 782.5 2.8 69 867 2.4 156

Osceola, FL.................................. 6.5 86.4 4.1 17 692 1.3 254

Palm Beach, FL............................ 54.2 580.6 4.2 15 963 2.0 201

Pasco, FL..................................... 10.5 106.4 3.9 20 734 2.5 146

Pinellas, FL................................... 32.1 415.8 2.2 112 876 3.1 93

Polk, FL........................................ 12.8 203.1 2.6 84 768 4.3 35

Sarasota, FL................................ 15.4 159.2 2.4 95 816 0.5 296

Seminole, FL................................ 14.5 181.5 4.5 7 847 2.7 122

Volusia, FL................................... 13.9 163.7 3.8 23 730 2.4 156

Bibb, GA....................................... 4.5 81.5 1.7 148 772 2.3 172

Chatham, GA................................ 8.7 149.6 2.5 87 831 1.1 265

Clayton, GA.................................. 4.5 120.3 2.8 69 934 2.8 107

Cobb, GA...................................... 23.9 346.4 3.0 59 1,036 2.0 201

DeKalb, GA................................. 19.7 294.3 1.6 160 1,017 2.7 122

Fulton, GA.................................... 47.1 823.3 3.9 20 1,287 2.6 133

Gwinnett, GA................................ 27.0 344.6 3.2 48 964 2.7 122

Hall, GA....................................... 4.7 81.6 2.1 125 810 2.5 146

Muscogee, GA.............................. 4.9 92.4 -0.4 308 775 2.0 201

Richmond, GA.............................. 4.8 104.0 1.0 218 820 2.1 189

Honolulu, HI.................................. 25.5 468.3 0.8 238 942 3.4 73

Ada, ID......................................... 14.7 227.6 4.3 12 858 3.2 87

Champaign, IL.............................. 4.3 89.8 -1.9 333 857 2.6 133

Cook, IL........................................ 151.8 2,584.0 0.9 229 1,146 2.6 133

DuPage, IL................................. 37.8 619.7 0.4 275 1,118 1.2 259

Kane, IL........................................ 13.6 210.1 -1.0 324 880 5.6 10

Lake, IL........................................ 22.2 339.6 -0.5 312 1,263 1.1 265

McHenry, IL.................................. 8.7 99.5 1.0 218 824 4.2 41

McLean, IL.................................... 3.8 83.1 -2.5 338 1,159 21.0 1

Madison, IL................................... 5.9 97.3 -0.9 322 779 -0.6 317

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Peoria, IL...................................... 4.6 100.0 -3.2 340 $928 2.7 122

St. Clair, IL.................................... 5.4 92.5 0.0 292 767 0.9 277

Sangamon, IL............................... 5.2 129.7 -1.5 330 996 1.4 246

Will, IL.......................................... 16.0 233.4 1.6 160 878 2.6 133

