For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 10, 2012 USDL-12-0026

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 2011 

From June 2010 to June 2011, employment increased in 215 of the 322 largest U.S. counties, the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Ottawa, Mich., posted the largest increase, with a gain of 4.7

percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 0.9 percent. Within Ottawa, the largest 

employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 2,514 jobs over the year (9.0 percent). 

San Joaquin, Calif., experienced the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the largest 

counties in the U.S. with a loss of 4.0 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 3.0 percent to $891 in the second quarter of 

2011. Among the large counties in the U.S., Williamson, Texas, had the largest over-the-year increase in 

average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2011 with a gain of 18.0 percent. Within Williamson, a 

total wage increase of $195.2 million (39.2 percent) in the trade, transportation, and utilities industry had 

the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. Champaign, Ill., 

experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 3.6 percent over the year. County 

employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 

(QCEW) program. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, June 2010-11 

(U.S. average = 0.9 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, second quarter 2010-11 

(U.S. average = 3.0 percent) 

4.7

4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

Ottawa, 

Mich.

Montgomery,

Texas

Utah,

Utah

Washington,

Pa.

Webb,

Texas

18.0

10.2

8.8 8.5 7.5

0

5

10

15

20

Williamson,

Texas

Middlesex,

Mass.

Harford,

Md.

Santa Clara,

Calif.

Butler,

Pa.
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2011 employment, June 2010-11 employment 

increase, and June 2010-11 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

June 2011 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) June 2010-11 June 2010-11

(thousands)

United States 130,469.9 United States 1,131.6 United States 0.9

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,899.6 Harris, Texas 48.4 Ottawa, Mich. 4.7

Cook, Ill. 2,397.5 New York, N.Y. 43.6 Montgomery, Texas 4.1

New York, N.Y. 2,334.1 Cook, Ill. 28.1 Utah, Utah 4.0

Harris, Texas 2,043.2 Maricopa, Ariz. 28.0 Washington, Pa. 3.9

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,593.3 Dallas, Texas 26.5 Webb, Texas 3.9

Dallas, Texas 1,438.3 Los Angeles, Calif. 24.7 Elkhart, Ind. 3.8

Orange, Calif. 1,379.2 King, Wash. 22.9 Weld, Colo. 3.5

San Diego, Calif. 1,249.3 Miami-Dade, Fla. 20.8 Oakland, Mich. 3.3

King, Wash. 1,145.6 Oakland, Mich. 20.3 Travis, Texas 3.3

Miami-Dade, Fla. 953.4 Hennepin, Minn. 20.1 Saginaw, Mich. 3.2

Washington, Ore. 3.2

Large County Employment 

In June 2011, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.5 million, up by 0.9

percent or 1.1 million workers, from June 2010. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees 

accounted for 70.5 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.0 percent of total wages. These 322 

counties had a net job growth of 802,400 over the year, accounting for 70.9 percent of the overall U.S. 

employment increase. (See chart 3.) 

Ottawa, Mich., had the largest percentage increase in employment among the largest U.S. counties (4.7 

percent). The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; New 

York, N.Y.; Cook, Ill.; Maricopa, Ariz.; and Dallas, Texas. These counties had a combined over-theyear gain of 174,600, or 15.4 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S. 

Employment declined in 89 of the large counties from June 2010 to June 2011. San Joaquin, Calif., had 

the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.0 percent). Within San Joaquin, natural 

resources and mining was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 5,268 jobs 

(-17.8 percent). Yakima, Wash., had the second largest employment decrease, followed by Montgomery, 

Ala., and Marion, Ore., both tied for the third largest decline, and Monterey, Calif. (See table 1.) 
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2011 average weekly wages, second quarter 2010-11 

increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2010-11 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 2011 wage, second quarter 2010-11 weekly wage, second

quarter 2010-11

United States $891 United States $26 United States 3.0

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,743 Williamson, Texas $159 Williamson, Texas 18.0

New York, N.Y. 1,645 Santa Clara, Calif. 137 Middlesex, Mass. 10.2

Arlington, Va. 1,553 Middlesex, Mass. 128 Harford, Md. 8.8

Washington, D.C. 1,541 San Mateo, Calif. 81 Santa Clara, Calif. 8.5

Fairfield, Conn. 1,469 San Francisco, Calif. 79 Butler, Pa. 7.5

San Francisco, Calif. 1,435 Fairfield, Conn. 76 Douglas, Colo. 7.4

Fairfax, Va. 1,421 Harford, Md. 72 New Castle, Del. 6.9

San Mateo, Calif. 1,403 New Castle, Del. 68 San Mateo, Calif. 6.1

Middlesex, Mass. 1,385 Douglas, Colo. 67 San Francisco, Calif. 5.8

Suffolk, Mass. 1,382 Arlington, Va. 65 Erie, Pa. 5.8

Dane, Wis. 5.8

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 3.0 percent over the year in the second quarter of 

2011. Among the 322 largest counties, 307 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See 

chart 4.) Williamson, Texas, had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties (18.0 percent).

Of the 322 largest counties, 11 experienced declines in average weekly wages. Champaign, Ill., had the 

largest wage decline with a loss of 3.6 percent over the year. A $55.3 million total wage loss (-29.3 

percent) within education and health services contributed significantly to the county’s overall average 

weekly wage decline. Benton, Ark., had the second largest decline in average weekly wages among the 

counties, followed by Rutherford, Tenn., New York, N.Y., and Elkhart, Ind. (See table 1.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent increases in employment in June 2011. 

Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain in employment (2.4 percent). Within Harris, professional and 

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

16,936 workers (5.3 percent). San Diego, Calif., had the smallest increase in employment among the 10 

largest counties. (See table 2.) 

Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. Harris, 

Texas, experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 5.0 percent. Within 

Harris, the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth occurred in natural resources and 

mining, largely due to significant total wage gains over the year ($522.2 million or 20.0 percent). New 

York, N.Y., had the only average weekly wage decrease. 
- 4 - 

For More Information 

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 322 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2010. June 2011 employment and 2011 

second 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 9.1 million employer reports cover 130.5 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the second quarter of 2011 will be available later at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling 

(202) 691-6567. 

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2011 is scheduled to be released on 

Wednesday, March 28, 2012. 
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 2011 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 323 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2010 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2011 data, four counties, Okaloosa, Fla., Rock Island, Ill., St. Tammany, La., and Potter, Texas, 

which were published in the 2010 releases, will be excluded from 

this and future 2011 releases because their 2010 annual average 

employment levels were less than 75,000.

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

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments in first quarter of 2011

Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.7 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 440,000 establishments

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws

UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers

Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs

Publication frequency

Quarterly

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter

Quarterly

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter

Monthly

— Usually first Friday of following 

month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels

Principal

products

Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry

Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry

Principal uses Major uses include:

— Detailed locality data

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys

Major uses include:

— Business cycle analysis

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm

Major uses include:

— Principal national economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites

www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/
No counties have been added to the publication tables. The counties 

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

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures 

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

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

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

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

table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

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

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

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

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

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on 

the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.0 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2010. 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 2010, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 127.8 million jobs. The 

estimated 123.2 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.3 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $5.976 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.1 percent of the gross domestic product. 

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

Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of 

railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, 

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

have an impact on the employment and wages reported by employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may affect the 

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

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

can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may 

differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage 

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

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

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

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in 

average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between 

the current quarter and prior year levels. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

taken into consideration. 

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

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

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

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

while in other quarters their wages include payments for seven pay 

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

reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages 

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

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

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

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

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

government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. 

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

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

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

with large concentrations of federal employment. 

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

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

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

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

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

are introduced in the first quarter. 

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

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

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

reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation. 

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

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

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

version of the final 2010 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

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

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

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

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

news release. 

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

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

most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of 

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

involving the classification of establishments that were previously 

reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry 

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

account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers 

who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a 

single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

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

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

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

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

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

England states for comparative purposes even though townships are 

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

regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2010 edition 

of this publication, which was published in November 2011, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics 

(BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first 

quarter 2011 version of this news release. Tables and additional 

content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2010 are 

now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn10.htm. 

The 2011 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in 2012. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

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

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

message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

second quarter 2011 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,084.2 130,469.9 0.9 – $891 3.0 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.7 332.4 0.1 204 883 2.3 185

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 178.8 -1.3 290 997 3.3 101

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 166.4 -1.9 303 777 4.0 65

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.3 128.0 -2.8 311 779 2.6 153

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 82.6 1.6 74 778 4.9 30

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.3 152.5 1.5 82 992 2.2 196

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 94.9 1,593.3 1.8 66 878 2.2 196

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.0 338.1 -0.7 267 794 4.3 50

Benton, AR ........................ 5.4 94.6 ( 7) – 816 -2.7 318

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.1 242.8 -1.4 293 817 3.9 72

Washington, AR ................. 5.5 91.4 ( 7) – 735 0.8 291

Alameda, CA ...................... 55.8 637.6 0.4 178 1,172 2.0 218

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.9 316.5 -1.3 290 1,099 3.9 72

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.6 338.0 -1.9 303 709 1.7 243

Kern, CA ............................ 17.9 282.6 0.9 134 792 2.7 148

Los Angeles, CA ................ 434.5 3,899.6 0.6 166 993 2.2 196

Marin, CA ........................... 11.7 103.1 1.0 123 1,112 5.6 14

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.9 182.5 -2.4 310 754 1.3 265

Orange, CA ........................ 103.5 1,379.2 0.8 145 999 3.2 109

Placer, CA .......................... 10.7 126.2 0.2 196 875 3.4 96

Riverside, CA ..................... 49.6 562.2 -0.9 276 743 1.9 232

Sacramento, CA ................ 53.9 577.3 -2.1 307 1,004 2.7 148

San Bernardino, CA ........... 51.0 596.8 -0.6 264 774 1.8 238

San Diego, CA ................... 99.6 1,249.3 0.4 178 982 4.7 39

San Francisco, CA ............. 55.0 556.9 2.7 24 1,435 5.8 9

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.5 209.2 -4.0 314 767 1.7 243

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.6 102.1 -0.9 276 764 4.7 39

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.3 325.0 1.0 123 1,403 6.1 8

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.4 184.7 -0.1 226 840 2.9 131

Santa Clara, CA ................. 62.6 869.1 2.3 33 1,743 8.5 4

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.1 96.9 -1.7 302 806 4.7 39

Solano, CA ......................... 10.1 120.9 0.1 204 902 3.4 96

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.9 176.9 -0.4 248 856 4.9 30

