For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, March 28, 2013 USDL-13-0542 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Third Quarter 2012 

From September 2011 to September 2012, employment increased in 276 of the 328 largest U.S. 

counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart, Ind., posted the largest increase, 

with a gain of 6.9 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.6 percent. Within 

Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 4,734 jobs over the 

year (10.1 percent). Benton, Wash., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the 

largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 5.2 percent. County employment and wage data are compiled 

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

information on county employment and wages within 7 months after the end of each quarter. 

The U.S. average weekly wage decreased over the year by 1.1 percent to $906 in the third quarter of 

2012. This is one of only six over-the-year average weekly wage declines dating back to 1978, when the 

first comparable quarterly data are available. (See Technical Note.) Average weekly wages declined in 

every industry except for information, in which wages increased by 1.3 percent. Wage declines were 

also widespread across states, with the notable exception of a 6.3 percent increase in North Dakota. 

Yolo, Calif., had the largest over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 7.0 percent. 

Within Yolo, a total wage decline of $102.9 million (-19.1 percent) in government had the largest 

contribution to the decrease in average weekly wages. San Mateo, Calif., experienced the largest 

increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 7.3 percent over the year. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, September 2011-12 

(U.S. average = 1.6 percent)

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decrease in 

average weekly wages, third quarter 2011-12 

(U.S. average = -1.1 percent)

 

6.9 6.8

5.9 5.5 5.3

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Rutherford, 

Tenn.

Kern, 

Calif.

Montgomery, 

Texas

Utah, 

Utah

-7.0 -6.9 -6.9 -6.9

-5.9

-8 

-7 

-6 

-5 

-4 

-3 

-2 

-1 

0 

Yolo, 

Calif.

Rockingham, 

N.H.

Lake, 

Ohio

Benton, 

Wash.

Montgomery, 

Ala.
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by September 2012 employment, September 2011-12 employment 

increase, and September 2011-12 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

September 2012 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) September 2011-12 September 2011-12

(thousands)

United States 132,624.7 United States 2,024.9 United States 1.6

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,983.5 Los Angeles, Calif. 81.6 Elkhart, Ind. 6.9

Cook, Ill. 2,424.6 Harris, Texas 78.6 Rutherford, Tenn. 6.8

New York, N.Y. 2,385.9 New York, N.Y. 52.4 Kern, Calif. 5.9

Harris, Texas 2,128.2 Maricopa, Ariz. 40.0 Montgomery, Texas 5.5

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,674.5 Dallas, Texas 38.3 Utah, Utah 5.3

Dallas, Texas 1,478.5 Santa Clara, Calif. 28.9 Fort Bend, Texas 4.3

Orange, Calif. 1,407.6 Orange, Calif. 28.6 Lexington, S.C. 4.2

San Diego, Calif. 1,283.3 King, Wash. 27.7 Cass, N.D. 4.1

King, Wash. 1,171.9 Cook, Ill. 24.6 Travis, Texas 3.9

Miami-Dade, Fla. 990.7 San Diego, Calif. 22.8 Washington, Ark. 3.8

Denver, Colo. 3.8

Delaware, Ohio 3.8

Harris, Texas 3.8

Large County Employment 

In September 2012, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 132.6 million, up 

by 1.6 percent or 2.0 million, from September 2011. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs 

accounted for 71.0 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.3 percent of total wages. These 328 

counties had a net job growth of 1.5 million over the year, accounting for 74.3 percent of the overall 

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

Elkhart, Ind., had the largest percentage increase in employment (6.9 percent) among the largest U.S. 

counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Los Angeles, Calif.; 

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

over-the-year employment gain of 290,900, or 14.4 percent of the overall job increase for the U.S. (See 

table A.) 

Employment declined in 49 of the large counties from September 2011 to September 2012. Benton, 

Wash., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-5.2 percent). Within Benton, 

professional and business services was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss 

of 3,677 jobs (-15.8 percent). Jefferson, Texas, had the second largest percentage decrease in 

employment, followed by Vanderburgh, Ind.; Sangamon, Ill.; and Hinds, Miss. (See table 1.)
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by third quarter 2012 average weekly wages, third quarter 2011-12

decrease in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2011-12 percent decrease in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

Average weekly wage, Decrease in average weekly Percent decrease in average 

third quarter 2012 wage, third quarter 2011-12 weekly wage, third

quarter 2011-12

United States $906 United States -$10 United States -1.1

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,800 Benton, Wash. -$68 Yolo, Calif. -7.0

New York, N.Y. 1,626 Yolo, Calif. -66 Rockingham, N.H. -6.9

San Mateo, Calif. 1,537 Rockingham, N.H. -62 Lake, Ohio -6.9

Washington, D.C. 1,514 Fairfield, Conn. -58 Benton, Wash. -6.9

Arlington, Va. 1,488 Lake, Ohio -58 Montgomery, Ala. -5.9

San Francisco, Calif. 1,473 Arlington, Va. -57 York, Pa. -5.6

Fairfax, Va. 1,410 Hudson, N.J. -52 Brevard, Fla. -5.5

Suffolk, Mass. 1,397 Brevard, Fla. -49 Brown, Wis. -5.1

Fairfield, Conn. 1,371 Montgomery, Ala. -48 Erie, Pa. -4.6

King, Wash. 1,354 York, Pa. -48 Winnebago, Ill. -4.5

Monmouth, N.J. -4.5

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation decreased by 1.1 percent during the year ending in the third

quarter of 2012. Among the 328 largest counties, 274 had over-the-year declines in average weekly 

wages. (See chart 4.) Yolo, Calif., had the largest wage decline among the largest U.S. counties (-7.0 

percent). 