Winnebago, IL.............................. 6.6 128.4 -1.6 332 831 2.3 172

Allen, IN........................................ 8.8 183.5 0.0 292 804 5.0 20

Elkhart, IN..................................... 4.7 128.6 2.3 105 885 8.5 2

Hamilton, IN.................................. 9.1 138.4 3.1 53 927 2.0 201

Lake, IN........................................ 10.3 186.9 -0.7 317 838 1.1 265

Marion, IN..................................... 23.7 590.2 0.8 238 981 2.4 156

St. Joseph, IN............................... 5.7 123.2 1.5 169 798 3.2 87

Tippecanoe, IN............................. 3.4 82.6 1.5 169 852 4.5 30

Vanderburgh, IN........................... 4.8 107.4 0.8 238 790 0.3 300

Johnson, IA.................................. 4.1 82.9 1.3 188 916 2.0 201

Linn, IA......................................... 6.6 131.8 -0.3 306 946 2.5 146

Polk, IA........................................ 17.0 297.2 1.6 160 974 3.2 87

Scott, IA........................................ 5.6 91.6 -0.6 314 794 1.4 246

Johnson, KS................................. 23.1 338.7 0.3 276 1,020 0.0 305

Sedgwick, KS............................... 12.7 248.7 0.2 283 858 0.7 289

Shawnee, KS................................ 5.2 97.6 0.8 238 802 0.9 277

Wyandotte, KS............................. 3.6 91.1 1.6 160 928 3.5 66

Boone, KY................................... 4.3 83.6 1.4 179 903 4.3 35

Fayette, KY................................... 10.8 192.1 1.7 148 882 2.0 201

Jefferson, KY................................ 25.2 463.3 2.4 95 971 1.9 216

Caddo, LA.................................... 7.2 114.7 -0.6 314 797 1.7 229

Calcasieu, LA............................... 5.1 93.9 1.1 204 860 3.7 59

East Baton Rouge, LA.................. 15.1 265.2 0.6 257 933 2.8 107

Jefferson, LA................................ 13.5 194.2 -0.7 317 868 1.2 259

Lafayette, LA................................ 9.3 128.8 -5.8 342 859 -6.2 342

Orleans, LA.................................. 12.1 192.1 0.0 292 925 2.0 201

St. Tammany, LA.......................... 7.9 87.7 0.9 229 819 0.6 293

Cumberland, ME.......................... 13.6 183.4 1.5 169 902 3.9 54

Anne Arundel, MD........................ 15.1 268.8 1.5 169 1,046 3.0 100

Baltimore, MD............................... 21.3 377.4 0.8 238 973 2.4 156

Frederick, MD............................... 6.4 100.0 -0.1 298 913 0.6 293

Harford, MD.................................. 5.8 92.3 1.0 218 939 -2.4 335

Howard, MD................................. 10.0 169.7 0.9 229 1,197 1.7 229

Montgomery, MD.......................... 32.8 471.0 0.7 253 1,319 2.3 172

Prince George's, MD.................... 15.9 311.5 0.0 292 1,020 1.6 235

Baltimore City, MD....................... 13.6 337.6 0.5 270 1,137 4.3 35

Barnstable, MA............................. 9.4 106.2 0.5 270 833 3.5 66

Bristol, MA.................................... 17.4 227.4 1.1 204 938 4.3 35

Essex, MA.................................... 24.5 328.4 0.6 257 1,054 2.9 105

Hampden, MA.............................. 17.8 208.0 -0.1 298 885 0.8 284

Middlesex, MA.............................. 54.2 893.1 1.1 204 1,470 -1.3 326

Norfolk, MA................................... 25.0 355.3 1.3 188 1,162 2.2 181

Plymouth, MA............................... 15.5 193.6 0.8 238 954 3.0 100

Suffolk, MA................................... 28.4 658.6 2.5 87 1,571 4.0 52

Worcester, MA.............................. 24.4 343.9 1.1 204 992 3.4 73

Genesee, MI................................. 6.8 134.8 0.5 270 827 3.5 66

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Ingham, MI................................... 6.0 149.0 2.7 76 $948 6.0 8