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.1 162.9 -1.6 298 752 0.8 291

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.4 151.6 -0.5 258 617 1.8 238

Ventura, CA ....................... 24.0 303.3 0.6 166 934 3.8 76

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.1 89.8 -0.7 267 896 3.3 101

Adams, CO ........................ 8.8 156.1 0.0 216 814 3.0 125

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.8 280.6 2.3 33 1,023 3.4 96

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.8 157.2 2.0 48 1,027 2.1 209

Denver, CO ........................ 25.3 425.0 2.0 48 1,072 4.1 59

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.4 92.9 0.9 134 972 7.4 6

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.8 238.1 1.4 90 820 2.6 153

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.7 208.5 1.5 82 915 4.2 52

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.0 131.4 1.4 90 758 2.0 218

Weld, CO ........................... 5.8 82.1 3.5 7 740 4.2 52

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.5 406.3 0.7 156 1,469 5.5 17

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.3 492.3 0.8 145 1,095 3.6 84

New Haven, CT ................. 22.2 352.7 0.7 156 947 2.2 196

New London, CT ................ 6.9 126.5 -0.1 226 903 1.0 288

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.4 264.0 -0.2 237 $1,051 6.9 7

Washington, DC ................. 35.5 711.3 1.4 90 1,541 2.4 181

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.5 114.7 -0.4 248 777 5.1 22

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.4 187.8 -0.8 271 852 2.3 185

Broward, FL ....................... 62.1 681.6 0.0 216 837 2.6 153

Collier, FL .......................... 11.6 107.3 2.1 43 796 1.1 280

Duval, FL ........................... 26.6 435.1 0.7 156 845 1.6 248

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.8 119.2 0.2 196 726 4.5 44

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.1 562.7 0.5 174 860 2.6 153

Lake, FL ............................. 7.1 75.4 1.5 82 619 0.8 291

Lee, FL ............................... 18.3 190.3 1.6 74 732 0.8 291

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 135.9 -0.3 244 767 4.5 44

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.1 98.6 -0.7 267 718 2.9 131

Marion, FL .......................... 7.9 88.9 -0.4 248 656 1.5 256

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 86.3 953.4 2.2 37 876 3.2 109

Orange, FL ......................... 35.4 650.9 1.8 66 792 2.1 209

Palm Beach, FL ................. 48.8 485.7 0.6 166 874 1.4 261

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.9 91.3 2.0 48 666 -0.3 310

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.3 379.0 -0.1 226 798 3.6 84

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 183.0 -1.1 286 696 3.6 84

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.2 131.0 1.1 114 750 2.5 168

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.7 152.6 -1.5 296 760 3.0 125

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.2 145.8 -0.1 226 656 1.2 272

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 79.1 -0.1 226 688 1.3 265

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.5 129.7 1.0 123 753 1.2 272

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.2 101.7 0.1 204 793 3.1 120

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.4 288.9 0.6 166 918 1.9 232

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.2 274.3 0.4 178 926 3.5 90

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.3 712.7 1.2 104 1,155 2.8 142

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.2 300.8 2.3 33 862 1.3 265

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.6 93.6 ( 7) – 714 ( 7) – 

Richmond, GA ................... 4.6 97.4 0.6 166 761 3.3 101

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.4 433.5 0.9 134 830 2.9 131

Ada, ID ............................... 14.0 195.4 0.8 145 775 2.6 153

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 87.1 -2.2 309 757 -3.6 319

Cook, IL ............................. 145.8 2,397.5 1.2 104 1,037 2.6 153

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.6 568.4 2.4 29 1,031 4.4 47

Kane, IL ............................. 13.2 193.4 -0.9 276 798 2.8 142

Lake, IL .............................. 21.7 321.2 -0.2 237 1,141 4.0 65

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 94.9 -0.3 244 747 2.5 168

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 86.0 -0.4 248 864 1.2 272

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 96.1 1.6 74 733 1.4 261

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 102.0 1.3 97 843 5.1 22

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 98.6 1.1 114 793 4.1 59

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 132.0 1.3 97 917 2.9 131

Will, IL ................................ 14.7 202.1 0.5 174 798 1.9 232

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 126.5 1.0 123 749 2.6 153

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 175.2 1.6 74 744 1.6 248

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 105.5 3.8 6 728 -1.0 315

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.3 113.2 3.1 12 821 0.4 301

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Lake, IN ............................. 10.4 186.4 1.2 104 $807 4.1 59

Marion, IN .......................... 23.7 546.8 0.3 188 892 2.5 168

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 115.1 0.2 196 736 1.5 256

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 105.9 0.9 134 738 1.1 280

Linn, IA ............................... 6.2 127.4 1.6 74 838 0.8 291

Polk, IA .............................. 14.5 268.3 0.1 204 872 3.2 109

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 87.6 1.7 70 706 2.5 168

Johnson, KS ...................... 21.4 303.4 1.6 74 907 2.1 209

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.6 238.1 -1.3 290 815 2.9 131

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 94.3 -1.9 303 780 4.1 59

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.3 82.0 1.2 104 853 2.4 181

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.5 175.0 ( 7) – 822 2.9 131

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.4 418.2 1.0 123 880 3.3 101

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.5 121.0 -1.0 284 762 2.3 185

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 83.1 0.1 204 753 4.9 30

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.6 248.4 -0.9 276 827 2.9 131