Of the 328 largest counties, 46 experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. San 

Mateo, Calif., had the largest average weekly wage increase with a gain of 7.3 percent. Within San 

Mateo, total wages in professional and business services grew by $439.3 million (25.7 percent) over the 

year. Douglas, Colo., had the second largest increase in average weekly wages, followed by Pinellas, 

Fla. Two counties, Clayton, Ga., and King, Wash., tied for the fourth largest percentage increase. (See 

table 1.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

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

2012. Harris, Texas, had the largest gain (3.8 percent). Within Harris, professional and business services 

had the largest over-the-year level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of 19,152 jobs 

(5.6 percent). Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.0 percent) among the 10 

largest counties. (See table 2.)

Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties had over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Maricopa, 

Ariz., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages (-2.1 percent). Within Maricopa, 

education and health services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage decline.

Within this industry, employment grew by 5,374 (2.2 percent) while total wages paid to those workers 
- 4 - 

decreased by $59.9 million (-2.1 percent). King, Wash., had the only average weekly wage increase (2.3 

percent) among the 10 largest counties.

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 328 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2011. September 2012 employment and 

2012 third quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release.

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

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

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 132.6 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the third quarter of 2012 will be available later at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. 

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

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for fourth quarter 2012 is scheduled to be released 

on Thursday, June 27, 2013. 

Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the United States on October 29, 2012, after the 

QCEW third quarter reference period. Any impact will be reflected in the fourth quarter release.

This event did not warrant changes to QCEW methodology. 
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 2012 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 329 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2011 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2012 data, seven counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Okaloosa, Fla.; Tippecanoe, 

Ind.; Johnson, Iowa; St. Tammany, La.; Saratoga, N.Y.; Delaware, 

Ohio; and Gregg, Texas. These counties will be included in all 2012 

quarterly releases. One county, Jackson, Ore., which was published 

in the 2011 releases, will be excluded from this and future 2012 

releases because its 2011 annual average employment level was 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 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2012

Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.8 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 557,000 establishments

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws

UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers

Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs

Publication frequency

Quarterly

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter

Quarterly

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter

Monthly

— Usually first Friday of following 

month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

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

Uses UI file as a sampling frame and to 

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking)

Principal

products

Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry

Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry

Principal uses Major uses include:

— Detailed locality data

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys

Major uses include:

— Business cycle analysis

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm

Major uses include:

— Principal national economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites

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

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables.

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures

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

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

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

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

table.

Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

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

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

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

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

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on 

the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2011. 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 2011, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 129.4 million jobs. The 

estimated 124.8 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.7 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $6.217 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.2 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 2011 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 2011 edition 

of this publication, which was published in October 2012, contains 

selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) 

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

2012 version of this news release. Tables and additional content 

from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2011 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn11.htm. The 2012 

edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be 

available later in 2013. 

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 329 largest counties,

third quarter 2012 2

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,165.4 132,624.7 1.6 – $906 -1.1 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.7 336.3 1.0 186 910 -1.4 147

Madison, AL ....................... 8.9 178.6 0.1 273 1,005 -3.0 276

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.7 164.2 -0.7 307 802 -4.3 316

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.3 128.1 1.5 140 765 -5.9 324

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.2 85.6 1.5 140 792 -0.6 86

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.3 157.0 1.1 177 1,010 -0.6 86

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 96.1 1,674.5 2.4 54 886 -2.1 213

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.1 346.8 1.3 161 787 -1.1 116

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 97.1 0.9 200 885 1.7 9

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.4 243.1 0.3 256 819 -2.3 228

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 93.8 3.8 10 728 -2.5 250

Alameda, CA ...................... 53.8 664.1 3.1 30 1,188 -2.9 271

Contra Costa, CA ............... 28.6 326.0 2.4 54 1,126 2.2 6

Fresno, CA ......................... 28.7 351.9 1.1 177 710 -1.5 155

Kern, CA ............................ 16.8 312.7 5.9 3 783 -2.7 262

Los Angeles, CA ................ 412.7 3,983.5 2.1 89 1,002 -1.7 173

Marin, CA ........................... 11.6 107.0 3.5 22 1,069 -0.6 86

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.3 186.5 2.3 67 783 -0.8 102

Orange, CA ........................ 102.8 1,407.6 2.1 89 1,024 -1.4 147

Placer, CA .......................... 10.7 131.2 2.4 54 906 0.4 32

Riverside, CA ..................... 48.1 569.4 2.8 40 726 -3.7 304

Sacramento, CA ................ 49.5 591.4 1.8 117 1,007 -1.5 155

San Bernardino, CA ........... 47.6 612.5 1.9 110 771 -2.8 265

San Diego, CA ................... 101.0 1,283.3 1.8 117 993 -2.0 202

San Francisco, CA ............. 53.8 593.9 3.6 17 1,473 1.0 19

San Joaquin, CA ................ 16.1 208.9 0.2 261 786 -1.8 186

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.4 107.3 3.5 22 738 -2.0 202

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.4 342.9 3.6 17 1,537 7.3 1

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.1 188.1 2.2 79 850 -3.4 300

Santa Clara, CA ................. 62.0 907.7 3.3 26 1,800 -1.5 155

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.8 98.0 2.5 49 851 1.4 14

Solano, CA ......................... 9.5 122.6 2.4 54 910 -1.2 127

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.1 181.0 2.6 47 856 -3.1 283

Stanislaus, CA ................... 13.6 170.0 1.5 140 776 -0.9 108

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.8 146.6 -1.4 317 636 0.0 47