Kalamazoo, MI............................. 5.0 117.6 1.2 200 914 4.7 24

Kent, MI....................................... 14.2 391.0 3.3 43 850 2.4 156

Macomb, MI.................................. 17.6 326.1 1.9 134 980 2.3 172

Oakland, MI.................................. 39.0 731.8 1.8 142 1,090 2.1 189

Ottawa, MI.................................... 5.6 125.5 3.8 23 841 4.3 35

Saginaw, MI.................................. 3.9 85.4 0.8 238 787 4.7 24

Washtenaw, MI............................. 8.1 202.5 1.1 204 1,076 4.4 31

Wayne, MI.................................... 30.5 715.7 1.2 200 1,087 2.4 156

Anoka, MN.................................... 6.7 121.7 1.0 218 959 3.8 58

Dakota, MN.................................. 9.4 186.4 0.0 292 965 1.8 224

Hennepin, MN.............................. 39.1 906.6 1.4 179 1,211 0.9 277

Olmsted, MN................................ 3.2 97.1 2.0 128 1,033 2.8 107

Ramsey, MN................................. 12.6 326.4 -0.9 322 1,118 3.9 54

St. Louis, MN................................ 5.1 98.2 -1.1 327 784 0.5 296

Stearns, MN................................. 4.2 86.2 0.8 238 828 3.4 73

Washington, MN........................... 5.2 83.6 2.5 87 834 2.8 107

Harrison, MS................................ 4.5 85.2 1.0 218 698 1.9 216

Hinds, MS..................................... 5.9 121.1 0.1 287 843 1.9 216

Boone, MO................................... 4.9 92.4 1.3 188 791 5.2 17

Clay, MO...................................... 5.5 103.9 4.5 7 881 0.9 277

Greene, MO.................................. 8.5 163.8 1.1 204 767 3.4 73

Jackson, MO................................ 21.0 365.7 1.5 169 986 0.9 277

St. Charles, MO............................ 9.0 146.3 2.7 76 827 4.8 23

St. Louis, MO................................ 36.3 603.2 1.1 204 1,043 2.7 122

St. Louis City, MO........................ 13.3 226.6 0.6 257 1,027 1.1 265

Yellowstone, MT........................... 6.5 82.6 1.1 204 846 0.7 289

Douglas, NE................................. 19.0 337.8 1.3 188 913 2.6 133

Lancaster, NE............................... 10.2 168.6 1.0 218 787 1.4 246

Clark, NV..................................... 55.9 939.5 3.4 36 866 2.5 146

Washoe, NV................................. 14.9 210.6 4.3 12 874 2.0 201

Hillsborough, NH.......................... 12.2 201.5 1.7 148 1,050 1.8 224

Merrimack, NH............................. 5.1 77.0 1.0 218 908 0.4 298

Rockingham, NH.......................... 10.9 149.2 0.9 229 997 4.4 31

Atlantic, NJ................................... 6.6 131.9 -0.7 317 835 2.3 172

Bergen, NJ................................... 33.0 453.4 0.6 257 1,173 0.9 277

Burlington, NJ............................... 11.0 205.1 1.3 188 1,012 0.7 289

Camden, NJ................................. 12.0 204.6 2.7 76 954 1.5 241

Essex, NJ.................................... 20.5 341.0 1.5 169 1,179 2.6 133

Gloucester, NJ.............................. 6.3 106.3 2.6 84 867 3.3 85

Hudson, NJ................................... 14.8 252.6 3.3 43 1,300 -1.7 331

Mercer, NJ.................................... 11.2 248.1 2.2 112 1,224 1.1 265

Middlesex, NJ.............................. 22.0 415.6 2.4 95 1,161 1.8 224

Monmouth, NJ.............................. 20.1 267.5 1.3 188 976 2.1 189

Morris, NJ..................................... 17.0 291.5 0.7 253 1,426 2.1 189

Ocean, NJ.................................... 13.0 172.4 2.5 87 795 1.4 246

Passaic, NJ.................................. 12.4 168.6 0.9 229 964 -1.5 328

Somerset, NJ............................... 10.1 188.5 2.3 105 1,508 5.2 17

Union, NJ..................................... 14.3 220.4 0.9 229 1,288 0.8 284

Bernalillo, NM............................... 18.3 323.2 1.1 204 853 3.0 100

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Albany, NY................................... 10.4 233.3 0.6 257 $1,082 7.0 5