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.9 192.9 -1.5 296 825 2.6 153

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.0 132.5 0.8 145 852 3.9 72

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.1 171.3 0.9 134 937 2.3 185

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.4 171.0 1.1 114 798 2.4 181

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.5 233.4 1.5 82 960 1.8 238

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.1 363.3 -0.4 248 906 1.1 280

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 92.1 -1.4 293 861 1.1 280

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 84.8 2.8 22 890 8.8 3

Howard, MD ....................... 9.0 153.7 1.5 82 1,080 4.9 30

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.9 453.0 1.1 114 1,213 3.3 101

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.7 301.7 -0.4 248 981 2.1 209

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.8 329.0 -0.2 237 1,034 3.3 101

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.4 97.8 0.9 134 754 2.2 196

Bristol, MA ......................... 16.7 212.9 0.9 134 837 5.0 27

Essex, MA .......................... 22.1 304.0 1.1 114 976 5.6 14

Hampden, MA .................... 15.7 197.7 0.7 156 814 4.4 47

Middlesex, MA ................... 50.1 814.7 0.4 178 1,385 10.2 2

Norfolk, MA ........................ 24.9 319.2 0.4 178 1,047 2.5 168

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.5 174.7 0.1 204 875 3.2 109

Suffolk, MA ........................ 23.6 585.2 1.8 66 1,382 3.7 80

Worcester, MA ................... 22.0 316.8 0.9 134 908 2.6 153

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.2 129.7 1.4 90 735 1.2 272

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.3 153.6 -0.5 258 854 0.0 308

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.3 107.5 -0.4 248 804 2.0 218

Kent, MI ............................. 13.6 320.3 3.1 12 785 1.7 243

Macomb, MI ....................... 16.6 288.8 2.8 22 880 1.6 248

Oakland, MI ....................... 36.6 640.6 3.3 8 989 4.0 65

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.5 106.8 4.7 1 728 2.2 196

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.1 82.6 3.2 10 723 0.1 306

Washtenaw, MI .................. 7.9 187.8 2.0 48 939 3.6 84

Wayne, MI .......................... 30.6 675.4 1.3 97 961 1.9 232

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.0 108.5 0.0 216 859 4.0 65

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.5 171.8 0.6 166 892 4.1 59

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.8 832.7 2.5 28 1,116 3.3 101

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.3 89.0 0.4 178 1,015 2.7 148

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Ramsey, MN ...................... 13.7 318.3 0.5 174 $993 3.8 76

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.5 95.6 1.0 123 749 3.2 109

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.2 79.8 2.6 26 699 2.9 131

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 83.8 0.7 156 669 0.6 298

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.0 121.9 -1.1 286 777 2.0 218

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 83.8 1.9 56 697 1.8 238

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 91.2 1.6 74 826 2.2 196

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 148.7 0.9 134 680 1.2 272

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.2 342.2 -0.5 258 887 1.3 265

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.1 125.2 2.1 43 710 0.3 304

St. Louis, MO ..................... 31.8 569.8 0.0 216 924 1.3 265

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.9 212.4 -0.9 276 975 5.1 22

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.9 77.4 1.4 90 733 2.5 168

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.9 313.5 0.0 216 814 2.0 218

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.1 154.7 0.3 188 722 2.6 153

Clark, NV ........................... 47.2 805.3 0.2 196 806 2.5 168

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.6 185.0 0.0 216 808 1.3 265

Hillsborough, NH ................ 11.8 187.6 0.8 145 986 2.6 153

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.5 136.1 -0.1 226 853 -0.8 313

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.8 140.3 -2.0 306 781 1.4 261

Bergen, NJ ......................... 33.4 430.8 0.0 216 1,085 3.1 120

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.1 194.4 -1.6 298 947 2.6 153

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.4 195.9 -1.1 286 892 1.6 248

Essex, NJ ........................... 20.8 336.5 -1.2 289 1,130 4.1 59

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.2 98.5 -1.4 293 798 -0.3 310

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.8 230.7 0.3 188 1,227 2.0 218

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 229.9 -0.5 258 1,182 4.2 52

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.8 378.5 -0.5 258 1,095 3.0 125

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.1 250.5 -1.6 298 924 2.3 185

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.4 273.0 -1.0 284 1,257 2.0 218

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.2 155.3 -0.2 237 734 2.2 196

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.2 172.8 0.3 188 924 1.0 288

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.1 172.1 0.2 196 1,304 1.7 243

Union, NJ ........................... 14.5 220.9 0.1 204 1,119 0.6 298

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 312.3 -0.8 271 781 0.1 306

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 218.8 -0.9 276 931 2.1 209

Bronx, NY .......................... 17.0 236.0 -0.9 276 876 3.7 80

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 91.8 -0.8 271 722 1.1 280

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 111.6 -0.6 264 946 3.2 109

Erie, NY ............................. 23.7 457.5 0.7 156 782 1.7 243

Kings, NY ........................... 51.2 508.4 1.8 66 743 0.4 301

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.1 377.6 1.0 123 852 0.2 305

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.6 600.0 0.9 134 1,034 2.0 218

New York, NY .................... 121.6 2,334.1 1.9 56 1,645 -1.1 316

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 107.8 -2.1 307 731 4.0 65

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.7 244.2 0.1 204 826 1.1 280