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.6 303.1 2.3 67 936 0.2 41

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.2 99.2 2.3 67 882 -7.0 328

Adams, CO ........................ 9.1 161.0 2.0 97 839 -2.6 255

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.2 288.3 2.9 36 1,052 -3.0 276

Boulder, CO ....................... 13.3 161.5 1.7 123 1,072 0.4 32

Denver, CO ........................ 26.5 438.2 3.8 10 1,111 -1.8 186

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.9 96.0 3.6 17 1,030 5.4 2

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.1 239.1 0.7 221 846 -1.6 165

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.1 214.4 2.2 79 919 -1.4 147

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.3 134.7 2.2 79 813 -1.1 116

Weld, CO ........................... 5.9 86.7 3.7 14 798 0.0 47

Fairfield, CT ....................... 33.0 409.5 0.8 209 1,371 -4.1 311

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.7 494.7 1.0 186 1,079 -1.7 173

New Haven, CT ................. 22.5 356.5 0.8 209 956 -1.6 165

New London, CT ................ 7.0 123.6 -1.1 315 902 -3.3 296

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.1 265.7 -0.2 285 $1,039 -1.7 173

Washington, DC ................. 36.1 714.9 0.6 233 1,514 -0.7 96

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 116.9 0.7 221 749 -1.7 173

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.4 186.6 -0.3 290 836 -5.5 322

Broward, FL ....................... 63.6 701.1 2.3 67 838 -2.4 240

Collier, FL .......................... 11.9 112.7 2.4 54 776 -1.1 116

Duval, FL ........................... 27.2 442.7 2.0 97 862 -1.3 140

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.0 120.0 1.0 186 702 -3.8 306

Hillsborough, FL ................. 38.3 582.9 1.7 123 863 -2.3 228

Lake, FL ............................. 7.3 81.1 2.3 67 630 -0.6 86

Lee, FL ............................... 18.8 199.1 1.4 151 728 -1.2 127

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 137.7 -0.1 280 755 -0.5 83

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.3 101.6 2.0 97 692 -3.8 306

Marion, FL .......................... 7.9 90.2 1.6 134 621 -2.1 213

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 89.6 990.7 2.0 97 857 -1.7 173

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 76.0 -0.9 312 744 -2.1 213

Orange, FL ......................... 36.4 682.0 2.4 54 795 -1.9 194

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.8 498.7 2.1 89 862 -1.6 165

Pasco, FL ........................... 10.0 99.2 1.7 123 624 -1.4 147

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.8 381.8 0.9 200 842 4.3 3

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 188.4 1.2 171 708 -0.6 86

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.5 136.4 2.7 45 733 -1.2 127

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.9 158.1 1.4 151 747 -0.7 96

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.4 149.8 0.7 221 644 -1.1 116

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 80.3 0.7 221 708 -3.8 306

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.8 133.9 2.3 67 777 -2.0 202

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 110.6 -0.7 307 894 2.3 4

Cobb, GA ........................... 21.6 300.2 1.1 177 959 0.2 41

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.9 275.2 -0.6 303 944 -1.7 173

Fulton, GA .......................... 41.9 724.3 2.4 54 1,165 -2.5 250

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 24.3 308.5 1.0 186 892 -3.3 296

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 93.7 -0.6 303 727 -0.4 76

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 98.3 0.4 253 791 -1.2 127

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.6 443.7 1.6 134 862 -0.9 108

Ada, ID ............................... 13.6 202.0 2.1 89 790 -1.1 116

Champaign, IL ................... 4.3 88.4 0.6 233 816 1.6 10

Cook, IL ............................. 149.3 2,424.6 1.0 186 1,032 -1.5 155

Du Page, IL ........................ 37.3 572.5 1.8 117 1,056 -0.2 62

Kane, IL ............................. 13.3 196.9 1.5 140 810 -2.3 228

Lake, IL .............................. 22.2 326.9 1.3 161 1,148 1.5 11

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.7 94.5 0.5 241 757 -3.1 283

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 86.8 1.3 161 878 -3.3 296

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 95.0 -1.0 314 752 -2.8 265

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 104.0 1.7 123 853 -2.5 250

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.6 93.7 -1.8 323 753 -3.2 291

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 127.7 -2.1 325 944 0.0 47

Will, IL ................................ 15.3 205.0 0.9 200 796 -2.0 202

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 126.0 0.8 209 761 -4.5 318

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 176.9 1.0 186 743 -3.1 283

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 112.1 6.9 1 737 -0.3 68

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.5 115.5 1.2 171 $843 -2.4 240

Lake, IN ............................. 10.4 191.9 1.8 117 858 1.4 14

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 569.4 2.6 47 931 -1.6 165

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 117.4 0.0 277 750 -0.7 96

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 79.8 2.9 36 762 -2.3 228

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 104.6 -2.2 326 722 -2.4 240

Johnson, IA ........................ 3.6 78.3 0.9 200 856 0.4 32

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 126.6 0.5 241 874 -1.4 147

Polk, IA .............................. 15.1 273.7 1.9 110 905 -1.0 113

Scott, IA ............................. 5.3 88.8 0.9 200 746 -1.3 140

Johnson, KS ...................... 21.1 311.2 2.3 67 917 -1.8 186

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.3 239.4 0.5 241 809 -2.2 220

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 94.6 -0.7 307 764 -3.0 276

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 85.6 2.9 36 854 -1.6 165

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.6 180.7 2.2 79 816 -1.9 194

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.7 429.5 2.8 40 882 -0.6 86

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.6 119.5 -1.6 321 741 -4.1 311

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 84.4 1.9 110 785 -1.9 194

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 15.0 259.2 1.5 140 850 -0.2 62

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.0 188.8 -1.6 321 847 -3.1 283

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.2 136.5 0.9 200 878 -3.1 283