Bronx, NY..................................... 18.7 300.6 0.7 253 943 1.5 241

Broome, NY.................................. 4.6 87.2 -0.1 298 801 3.6 61

Dutchess, NY............................... 8.5 112.1 0.2 283 992 1.2 259

Erie, NY........................................ 24.8 471.3 0.6 257 879 3.9 54

Kings, NY..................................... 61.5 690.4 3.8 23 823 1.6 235

Monroe, NY.................................. 19.0 388.7 0.6 257 933 1.7 229

Nassau, NY.................................. 54.2 635.3 1.9 134 1,168 6.4 7

New York, NY............................... 130.2 2,415.6 1.5 169 1,866 1.2 259

Oneida, NY................................... 5.4 105.7 0.8 238 788 0.9 277

Onondaga, NY.............................. 13.1 246.6 0.8 238 921 3.4 73

Orange, NY.................................. 10.4 143.3 1.7 148 881 3.2 87

Queens, NY.................................. 52.4 648.7 1.6 160 941 3.5 66

Richmond, NY.............................. 9.8 115.6 2.4 95 887 3.6 61

Rockland, NY............................... 10.7 123.3 1.3 188 998 1.3 254

Saratoga, NY................................ 6.0 86.9 0.9 229 938 2.4 156

Suffolk, NY................................... 52.9 672.2 0.7 253 1,080 4.7 24

Westchester, NY.......................... 36.7 431.1 1.0 218 1,294 1.2 259

Buncombe, NC............................. 9.0 127.2 3.7 29 760 4.7 24

Catawba, NC................................ 4.4 85.8 4.4 11 759 3.4 73

Cumberland, NC........................... 6.2 120.2 1.1 204 750 -0.9 322

Durham, NC................................. 8.1 197.1 2.4 95 1,197 -0.1 309

Forsyth, NC.................................. 9.2 182.7 1.7 148 868 -6.5 343

Guilford, NC.................................. 14.3 275.2 0.6 257 856 2.6 133

Mecklenburg, NC.......................... 37.1 662.2 3.7 29 1,108 2.8 107

New Hanover, NC........................ 7.9 110.2 3.0 59 790 1.9 216

Wake, NC..................................... 33.3 534.6 3.9 20 989 2.2 181

Cass, ND...................................... 7.0 118.0 0.6 257 883 2.0 201

Butler, OH..................................... 7.6 149.2 2.3 105 866 0.8 284

Cuyahoga, OH.............................. 35.6 723.3 0.1 287 995 2.5 146

Delaware, OH............................... 5.0 87.2 1.8 142 954 1.1 265

Franklin, OH................................. 31.3 735.5 1.9 134 987 1.2 259

Hamilton, OH................................ 23.6 513.9 1.3 188 1,032 2.1 189

Lake, OH...................................... 6.3 96.3 -0.2 303 797 -1.5 328

Lorain, OH.................................... 6.2 98.3 -0.5 312 772 2.8 107

Lucas, OH.................................... 10.1 213.7 2.2 112 867 4.1 47

Mahoning, OH.............................. 5.9 98.1 0.2 283 684 0.7 289

Montgomery, OH.......................... 11.9 251.7 0.5 270 850 1.9 216

Stark, OH..................................... 8.6 159.7 -0.4 308 731 0.8 284

Summit, OH................................. 14.2 266.1 0.3 276 871 2.5 146

Warren, OH................................. 4.8 93.7 1.5 169 914 4.2 41

Cleveland, OK.............................. 5.6 79.4 -0.2 303 743 3.2 87

Oklahoma, OK.............................. 27.5 447.3 -1.0 324 917 2.0 201

Tulsa, OK..................................... 22.1 348.8 -1.0 324 892 0.3 300

Clackamas, OR............................ 14.3 159.7 2.3 105 936 2.1 189

Jackson, OR................................ 7.2 85.7 3.3 43 749 3.9 54

Lane, OR...................................... 11.8 152.6 2.7 76 783 2.1 189

Marion, OR................................... 10.3 153.2 2.8 69 821 4.2 41

Multnomah, OR............................ 33.4 492.9 2.5 87 1,012 3.1 93

Washington, OR........................... 18.6 284.9 3.2 48 1,291 7.4 4

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Allegheny, PA............................... 36.0 698.6 0.3 276 $1,045 1.5 241

Berks, PA..................................... 9.0 171.2 0.3 276 901 1.0 274

Bucks, PA..................................... 20.0 264.9 1.1 204 939 1.3 254

Butler, PA..................................... 5.1 85.9 -0.4 308 910 1.1 265

Chester, PA.................................. 15.6 250.6 1.2 200 1,263 -3.1 339

Cumberland, PA........................... 6.4 132.1 0.0 292 893 -1.0 324

Dauphin, PA................................ 7.6 183.7 1.0 218 946 -0.5 316

Delaware, PA............................... 14.1 222.2 1.6 160 1,064 4.1 47

Erie, PA........................................ 7.1 124.3 -2.0 334 772 2.1 189

Lackawanna, PA.......................... 5.8 97.2 -0.6 314 759 4.4 31

Lancaster, PA............................... 13.4 236.7 2.0 128 820 2.0 201

Lehigh, PA.................................... 8.8 188.7 1.6 160 978 2.9 105

Luzerne, PA.................................. 7.5 145.3 1.7 148 768 0.8 284

Montgomery, PA........................... 27.7 487.5 0.8 238 1,203 1.9 216

Northampton, PA.......................... 6.8 112.1 2.7 76 845 1.4 246

Philadelphia, PA........................... 35.3 661.6 1.7 148 1,150 1.0 274

Washington, PA............................ 5.6 86.7 -2.5 338 934 -1.4 327

Westmoreland, PA....................... 9.4 134.8 -0.8 320 781 -0.3 313

York, PA....................................... 9.1 177.2 0.9 229 849 2.5 146

Providence, RI.............................. 17.7 285.1 0.1 287 993 3.4 73

Charleston, SC............................. 14.3 245.2 3.3 43 880 4.9 21

Greenville, SC.............................. 13.4 263.3 1.8 142 863 3.2 87

Horry, SC..................................... 8.4 130.2 2.8 69 598 5.3 15

Lexington, SC............................... 6.6 116.1 3.1 53 756 2.7 122

Richland, SC................................ 9.8 215.9 1.7 148 849 1.7 229

Spartanburg, SC........................... 6.0 131.9 3.6 32 864 2.2 181

York, SC....................................... 5.2 89.6 4.5 7 784 3.0 100

Minnehaha, SD............................. 7.1 125.9 0.8 238 847 2.8 107

Davidson, TN................................ 21.3 470.0 3.1 53 1,013 -2.6 337

Hamilton, TN................................ 9.2 198.1 2.2 112 875 0.6 293

Knox, TN...................................... 11.8 234.9 2.1 125 850 2.8 107

Rutherford, TN.............................. 5.2 119.0 4.6 5 912 3.1 93

Shelby, TN.................................... 20.0 491.5 0.8 238 974 2.2 181

Williamson, TN............................. 8.2 125.8 6.7 1 1,088 1.6 235

Bell, TX......................................... 5.2 119.3 3.8 23 814 4.1 47

Bexar, TX..................................... 39.5 837.1 2.0 128 876 2.3 172

Brazoria, TX................................. 5.5 104.4 -1.1 327 992 -0.2 311

Brazos, TX.................................... 4.4 97.5 3.1 53 725 -0.4 315

Cameron, TX................................ 6.5 139.4 2.2 112 602 2.4 156

Collin, TX...................................... 23.2 380.9 3.6 32 1,150 0.4 298

Dallas, TX..................................... 74.5 1,649.4 2.9 66 1,184 2.2 181