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 133.1 0.2 196 811 3.2 109

Queens, NY ....................... 46.0 504.5 1.2 104 845 0.8 291

Richmond, NY .................... 9.0 92.6 0.2 196 774 0.5 300

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 116.4 1.1 114 997 4.5 44

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.7 631.3 0.7 156 980 1.2 272

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Westchester, NY ................ 36.1 412.8 1.0 123 $1,205 3.1 120

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.8 111.2 0.8 145 672 -0.1 309

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 78.5 1.4 90 677 1.2 272

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 120.5 1.7 70 748 4.8 35

Durham, NC ....................... 7.2 176.4 1.9 56 1,196 5.7 12

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.9 171.6 0.4 178 815 1.6 248

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.1 261.6 1.9 56 780 1.4 261

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.1 547.8 3.0 16 993 1.1 280

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.2 98.8 ( 7) – 741 ( 7) – 

Wake, NC .......................... 28.9 449.2 ( 7) – 896 1.0 288

Cass, ND ........................... 6.0 103.1 2.7 24 769 4.3 50

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 138.3 -0.1 226 783 2.5 168

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 35.8 691.3 0.0 216 898 1.9 232

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.5 657.0 1.5 82 864 2.0 218

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.3 488.4 0.3 188 959 4.0 65

Lake, OH ............................ 6.5 95.5 0.8 145 758 5.3 19

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.1 94.1 0.4 178 731 4.6 43

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.3 199.6 0.2 196 767 3.5 90

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.0 97.0 0.6 166 649 3.5 90

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.2 243.8 0.6 166 785 1.6 248

Stark, OH ........................... 8.7 151.7 1.5 82 689 3.9 72

Summit, OH ....................... 14.3 255.9 0.4 178 790 2.3 185

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.3 420.1 2.1 43 832 5.3 19

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.2 328.6 0.3 188 816 4.2 52

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.6 138.9 0.1 204 837 4.9 30

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 75.6 -0.8 271 683 2.1 209

Lane, OR ........................... 10.7 138.5 0.8 145 704 2.8 142

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 132.5 -2.8 311 725 4.0 65

Multnomah, OR .................. 29.0 432.2 1.9 56 923 4.2 52

Washington, OR ................ 16.2 244.7 3.2 10 1,033 3.8 76

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.2 686.8 1.1 114 948 3.2 109

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 165.4 1.6 74 808 2.5 168

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.6 253.2 -0.4 248 863 2.9 131

Butler, PA ........................... 4.9 83.6 3.1 12 827 7.5 5

Chester, PA ....................... 15.0 240.2 1.3 97 1,163 2.6 153

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.1 123.1 1.9 56 835 3.6 84

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 179.7 0.0 216 882 3.4 96

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.7 208.1 0.9 134 944 2.8 142

Erie, PA .............................. 7.7 126.2 2.4 29 710 5.8 9

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 98.3 0.0 216 682 1.6 248

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.5 220.2 -0.2 237 741 2.3 185

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.6 176.9 1.9 56 866 5.1 22

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 139.9 1.2 104 697 2.7 148

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.1 464.7 -0.4 248 1,081 1.3 265

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 101.0 2.3 33 778 2.2 196

Philadelphia, PA ................ 34.3 630.3 0.1 204 1,031 2.3 185

Washington, PA ................. 5.6 84.8 3.9 4 820 5.5 17

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.4 134.4 -0.1 226 726 4.8 35

York, PA ............................. 9.1 171.4 1.0 123 791 2.5 168

Providence, RI ................... 17.2 269.3 -0.1 226 898 4.8 35

Charleston, SC .................. 11.7 212.0 2.4 29 781 2.1 209

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Greenville, SC .................... 12.1 230.9 2.2 37 $788 3.7 80

Horry, SC ........................... 7.5 117.3 2.1 43 526 -0.8 313

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 94.8 -0.2 237 662 2.2 196

Richland, SC ...................... 8.9 201.5 -0.5 258 779 2.2 196

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.8 110.4 0.7 156 781 2.4 181

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 115.3 1.0 123 739 4.8 35

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.0 423.4 1.4 90 892 2.1 209

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 183.7 2.0 48 783 3.3 101

Knox, TN ............................ 10.7 218.4 1.2 104 763 3.7 80

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 96.5 1.5 82 788 -2.2 317

Shelby, TN ......................... 18.8 465.4 0.7 156 917 2.8 142

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 91.7 2.2 37 968 1.6 248

Bell, TX .............................. 4.8 107.7 2.0 48 733 2.2 196

Bexar, TX ........................... 34.1 733.9 0.8 145 798 3.2 109

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.8 88.8 2.0 48 869 4.7 39

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 84.1 -1.6 298 678 2.9 131

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 127.2 1.1 114 572 1.8 238

Collin, TX ........................... 18.2 296.1 3.1 12 1,039 3.8 76

Dallas, TX .......................... 68.0 1,438.3 1.9 56 1,055 2.0 218

Denton, TX ......................... 11.1 180.0 3.0 16 782 3.4 96

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.8 273.0 0.3 188 648 2.5 168

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.3 137.0 2.2 37 880 2.9 131

Galveston, TX .................... 5.4 96.8 1.7 70 816 5.6 14

Harris, TX ........................... 101.2 2,043.2 2.4 29 1,120 5.0 27

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 11.1 225.2 1.9 56 571 1.2 272

