For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, April 1, 2010 USDL-10-0393 

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 2009 

From September 2008 to September 2009, employment declined in 329 of the 334 largest U.S. counties 

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

located about 100 miles east of Chicago, posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 14.5 

percent over the year, compared with a national job decrease of 5.3 percent. Two-thirds of the 

employment decline in Elkhart occurred in manufacturing, which lost 10,868 jobs over the year (-21.6 

percent). Yakima County, Wash., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in 

employment among the largest counties in the U.S., with a gain of 1.7 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage fell over the year by 0.1 percent in the third quarter of 2009. This is the 

first time there has been an over-the-year average weekly wage decline for three consecutive quarters, 

and this decline is one of only five declines dating back to 1978, when these quarterly data were first 

comparable. (See Technical Note.) Employment and wage losses in the relatively high paid financial 

activities and manufacturing supersectors contributed significantly to the over-the-year decline in the 

U.S. average weekly wages for third quarter 2009. Average weekly wages fell 2.3 percent in financial 

activities and 0.2 percent in manufacturing. Among the large counties in the U.S., Rutherford, Tenn., 

had the largest over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2009, with a loss 

of 13.2 percent. Within Rutherford, manufacturing had the largest over-the-year decline in average 

weekly wages with a loss of 27.9 percent. Bell, Texas, experienced the largest growth in average weekly 

wages with a gain of 6.6 percent. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

employment, September 2008-09 

(U.S. average = -5.3 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

average weekly wages, third quarter 2008-09 

(U.S. average = -0.1 percent) 

-14.5

-11.0 -10.6 -10.4 -10.3

-15

-13

-11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Trumbull, 

Ohio

Clark, 

Nev.

Catawba, N.C. Macomb, 

Mich.

-13.2

-8.3

-5.8 -5.5 -5.2

-15

-13

-11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

Rutherford, 

Tenn.

Trumbull, 

Ohio

Olmsted, 

Minn.

Santa Cruz, 

Calif.

Lake, 

Ind.
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by September 2009 employment, September 2008-09 employment 

decrease, and September 2008-09 percent decrease in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

September 2009 employment Decrease in employment, Percent decrease in employment, 

(thousands) September 2008-09 September 2008-09 

 (thousands) 

 

United States 128,088.7 United States -7,109.1 United States -5.3 

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,858.5 Los Angeles, Calif. -278.0 Elkhart, Ind. -14.5 

Cook, Ill. 2,364.2 Maricopa, Ariz. -155.0 Trumbull, Ohio -11.0 

New York, N.Y. 2,240.3 Cook, Ill. -140.1 Clark, Nev. -10.6 

Harris, Texas 1,979.6 Orange, Calif. -126.4 Catawba, N.C. -10.4 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,605.7 New York, N.Y. -125.1 Macomb, Mich. -10.3 

Dallas, Texas 1,405.1 Clark, Nev. -95.4 Collier, Fla. -10.0 

Orange, Calif. 1,340.7 San Diego, Calif. -88.3 Oakland, Mich. -9.8 

San Diego, Calif. 1,229.1 Dallas, Texas -76.9 Washoe, Nev. -9.6 

King, Wash. 1,122.7 Santa Clara, Calif. -76.3 Marion, Fla. -9.5 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 935.1 King, Wash. -72.9 Winnebago, Ill. -9.3 

Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2008 annual average employment), 

147 had over-the-year percentage declines in employment greater than or equal to the national average 

(-5.3 percent) in September 2009; 182 large counties experienced smaller declines than the national 

average, while 2 counties experienced employment gains. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average 

weekly wages was equal to or lower than the national average (-0.1 percent) in 131 of the largest U.S. 

counties and was above the national average in 198 counties. (See chart 4.) 

The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled under the Quarterly Census of 

Employment and Wages (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 128.1 million full- and part-time workers. 

Large County Employment 

In September 2009, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 128.1 million, 

down by 5.3 percent from September 2008. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees 

accounted for 71.1 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.6 percent of total wages. These 334 

counties had a net job decline of 5,262,400 over the year, accounting for 74.0 percent of the overall U.S. 

employment decrease. 

Employment declined in 329 counties from September 2008 to September 2009. The largest percentage 

decline in employment was in Elkhart, Ind. (-14.5 percent). Trumbull, Ohio, had the next largest 

percentage decline (-11.0 percent), followed by the counties of Clark, Nev. (-10.6 percent), Catawba, 

N.C. (-10.4 percent), and Macomb, Mich. (-10.3 percent). The largest decline in employment levels 

occurred in Los Angeles, Calif. (-278,000), followed by the counties of Maricopa, Ariz. (-155,000), 

Cook, Ill. (-140,100), Orange, Calif. (-126,400), and New York, N.Y. (-125,100). (See table A.) 

Combined employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 824,600 or 11.6 percent of the 

employment decline for the U.S. as a whole. 

- 2 - 
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by third quarter 2009 average weekly wages, third quarter 2008-09 

decrease in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2008-09 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 2009 wage, third quarter 2008-09 weekly wage, third 

 quarter 2008-09 

 

United States $840 United States -$1 United States -0.1 

 

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,506 Rutherford, Tenn. -$111 Rutherford, Tenn. -13.2 

New York, N.Y. 1,500 San Mateo, Calif. -67 Trumbull, Ohio -8.3 

Washington, D.C. 1,450 Trumbull, Ohio -59 Olmsted, Minn. -5.8 

Arlington, Va. 1,413 Hennepin, Minn. -56 Santa Cruz, Calif. -5.5 

Fairfax, Va. 1,321 Olmsted, Minn. -55 Lake, Ind. -5.2 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,309 New York, N.Y. -53 Hennepin, Minn. -5.1 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,306 Santa Cruz, Calif. -44 San Mateo, Calif. -4.9 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,306 San Francisco, Calif. -43 Lorain, Ohio -4.1 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,268 Fairfield, Conn. -43 Williamson, Tenn. -4.1 

Somerset, N.J. 1,244 Lake, Ind. -40 New York, N.Y. -3.4 

Employment rose in two of the large counties from September 2008 to September 2009. Yakima, Wash., 

had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (1.7 percent) among the largest 

counties in the U.S. Bronx, N.Y., had the other employment increase (0.2 percent). 