Denton, TX.................................. 13.9 230.4 4.6 5 894 2.6 133

El Paso, TX.................................. 14.7 295.3 1.5 169 694 2.8 107

Fort Bend, TX............................... 12.3 175.4 2.2 112 920 -2.4 335

Galveston, TX............................... 6.1 108.6 3.2 48 874 1.3 254

Gregg, TX..................................... 4.2 74.0 -3.5 341 814 -3.7 341

Harris, TX..................................... 112.5 2,272.1 -0.8 320 1,233 -0.1 309

Hidalgo, TX................................... 12.1 248.4 1.3 188 626 2.0 201

Jefferson, TX................................ 5.9 122.6 (5) - 1,015 1.5 241

Lubbock, TX................................. 7.4 137.0 2.7 76 762 1.6 235

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 345 largest counties,

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-163

Ranking by

percent

change

McLennan, TX.............................. 5.1 110.4 2.7 76 $821 4.1 47

Midland, TX.................................. 5.4 82.8 -8.3 343 1,192 -3.2 340

Montgomery, TX........................... 10.8 168.2 2.0 128 978 -0.6 317

Nueces, TX.................................. 8.3 159.6 -2.1 335 844 0.2 302

Potter, TX..................................... 4.0 79.2 0.2 283 789 2.3 172

Smith, TX..................................... 6.1 103.2 2.2 112 821 2.2 181

Tarrant, TX................................... 41.7 856.6 1.9 134 972 1.7 229

Travis, TX..................................... 38.5 707.6 2.8 69 1,120 3.3 85

Webb, TX..................................... 5.2 98.0 1.3 188 659 1.1 265

Williamson, TX............................. 9.9 160.5 4.7 4 933 0.0 305

Davis, UT..................................... 8.1 122.1 3.4 36 797 2.4 156

Salt Lake, UT................................ 43.0 669.4 3.8 23 942 2.4 156

Utah, UT....................................... 15.0 222.3 6.5 2 802 2.8 107

Weber, UT.................................... 5.9 102.3 1.7 148 747 2.3 172

Chittenden, VT............................. 6.6 102.5 -0.3 306 975 2.8 107

Arlington, VA................................ 9.5 174.0 1.8 142 1,559 1.4 246

Chesterfield, VA........................... 8.9 135.2 2.2 112 840 1.4 246

Fairfax, VA.................................... 37.8 603.7 1.3 188 1,492 -0.9 322

Henrico, VA.................................. 11.6 191.1 1.8 142 965 4.2 41

Loudoun, VA................................ 12.1 163.9 5.2 3 1,132 3.1 93

Prince William, VA........................ 9.4 129.1 3.4 36 859 2.6 133

Alexandria City, VA...................... 6.7 96.2 0.8 238 1,357 1.6 235

Chesapeake City, VA................... 6.1 98.6 0.3 276 787 1.0 274

Newport News City, VA................ 3.9 96.3 -2.4 337 911 -1.1 325

Norfolk City, VA........................... 5.9 139.8 -0.1 298 970 2.4 156

Richmond City, VA....................... 7.9 149.5 1.4 179 1,061 1.3 254

Virginia Beach City, VA................ 12.2 182.0 2.0 128 761 2.1 189

Benton, WA.................................. 5.7 90.3 1.0 218 997 2.0 201

Clark, WA..................................... 14.2 151.0 4.2 15 903 2.8 107

King, WA...................................... 85.5 1,326.1 3.4 36 1,393 8.1 3

Kitsap, WA.................................... 6.6 86.5 1.1 204 889 3.4 73

Pierce, WA................................... 21.6 297.5 3.7 29 904 2.4 156

Snohomish, WA............................ 20.5 284.9 2.2 112 1,071 3.1 93

Spokane, WA............................... 15.5 217.4 3.0 59 833 2.5 146

Thurston, WA............................... 8.1 110.5 3.3 43 897 3.6 61

Whatcom, WA.............................. 7.2 88.8 0.9 229 803 -0.6 317

Yakima, WA................................. 7.7 122.5 1.0 218 687 3.6 61

Kanawha, WV............................... 5.8 102.5 -1.5 330 865 2.5 146

Brown, WI..................................... 6.7 155.4 0.8 238 860 2.4 156

Dane, WI...................................... 14.9 330.8 2.3 105 1,005 2.7 122

Milwaukee, WI.............................. 25.4 486.7 0.3 276 947 2.0 201

Outagamie, WI............................. 5.2 108.7 1.4 179 837 5.3 15

Waukesha, WI.............................. 12.8 243.1 1.1 204 984 3.4 73

Winnebago, WI............................. 3.7 93.4 1.9 134 903 1.7 229

San Juan, PR............................... 11.0 242.6 -1.4 (6) 611 -0.8 (6)