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 121.6 2.1 43 881 5.1 22

Lubbock, TX ....................... 7.0 125.0 1.7 70 684 1.9 232

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 101.2 -0.6 264 719 2.0 218

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.7 133.7 4.1 2 837 5.3 19

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 154.7 1.2 104 763 4.2 52

Smith, TX ........................... 5.5 92.9 0.3 188 761 2.3 185

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.7 764.2 2.2 37 899 3.2 109

Travis, TX .......................... 30.6 584.4 3.3 8 974 3.5 90

Webb, TX ........................... 4.8 88.9 3.9 4 616 4.2 52

Williamson, TX ................... 7.6 129.7 1.3 97 1,040 18.0 1

Davis, UT ........................... 7.1 106.8 ( 7) – 729 2.0 218

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 36.6 569.3 1.9 56 833 3.0 125

Utah, UT ............................ 12.6 171.0 4.0 3 714 5.0 27

Weber, UT ......................... 5.4 89.1 -0.8 271 671 1.5 256

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.0 95.8 2.9 19 894 3.0 125

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.2 169.7 2.2 37 1,553 4.4 47

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 114.9 -0.9 276 800 0.4 301

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.3 585.2 1.3 97 1,421 2.2 196

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 173.1 -0.1 226 887 1.5 256

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.7 138.8 2.9 19 1,051 -0.3 310

Prince William, VA ............. 7.7 110.3 3.0 16 804 1.1 280

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.1 94.9 ( 7) – 1,258 ( 7) – 

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.6 95.6 0.4 178 713 2.0 218

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.8 96.4 0.5 174 839 3.5 90

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 138.7 1.2 104 879 0.8 291

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.1 150.0 1.3 97 982 2.3 185

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.2 168.2 -0.2 237 $718 3.2 109

Benton, WA ........................ 5.5 84.0 -0.7 267 963 5.7 12

Clark, WA ........................... 13.1 129.6 1.2 104 808 2.8 142

King, WA ............................ 81.2 1,145.6 2.0 48 1,134 3.0 125

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.6 82.0 0.1 204 863 2.5 168

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.1 261.9 -0.3 244 823 2.6 153

Snohomish, WA ................. 18.7 248.2 2.9 19 952 3.5 90

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.5 199.9 0.1 204 755 3.1 120

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.3 97.3 -0.3 244 827 2.7 148

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.8 80.0 0.8 145 749 3.6 84

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.6 102.5 -3.8 313 610 2.0 218

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 105.6 -0.4 248 797 3.1 120

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 148.1 1.1 114 758 2.3 185

Dane, WI ............................ 14.1 300.3 0.7 156 877 5.8 9

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.5 471.9 0.8 145 878 1.5 256

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 102.4 1.0 123 743 2.6 153

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.7 227.7 2.6 26 869 2.5 168

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 90.3 -0.1 226 814 2.1 209

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.9 258.5 -0.8 ( 8) 596 0.7 ( 8) 

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

These 322 large U.S. counties comprise 70.5 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

second quarter 2011 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 4

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,084.2 130,469.9 0.9 $891 3.0

Private industry .............................................. 8,786.9 109,010.2 1.6 874 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 127.7 1,966.3 1.2 964 9.4

Construction ............................................... 769.8 5,625.6 -0.7 936 2.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 338.5 11,760.7 1.8 1,094 2.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,875.6 24,807.3 1.3 752 2.7

Information ................................................. 142.7 2,685.6 -1.3 1,398 5.7

Financial activities ...................................... 808.9 7,433.9 0.0 1,287 2.3

Professional and business services ........... 1,558.4 17,325.3 3.1 1,134 4.1

Education and health services ................... 907.4 18,921.8 1.8 835 2.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 755.3 13,816.3 2.1 365 2.0

Other services ............................................ 1,309.3 4,456.3 1.2 566 2.4

Government ................................................... 297.3 21,459.7 -2.7 973 3.3

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 434.5 3,899.6 0.6 993 2.2

Private industry .............................................. 428.8 3,334.4 1.3 961 2.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.7 -7.2 1,210 9.2

Construction ............................................... 12.4 104.3 -1.0 1,011 2.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 12.9 368.8 -1.7 1,089 3.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 50.5 737.9 1.1 803 3.1

Information ................................................. 8.2 190.8 -0.4 1,696 1.9

Financial activities ...................................... 21.9 209.4 -0.6 1,452 3.7

Professional and business services ........... 40.8 539.9 2.1 1,193 2.6

Education and health services ................... 28.8 510.6 1.5 938 3.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.7 398.0 1.9 546 3.8

Other services ............................................ 205.0 243.4 1.7 437 -4.0

Government ................................................... 5.7 565.3 -3.2 1,178 0.7

Cook, IL .............................................................. 145.8 2,397.5 1.2 1,037 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 144.4 2,094.5 1.9 1,020 2.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.9 3.1 896 -5.9

Construction ............................................... 12.3 66.2 -0.2 1,227 2.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.6 195.2 0.9 1,087 3.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 28.4 438.1 1.7 817 4.1

Information ................................................. 2.6 52.1 -0.3 1,494 4.4

Financial activities ...................................... 15.5 186.5 -1.4 1,794 4.2