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation fell 0.1 percent over the year in the third quarter of 2009. This is 

the third consecutive over-the-year decline in average weekly wages and one of only five declines dating 

back to 1978. Among the 334 largest counties, 131 had over-the-year decreases in average weekly 

wages in the third quarter. The largest wage loss occurred in Rutherford, Tenn., with a decline of 13.2 

percent from the third quarter of 2008. Trumbull, Ohio, had the second largest decline (-8.3 percent), 

followed by the counties of Olmsted, Minn. (-5.8 percent), Santa Cruz, Calif. (-5.5 percent), and Lake, 

Ind. (-5.2 percent). (See table B.) 

Of the 334 largest counties, 189 experienced growth in average weekly wages. Bell, Texas, led the 

nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 6.6 percent from the third quarter of 2008. 

Within Bell County, large wage gains occurred in federal government where average weekly wages 

grew 18.1 percent over the year. Harford, Md., had the second largest overall increase (6.2 percent), 

followed by the counties of Cumberland, N.C. (6.1 percent), Madison, Ala. (5.8 percent), and Arlington, 

Va. (4.8 percent). 

The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2009 was $840. Average weekly wages were 

higher than the national average in 112 of the 334 largest U.S. counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top 

position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,506. New York, 

N.Y., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,500, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,450), 

Arlington, Va. ($1,413), and Fairfax, Va. ($1,321). There were 222 counties with an average weekly 

wage below the national average in the third quarter of 2009. The lowest average weekly wage was 

- 3 - 
reported in Horry, S.C. ($534), followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($553), Hidalgo, Texas 

($564), Webb, Texas ($574), and Yakima, Wash. ($584). (See table 1.) 

Average weekly wages are affected not only by changes in total wages but also by employment changes 

in high- and low-paying industries. (See Technical Note.) The 0.1-percent over-the-year decrease in 

average weekly wages for the nation was partially due to large employment declines in high-paying 

industries such as manufacturing. (See table 2.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties (based on 2008 annual average employment levels) experienced over-theyear percent declines in employment in September 2009. Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the largest 

decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with an 8.8 percent decrease. Within Maricopa, 

every private industry group except education and health services experienced an employment decline, 

with construction experiencing the largest decline (-32.2 percent). (See table 2.) Orange, Calif., had the 

next largest decline in employment, 8.6 percent, followed by San Diego, Calif., and Los Angeles, Calif. 

(-6.7 percent each). Harris, Texas, experienced the smallest decline in employment (-3.4 percent) among 

the 10 largest counties. Dallas, Texas (-5.2 percent), and New York, N.Y. (-5.3 percent), had the second 

and third smallest employment losses respectively. 

Eight of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages. New 

York, N.Y., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties with 

a decrease of 3.4 percent. Within New York County, financial activities sustained the largest total wage 

loss (-$2.3 billion) over the year. Average weekly wages for this supersector fell by 7.3 percent. New 

York’s average weekly wage loss was followed by Cook, Ill. (-1.4 percent), and Dallas, Texas (-1.1 

percent). King, Wash., and Maricopa, Ariz., had the only wage increases among the 10 largest counties, 

with increases of 1.4 percent and 0.4 percent respectively. 

Largest County by State 

Table 3 shows September 2009 employment and the 2009 third quarter average weekly wage in the 

largest county in each state, which is based on 2008 annual average employment levels. The 

employment levels in the counties in table 3 in September 2009 ranged from 3.9 million in Los Angeles 

County, Calif., to 43,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties 

was in New York, N.Y. ($1,500), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. 

($691). 

- 4 - 
- 5 - 

For More Information 

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

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2008. September 2009 employment and 

2009 third quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. 

For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical 

Note. Data for the third quarter of 2009 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 2009 is scheduled to be released 

on Wednesday, July 7, 2010. 
Technical Note 

These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative program, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) 

program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived 

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

provided by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The summaries are 

a result of the administration of state unemployment insurance programs that require most employers to pay quarterly taxes based on 

the employment and wages of workers covered by UI. QCEW data 

in this release are based on the 2007 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2009 are preliminary and subject to 

revision. 

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

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

Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. 

averages, rankings, or in the analysis in the text. Each year, these 

large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual 

average of employment for the previous year. The 335 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2008 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2009 data, two counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Johnson, Iowa, and Gregg, 

Texas. These counties will be included in all 2009 quarterly releases. Two counties, Boone, Ky., and St. Tammany, La., which were 

published in the 2008 releases, will be excluded from this and 

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments in first quarter of 2009 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.8 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/ 
future 2009 releases because their 2008 annual average employment 

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

and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from 

the preceding year. 

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures 

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

QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a 

somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and 

publication product. 

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown 

in the table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) 

program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly 

reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers 

on behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to 

the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple 

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information 

on the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2008. 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 

2008, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 134.8 million 

jobs. The estimated 129.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.5 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received 

$6.142 trillion in pay, representing 93.8 percent of the wage and 

salary component of personal income and 42.5 percent of the gross 

domestic product. 

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

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

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

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes 

may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by 

employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may 

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using 

unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values 

that can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database 

may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly 

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

value of meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, 

and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred 

compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options. Overthe-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 

over-the-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an 

adjusted version of the final 2008 quarterly data as the base data. 

The adjusted prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year 

percent change in employment and wages are not published. These 

adjusted prior-year levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS Web site. Over-the-year change calculations 

based on data from the Web site, or from data published in prior 

BLS news releases, may differ substantially from the over-the-year 

changes presented in this news release. 

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

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

The most common adjustments for administrative change are the 

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

changes involving the classification of establishments that were 

previously reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, 

adjusted data account for administrative changes caused by multiunit employers who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted 

data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the 

Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown 

as counties include those designated as independent cities in some 

jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where 

counties have not been created. County data also are presented for 

the New England states for comparative purposes even though 

townships are the more common designation used in New England 

(and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined 

as census regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2008 edition 

of this bulletin contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2009 version of this news release. 

Tables and additional content from the 2008 Employment and 

Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn08.htm. These tables present final 

2008 annual averages. The tables are included on the CD which 

accompanies the hardcopy version of the Annual Bulletin. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2008 will be available for 

sale as a chartbook from the United States Government Printing 

Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, 

PA 15250, telephone (866) 512-1800, outside Washington, D.C. 

Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number is (202) 512-1800. 

The fax number is (202) 512-2104. 

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 335 largest counties,

third quarter 2009 2

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,066.0 128,088.7 -5.3 – $840 -0.1 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.3 333.2 -7.0 267 861 -0.5 230

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 178.2 -2.8 39 967 5.8 4

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 163.7 -6.8 263 744 4.2 9

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 129.6 -6.1 226 743 2.2 55

Shelby, AL ......................... 4.9 70.2 -7.4 287 792 -1.7 290

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 82.1 -6.2 235 730 0.1 177

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 150.4 -1.2 10 942 2.1 60

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 98.8 1,605.7 -8.8 318 838 0.4 159

Pima, AZ ............................ 20.3 349.0 -6.1 226 753 0.9 118

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 91.2 -4.2 108 755 -1.0 260

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.0 241.7 -4.2 108 789 2.6 33

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 89.1 -3.4 68 687 1.0 113

Alameda, CA ...................... 52.9 628.5 -8.3 308 1,101 -1.4 280

Butte, CA ........................... 7.9 72.0 -6.2 235 668 1.4 96

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.5 316.7 -6.7 256 1,027 -0.8 248

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.3 345.8 -7.4 287 672 2.1 60

Kern, CA ............................ 17.9 275.4 -6.2 235 730 -1.9 295

Los Angeles, CA ................ 422.5 3,858.5 -6.7 256 942 -0.8 248

Marin, CA ........................... 11.6 100.2 -8.3 308 1,021 -0.6 237

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.6 177.4 -4.1 100 740 -1.2 273

Orange, CA ........................ 99.8 1,340.7 -8.6 314 948 -0.7 244

Placer, CA .......................... 10.7 123.2 -9.1 321 832 0.8 124

Riverside, CA ..................... 47.1 549.0 -8.7 317 711 -0.4 219

Sacramento, CA ................ 53.5 590.8 -5.5 194 943 -0.9 252

San Bernardino, CA ........... 49.5 594.0 -7.9 302 748 1.1 109

San Diego, CA ................... 96.5 1,229.1 -6.7 256 918 -0.4 219

San Francisco, CA ............. 51.5 544.0 -5.3 185 1,309 -3.2 315

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.6 209.5 -7.3 281 745 0.1 177

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.5 98.0 -6.5 253 722 1.0 113

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.5 318.0 -7.3 281 1,306 -4.9 323

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.2 179.4 -5.9 219 796 1.5 89

Santa Clara, CA ................. 60.1 835.1 -8.4 312 1,506 -1.6 285

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.0 97.6 -4.0 94 754 -5.5 326

Solano, CA ......................... 10.0 120.5 -5.2 176 855 0.1 177

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.5 177.1 -8.2 304 821 -0.4 219

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.9 166.0 -6.3 240 737 2.2 55

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.5 149.1 -6.3 240 604 0.8 124

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.4 292.4 -7.4 287 865 -0.2 207

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.9 99.1 -4.8 148 838 1.0 113

Adams, CO ........................ 9.2 149.8 -5.8 211 788 -0.1 199

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.4 271.1 -4.3 116 990 -1.2 273

Boulder, CO ....................... 13.0 152.4 -4.7 140 976 -3.1 312

Denver, CO ........................ 25.6 419.3 -7.0 267 1,040 0.0 190

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.6 89.7 -5.4 189 904 4.4 8

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.3 233.4 -4.8 148 798 2.4 45

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.4 203.3 -4.5 128 880 0.8 124

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.3 127.3 -4.9 162 772 0.3 163

Weld, CO ........................... 6.0 78.6 -7.0 267 716 -1.6 285

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.9 398.9 -4.8 148 1,268 -3.3 318

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.5 484.1 -4.7 140 1,020 0.8 124

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

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT ................. 22.5 347.5 -4.5 128 $912 0.1 177

New London, CT ................ 7.0 126.6 -4.4 121 870 0.8 124

New Castle, DE ................. 18.0 263.6 -5.8 211 985 0.6 143

Washington, DC ................. 34.4 682.6 -1.1 9 1,450 4.2 9

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 115.7 -5.5 194 744 2.9 22

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.6 187.2 -5.6 200 808 2.0 65

Broward, FL ....................... 62.7 673.9 -7.3 281 797 -0.1 199

Collier, FL .......................... 11.8 104.6 -10.0 326 739 -1.1 266

Duval, FL ........................... 26.7 430.1 -6.0 224 810 1.1 109

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 118.9 -5.0 166 684 2.5 38

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.0 560.0 -7.3 281 830 2.6 33

Lake, FL ............................. 7.3 78.8 -6.7 256 591 -1.7 290

Lee, FL ............................... 18.7 186.1 -8.4 312 703 -0.3 213

Leon, FL ............................. 8.1 138.6 -3.2 61 747 0.0 190

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.1 104.7 -6.9 266 659 0.2 170

Marion, FL .......................... 8.1 89.3 -9.5 323 607 0.7 136

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 84.1 935.1 -5.8 211 839 -0.2 207

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 76.4 -3.1 50 701 1.7 77

Orange, FL ......................... 35.1 638.4 -6.8 263 759 -0.5 230

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.0 480.8 -7.5 293 810 -0.4 219

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.8 94.6 -4.6 135 590 -0.7 244

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.8 387.4 -6.7 256 738 0.3 163

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 186.2 -6.3 240 680 0.1 177

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.7 130.7 -7.7 298 707 -0.4 219

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.1 155.8 -8.9 319 696 -2.2 297

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.6 149.3 -7.3 281 618 0.8 124

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 80.2 -5.9 219 682 1.9 67

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.7 127.0 -6.3 240 732 1.0 113

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 107.6 -4.0 94 786 -0.3 213

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.7 293.0 -7.2 277 898 -1.1 266

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.6 275.6 -5.9 219 897 1.6 82

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.4 693.5 -6.7 256 1,087 0.6 143

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.8 292.8 -7.8 301 832 -1.3 278

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 91.1 -4.5 128 700 3.7 14

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 97.3 -4.4 121 746 1.9 67

Honolulu, HI ....................... 25.1 428.1 -4.0 94 818 2.4 45

Ada, ID ............................... 14.6 193.3 -8.3 308 754 1.2 106

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 88.7 -4.8 148 745 2.3 53

Cook, IL ............................. 142.0 2,364.2 -5.6 200 975 -1.4 280

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.2 547.3 -6.8 263 964 -2.7 307

Kane, IL ............................. 12.9 192.5 -8.2 304 759 -0.5 230

Lake, IL .............................. 21.2 316.8 -6.2 235 1,001 -3.3 318

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.5 95.9 -7.7 298 705 -3.0 311

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 84.0 -3.8 83 834 2.2 55

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 92.5 -4.3 116 720 0.1 177

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 97.6 -8.3 308 803 -0.9 252

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 74.3 -7.1 272 859 3.9 11

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 93.6 -4.9 162 711 2.4 45

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 125.9 -3.1 50 880 3.7 14

Will, IL ................................ 14.2 189.6 -5.8 211 746 -1.2 273

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

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 123.5 -9.3 322 $738 0.1 177

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 171.3 -6.1 226 701 -0.3 213

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 95.6 -14.5 331 682 2.4 45

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.9 108.4 -6.3 240 790 -2.2 297

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 184.3 -6.2 235 731 -5.2 325

Marion, IN .......................... 23.9 546.7 -5.1 169 856 0.2 170

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 114.7 -7.0 267 709 0.1 177

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 72.1 -7.1 272 740 2.2 55

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 103.4 -4.8 148 702 0.0 190

Johnson, IA ........................ 3.5 74.9 -1.6 15 793 0.5 148

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 123.0 -2.9 41 802 -2.8 308

Polk, IA .............................. 14.8 267.5 -3.3 64 831 0.0 190

Scott, IA ............................. 5.3 85.2 -5.7 205 686 -1.3 278

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.9 299.4 -5.6 200 858 -0.9 252

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.5 241.5 -6.1 226 755 -0.9 252

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 92.9 -3.6 76 724 1.5 89

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 78.8 -2.7 35 812 -2.2 297

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.2 171.0 -3.1 50 766 1.6 82

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.7 409.1 -3.8 83 812 1.2 106

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.4 120.2 -4.0 94 708 -1.7 290

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 83.0 -3.6 76 726 -2.3 302

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.6 259.3 -0.8 6 815 2.6 33

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.1 192.7 -1.2 10 787 1.4 96

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.0 128.5 -4.7 140 802 -2.8 308

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.7 166.3 -1.3 14 925 0.8 124

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.2 167.8 -3.9 89 773 0.8 124

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.3 227.3 -2.9 41 927 3.5 17

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.2 360.6 -4.1 100 873 1.6 82

Frederick, MD .................... 5.9 91.7 -3.7 78 844 2.7 27

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 81.1 -2.7 35 834 6.2 2

Howard, MD ....................... 8.7 143.9 -3.7 78 1,021 3.9 11

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.3 443.0 -3.1 50 1,144 2.1 60

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 300.8 -4.1 100 951 1.9 67

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.7 324.3 -4.2 108 981 -0.2 207

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.0 94.4 -2.6 29 706 -0.3 213

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.4 206.7 -5.2 176 753 0.4 159

Essex, MA .......................... 20.8 291.9 -3.3 64 889 0.0 190

Hampden, MA .................... 14.7 192.8 -3.7 78 799 1.8 70

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.3 791.7 -4.3 116 1,194 -0.3 213

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.4 310.9 -4.4 121 968 -0.1 199

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.6 171.5 -3.4 68 789 0.5 148

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.9 571.3 -3.9 89 1,306 -1.1 266

Worcester, MA ................... 20.6 306.2 -4.8 148 854 -0.5 230

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.6 127.7 -6.1 226 719 -2.3 302

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.7 149.4 -6.4 249 820 1.5 89

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 108.0 -5.8 211 768 -2.2 297

Kent, MI ............................. 14.2 304.3 -7.6 295 768 1.3 103

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.4 269.4 -10.3 327 854 0.1 177

Oakland, MI ....................... 38.4 607.3 -9.8 325 937 -3.1 312

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 102.8 -7.6 295 685 -3.2 315

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

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.3 80.3 -4.8 148 $704 0.6 143

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 180.4 -4.2 108 958 1.5 89

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.6 660.0 -8.6 314 918 -2.5 306

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.6 106.5 -7.4 287 764 -0.8 248

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.3 166.6 -4.8 148 798 -0.4 219

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.3 794.9 -5.5 194 1,047 -5.1 324

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.5 87.5 -3.5 73 894 -5.8 327

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.8 317.2 -5.7 205 920 -1.4 280

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.8 92.0 -6.3 240 690 -1.0 260

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.4 77.6 -5.6 200 703 2.9 22

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 84.1 -2.9 41 652 -1.8 293

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.3 124.1 -2.3 25 760 2.4 45

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 80.7 -3.1 50 691 4.7 6

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 86.6 -5.7 205 785 2.7 27

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 148.8 -5.2 176 666 2.0 65

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.4 353.1 -4.4 121 858 0.7 136

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 118.0 -4.8 148 679 -2.4 304

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.2 568.8 -5.7 205 893 0.2 170

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.6 219.5 ( 7) – 904 ( 7) – 

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.9 76.6 -2.6 29 691 0.1 177

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.8 311.0 -2.9 41 795 -3.2 315

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.2 154.5 -2.9 41 698 1.6 82

Clark, NV ........................... 49.7 808.7 -10.6 329 804 -1.0 260

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.4 188.2 -9.6 324 800 0.5 148

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.1 186.2 -5.3 185 933 0.8 124

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.8 132.7 -4.3 116 792 -0.6 237

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.9 137.8 -6.3 240 737 -0.5 230

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.0 425.1 -4.7 140 1,035 0.3 163

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.3 194.5 -3.1 50 904 0.7 136

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.9 196.8 -4.8 148 845 -0.6 237

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.1 340.6 -4.2 108 1,059 1.7 77

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 99.1 -5.8 211 763 -0.4 219

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.9 229.9 -3.8 83 1,170 0.0 190

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 222.9 -3.5 73 1,071 0.5 148

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.8 377.8 -5.5 194 1,019 -0.9 252

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.5 246.6 -4.2 108 889 0.1 177

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.9 270.1 -5.1 169 1,203 0.4 159

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.3 149.9 -2.2 24 699 1.5 89

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.4 167.0 -4.7 140 890 1.8 70

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.1 165.3 -4.9 162 1,244 0.1 177

Union, NJ ........................... 14.8 217.6 -5.1 169 1,036 0.2 170

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 318.0 -5.4 189 776 1.7 77

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 220.9 -3.3 64 905 2.6 33

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.4 230.1 0.2 2 850 1.8 70

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 92.4 -3.1 50 697 0.0 190

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 111.1 -3.8 83 885 3.0 21

Erie, NY ............................. 23.6 449.0 -3.2 61 739 0.5 148

Kings, NY ........................... 48.0 477.8 -0.3 4 737 -0.1 199

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.0 366.8 -3.9 89 813 -0.4 219

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.4 580.9 -3.1 50 922 0.8 124

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

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New York, NY .................... 118.4 2,240.3 -5.3 185 $1,500 -3.4 320

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 108.2 -1.2 10 681 1.3 103

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 243.8 -4.5 128 791 ( 7) – 

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 128.6 -2.7 35 729 2.5 38

Queens, NY ....................... 44.2 493.7 -3.3 64 843 1.0 113

Richmond, NY .................... 8.8 91.8 -1.8 16 761 -1.2 273

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.8 111.5 -4.1 100 891 -1.5 283

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 74.4 -2.4 26 719 1.4 96

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.4 602.1 -4.1 100 955 -1.6 285

Westchester, NY ................ 36.1 400.2 -4.7 140 1,058 ( 7) – 

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.8 109.6 -5.1 169 669 0.9 118

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 76.2 -10.4 328 640 0.5 148

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 118.4 -1.9 18 692 6.1 3

Durham, NC ....................... 7.0 178.8 -3.7 78 1,148 3.2 19

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 175.8 -5.4 189 769 0.3 163

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.3 256.5 -7.4 287 753 -0.8 248

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.2 534.6 -6.5 253 950 -0.9 252

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.3 96.8 -6.7 256 710 2.5 38

Wake, NC .......................... 28.3 428.7 -5.4 189 837 0.5 148

Cass, ND ........................... 5.9 99.2 -2.0 19 734 1.4 96

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 136.6 -7.2 277 746 1.1 109

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 36.9 687.4 -6.1 226 851 -0.2 207

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.5 646.3 -4.4 121 851 0.0 190

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.6 489.7 -4.8 148 926 -1.1 266

Lake, OH ............................ 6.6 92.6 -7.7 298 696 1.8 70

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.2 92.1 -7.1 272 681 -4.1 321

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.6 199.6 -5.7 205 741 0.5 148

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.3 97.5 -4.8 148 615 0.0 190

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.6 241.8 -7.2 277 763 -2.8 308

Stark, OH ........................... 8.9 148.7 -7.6 295 650 -0.6 237

Summit, OH ....................... 14.8 254.2 -7.2 277 758 0.5 148

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 67.9 -11.0 330 655 -8.3 328

Warren, OH ........................ 4.2 73.8 -3.9 89 714 -0.4 219

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.9 408.9 -4.4 121 799 1.7 77

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.7 329.7 -6.4 249 772 0.7 136

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.6 138.3 -8.9 319 784 0.9 118

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 76.9 -7.9 302 645 1.6 82

Lane, OR ........................... 10.9 135.0 -8.2 304 672 -1.8 293

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 137.6 -5.1 169 690 2.5 38

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.2 420.9 -6.6 255 863 0.6 143

Washington, OR ................ 16.2 229.7 -7.5 293 975 -1.2 273

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.1 666.5 -2.9 41 881 -0.5 230

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 160.3 -4.8 148 762 -1.0 260

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.8 247.9 -5.3 185 824 0.7 136

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 79.1 -2.6 29 736 -1.6 285

Chester, PA ....................... 15.1 232.9 -4.7 140 1,024 -0.5 230

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 119.7 -5.2 176 785 1.7 77

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 178.1 -2.9 41 820 -0.1 199

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.5 202.2 -4.2 108 882 0.2 170

Erie, PA .............................. 7.5 121.1 -5.9 219 676 -0.6 237

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

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 97.7 -3.7 78 $659 1.4 96

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.5 217.7 -5.2 176 733 1.8 70

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 170.4 -4.5 128 849 2.4 45

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 138.0 -4.1 100 666 0.3 163

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.4 462.8 -4.6 135 1,018 0.8 124

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 97.1 -2.8 39 746 0.4 159

Philadelphia, PA ................ 31.4 616.9 -3.1 50 1,020 0.1 177

Washington, PA ................. 5.4 78.1 -4.0 94 752 1.3 103

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.4 130.5 -5.1 169 682 -0.9 252

York, PA ............................. 9.0 168.4 -5.7 205 749 1.2 106

Kent, RI .............................. 5.6 72.9 -7.3 281 736 0.7 136

Providence, RI ................... 17.8 266.0 -5.6 200 825 2.5 38

Charleston, SC .................. 12.0 199.2 -6.3 240 741 2.5 38

Greenville, SC .................... 12.4 221.3 -7.4 287 727 -0.4 219

Horry, SC ........................... 8.0 109.4 -7.0 267 534 0.2 170

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 91.7 -6.4 249 647 -1.1 266

Richland, SC ...................... 9.2 204.5 -5.1 169 768 2.7 27

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.1 110.7 -7.1 272 723 -1.5 283

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 113.2 -2.6 29 723 1.1 109

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.3 416.6 -4.5 128 858 -0.2 207

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 176.0 -8.6 314 743 3.2 19

Knox, TN ............................ 11.0 216.3 -5.2 176 715 -0.1 199

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 92.6 -5.8 211 730 -13.2 329

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.6 468.0 -6.3 240 852 -0.6 237

Williamson, TN ................... 6.0 84.2 -4.6 135 879 -4.1 321

Bell, TX .............................. 4.6 102.6 -0.7 5 696 6.6 1

Bexar, TX ........................... 33.0 709.3 -3.0 49 752 2.7 27

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.7 82.7 -4.2 108 780 -2.0 296

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 86.0 ( 7) – 653 ( 7) – 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 121.7 -1.0 8 553 2.8 24

Collin, TX ........................... 17.4 277.9 ( 7) – 976 -3.1 312

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.7 1,405.1 -5.2 176 1,012 -1.1 266

Denton, TX ......................... 10.7 164.8 -3.4 68 746 -0.1 199

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.5 264.4 -2.5 27 619 2.8 24

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.6 127.9 -1.8 16 863 -0.7 244

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 92.5 -2.6 29 805 0.2 170

Gregg, TX .......................... 4.0 71.0 -4.9 162 717 -2.2 297

Harris, TX ........................... 98.2 1,979.6 -3.4 68 1,044 -0.6 237

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.6 213.5 -0.8 6 564 2.7 27

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 118.2 -5.0 166 841 2.6 33

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.8 122.5 -2.0 19 643 0.3 163

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 101.3 -2.1 21 692 1.8 70

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.4 124.9 -1.2 10 768 -2.4 304

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 149.6 -3.4 68 721 -1.0 260

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 74.1 -2.1 21 721 1.5 89

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 90.7 -4.0 94 738 ( 7) – 

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.2 740.9 -3.8 83 839 -0.1 199

Travis, TX .......................... 29.4 555.4 -4.3 116 932 0.8 124

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 83.8 -5.2 176 574 2.5 38

Williamson, TX ................... 7.3 118.8 -2.5 27 792 -1.1 266

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

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 101.0 -2.9 41 $678 2.1 60

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.5 560.7 -5.0 166 800 0.5 148

Utah, UT ............................ 12.8 165.2 -6.0 224 663 -0.3 213

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 89.2 -6.1 226 652 2.4 45

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.0 91.9 -3.9 89 851 1.6 82

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.0 157.9 -0.1 3 1,413 4.8 5

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 113.1 -4.7 140 779 0.5 148

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.2 568.2 -2.7 35 1,321 1.8 70

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 167.5 -6.1 226 849 -0.7 244

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.2 128.7 -3.5 73 1,013 0.9 118

Prince William, VA ............. 7.4 102.0 -2.1 21 789 2.1 60

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 97.5 -2.6 29 1,212 4.6 7

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 93.7 -5.8 211 696 2.4 45

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 95.4 -3.8 83 788 2.3 53

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.9 137.3 -4.1 100 826 1.6 82

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.3 149.4 -4.6 135 952 0.7 136

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.5 165.6 -4.6 135 666 1.4 96

Clark, WA ........................... 12.9 127.8 -5.2 176 778 0.3 163

King, WA ............................ 79.4 1,122.7 -6.1 226 1,177 1.4 96

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.7 81.5 -3.1 50 794 3.8 13

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.4 263.5 -5.4 189 804 3.7 14

Snohomish, WA ................. 18.4 240.5 -6.4 249 887 3.5 17

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.9 200.9 -4.8 148 720 2.7 27

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.2 97.3 -4.1 100 810 2.8 24

Whatcom, WA .................... 7.0 78.5 -5.5 194 693 2.2 55

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.6 112.7 1.7 1 584 0.9 118

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 105.2 -3.2 61 750 1.5 89

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 142.6 -4.4 121 746 -0.9 252

Dane, WI ............................ 13.9 291.6 -4.5 128 822 0.6 143

Milwaukee, WI ................... 20.9 470.7 -5.9 219 834 -0.2 207

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 100.2 -5.5 194 711 -1.0 260

Racine, WI ......................... 4.1 70.4 -8.2 304 742 -1.6 285

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.9 218.9 -7.1 272 834 -0.4 219

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 87.3 -3.1 50 776 0.9 118

San Juan, PR ..................... 12.3 266.2 -5.7 ( 8) 594 4.0 ( 8) 

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

These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.1 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

third quarter 2009 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,066.0 128,088.7 -5.3 $840 -0.1

Private industry .............................................. 8,771.6 106,481.7 -6.2 828 -0.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 126.3 1,866.9 -7.1 836 -5.1

Construction ............................................... 837.9 5,957.4 -17.9 934 1.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 351.9 11,624.2 -12.9 1,005 -0.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,892.5 24,412.0 -6.0 711 -1.0

Information ................................................. 145.9 2,767.5 -7.0 1,317 -1.3

Financial activities ...................................... 839.2 7,507.9 -5.2 1,180 -2.3

Professional and business services ........... 1,531.0 16,316.4 -8.1 1,060 1.4

Education and health services ................... 871.0 18,290.1 1.6 819 2.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 741.7 13,180.4 -2.9 357 -0.3

Other services ............................................ 1,241.5 4,339.9 -3.3 543 -0.2

Government ................................................... 294.4 21,607.1 -0.4 907 2.4

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 422.5 3,858.5 -6.7 942 -0.8

Private industry .............................................. 418.6 3,306.5 -7.5 914 -1.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.3 -12.3 1,296 5.1

Construction ............................................... 13.6 112.8 -21.8 1,023 3.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 14.0 380.4 -12.7 1,025 2.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 52.6 728.1 -8.0 763 -1.0

Information ................................................. 8.7 194.3 -9.7 1,598 1.7

Financial activities ...................................... 23.2 216.6 -7.2 1,341 -9.6

Professional and business services ........... 42.4 517.8 -11.1 1,124 1.5

Education and health services ................... 28.4 493.0 0.8 910 2.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.3 382.6 -5.2 528 -2.0

Other services ............................................ 200.1 262.2 1.6 417 -4.8

Government ................................................... 3.9 552.0 -1.9 1,113 -0.6

Cook, IL .............................................................. 142.0 2,364.2 -5.6 975 -1.4

Private industry .............................................. 140.6 2,058.2 -6.3 964 -2.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.1 -6.5 973 -2.2

Construction ............................................... 12.3 76.5 -17.2 1,271 -0.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.9 198.0 -12.0 1,004 0.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.5 430.9 -7.0 764 -2.7

Information ................................................. 2.6 52.2 ( 6) 1,363 -12.2

Financial activities ...................................... 15.4 192.2 -6.4 1,525 -1.6

Professional and business services ........... 29.3 393.4 -9.4 1,241 -0.9

Education and health services ................... 14.4 386.5 1.5 864 -0.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.1 230.2 -2.8 443 -0.7

Other services ............................................ 14.9 92.8 -4.3 723 2.3

Government ................................................... 1.4 306.1 -0.9 1,051 4.2

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.4 2,240.3 -5.3 1,500 -3.4

Private industry .............................................. 118.1 1,799.5 -6.3 1,609 -3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -15.9 1,948 7.4

Construction ............................................... 2.3 32.4 -16.0 1,551 1.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.7 28.2 -19.4 1,195 1.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 227.1 -9.0 1,107 -1.9

Information ................................................. 4.4 125.5 -7.8 1,907 -3.6

Financial activities ...................................... 18.8 344.3 -8.3 2,762 -7.3

Professional and business services ........... 24.9 450.7 -8.5 1,793 -0.3

Education and health services ................... 8.8 284.4 0.9 1,089 2.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.8 214.6 -2.8 733 -2.0

Other services ............................................ 18.2 85.4 -4.2 935 1.7

Government ................................................... 0.3 440.8 -0.7 1,058 3.0

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

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 98.2 1,979.6 -3.4 $1,044 -0.6

Private industry .............................................. 97.6 1,724.8 -4.1 1,048 -1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 81.3 ( 6) 2,579 -0.6

Construction ............................................... 6.7 138.7 -11.9 1,033 2.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 169.4 -10.7 1,278 0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.3 411.9 -3.7 897 -2.1

Information ................................................. 1.4 30.0 -5.5 1,217 -5.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.4 114.4 -4.2 1,212 -5.1

Professional and business services ........... 19.6 310.9 -7.3 1,245 0.8

Education and health services ................... 10.6 231.0 5.6 871 0.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.8 177.4 1.7 389 1.3

Other services ............................................ 12.2 58.8 -1.2 608 0.0

Government ................................................... 0.5 254.8 ( 6) 1,013 ( 6) 

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 98.8 1,605.7 -8.8 838 0.4

Private industry .............................................. 98.2 1,387.1 -9.7 826 0.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.4 -8.5 716 -14.6

Construction ............................................... 10.0 88.8 -32.2 869 -1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 107.5 -13.9 1,133 -0.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.4 333.8 -7.6 767 -0.3

Information ................................................. 1.5 27.6 -8.1 1,077 -1.1

Financial activities ...................................... 12.1 133.7 -5.8 997 -0.7

Professional and business services ........... 22.0 258.8 -12.1 893 3.7

Education and health services ................... 10.3 217.4 0.2 917 1.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 164.5 -7.0 398 0.5

Other services ............................................ 7.1 46.6 -6.2 559 -4.9

Government ................................................... 0.7 218.6 -3.0 921 0.7

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.7 1,405.1 -5.2 1,012 -1.1

Private industry .............................................. 67.2 1,237.9 -5.8 1,015 -1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.3 -0.1 2,857 -41.2

Construction ............................................... 4.2 72.0 -15.4 940 2.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 119.0 -11.6 1,150 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 283.1 -6.1 941 -1.2

Information ................................................. 1.6 44.9 -6.2 1,436 -0.8

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 137.2 ( 6) 1,295 ( 6) 

Professional and business services ........... 14.7 249.5 -9.3 1,158 0.7

Education and health services ................... 6.8 159.4 ( 6) 941 1.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.4 126.4 ( 6) 454 ( 6) 

Other services ............................................ 6.8 37.5 -3.9 635 1.3

Government ................................................... 0.5 167.2 -0.7 990 ( 6) 

Orange, CA ........................................................ 99.8 1,340.7 -8.6 948 -0.7

Private industry .............................................. 98.4 1,204.3 -9.1 936 -1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 4.0 -6.6 647 -6.8

Construction ............................................... 6.7 70.4 -22.9 1,099 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.2 150.1 -13.4 1,145 1.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.7 245.4 -9.0 875 0.1

Information ................................................. 1.3 26.7 -8.8 1,350 -13.8

Financial activities ...................................... 10.2 104.1 ( 6) 1,290 -4.7

Professional and business services ........... 19.0 234.7 -12.0 1,087 0.5

Education and health services ................... 10.2 148.1 -1.7 931 4.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 170.8 -4.0 413 -1.0

Other services ............................................ 19.3 47.2 -4.3 525 -3.1

Government ................................................... 1.4 136.4 -4.0 1,058 2.8

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

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 96.5 1,229.1 -6.7 $918 -0.4

Private industry .............................................. 95.2 1,014.7 -7.7 890 -1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 10.3 -9.5 557 -1.9

Construction ............................................... 6.7 58.6 -22.9 1,032 4.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 93.0 -10.4 1,229 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.9 196.7 -8.3 732 ( 6) 

Information ................................................. 1.2 36.2 -6.7 1,824 -18.8

Financial activities ...................................... 9.0 69.4 -6.5 1,069 -2.4

Professional and business services ........... 16.2 193.5 -10.1 1,137 0.3

Education and health services ................... 8.3 141.6 2.6 887 1.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 156.3 -6.3 407 -2.9

Other services ............................................ 26.8 56.7 -3.1 488 0.4

Government ................................................... 1.3 214.5 -1.6 1,052 3.5

King, WA ............................................................ 79.4 1,122.7 -6.1 1,177 1.4

Private industry .............................................. 78.8 968.6 -7.1 1,191 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.0 -5.7 1,042 -19.7

Construction ............................................... 6.5 53.8 -24.8 1,123 3.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 100.5 -10.2 1,321 4.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.0 205.6 -6.1 920 -0.1

Information ................................................. 1.8 79.1 -2.2 3,385 0.7

Financial activities ...................................... 6.8 67.7 -8.3 1,307 -4.7

Professional and business services ........... 14.1 171.8 -11.2 1,257 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 6.8 130.0 3.3 896 3.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 109.6 -5.2 455 ( 6) 

Other services ............................................ 18.6 47.5 0.4 600 -0.3

Government ................................................... 0.5 154.1 0.8 1,093 3.6

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 84.1 935.1 -5.8 839 -0.2

Private industry .............................................. 83.8 789.2 -6.3 803 0.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.9 -6.4 485 -1.0

Construction ............................................... 5.7 34.2 -22.3 862 1.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 36.1 -16.9 763 2.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.1 231.7 -6.9 742 -0.3

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.2 -9.1 1,208 -1.5

Financial activities ...................................... 9.6 61.5 -8.2 1,147 -1.5

Professional and business services ........... 17.6 119.7 -8.6 1,020 1.3

Education and health services ................... 9.6 147.7 2.6 826 0.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.1 100.1 -1.4 474 0.6

Other services ............................................ 7.5 34.0 -6.7 539 2.1

Government ................................................... 0.4 146.0 -3.1 1,041 -1.6

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

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

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

state, third quarter 2009 2

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,066.0 128,088.7 -5.3 $840 -0.1

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.3 333.2 -7.0 861 -0.5

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 150.4 -1.2 942 2.1

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 98.8 1,605.7 -8.8 838 0.4

Pulaski, AR ............................... 15.0 241.7 -4.2 789 2.6

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 422.5 3,858.5 -6.7 942 -0.8

Denver, CO .............................. 25.6 419.3 -7.0 1,040 0.0

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.5 484.1 -4.7 1,020 0.8

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.0 263.6 -5.8 985 0.6

Washington, DC ....................... 34.4 682.6 -1.1 1,450 4.2

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 84.1 935.1 -5.8 839 -0.2

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.4 693.5 -6.7 1,087 0.6

Honolulu, HI .............................. 25.1 428.1 -4.0 818 2.4

Ada, ID ..................................... 14.6 193.3 -8.3 754 1.2

Cook, IL .................................... 142.0 2,364.2 -5.6 975 -1.4

Marion, IN ................................. 23.9 546.7 -5.1 856 0.2

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.8 267.5 -3.3 831 0.0

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.9 299.4 -5.6 858 -0.9

Jefferson, KY ............................ 21.7 409.1 -3.8 812 1.2

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.6 259.3 -0.8 815 2.6

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.2 167.8 -3.9 773 0.8

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.3 443.0 -3.1 1,144 2.1

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.3 791.7 -4.3 1,194 -0.3

Wayne, MI ................................ 31.6 660.0 -8.6 918 -2.5

Hennepin, MN .......................... 42.3 794.9 -5.5 1,047 -5.1

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.3 124.1 -2.3 760 2.4

St. Louis, MO ............................ 32.2 568.8 -5.7 893 0.2

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.9 76.6 -2.6 691 0.1

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.8 311.0 -2.9 795 -3.2

Clark, NV .................................. 49.7 808.7 -10.6 804 -1.0

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.1 186.2 -5.3 933 0.8

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.0 425.1 -4.7 1,035 0.3

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.6 318.0 -5.4 776 1.7

New York, NY ........................... 118.4 2,240.3 -5.3 1,500 -3.4

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 32.2 534.6 -6.5 950 -0.9

Cass, ND .................................. 5.9 99.2 -2.0 734 1.4

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 36.9 687.4 -6.1 851 -0.2

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.9 408.9 -4.4 799 1.7

Multnomah, OR ........................ 28.2 420.9 -6.6 863 0.6

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.1 666.5 -2.9 881 -0.5

Providence, RI .......................... 17.8 266.0 -5.6 825 2.5

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.4 221.3 -7.4 727 -0.4

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.5 113.2 -2.6 723 1.1

Shelby, TN ................................ 19.6 468.0 -6.3 852 -0.6

Harris, TX ................................. 98.2 1,979.6 -3.4 1,044 -0.6

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 37.5 560.7 -5.0 800 0.5

Chittenden, VT ......................... 6.0 91.9 -3.9 851 1.6

Fairfax, VA ................................ 34.2 568.2 -2.7 1,321 1.8

King, WA .................................. 79.4 1,122.7 -6.1 1,177 1.4

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.0 105.2 -3.2 750 1.5

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 20.9 470.7 -5.9 834 -0.2

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, third quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 43.5 -2.0 $739 2.8

San Juan, PR ........................... 12.3 266.2 -5.7 594 4.0

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 22.5 -4.4 679 4.8

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

(UCFE) programs. 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.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

third quarter 2009 2

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09

United States 4 ................... 9,066.0 128,088.7 -5.3 $840 -0.1

Alabama ............................. 117.7 1,814.8 -6.3 744 1.8

Alaska ................................ 21.3 329.3 -0.9 887 1.6

Arizona ............................... 155.0 2,365.2 -8.0 800 0.3

Arkansas ............................ 86.1 1,137.0 -3.9 658 1.1

California ............................ 1,354.4 14,494.0 -6.6 950 -0.9

Colorado ............................ 176.3 2,188.1 -5.8 876 -0.1

Connecticut ........................ 112.5 1,611.1 -4.8 1,024 -0.9

Delaware ............................ 29.0 401.9 -5.0 881 0.5

District of Columbia ............ 34.4 682.6 -1.1 1,450 4.2

Florida ................................ 598.2 7,047.8 -6.5 759 0.4

Georgia .............................. 271.5 3,757.9 -6.4 800 0.8

Hawaii ................................ 39.6 585.1 -4.8 788 1.9

Idaho .................................. 56.2 624.3 -6.2 646 0.5

Illinois ................................. 374.8 5,539.8 -5.7 880 -1.2

Indiana ............................... 159.7 2,715.4 -6.3 714 -0.6

Iowa ................................... 94.6 1,444.1 -3.8 695 -0.1

Kansas ............................... 88.3 1,310.1 -4.3 706 -0.6

Kentucky ............................ 107.3 1,714.3 -4.4 706 1.9

Louisiana ........................... 125.8 1,832.7 -2.4 761 0.3

Maine ................................. 50.1 592.0 -3.4 688 0.7

Maryland ............................ 162.0 2,458.1 -3.4 941 2.4

Massachusetts ................... 213.9 3,140.7 -4.0 1,022 -0.2

Michigan ............................ 255.1 3,785.6 -7.6 809 -1.3

Minnesota .......................... 169.9 2,561.2 -5.1 836 -3.0

Mississippi ......................... 70.6 1,076.9 -4.7 635 0.8

Missouri ............................. 174.3 2,610.3 -4.6 744 0.7

Montana ............................. 42.7 428.7 -3.9 637 1.3

Nebraska ........................... 60.0 901.1 -2.7 689 -0.7

Nevada .............................. 75.4 1,126.2 -10.1 805 -0.5

New Hampshire ................. 49.0 607.6 -4.3 831 1.1

New Jersey ........................ 268.7 3,782.9 -4.2 995 0.4

New Mexico ....................... 54.3 793.7 -5.0 722 1.3

New York ........................... 587.7 8,325.5 -3.6 1,012 -1.7

North Carolina .................... 250.8 3,810.7 -6.3 745 0.7

North Dakota ...................... 25.9 354.9 -0.6 680 2.3

Ohio ................................... 289.4 4,925.5 -6.2 764 -0.5

Oklahoma .......................... 101.3 1,484.5 -5.1 700 0.1

Oregon ............................... 131.1 1,613.8 -6.9 768 0.3

Pennsylvania ..................... 342.3 5,448.2 -4.1 826 0.5

Rhode Island ...................... 35.4 451.3 -5.2 793 1.9

South Carolina ................... 114.0 1,752.7 -6.5 688 0.9

South Dakota ..................... 31.0 392.1 -2.3 633 1.6

Tennessee ......................... 141.2 2,561.4 -6.0 745 -0.3

Texas ................................. 565.4 10,050.2 -3.8 845 -0.5

Utah ................................... 85.5 1,162.5 -5.4 719 0.3

Vermont ............................. 24.7 292.5 -4.0 734 1.8

Virginia ............................... 232.0 3,530.7 -3.9 897 2.2

Washington ........................ 228.6 2,862.3 -4.7 916 1.3

West Virginia ...................... 48.5 691.2 -3.6 673 1.7

Wisconsin .......................... 157.4 2,639.7 -5.6 726 -0.4

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

third quarter 2009 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2008-09

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2008-09

Wyoming ............................ 25.2 278.6 -5.4 $756 -3.2

Puerto Rico ........................ 52.3 936.9 -5.9 494 3.8

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 42.4 -5.7 724 2.4

 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

 NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 

2008 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

or territory: Laramie, Wyo., and St. Thomas, V.I. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 April 2010

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

September 2008-09 (U.S. average = -5.3 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

 NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 

2008 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

or territory: Laramie, Wyo., and St. Thomas, V.I. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 April 2010

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

or more employees, third quarter 2008-09 (U.S. average = -0.1 percent)