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

2 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

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

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

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

(UCFE) programs. These 344 U.S. counties comprise 72.5 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 2016

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-162

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-162

United States3................................................................. 9,741.4 142,717.2 1.5 $989 2.2

 Private industry............................................................. 9,442.6 121,256.3 1.6 979 2.1

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 137.6 1,976.1 -7.4 1,010 -4.5

 Construction............................................................... 774.4 6,823.9 3.5 1,077 3.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 344.6 12,357.8 -0.5 1,203 1.8

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 1,921.0 26,932.2 1.0 839 2.7

 Information................................................................. 156.8 2,809.4 0.9 1,755 5.5

 Financial activities...................................................... 856.4 7,979.1 1.5 1,492 2.0

 Professional and business services........................... 1,756.4 20,019.1 1.7 1,280 1.7

 Education and health services................................... 1,589.5 21,487.5 2.4 903 2.8

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 819.7 16,119.6 2.6 415 3.2

 Other services............................................................ 832.8 4,438.0 1.4 676 2.7

 Government.................................................................. 298.8 21,460.8 0.7 1,040 2.2

Los Angeles, CA.............................................................. 467.7 4,337.3 1.8 1,079 2.8

 Private industry............................................................. 461.5 3,763.0 1.8 1,047 3.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 9.2 0.9 1,230 -2.2

 Construction............................................................... 13.7 131.2 3.5 1,133 3.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 12.5 357.9 -2.8 1,227 3.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 53.6 805.2 0.7 896 3.1

 Information................................................................. 9.4 228.8 3.6 1,752 4.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 25.0 217.5 0.9 1,727 3.7

 Professional and business services........................... 47.2 590.2 1.0 1,331 3.2

 Education and health services................................... 218.2 745.2 2.8 846 3.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 32.1 508.3 3.5 597 1.0

 Other services............................................................ 26.9 146.2 0.6 685 2.9

 Government.................................................................. 6.1 574.3 1.7 1,295 1.3

Cook, IL........................................................................... 151.8 2,584.0 0.9 1,146 2.6

 Private industry............................................................. 150.5 2,283.5 1.0 1,133 2.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.1 1.2 19.0 1,137 -4.5

 Construction............................................................... 12.2 74.9 0.7 1,395 2.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 6.3 187.4 -0.5 1,187 4.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 29.7 474.1 0.6 925 2.9

 Information................................................................. 2.6 52.9 0.3 1,740 1.9

 Financial activities...................................................... 15.1 193.5 0.5 2,022 3.2

 Professional and business services........................... 32.0 471.8 0.2 1,443 3.6

 Education and health services................................... 16.2 438.7 2.0 947 1.7

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 14.0 286.5 2.7 521 4.4

 Other services............................................................ 17.1 96.7 -0.9 893 4.8

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 300.4 -0.3 1,245 0.3

New York, NY.................................................................. 130.2 2,415.6 1.5 1,866 1.2

 Private industry............................................................. 129.4 2,154.8 1.7 1,938 0.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.0 0.2 4.3 2,100 1.4

 Construction............................................................... 2.2 40.7 5.7 1,816 4.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.2 26.7 -1.3 1,345 3.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 19.6 254.0 -2.9 1,379 3.9

 Information................................................................. 4.9 154.9 0.8 2,526 5.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 19.3 375.7 1.6 3,517 -2.3

 Professional and business services........................... 27.5 557.6 2.0 2,173 0.4

 Education and health services................................... 9.7 333.0 2.4 1,251 3.1

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.6 294.8 1.2 845 3.6

 Other services............................................................ 20.3 101.8 0.2 1,173 6.8

 Government.................................................................. 0.8 260.8 0.6 1,278 4.8

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

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-162

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-162

Harris, TX........................................................................ 112.5 2,272.1 -0.8 $1,233 -0.1

 Private industry............................................................. 112.0 1,999.0 -1.3 1,251 -0.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 1.8 76.3 -16.4 3,256 0.8

 Construction............................................................... 7.2 163.2 0.7 1,308 3.4

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.8 170.8 -11.0 1,534 0.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 24.9 465.3 -0.6 1,099 0.5

 Information................................................................. 1.2 27.8 1.2 1,438 -2.1

 Financial activities...................................................... 11.7 123.0 1.6 1,588 3.7

 Professional and business services........................... 23.0 386.8 -2.4 1,524 0.1

 Education and health services................................... 15.5 285.8 3.8 1,004 5.5

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 9.7 233.7 3.8 431 0.9

 Other services............................................................ 11.7 65.2 -0.7 773 3.3