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.4 174.5 0.8 209 895 -3.1 283

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.6 79.1 2.1 89 769 -2.9 271

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.7 172.4 0.6 233 799 -1.6 165

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.6 241.9 3.5 22 978 -2.7 262

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.3 364.5 1.5 140 930 -2.6 255

Frederick, MD .................... 6.2 93.8 1.6 134 879 -2.4 240

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 87.8 2.3 67 891 -2.7 262

Howard, MD ....................... 9.2 159.8 2.0 97 1,111 -1.7 173

Montgomery, MD ............... 33.5 452.4 0.7 221 1,236 -0.2 62

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 301.0 0.2 261 981 -2.4 240

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.0 332.5 0.7 221 1,072 -0.4 76

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.0 96.1 2.0 97 746 -1.5 155

Bristol, MA ......................... 16.1 212.9 0.1 273 816 -1.1 116

Essex, MA .......................... 21.6 308.3 1.4 151 946 -1.8 186

Hampden, MA .................... 15.5 197.9 -0.3 290 831 -1.2 127

Middlesex, MA ................... 49.2 829.8 1.7 123 1,318 -0.3 68

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.4 323.0 1.3 161 1,033 -2.2 220

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.0 178.4 2.2 79 838 -0.5 83

Suffolk, MA ........................ 23.6 598.7 1.3 161 1,397 -2.1 213

Worcester, MA ................... 21.4 317.8 0.2 261 910 -1.9 194

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.2 129.4 0.0 277 744 -4.1 311

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.4 154.1 -0.7 307 850 -1.0 113

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.4 110.2 0.7 221 838 -1.2 127

Kent, MI ............................. 14.1 337.1 2.9 36 799 -2.3 228

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.3 292.8 1.7 123 902 -2.4 240

Oakland, MI ....................... 38.4 666.4 3.2 29 997 -1.4 147

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.6 111.4 2.3 67 738 -1.2 127

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.2 83.5 -0.5 297 741 -2.2 220

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 194.6 2.4 54 977 0.8 23

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.7 690.3 1.2 171 984 -2.0 202

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.2 111.9 1.7 123 $874 -0.1 55

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.9 172.8 1.1 177 882 -0.1 55

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.1 850.1 2.0 97 1,133 0.4 32

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 91.3 1.9 110 954 0.7 25

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.0 323.1 0.3 256 990 -3.3 296

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.6 94.7 0.1 273 778 -1.1 116

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.4 81.4 1.4 151 726 -3.2 291

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.4 82.6 -0.1 280 668 -2.8 265

Hinds, MS .......................... 5.9 119.7 -1.9 324 783 -1.1 116

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 87.5 3.3 26 736 0.4 32

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 87.6 -0.8 311 804 -2.2 220

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 154.7 3.0 32 693 -2.8 265

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.8 348.7 1.5 140 914 -1.7 173

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.3 127.6 2.3 67 713 -2.6 255

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.3 568.5 0.3 256 963 -0.8 102

St. Louis City, MO .............. 9.5 218.1 -0.5 297 1,001 -1.2 127

Yellowstone, MT ................ 6.1 79.2 2.3 67 755 -1.9 194

Douglas, NE ....................... 17.7 316.7 1.7 123 853 -0.9 108

Lancaster, NE .................... 9.4 158.6 2.5 49 742 -0.5 83

Clark, NV ........................... 48.9 821.0 1.9 110 804 -3.5 302

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.6 186.1 0.4 253 827 -2.6 255

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.0 189.1 1.0 186 970 -3.0 276

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.6 138.1 1.5 140 843 -6.9 325

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.6 136.4 0.6 233 761 -3.2 291

Bergen, NJ ......................... 32.8 428.5 0.9 200 1,079 -0.6 86

Burlington, NJ .................... 10.9 195.2 2.1 89 949 -2.4 240

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.0 192.0 0.2 261 893 -1.2 127

Essex, NJ ........................... 20.3 335.9 0.2 261 1,118 -1.9 194

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.1 97.2 0.2 261 798 -2.1 213

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.8 233.0 1.2 171 1,236 -4.0 310

Mercer, NJ ......................... 10.8 228.9 0.8 209 1,207 -0.8 102

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.6 387.3 2.0 97 1,069 -3.2 291

Monmouth, NJ ................... 19.7 243.6 0.6 233 887 -4.5 318

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.1 271.9 0.8 209 1,299 0.2 41

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.2 152.2 1.3 161 721 -2.0 202

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.2 170.0 0.2 261 890 -2.9 271

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.0 171.7 1.0 186 1,327 -1.3 140

Union, NJ ........................... 14.2 219.0 1.1 177 1,140 -0.6 86

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.8 309.9 -0.3 290 809 -3.0 276

Albany, NY ......................... 10.1 219.9 0.5 241 953 -1.7 173

Bronx, NY .......................... 17.2 237.2 1.0 186 878 -1.2 127

Broome, NY ....................... 4.6 89.8 -0.2 285 720 -2.0 202

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 110.8 -0.3 290 900 -2.6 255

Erie, NY ............................. 24.0 457.3 -0.1 280 786 -3.6 303

Kings, NY ........................... 53.7 519.6 2.4 54 747 -1.6 165

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.4 373.9 -0.2 285 877 -1.2 127

Nassau, NY ........................ 53.0 594.7 2.0 97 980 -0.8 102

New York, NY .................... 123.7 2,385.9 2.2 79 1,626 -1.3 140

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 104.9 -1.5 319 713 -1.7 173

Onondaga, NY ................... 13.0 242.6 0.2 261 832 -1.3 140

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 131.3 -0.2 285 751 -3.1 283

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Queens, NY ....................... 47.7 526.4 2.4 54 $852 -2.2 220

Richmond, NY .................... 9.1 92.7 1.1 177 784 -2.5 250

Rockland, NY ..................... 10.0 114.5 0.2 261 986 1.0 19

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.6 78.2 1.6 134 804 0.4 32

Suffolk, NY ......................... 51.1 622.7 0.5 241 1,022 -0.3 68

Westchester, NY ................ 36.2 405.6 -0.1 280 1,160 1.0 19

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.0 115.3 3.1 30 699 -1.8 186

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 79.4 2.0 97 682 -2.3 228

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 117.2 -1.5 319 747 -2.2 220

Durham, NC ....................... 7.4 185.3 2.4 54 1,220 -2.9 271

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 174.8 1.8 117 838 -1.8 186

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.2 263.0 0.5 241 810 0.0 47

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 33.3 570.9 2.5 49 1,055 0.7 25

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.4 97.9 2.5 49 727 -2.3 228

Wake, NC .......................... 29.8 457.1 3.0 32 899 0.7 25

Cass, ND ........................... 6.2 108.4 4.1 8 828 0.7 25

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 139.5 0.2 261 800 -1.7 173

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 35.7 703.4 1.5 140 934 0.8 23

Delaware, OH .................... 4.4 80.3 3.8 10 874 -2.0 202

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.8 672.2 1.4 151 917 -3.4 300

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.2 492.3 1.4 151 1,028 1.8 7

Lake, OH ............................ 6.4 94.0 -0.6 303 782 -6.9 325

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.0 94.4 0.8 209 753 -2.2 220

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.1 202.4 1.7 123 789 -2.1 213

Mahoning, OH .................... 5.9 98.6 1.0 186 666 -2.6 255

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.1 243.6 0.7 221 799 -2.0 202

Stark, OH ........................... 8.8 154.5 1.0 186 700 -2.4 240

Summit, OH ....................... 14.3 256.4 0.6 233 822 -0.1 55

Oklahoma, OK ................... 25.0 429.9 1.4 151 880 -2.3 228

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.6 336.0 1.3 161 855 -1.6 165

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.8 141.1 2.0 97 834 -0.4 76

Lane, OR ........................... 10.9 137.9 1.2 171 716 0.0 47

Marion, OR ........................ 9.5 135.7 -0.5 297 711 -0.6 86

Multnomah, OR .................. 30.2 442.8 2.0 97 938 0.1 45

Washington, OR ................ 16.6 251.0 2.2 79 1,111 -0.8 102

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.7 684.5 0.8 209 988 1.5 11

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 164.7 1.1 177 844 1.0 19

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.7 246.6 -0.6 303 869 -0.9 108

Butler, PA ........................... 4.9 83.0 -0.5 297 834 -2.3 228

Chester, PA ....................... 15.1 236.0 0.1 273 1,128 0.3 38

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.1 124.6 1.4 151 829 -3.2 291

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.5 174.8 1.0 186 898 -1.5 155

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.9 209.9 0.6 233 954 -2.2 220

Erie, PA .............................. 7.7 125.7 -0.4 294 734 -4.6 320

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 97.1 -0.9 312 697 -2.0 202

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.8 220.5 0.7 221 756 -2.3 228

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 176.8 0.5 241 868 -2.9 271

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 139.8 0.2 261 716 -2.1 213

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.4 465.8 1.2 171 1,109 -0.4 76

Northampton, PA ............... 6.6 103.7 1.4 151 799 -1.5 155

Philadelphia, PA ................ 36.1 631.9 0.9 200 1,085 -2.4 240

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Washington, PA ................. 5.6 85.8 0.2 261 $873 -0.3 68

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 133.5 0.5 241 737 -4.2 314

York, PA ............................. 9.1 172.3 0.5 241 806 -5.6 323

Providence, RI ................... 17.5 272.0 0.7 221 889 -2.6 255

Charleston, SC .................. 12.0 217.7 2.5 49 800 -0.7 96

Greenville, SC .................... 12.1 234.4 1.5 140 805 -0.2 62

Horry, SC ........................... 7.7 111.6 0.6 233 554 -1.1 116

Lexington, SC .................... 5.7 98.9 4.2 7 697 -1.4 147

Richland, SC ...................... 8.9 203.5 1.1 177 786 -2.8 265

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.8 115.1 1.8 117 766 -2.0 202

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.6 117.4 2.8 40 776 0.0 47

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.5 434.1 2.2 79 945 -0.2 62

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 185.7 1.5 140 803 -1.7 173

Knox, TN ............................ 10.9 219.6 -0.4 294 793 1.1 18

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.4 104.5 6.8 2 798 -1.1 116

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.1 469.8 1.0 186 954 0.2 41

Williamson, TN ................... 6.3 98.2 3.7 14 969 1.5 11

Bell, TX .............................. 4.9 108.9 1.7 123 749 -0.9 108

Bexar, TX ........................... 35.3 752.6 2.2 79 818 -0.6 86

Brazoria, TX ....................... 5.0 92.8 1.9 110 876 -1.9 194

Brazos, TX ......................... 4.0 88.7 3.6 17 721 -0.1 55

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 128.2 1.3 161 580 -1.4 147

Collin, TX ........................... 19.4 309.7 3.7 14 1,057 0.3 38

Dallas, TX .......................... 69.4 1,478.5 2.7 45 1,085 -1.3 140

Denton, TX ......................... 11.6 185.2 3.0 32 824 0.6 30

El Paso, TX ........................ 14.1 277.2 0.7 221 654 -2.5 250

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.9 144.2 4.3 6 928 -0.3 68

Galveston, TX .................... 5.5 95.7 0.5 241 804 -4.4 317

Gregg, TX .......................... 4.2 78.3 2.1 89 834 -0.4 76

Harris, TX ........................... 103.7 2,128.2 3.8 10 1,154 -0.3 68

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 11.5 225.6 0.8 209 584 -2.3 228

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 120.2 -2.9 327 913 -0.7 96

Lubbock, TX ....................... 7.1 126.1 1.6 134 716 1.8 7

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 102.0 0.8 209 735 -2.8 265

Montgomery, TX ................ 9.2 143.2 5.5 4 868 -0.3 68

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 156.0 2.8 40 801 0.3 38

Smith, TX ........................... 5.7 92.2 -0.4 294 780 -1.5 155

Tarrant, TX ......................... 38.8 786.1 2.3 67 909 -1.0 113

Travis, TX .......................... 32.4 607.3 3.9 9 1,003 -0.8 102

Webb, TX ........................... 4.9 91.0 2.1 89 637 1.4 14

Williamson, TX ................... 8.0 132.7 1.6 134 914 -1.8 186

Davis, UT ........................... 7.3 109.1 1.9 110 741 -3.0 276

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 38.2 594.9 3.6 17 858 -1.5 155

Utah, UT ............................ 13.1 181.3 5.3 5 704 -1.7 173

Weber, UT ......................... 5.5 90.5 1.3 161 672 -2.3 228

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.1 98.9 1.4 151 870 -1.9 194

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.6 165.1 -1.4 317 1,488 -3.7 304

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.9 116.5 2.2 79 826 -0.1 55

Fairfax, VA ......................... 35.3 590.1 0.8 209 1,410 -2.4 240

Henrico, VA ........................ 10.3 178.9 2.4 54 898 -1.5 155

Loudoun, VA ...................... 10.2 142.0 3.0 32 1,077 -3.1 283

Prince William, VA ............. 8.1 113.0 3.3 26 828 -1.8 186

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.3 96.3 0.9 200 $1,266 -0.2 62

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.8 94.5 -1.2 316 725 -1.2 127

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.8 96.6 0.7 221 871 -1.2 127

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 137.6 -0.5 297 908 0.6 30

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.2 148.9 0.5 241 1,001 -1.1 116

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.5 165.0 1.3 161 723 -0.1 55

Benton, WA ........................ 5.8 79.1 -5.2 328 913 -6.9 325

Clark, WA ........................... 13.8 131.0 2.0 97 849 1.2 17

King, WA ............................ 83.2 1,171.9 2.4 54 1,354 2.3 4

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.7 80.3 -0.5 297 885 -0.7 96

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.9 266.0 0.5 241 840 -0.4 76

Snohomish, WA ................. 19.4 259.7 2.8 40 996 0.7 25

Spokane, WA ..................... 16.1 200.9 0.8 209 780 -0.3 68

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.6 96.9 1.0 186 847 -0.4 76

Whatcom, WA .................... 7.0 80.7 0.3 256 758 0.0 47

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.9 113.7 3.4 25 620 0.0 47

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 104.9 -0.1 280 781 -3.0 276

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 148.6 1.7 123 779 -5.1 321

Dane, WI ............................ 14.2 306.5 1.1 177 842 -3.9 309

Milwaukee, WI ................... 23.4 473.7 0.3 256 879 -4.2 314

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.1 102.3 0.4 253 771 0.1 45

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.7 227.9 0.0 277 887 -1.3 140

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.6 89.4 -0.2 285 829 -0.1 55

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.3 264.0 2.0 ( 7) 601 -0.5 ( 7) 

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

These 328 U.S. counties comprise 71.0 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

third quarter 2012 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 4

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,165.4 132,624.7 1.6 $906 -1.1

Private industry .............................................. 8,869.4 111,530.4 1.9 897 -1.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 130.9 2,105.2 3.7 984 -0.2

Construction ............................................... 750.0 5,795.2 1.0 982 -0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 335.6 11,990.0 1.5 1,108 -1.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,889.4 25,186.9 1.3 772 -0.9

Information ................................................. 143.6 2,661.8 -0.4 1,540 1.3

Financial activities ...................................... 811.0 7,519.8 1.1 1,314 -0.7

Professional and business services ........... 1,601.6 18,046.0 2.9 1,146 -0.2

Education and health services ................... 935.4 19,438.8 1.7 867 -1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 773.0 14,012.3 2.9 381 -1.8

Other services ............................................ 1,273.7 4,548.6 2.9 571 -2.7

Government ................................................... 296.0 21,094.2 -0.5 954 -1.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 412.7 3,983.5 2.1 1,002 -1.7

Private industry .............................................. 407.0 3,457.5 2.2 976 -1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 9.6 0.3 2,194 -4.4

Construction ............................................... 12.1 110.3 1.6 1,044 0.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 12.5 366.3 0.1 1,128 1.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 50.9 754.3 1.4 822 -0.8

Information ................................................. 8.3 190.4 -0.7 1,734 1.4

Financial activities ...................................... 21.9 211.1 1.7 1,460 -0.8

Professional and business services ........... 42.1 573.7 3.6 1,208 -3.8

Education and health services ................... 29.6 529.5 1.8 954 -3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.4 419.1 3.8 546 -4.4

Other services ............................................ 176.6 274.2 2.5 433 -2.5

Government ................................................... 5.7 525.9 1.2 1,180 -1.3

Cook, IL .............................................................. 149.3 2,424.6 1.0 1,032 -1.5

Private industry .............................................. 148.0 2,128.2 1.2 1,021 -1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.9 -8.7 1,012 1.3

Construction ............................................... 12.4 65.4 -3.5 1,291 0.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.6 194.3 0.3 1,075 -1.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 29.1 441.8 0.5 837 0.4

Information ................................................. 2.7 53.7 -0.7 1,513 -1.6

Financial activities ...................................... 15.6 184.2 -0.6 1,705 -2.1

Professional and business services ........... 31.5 430.7 2.8 1,278 -2.0

Education and health services ................... 15.8 411.2 1.8 902 -2.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 13.3 246.4 2.2 474 -1.7

Other services ............................................ 16.5 96.1 0.4 784 0.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 296.5 -0.3 1,114 0.2

New York, NY ..................................................... 123.7 2,385.9 2.2 1,626 -1.3

Private industry .............................................. 123.4 1,951.2 2.8 1,737 -1.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.2 7.9 1,428 -6.7

Construction ............................................... 2.1 32.0 2.9 1,627 -1.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 26.6 0.7 1,104 -5.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.8 250.7 3.0 1,226 3.6

Information ................................................. 4.4 143.5 3.6 2,153 2.0

Financial activities ...................................... 18.8 351.9 -1.1 3,020 -2.6

Professional and business services ........... 25.5 488.7 3.5 1,951 -2.3

Education and health services ................... 9.3 305.4 1.9 1,211 0.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 13.0 251.6 5.1 769 -0.1

Other services ............................................ 19.1 92.2 3.2 996 -0.3

Government ................................................... 0.3 434.7 0.0 1,126 0.3

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

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 4

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 103.7 2,128.2 3.8 $1,154 -0.3

Private industry .............................................. 103.1 1,878.9 4.6 1,169 -0.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.7 89.4 8.3 2,869 -4.7

Construction ............................................... 6.4 142.2 5.0 1,143 0.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 191.1 6.3 1,429 0.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.4 442.0 3.4 1,028 0.2

Information ................................................. 1.3 27.9 -1.5 1,378 2.7

Financial activities ...................................... 10.6 114.1 1.3 1,447 2.9

Professional and business services ........... 20.7 360.7 5.6 1,354 -0.8

Education and health services ................... 11.8 253.9 3.8 936 -1.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.5 193.6 5.6 401 -2.9

Other services ............................................ 13.7 63.1 2.7 656 -0.5

Government ................................................... 0.6 249.3 -1.3 1,042 -0.6

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 96.1 1,674.5 2.4 886 -2.1

Private industry .............................................. 95.4 1,466.5 2.7 879 -2.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.8 3.4 901 2.0

Construction ............................................... 7.9 89.1 5.6 937 -0.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 113.6 2.9 1,278 -3.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.5 339.1 1.6 829 -2.0

Information ................................................. 1.6 28.0 1.7 1,138 -2.4

Financial activities ...................................... 10.9 142.4 2.8 1,110 1.2

Professional and business services ........... 22.3 273.0 2.9 931 -1.4

Education and health services ................... 10.6 248.2 2.2 899 -4.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.3 176.1 2.5 426 -1.8

Other services ............................................ 6.6 46.0 -1.1 604 -0.3

Government ................................................... 0.7 208.0 0.6 940 -3.0

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 69.4 1,478.5 2.7 1,085 -1.3

Private industry .............................................. 68.9 1,314.8 3.1 1,090 -1.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 10.0 16.1 3,171 -3.0

Construction ............................................... 3.9 70.8 3.6 1,019 -1.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 112.4 0.4 1,229 0.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.1 295.3 2.9 1,011 -1.2

Information ................................................. 1.5 46.8 2.8 1,635 -1.6

Financial activities ...................................... 8.6 143.1 2.2 1,409 -1.4

Professional and business services ........... 15.2 287.5 4.6 1,198 -2.4

Education and health services ................... 7.6 174.0 2.5 1,011 -0.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.9 134.2 4.0 492 -4.1

Other services ............................................ 7.3 40.0 -1.5 675 -0.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 163.7 -0.5 1,050 -1.1

Orange, CA ........................................................ 102.8 1,407.6 2.1 1,024 -1.4

Private industry .............................................. 101.5 1,276.7 2.4 1,013 -1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 3.0 -10.3 712 -0.7

Construction ............................................... 6.0 73.6 3.3 1,155 1.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.8 158.2 0.2 1,275 -4.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.1 246.3 1.0 942 -2.4

Information ................................................. 1.2 23.9 -1.0 1,629 3.9

Financial activities ...................................... 9.5 108.8 2.8 1,554 1.1

Professional and business services ........... 18.7 258.4 3.4 1,133 -1.1

Education and health services ................... 10.6 162.2 1.5 932 -3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.3 184.2 3.8 469 6.8

Other services ............................................ 19.0 51.6 1.9 532 0.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 131.0 -0.6 1,136 -3.4

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

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12 4

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 101.0 1,283.3 1.8 $993 -2.0

Private industry .............................................. 99.6 1,068.5 2.3 960 -1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 10.4 7.4 599 -4.9

Construction ............................................... 5.8 57.3 1.8 1,033 -4.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 93.9 -0.2 1,495 7.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.5 206.0 0.9 789 -0.1

Information ................................................. 1.1 24.6 0.6 1,573 -2.7

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 70.3 2.8 1,202 2.2

Professional and business services ........... 16.3 216.7 2.4 1,286 -1.7

Education and health services ................... 8.7 155.6 1.3 947 -4.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 164.7 3.4 436 -2.5

Other services ............................................ 27.9 63.5 5.4 506 -10.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 214.8 -0.4 1,168 -4.3

King, WA ............................................................ 83.2 1,171.9 2.4 1,354 2.3

Private industry .............................................. 82.7 1,018.7 2.8 1,381 2.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.0 5.5 1,372 6.8

Construction ............................................... 5.3 51.5 5.9 1,151 -2.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.2 104.3 4.2 1,468 -2.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.4 215.4 3.3 1,041 3.0

Information ................................................. 1.8 81.0 0.1 4,549 9.0

Financial activities ...................................... 6.2 63.6 1.3 1,437 4.1

Professional and business services ........... 13.9 192.6 4.2 1,475 2.5

Education and health services ................... 7.3 137.3 1.6 959 -3.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 116.6 2.2 489 1.2

Other services ............................................ 24.8 53.3 0.3 604 0.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 153.2 0.2 1,174 0.3

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 89.6 990.7 2.0 857 -1.7

Private industry .............................................. 89.2 852.2 2.6 840 -1.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.5 1.8 552 3.2

Construction ............................................... 5.0 30.8 1.0 835 -4.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 35.6 -1.4 808 -7.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 26.0 254.9 2.1 784 -0.9

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.2 0.3 1,322 -2.8

Financial activities ...................................... 9.2 67.5 3.3 1,232 -3.4

Professional and business services ........... 18.7 126.9 2.5 1,021 -1.3

Education and health services ................... 9.9 157.9 1.9 879 -2.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 117.9 5.4 537 4.1

Other services ............................................ 7.9 34.7 2.4 543 -1.8

Government ................................................... 0.4 138.4 -1.7 966 -1.2

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2011 annual average employment. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

Technical Note. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

third quarter 2012 2

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12

United States 4 ................... 9,165.4 132,624.7 1.6 $906 -1.1

Alabama ............................. 116.1 1,833.5 0.6 784 -2.4

Alaska ................................ 22.0 343.6 0.6 961 -0.2

Arizona ............................... 148.5 2,437.5 2.2 846 -2.0

Arkansas ............................ 85.8 1,156.7 0.3 708 -1.0

California ............................ 1,328.5 15,109.1 2.8 1,036 -1.2

Colorado ............................ 174.4 2,284.6 2.2 936 -1.3

Connecticut ........................ 111.6 1,638.9 0.8 1,087 -2.8

Delaware ............................ 27.8 407.3 0.1 925 -2.5

District of Columbia ............ 36.1 714.9 0.6 1,514 -0.7

Florida ................................ 611.5 7,307.9 1.9 800 -1.4

Georgia .............................. 271.2 3,841.2 1.1 854 -1.5

Hawaii ................................ 38.5 605.5 1.7 827 -1.0

Idaho .................................. 53.3 630.4 1.1 687 -1.4

Illinois ................................. 393.5 5,688.6 1.1 945 -1.4

Indiana ............................... 160.4 2,849.9 1.8 772 -1.7

Iowa ................................... 95.4 1,486.7 1.1 756 -0.5

Kansas ............................... 84.7 1,325.5 1.0 761 -1.4

Kentucky ............................ 111.3 1,779.5 1.2 751 -1.7

Louisiana ........................... 129.1 1,864.3 0.3 805 -1.8

Maine ................................. 49.6 597.0 0.2 722 -1.6

Maryland ............................ 167.5 2,533.3 1.4 1,007 -1.6

Massachusetts ................... 221.2 3,271.6 1.2 1,102 -1.2

Michigan ............................ 239.5 3,984.2 1.5 862 -1.5

Minnesota .......................... 170.2 2,675.4 1.1 915 0.0

Mississippi ......................... 68.7 1,089.4 0.6 672 -1.2

Missouri ............................. 178.2 2,628.8 0.7 793 -1.2

Montana ............................. 42.7 441.6 1.8 689 0.3

Nebraska ........................... 67.9 924.4 2.0 742 -0.5

Nevada .............................. 73.1 1,140.1 1.5 820 -3.0

New Hampshire ................. 49.2 620.6 1.1 874 -3.1

New Jersey ........................ 260.9 3,811.2 1.1 1,053 -1.8

New Mexico ....................... 55.5 788.7 0.0 761 -2.3

New York ........................... 608.8 8,616.8 1.2 1,088 -1.1

North Carolina .................... 258.8 3,934.1 1.6 806 -0.2

North Dakota ...................... 29.7 422.2 7.8 872 6.3

Ohio ................................... 288.0 5,073.0 1.1 828 -0.7

Oklahoma .......................... 104.7 1,545.6 1.3 779 -0.5

Oregon ............................... 134.2 1,667.3 1.2 834 0.0

Pennsylvania ..................... 353.0 5,598.4 0.6 899 -1.3

Rhode Island ...................... 35.5 460.5 0.8 855 -1.9

South Carolina ................... 112.7 1,814.7 1.3 738 -1.1

South Dakota ..................... 31.4 405.3 1.6 683 -0.1

Tennessee ......................... 141.8 2,674.3 1.7 814 -0.6

Texas ................................. 596.1 10,773.4 2.7 930 -0.2

Utah ................................... 86.0 1,231.0 3.3 766 -1.8

Vermont ............................. 24.5 302.0 1.2 763 -1.8

Virginia ............................... 241.9 3,631.1 0.9 960 -1.5

Washington ........................ 237.3 2,944.6 1.5 1,024 1.3

West Virginia ...................... 49.6 715.4 0.5 724 -2.4

Wisconsin .......................... 161.6 2,718.7 0.7 770 -2.7

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

third quarter 2012 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2011-12

Third

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

third quarter

2011-12

Wyoming ............................ 25.6 284.7 0.0 $828 -0.5

Puerto Rico ........................ 48.8 933.4 2.1 506 0.0

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 38.6 -9.8 711 -1.1

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

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

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 March 2013

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

September 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 March 2013

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

or more employees, third quarter 2011-12 (U.S. average = -1.1 percent)