Professional and business services ........... 30.7 415.3 3.5 1,301 2.8

Education and health services ................... 15.3 400.5 2.3 863 0.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.8 241.3 3.5 462 2.9

Other services ............................................ 16.0 96.4 2.0 757 2.6

Government ................................................... 1.4 303.0 -3.6 1,152 3.0

New York, NY ..................................................... 121.6 2,334.1 1.9 1,645 -1.1

Private industry .............................................. 121.3 1,898.3 3.2 1,767 -2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 8.5 1,789 -6.0

Construction ............................................... 2.2 30.6 1.4 1,614 4.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 26.1 0.7 1,278 4.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.0 241.8 3.1 1,228 4.2

Information ................................................. 4.3 137.9 2.3 1,999 2.4

Financial activities ...................................... 19.0 358.3 3.1 3,199 -11.3

Professional and business services ........... 25.4 471.5 3.0 2,000 4.5

Education and health services ................... 9.3 296.3 0.8 1,140 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.6 238.3 5.8 762 1.2

Other services ............................................ 18.9 89.5 2.6 993 2.8

Government ................................................... 0.3 435.8 -3.3 1,115 2.3

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 4

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 101.2 2,043.2 2.4 $1,120 5.0

Private industry .............................................. 100.7 1,784.0 3.2 1,141 5.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.6 80.7 8.1 3,052 11.7

Construction ............................................... 6.5 132.4 -1.0 1,092 2.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 176.5 5.5 1,380 4.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.7 424.7 2.5 1,012 5.9

Information ................................................. 1.3 28.5 -1.4 1,276 4.8

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 111.7 -0.2 1,384 6.1

Professional and business services ........... 20.0 336.2 5.3 1,341 2.9

Education and health services ................... 11.3 242.5 2.4 896 1.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.2 187.6 4.0 392 0.5

Other services ............................................ 13.5 62.2 2.8 643 5.4

Government ................................................... 0.6 259.2 -2.8 974 3.0

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 94.9 1,593.3 1.8 878 2.2

Private industry .............................................. 94.2 1,414.0 2.0 865 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.4 16.1 750 0.3

Construction ............................................... 8.5 82.1 0.8 893 1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 109.0 0.6 1,341 6.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.0 333.9 2.2 818 3.2

Information ................................................. 1.5 27.3 0.1 1,101 4.1

Financial activities ...................................... 11.1 134.7 3.1 1,062 2.1

Professional and business services ........... 22.4 263.5 0.9 915 3.4

Education and health services ................... 10.5 235.4 2.7 912 2.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 171.4 2.6 401 -1.2

Other services ............................................ 6.7 48.0 2.4 591 3.3

Government ................................................... 0.7 179.3 0.0 968 -1.4

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 68.0 1,438.3 1.9 1,055 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 67.5 1,272.4 2.6 1,061 2.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 9.0 8.5 3,318 0.3

Construction ............................................... 3.9 68.3 0.4 958 3.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 115.0 0.3 1,244 1.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 284.8 2.1 975 3.0

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.5 -0.9 1,592 6.1

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 138.9 1.8 1,389 3.0

Professional and business services ........... 14.9 269.8 4.8 1,175 0.6

Education and health services ................... 7.2 167.9 3.1 982 0.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 132.4 3.1 444 0.0

Other services ............................................ 7.1 40.1 3.5 667 4.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 165.9 -3.5 1,015 2.2

Orange, CA ........................................................ 103.5 1,379.2 0.8 999 3.2

Private industry .............................................. 102.1 1,231.0 1.2 982 3.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 4.0 -9.0 658 9.7

Construction ............................................... 6.2 69.8 0.7 1,081 2.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.9 153.3 1.0 1,209 3.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.8 243.9 0.2 953 4.2

Information ................................................. 1.2 23.6 -5.3 1,399 5.2

Financial activities ...................................... 9.5 103.6 0.5 1,454 5.2

Professional and business services ........... 18.2 244.1 0.4 1,137 2.8

Education and health services ................... 10.3 156.5 2.2 914 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 175.8 2.2 425 2.2

Other services ............................................ 21.5 48.6 -0.3 535 1.9

Government ................................................... 1.4 148.2 -2.3 1,138 2.3

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11 4

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 99.6 1,249.3 0.4 $982 4.7

Private industry .............................................. 98.2 1,026.7 0.9 949 5.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 11.6 0.6 538 -0.7

Construction ............................................... 6.0 55.3 -1.1 1,027 3.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 93.5 0.5 1,335 2.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.4 197.4 0.5 771 2.8

Information ................................................. 1.2 23.9 -4.5 1,488 8.3

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 66.9 0.6 1,151 4.3

Professional and business services ........... 15.8 210.5 0.4 1,372 10.1

Education and health services ................... 8.4 146.0 2.1 905 3.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 158.3 0.5 408 2.8

Other services ............................................ 28.1 56.5 -1.0 516 4.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 222.6 -1.9 1,138 3.5

King, WA ............................................................ 81.2 1,145.6 2.0 1,134 3.0

Private industry .............................................. 80.7 986.4 2.7 1,135 3.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.3 2.8 6.8 1,494 20.3

Construction ............................................... 5.6 46.6 -2.0 1,128 2.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.3 99.2 2.1 1,414 -0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.6 208.7 3.1 997 5.8

Information ................................................. 1.7 80.3 1.9 2,048 2.7

Financial activities ...................................... 6.3 64.6 -1.3 1,361 5.1

Professional and business services ........... 13.9 181.7 4.7 1,400 5.2

Education and health services ................... 7.1 135.3 3.3 930 2.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 113.8 3.3 433 0.2

Other services ............................................ 22.3 53.5 3.1 580 -3.7

Government ................................................... 0.6 159.2 -1.9 1,129 2.0

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 86.3 953.4 2.2 876 3.2

Private industry .............................................. 85.9 826.4 3.3 829 2.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.2 1.8 521 2.4

Construction ............................................... 5.0 30.0 -3.5 858 -0.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 36.0 -0.1 819 6.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 24.6 245.2 3.4 778 2.1

Information ................................................. 1.4 17.2 -0.6 1,332 2.4

Financial activities ...................................... 9.0 61.7 2.2 1,275 3.9

Professional and business services ........... 17.8 125.4 4.3 1,032 3.4

Education and health services ................... 9.7 154.4 2.9 847 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 111.6 5.3 481 -1.2

Other services ............................................ 7.7 36.6 4.1 545 0.7

Government ................................................... 0.4 127.0 -4.0 1,159 10.3

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 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. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 2011 2

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11

United States 4 ................... 9,084.2 130,469.9 0.9 $891 3.0

Alabama ............................. 116.3 1,824.8 -0.4 767 2.3

Alaska ................................ 21.7 335.9 1.6 941 2.6

Arizona ............................... 145.6 2,336.3 1.1 842 2.7

Arkansas ............................ 85.8 1,140.4 -1.3 703 2.6

California ............................ 1,379.3 14,664.6 0.3 1,019 4.0

Colorado ............................ 169.7 2,234.7 1.4 900 3.4

Connecticut ........................ 110.7 1,630.2 0.8 1,116 3.8

Delaware ............................ 28.2 408.4 0.5 926 5.9

District of Columbia ............ 35.5 711.3 1.4 1,541 2.4

Florida ................................ 594.3 7,092.3 0.8 802 2.6

Georgia .............................. 266.5 3,803.1 1.0 832 2.5

Hawaii ................................ 38.3 590.5 0.7 799 2.4

Idaho .................................. 54.1 616.6 0.0 667 2.3

Illinois ................................. 384.2 5,633.0 1.0 939 3.2

Indiana ............................... 159.7 2,769.2 1.3 749 2.2

Iowa ................................... 93.5 1,476.9 0.7 726 2.5

Kansas ............................... 88.2 1,313.2 -0.1 754 2.9

Kentucky ............................ 109.7 1,751.8 0.9 760 2.3

Louisiana ........................... 126.8 1,844.3 -0.1 794 3.1

Maine ................................. 49.0 593.8 0.3 712 1.9

Maryland ............................ 165.4 2,513.5 0.5 987 3.1

Massachusetts ................... 227.8 3,230.4 0.9 1,120 5.6

Michigan ............................ 242.1 3,896.9 1.8 845 2.4

Minnesota .......................... 164.6 2,645.4 1.4 898 3.5

Mississippi ......................... 68.8 1,079.4 -0.6 664 1.8

Missouri ............................. 174.3 2,617.7 0.3 774 1.6

Montana ............................. 42.1 434.1 0.5 681 3.5

Nebraska ........................... 60.4 911.6 0.1 714 2.4

Nevada .............................. 71.4 1,123.0 0.5 816 2.5

New Hampshire ................. 47.9 615.2 0.4 888 2.4

New Jersey ........................ 264.6 3,836.2 -0.3 1,056 2.6

New Mexico ....................... 54.8 788.7 -0.5 763 2.8

New York ........................... 597.1 8,575.3 1.0 1,092 1.0

North Carolina .................... 253.1 3,865.9 1.5 783 2.5

North Dakota ...................... 27.1 382.4 5.1 769 8.2

Ohio ................................... 287.5 5,009.1 0.9 795 2.6

Oklahoma .......................... 102.6 1,510.3 0.7 749 4.5

Oregon ............................... 131.1 1,637.5 0.7 819 4.2

Pennsylvania ..................... 347.1 5,606.5 1.0 875 3.1

Rhode Island ...................... 34.9 458.1 0.3 862 3.5

South Carolina ................... 111.1 1,801.6 1.1 726 2.3

South Dakota ..................... 31.1 404.8 0.8 656 3.8

Tennessee ......................... 139.1 2,616.9 1.3 794 2.3

Texas ................................. 578.9 10,462.4 2.1 900 4.0

Utah ................................... 83.4 1,183.9 2.0 756 3.1

Vermont ............................. 24.3 297.0 1.0 773 2.8

Virginia ............................... 233.2 3,619.7 0.9 949 2.2

Washington ........................ 229.5 2,875.8 0.6 928 3.5

West Virginia ...................... 48.7 702.9 0.3 765 5.4

Wisconsin .......................... 158.0 2,712.0 0.9 767 3.0

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

second quarter 2011 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2010-11

Second

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

second quarter

2010-11

Wyoming ............................ 25.1 284.7 1.2 $819 3.7

Puerto Rico ........................ 50.7 915.1 -1.4 496 0.6

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 44.1 0.6 747 5.5

 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 

 January 2012

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

June 2010-11 (U.S. average = 0.9 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2012

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

or more employees, second quarter 2010-11 (U.S. average = 3.0 percent)