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 273.1 2.9 1,099 4.0

Maricopa, AZ.................................................................... 94.8 1,827.4 2.9 970 2.2

 Private industry............................................................. 94.1 1,645.2 3.0 957 2.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 8.5 -0.1 850 -2.0

 Construction............................................................... 6.9 102.1 5.0 997 2.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.1 115.7 -0.6 1,450 5.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 18.7 362.7 1.9 879 2.9

 Information................................................................. 1.5 35.1 0.0 1,383 13.5

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.8 165.5 4.9 1,255 2.5

 Professional and business services........................... 20.8 315.6 2.0 1,044 2.2

 Education and health services................................... 10.6 274.8 2.8 954 0.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.5 203.3 3.1 452 4.6

 Other services............................................................ 6.0 50.3 0.0 685 2.7

 Government.................................................................. 0.7 182.3 2.0 1,077 0.0

Dallas, TX........................................................................ 74.5 1,649.4 2.9 1,184 2.2

 Private industry............................................................. 73.9 1,477.5 3.0 1,192 2.1

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.6 8.6 -10.0 3,604 -10.4

 Construction............................................................... 4.4 85.2 3.6 1,129 3.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.7 109.1 0.1 1,441 10.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 15.8 333.5 2.8 1,058 1.4

 Information................................................................. 1.3 48.7 2.6 1,848 5.5

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.1 157.7 3.6 1,653 2.4

 Professional and business services........................... 16.7 333.6 3.2 1,371 0.6

 Education and health services................................... 9.2 194.0 3.5 1,041 3.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.6 162.4 4.5 483 3.6

 Other services............................................................ 7.0 43.7 1.9 756 1.6

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 171.9 1.8 1,115 2.8

Orange, CA...................................................................... 114.8 1,557.3 1.9 1,103 1.8

 Private industry............................................................. 113.3 1,403.3 1.9 1,088 1.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.2 3.4 4.9 785 3.3

 Construction............................................................... 6.6 95.6 5.1 1,235 4.0

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.9 154.9 -0.7 1,344 2.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 16.8 254.4 -0.7 991 4.1

 Information................................................................. 1.3 25.7 2.1 1,780 4.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.9 115.6 0.6 1,700 2.0

 Professional and business services........................... 20.3 289.1 1.4 1,319 -1.9

 Education and health services................................... 30.3 197.7 3.0 921 2.2

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.4 214.0 4.0 473 4.6

 Other services............................................................ 6.9 45.5 2.0 694 4.4

 Government.................................................................. 1.5 154.0 1.6 1,240 4.6

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

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-162

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-162

San Diego, CA................................................................ 106.7 1,405.5 2.0 $1,073 0.0

 Private industry............................................................. 104.8 1,173.6 2.0 1,045 -0.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.6 9.7 2.0 708 5.8

 Construction............................................................... 6.6 74.4 5.9 1,146 3.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.2 107.3 0.5 1,480 -8.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.2 216.2 0.1 825 2.2

 Information................................................................. 1.2 23.2 -1.4 1,621 1.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.6 71.8 2.2 1,391 3.2

 Professional and business services........................... 17.9 230.4 1.1 1,533 -4.2

 Education and health services................................... 30.1 191.3 2.9 930 3.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.0 192.1 2.6 476 2.6

 Other services............................................................ 7.4 50.7 0.7 600 3.3

 Government.................................................................. 1.9 232.0 2.1 1,217 4.7

King, WA......................................................................... 85.5 1,326.1 3.4 1,393 8.1

 Private industry............................................................. 84.9 1,158.0 3.6 1,408 8.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 3.1 2.2 1,225 -5.9

 Construction............................................................... 6.4 66.8 5.4 1,293 5.5

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.4 105.0 -2.2 1,648 7.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.6 250.9 4.4 1,431 21.9

 Information................................................................. 2.1 96.4 8.9 2,781 6.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 6.5 67.2 2.3 1,610 3.6

 Professional and business services........................... 17.1 219.3 3.3 1,593 3.9

 Education and health services................................... 19.3 166.7 3.6 993 2.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.0 137.8 3.5 575 11.7

 Other services............................................................ 9.0 44.9 5.0 833 2.3

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 168.1 1.9 1,296 4.9

Miami-Dade, FL............................................................... 95.7 1,088.1 2.5 958 2.6

 Private industry............................................................. 95.3 964.4 2.6 922 2.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 7.7 9.3 616 9.4

 Construction............................................................... 6.1 43.3 10.2 912 2.4

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.8 40.5 3.1 869 -0.7

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 26.3 277.4 0.2 865 3.3

 Information................................................................. 1.5 18.1 1.8 1,574 4.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.4 74.1 1.4 1,433 -0.6

 Professional and business services........................... 21.0 153.0 4.3 1,100 2.0

 Education and health services................................... 10.2 171.0 2.7 966 5.0

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.2 138.4 3.2 561 1.3

 Other services............................................................ 8.2 40.2 2.6 607 2.4

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 123.7 1.6 1,216 3.1

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

Note: Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2015 annual average employment. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance

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

second quarter 2016

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-16

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-16

United States2.......................................... 9,741.4 142,717.2 1.5 $989 2.2

Alabama.................................................... 121.8 1,923.5 1.2 835 2.0

Alaska........................................................ 22.4 338.7 -2.4 1,011 -1.7

Arizona...................................................... 153.5 2,619.6 2.6 921 1.9

Arkansas................................................... 88.7 1,197.5 1.1 785 3.0

California................................................... 1,473.1 16,754.1 2.5 1,157 2.4

Colorado.................................................... 191.1 2,574.5 2.3 999 1.0

Connecticut............................................... 117.2 1,689.9 -0.1 1,213 3.0

Delaware................................................... 31.4 444.0 0.9 990 -0.6

District of Columbia................................... 38.1 756.0 1.7 1,623 1.1

Florida....................................................... 658.1 8,161.8 3.2 883 2.6

Georgia...................................................... 299.7 4,269.5 2.7 929 2.7

Hawaii........................................................ 40.2 643.4 1.0 906 3.5

Idaho......................................................... 57.9 699.7 3.3 740 3.8

Illinois........................................................ 401.9 5,945.0 0.2 1,038 2.4

Indiana....................................................... 161.4 2,995.4 1.0 828 2.1

Iowa........................................................... 101.4 1,566.0 0.3 825 2.9

Kansas...................................................... 90.0 1,378.4 -0.2 829 1.2

Kentucky.................................................... 122.8 1,877.2 1.5 838 1.9

Louisiana................................................... 128.0 1,905.2 -1.4 852 0.2

Maine......................................................... 52.8 622.8 1.0 795 3.5

Maryland.................................................... 170.0 2,656.0 0.9 1,070 2.5

Massachusetts.......................................... 247.1 3,538.2 1.2 1,233 2.0

Michigan.................................................... 240.3 4,300.9 1.9 942 2.7

Minnesota.................................................. 161.2 2,846.8 0.7 997 2.0

Mississippi................................................. 73.3 1,120.1 0.5 727 2.5

Missouri..................................................... 194.2 2,785.6 1.4 863 2.4

Montana.................................................... 46.5 468.6 2.2 767 1.7

Nebraska................................................... 72.5 978.3 0.9 805 2.4

Nevada...................................................... 81.9 1,289.4 3.3 874 2.2

New Hampshire......................................... 51.5 655.1 1.1 1,003 3.7

New Jersey............................................... 268.9 4,051.2 1.7 1,147 1.7

New Mexico............................................... 58.3 808.1 -0.3 812 0.9

New York.................................................. 643.4 9,264.0 1.5 1,210 2.5

North Carolina........................................... 270.5 4,285.3 2.5 865 2.1

North Dakota............................................. 32.1 423.3 -4.9 908 -3.3

Ohio........................................................... 293.1 5,353.1 0.8 882 2.0

Oklahoma.................................................. 109.2 1,570.5 -1.4 823 0.6

Oregon...................................................... 146.4 1,867.8 2.7 933 4.1

Pennsylvania............................................. 357.9 5,786.8 0.4 971 1.4

Rhode Island............................................. 36.9 482.9 0.6 949 2.5

South Carolina.......................................... 124.4 2,013.7 2.4 804 2.8

South Dakota............................................ 33.0 432.7 1.0 760 2.7

Tennessee................................................. 153.0 2,900.4 2.4 874 1.3

Texas......................................................... 652.6 11,810.7 1.0 1,000 1.2

Utah........................................................... 95.6 1,395.9 3.8 840 2.3

Vermont..................................................... 24.9 310.6 -0.1 850 2.4

Virginia...................................................... 267.5 3,833.4 1.6 1,011 1.2

Washington............................................... 238.0 3,281.6 2.8 1,083 5.4

West Virginia............................................. 50.3 693.2 -1.9 800 -0.4

Wisconsin.................................................. 169.2 2,869.1 0.9 856 2.4

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

second quarter 2016 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2016

(thousands)

June

2016

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2015-16

Second

quarter

2016

Percent

change,

second quarter

2015-16

Wyoming................................................... 26.2 281.7 -3.7 $849 -2.2

Puerto Rico............................................... 46.8 879.5 -0.7 512 0.2

Virgin Islands............................................ 3.4 38.4 0.9 743 -0.4

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

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

June 2015-16 (U.S. average = 1.5 percent)

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

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

employees, second quarter 2015-16 (U.S. average = 2.2 percent)

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics