Hurricane Katrina

The employment and wages reported in this news release reflect the impact of Hurricane

Katrina and ongoing labor market trends in certain counties. The effects of Hurricane Katrina,

which hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, were first apparent in the September QCEW

employment counts and in the wage totals for the third quarter of 2005. This catastrophic

storm continued to affect monthly employment and quarterly wage totals in parts of Louisiana

and Mississippi in the third quarter of 2006. For more information, see the QCEW section

of the Katrina coverage on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/katrina/qcewquestions.htm.

Technical information: (202) 691-6567

http://www.bls.gov/cew/

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 07-0525

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: THIRD QUARTER 2006

In September 2006, Jefferson County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Jefferson County, a New Orleans suburb, experienced

an over-the-year employment gain of 22.4 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.5 percent. Employment gains in Jefferson County reflected significant recovery from substantial job losses that occurred in

September 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina. In contrast, Orleans County, which also was affected by Hurricane Katrina, continued to show an over-the-year employment decline (-12.3 percent). Kent County, R.I.,

had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2006, with an increase of

18.4 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage rose by 0.9 percent over the same time span.

Of the 325 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2005 annual average employment, 130

had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (1.5 percent) in September

2006, and 187 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) The percent change in average weekly wages was higher than the national average (0.9 percent) in 133 of the largest U.S. counties, but

was below the national average in 184 counties. (See chart 2.)

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 8.8 million employer

reports cover 135.0 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the

nation and for the 325 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2005.

September 2006 employment and 2006 third-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in
2

Los Angeles, Calif. .... 4,161.2 Harris, Texas ........................ 79.4 Jefferson, La. ................... 22.4

Cook, Ill. .................. 2,553.4 Maricopa, Ariz. .................... 76.2 Snohomish, Wash. ........... 8.2

New York, N.Y. ...... 2,292.3 New York, N.Y. .................. 42.0 Collin, Texas.................... 7.2

Harris, Texas............. 1,959.1 King, Wash. ......................... 40.6 Harrison, Miss. ................ 6.8

Maricopa, Ariz. ......... 1,819.1 Clark, Nev. .......................... 39.1 Montgomery, Texas ......... 5.7

Orange, Calif............. 1,517.9 Dallas, Texas ........................ 38.3 Lake, Fla. ........................ 5.5

Dallas, Texas............. 1,466.0 Jefferson, La. ........................ 35.5 Williamson, Texas ............ 5.5

San Diego, Calif. ....... 1,321.7 Los Angeles, Calif. ............... 29.2 Utah, Utah ....................... 5.5

King, Wash. .............. 1,167.1 Salt Lake, Utah .................... 25.4 Douglas, Colo. ................. 4.6

Miami-Dade, Fla. ...... 1,008.4 Bexar, Texas ........................ 24.4 Horry, S.C....................... 4.6

Salt Lake, Utah................ 4.6

Employment in large counties

 September 2006 employment

 (thousands)

 Growth in employment,

 September 2005-06

 (thousands)

Percent growth in employment,

 September 2005-06

United States............ 134,988.9 United States ................... 2,013.1 United States .................... 1.5

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by September 2006 employment, September 2005-06

employment growth, and September 2005-06 percent growth in employment

table 4 of this release. Final data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through

the fourth quarter of 2005 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data

for third quarter 2006, along with updated data for the first and second quarters of 2006, will be available

later in April on the BLS Web site.

Large County Employment

In September 2006, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 135.0 million, up

by 1.5 percent from September 2005. The 325 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted

for 70.7 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.5 percent of total covered wages. These 325

counties had a net job gain of 1,328,166 over the year, accounting for 66.0 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 256 of the large counties from September 2005 to September 2006.

Jefferson County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (22.4 percent).

Snohomish, Wash., had the next largest increase, 8.2 percent, followed by the counties of Collin, Texas

(7.2 percent), Harrison, Miss. (6.8 percent), and Montgomery, Texas (5.7 percent). The large employment

gains in Jefferson County reflected significant recovery from the substantial job losses in September 2005,

which were related to Hurricane Katrina. Strong employment growth in Harrison County, which also was

impacted by this hurricane, showed that the county had begun to rebound from job losses in 2005. (See

table 1.)

Employment declined in 62 counties from September 2005 to September 2006. The largest percentage

decline in employment was in Orleans County, La. (-12.3 percent). Employment losses in Orleans County

reflected the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Trumbull, Ohio, had the next largest employment decline (-4.5 percent), followed by the counties of Macomb, Mich. (-4.0 percent), Oakland, Mich. (-3.5 percent), and Rock Island, Ill. (-3.0 percent).
3

New York, N.Y. .......... $1,421 Kent, R.I. .......................... $132 Kent, R.I. .................... 18.4

Santa Clara, Calif. ......... 1,414 Orleans, La. ....................... 121 Orleans, La. ................ 16.2

Arlington, Va. ............... 1,323 Trumbull, Ohio ................... 85 Trumbull, Ohio ............ 12.3

Washington, D.C. ........ 1,307 Jefferson, Texas ................. 74 Jefferson, La. .............. 10.5

San Mateo, Calif. .......... 1,278 Jefferson, La. ..................... 69 Jefferson, Texas........... 10.5

San Francisco, Calif. ..... 1,246 Lafayette, La. ..................... 56 Mobile, Ala. ................ 8.6

Suffolk, Mass. ............... 1,208 Mobile, Ala. ....................... 55 Lafayette, La. .............. 8.2

Fairfield, Conn. ............. 1,191 Ingham, Mich. .................... 52 East Baton Rouge, La. 7.4

Fairfax, Va. ................... 1,179 Morris, N.J. ....................... 49 Harrison, Miss. ........... 7.2

Somerset, N.J. .............. 1,165 Vanderburgh, Ind. .............. 48 Vanderburgh, Ind. ....... 7.1

East Baton Rouge, La. ....... 48 Ingham, Mich. ............. 7.1

Galveston, Texas................ 48 Galveston, Texas ......... 7.1

United States.................... $784 United States......................... $7 United States............... 0.9

Average weekly wage in large counties

 Average weekly wage,

 third quarter 2006

 Percent growth in average

 weekly wage, third

 quarter 2005-06

 Growth in average weekly

 wage, third quarter 2005-06

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by third quarter 2006 average weekly wages, third

quarter 2005-06 growth in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2005-06 percent growth

in average weekly wages

The largest gains in the level of employment from September 2005 to September 2006 were recorded

in the counties of Harris, Texas (79,400), Maricopa, Ariz. (76,200), New York, N.Y. (42,000), King,

Wash. (40,600), and Clark, Nev. (39,100). (See table A.)

The largest declines in employment levels occurred in Oakland, Mich. (-25,200), followed by the counties

of Orleans, La. (-21,600), Wayne, Mich. (-20,500), Macomb, Mich. (-13,400), and Kent, Mich. (-5,500).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2006 was $784. Average weekly wages

were higher than the national average in 111 of the largest 325 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y.,

held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,421. Santa

Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,414, followed by Arlington, Va. ($1,323),

Washington, D.C. ($1,307), and San Mateo, Calif. ($1,278). (See table B.)

There were 212 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the third quarter of

2006. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($493), followed by the

counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($514), Horry, S.C. ($517), Webb, Texas ($525), and Yakima, Wash. ($537).

(See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 0.9 percent. Among the largest counties,

Kent, R.I., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 18.4 percent from the third

quarter of 2005. Orleans, La., was second with growth of 16.2 percent, followed by the counties of Trumbull, Ohio (12.3 percent), and Jefferson, La., and Jefferson, Texas (10.5 percent each). The high average
4

weekly wage growth rate for Orleans County was related to the disproportionate job losses in lower-paid

industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. That is, the loss of low paid jobs due to the storm boosted

average wages in Orleans County.

One hundred and twelve counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Passaic,

N.J., had the largest decrease, -10.2 percent, followed by the counties of Williamson, Texas (-5.7 percent),

Fort Bend, Texas (-5.0 percent), Loudoun, Va. (-4.2 percent), and Ventura, Calif. (-4.0 percent).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Each of the 10 largest counties (based on 2005 annual average employment levels) reported increases

in employment from September 2005 to September 2006. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the largest

percent increase in employment among the largest counties with a 4.4 percent increase. Within Maricopa

County, employment rose in every industry group except information. The largest gains were in education

and health services (6.2 percent), followed by construction (5.9 percent). Harris, Texas, had the next largest

increase in employment, 4.2 percent, followed by King, Wash. (3.6 percent). The smallest percent increase

in employment occurred in Miami-Dade, Fla. (0.6 percent), followed by Cook, Ill., and Los Angeles, Calif.

(0.7 percent each). (See table 2.)

Eight of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. King County,

Wash., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 4.7 percent. Within

King County, Wash., average weekly wages increased the most in information (19.4 percent), followed by

natural resources and mining (17.4 percent). Dallas, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain of 2.2

percent, followed by Harris, Texas (2.0 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties

occurred in New York, N.Y. (0.3 percent). San Diego, Calif. (-0.7 percent) and Orange, Calif. (-1.1 percent) experienced declines in average weekly wages.

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows September 2006 employment and the 2006 third quarter average weekly wage in the

largest county in each state, which is based on 2005 annual average employment levels. (This table includes two counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that had employment levels below 75,000.)

The employment levels in the counties in table 3 in September 2006 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in

Los Angeles County, Calif., to 42,100 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these

counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,421), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone,

Mont. ($637).

For More Information

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

Note or visit the QCEW Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW

data also may be obtained by e-mailing QCEWinfo@bls.gov or 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 2006 is scheduled to be released on

Wednesday, July 25.
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. Data for 2006 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 326 counties presented in this release were

derived using 2005 preliminary annual averages of

employment. For 2006 data, four counties have been added to

the publication tables: Douglas, Colo., Weld, Colo., Boone,

Ky., and Butler, Pa. These counties will be included in all 2006

quarterly releases. One county, Potter, Texas, which was

published in the 2005 releases, no longer has an employment

level of 75,000 or more and will be excluded in the 2006 releases.

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

Source Count of UI administrative records Count of longitudinally-linked UI Sample survey: 400,000 establishsubmitted by 8.8 million establish- administrative records submitted by ments

ments 6.8 million private-sector employers

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including UI coverage, excluding govern- Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

all employers subject to state and ment, private households, and estab- UI coverage, excluding agriculture,

federal UI laws lishments with zero employment private households, and self-employed workers

Other employment, including railroads, religious organizations, and

other non-UI-covered jobs

Publication Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

frequency - 7 months after the end of each - 8 months after the end of each - Usually first Friday of following

quarter quarter month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and pub- Links each new UI quarter to Uses UI file as a sampling frame

 lishes each new quarter of UI longitudinal database and directly and annually realigns (benchmarks)

 data summarizes gross job gains sample estimates to first quarter

 and losses

Principal Provides a quarterly and annual Provides quarterly employer dy- Provides current monthly estimates

products universe count of estab- namics data on establishment open- of employment, hours, and earnings

lishments, employment, and ings, closings, expansions, and con- at the MSA, state, and national levwages at the county, MSA, tractions at the national level by el by industry

state, and national levels by NAICS supersectors and by size

detailed industry of firm

Future expansions will include data

at the county, MSA, and state level

Principal uses Major uses include: Major uses include: Major uses include:

- Detailed locality data - Business cycle analysis - Principal national economic

- Periodic universe counts for - Analysis of employer dynamics indicator

benchmarking sample survey underlying economic expansions - Official time series for

estimates and contractions employment change measures

- Sample frame for BLS - An analysis of employment ex- - Input into other major economic

establishment surveys pansion and contraction by size indicators

of firm

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

Web sites

•

•

•

•

 •

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

 QCEW BED CES

•

UI levels
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 on the

previous page.) Additional information on each program can

be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table on

the previous page.

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 that are sent to the appropriate

SWA by the specific federal agency. 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. The employment and wage data included in

this release are derived from microdata summaries of nearly 9

million employer reports of employment and wages submitted

by states to the BLS. These reports are based on place of

employment rather than place of residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable

from state to state. In 2005, UI and UCFE programs covered

workers in 131.6 million jobs. The estimated 126.7 million

workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)

represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $5.352 trillion in pay,

representing 94.5 percent of the wage and salary component of

personal income and 43.0 percent of the gross domestic

product.

Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed

workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members

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

employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student

workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit

organizations.

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These

changes may have an impact on the employment and wages

reported by employers covered under the UI program.

Coverage changes may affect the 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 3-year cycle. Changes in establishment

classification codes resulting from this process are introduced

with the data reported for the first quarter of the year. Changes

resulting from improved employer reporting also are introduced

in the first quarter.

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect

the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry

at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county

or industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic

events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example,

economic change would come from a firm relocating into the

county; administrative change would come from a company

correcting its county designation.

The over-the-year changes of employment and wages

presented in this release have been adjusted to account for most

of the administrative corrections made to the underlying

establishment reports. This is done by modifying the prior-year

levels used to calculate the over-the-year changes. Percent

changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final

2005 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. The adjusted data do not 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

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features

comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all

states. The 2005 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 fourth

quarter 2005 version of this news release. This edition will also

be the first to include the data on a CD for enhanced access

and usability. As a result of this change, the printed booklet

will contain only selected graphic representations of QCEW

data; the data tables themselves will be published exclusively

in electronic formats as PDF and fixed-width text files.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2005 will soon be

available for sale from the United States Government Printing

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

Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone 866-512-1800, outside of

Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone

number is 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512-2104. Also,

the 2005 bulletin is available in a portable document format

(PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/

cewbultn05.htm.

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also

are available upon request from the Division of Administrative

Statistics and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 202-691-6467; http://www.bls.gov/bdm/;

e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov.

Information in this release will be made available to

sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone:

202-691-5200; TDD message referral phone number:

1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

third quarter 20062

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,841.2 134,988.9 1.5 - $784 0.9 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.6 374.6 0.8 187 803 1.0 127

Madison, AL ....................... 8.3 174.2 2.3 89 863 1.8 72

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 171.5 2.8 60 692 8.6 6

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.6 138.5 1.0 170 669 2.5 49

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 84.5 2.9 56 673 2.7 42

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.2 148.8 0.5 213 849 -0.7 257

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 92.3 1,819.1 4.4 16 792 0.5 165

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.8 368.6 2.6 68 708 1.9 70

Benton, AR ........................ 5.3 94.3 3.7 30 686 1.5 86

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.2 249.9 1.9 111 717 1.3 102

Washington, AR ................. 5.7 93.6 2.1 99 639 1.3 102

Alameda, CA ...................... 49.4 691.1 0.7 192 1,054 0.3 182

Contra Costa, CA ............... 28.2 348.6 0.7 192 979 0.8 140

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.1 366.2 2.9 56 619 0.5 165

Kern, CA ............................ 17.3 287.8 2.6 68 676 2.3 55

Los Angeles, CA ................ 392.8 4,161.2 0.7 192 894 1.7 79

Marin, CA ........................... 11.8 110.4 1.1 161 985 -0.5 241

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.2 180.4 0.3 230 695 1.3 102

Orange, CA ........................ 95.9 1,517.9 1.1 161 897 -1.1 277

Placer, CA .......................... 10.5 137.8 0.3 230 780 -0.6 249

Riverside, CA ..................... 43.1 635.4 3.6 33 678 0.0 203

Sacramento, CA ................ 50.5 640.5 1.1 161 871 -0.6 249

San Bernardino, CA ........... 45.8 654.2 1.9 111 702 0.6 158

San Diego, CA ................... 92.5 1,321.7 0.9 178 850 -0.7 257

San Francisco, CA ............. 44.2 537.0 1.8 116 1,246 2.6 44

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.0 227.7 0.9 178 685 -0.3 225

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.1 105.7 0.2 240 664 1.4 94

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.2 337.3 1.8 116 1,278 0.9 134

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.7 186.4 0.9 178 751 -0.3 225

Santa Clara, CA ................. 55.9 884.9 2.3 89 1,414 0.8 140

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.7 102.2 1.3 147 772 2.5 49

Solano, CA ......................... 9.9 133.1 -0.1 261 752 1.1 120

Sonoma, CA ...................... 17.8 194.6 0.4 220 785 1.2 113

Stanislaus, CA ................... 13.9 179.7 -0.4 277 677 1.5 86

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.9 152.4 2.8 60 560 1.4 94

Ventura, CA ....................... 21.8 317.5 1.4 136 826 -4.0 319

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.4 102.2 2.3 89 760 -2.6 304

Adams, CO ........................ 9.4 155.2 3.1 53 744 -0.8 264

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.9 277.0 1.4 136 955 2.0 65

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.7 158.4 2.5 73 955 -3.6 316

Denver, CO ........................ 25.5 436.3 1.7 118 988 4.1 22

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.0 88.5 4.6 9 779 -3.7 317

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.6 245.8 1.5 131 733 -1.1 277

Jefferson, CO ..................... 19.0 208.7 0.2 240 809 0.0 203

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.2 129.6 1.7 118 727 0.7 154

Weld, CO ........................... 6.0 81.8 3.8 28 671 1.7 79

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.7 418.9 1.3 147 1,191 -0.5 241

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.0 500.4 2.3 89 945 -2.3 301

New Haven, CT ................. 22.3 367.8 1.7 118 835 -1.4 288

New London, CT ................ 6.8 130.4 -0.2 266 810 -0.2 219

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

third quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 19.6 282.8 0.2 240 $957 4.0 25

Washington, DC ................. 32.0 674.2 0.7 192 1,307 3.6 28

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.4 126.5 1.6 126 679 2.4 52

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.5 206.8 0.0 257 738 -1.1 277

Broward, FL ....................... 63.0 746.0 1.3 147 754 0.9 134

Collier, FL .......................... 12.3 130.7 4.3 20 721 0.1 198

Duval, FL ........................... 25.6 463.7 2.4 83 784 2.6 44

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 130.1 0.7 192 626 -0.6 249

Hillsborough, FL ................. 35.8 638.0 2.4 83 757 1.1 120

Lake, FL ............................. 6.9 84.4 5.5 6 589 -1.0 273

Lee, FL ............................... 18.6 222.5 4.1 25 689 0.7 154

Leon, FL ............................. 8.0 146.8 0.6 204 694 1.5 86

Manatee, FL ....................... 8.9 126.9 4.1 25 634 0.3 182

Marion, FL .......................... 8.0 103.6 4.5 12 584 0.5 165

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 84.1 1,008.4 0.6 204 792 1.5 86

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 84.4 2.9 56 642 0.0 203

Orange, FL ......................... 34.5 682.2 3.2 51 728 0.0 203

Palm Beach, FL ................. 48.9 554.3 1.7 118 756 -1.6 296

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.4 100.4 3.5 37 589 4.2 19

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.8 445.3 0.3 230 682 -0.4 234

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 206.3 2.1 99 644 2.4 52

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.9 158.9 3.5 37 675 -1.0 273

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.5 177.8 2.4 83 696 0.9 134

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.9 167.4 2.0 105 580 1.6 82

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 84.3 -1.2 306 644 -1.4 288

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.4 135.3 1.9 111 676 0.3 182

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 108.7 -0.4 277 738 -2.9 311

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.0 312.4 2.8 60 864 1.3 102

De Kalb, GA ....................... 15.8 277.2 -1.1 302 854 1.8 72

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.6 777.7 1.3 147 1,016 1.0 127

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.0 327.2 3.3 48 830 -0.4 234

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 96.6 -2.5 315 625 -0.5 241

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 103.1 -1.9 313 680 2.1 62

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.0 452.2 2.3 89 744 0.5 165

Ada, ID ............................... 14.7 210.7 4.4 16 727 1.1 120

Champaign, IL ................... 4.1 91.6 0.8 187 676 0.6 158

Cook, IL ............................. 135.0 2,553.4 0.7 192 928 1.0 127

Du Page, IL ........................ 34.6 597.4 0.4 220 927 1.1 120

Kane, IL ............................. 12.1 212.5 2.1 99 718 -1.8 299

Lake, IL .............................. 20.3 333.8 0.8 187 936 2.6 44

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.1 103.0 3.4 43 693 -0.3 225

McLean, IL ......................... 3.6 85.8 0.4 220 766 0.8 140

Madison, IL ........................ 5.9 95.5 0.3 230 651 0.5 165

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 103.3 2.5 73 749 -0.8 264

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.4 77.5 -3.0 318 756 0.1 198

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.3 95.7 1.2 156 642 0.0 203

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 130.5 -1.1 302 783 2.0 65

Will, IL ................................ 12.5 183.5 4.5 12 717 -1.1 277

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 136.6 0.1 252 695 1.5 86

Allen, IN ............................. 8.9 185.5 1.4 136 681 -0.3 225

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 126.9 0.1 252 667 -3.1 313

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

third quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.0 101.6 3.7 30 $767 -3.4 315

Lake, IN ............................. 10.0 195.6 -0.4 277 704 0.7 154

Marion, IN .......................... 23.6 583.0 0.2 240 814 -0.5 241

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 125.3 -1.1 302 667 0.2 194

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 108.9 0.2 240 723 7.1 10

Linn, IA ............................... 6.2 121.0 2.1 99 745 -2.6 304

Polk, IA .............................. 14.4 271.3 2.4 83 783 -1.0 273

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 89.3 -0.8 295 649 1.4 94

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.0 312.0 3.4 43 812 -1.6 296

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.2 252.4 3.3 48 729 1.5 86

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 93.2 -0.6 288 675 0.4 173

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 81.1 2.9 56 770 0.8 140

Boone, KY .......................... 3.4 74.8 -2.6 316 712 -3.0 312

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.2 173.4 (7) - 715 0.7 154

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.5 433.2 1.7 118 775 (7) - 

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 125.7 1.0 170 666 3.3 29

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 85.5 0.6 204 654 0.3 182

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.8 262.2 2.5 73 698 7.4 8

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.4 194.2 22.4 1 727 10.5 4

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.2 131.2 4.5 12 737 8.2 7

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.7 154.8 -12.3 322 870 16.2 2

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.0 172.6 0.7 192 711 0.3 182

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.2 228.4 2.4 83 835 1.0 127

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.5 374.2 -0.7 289 809 0.2 194

Frederick, MD .................... 5.8 92.2 -0.2 266 752 0.4 173

Harford, MD ....................... 5.5 82.2 1.4 136 759 0.8 140

Howard, MD ....................... 8.4 143.5 1.2 156 908 -1.2 283

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.4 467.1 1.3 147 1,034 0.6 158

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.5 315.2 0.0 257 867 -0.1 212

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.1 350.5 -0.4 277 911 0.3 182

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.3 97.8 -1.6 310 667 0.6 158

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.6 221.7 0.0 257 693 -0.4 234

Essex, MA .......................... 20.6 301.2 1.1 161 844 -0.2 219

Hampden, MA .................... 14.1 201.7 -0.1 261 733 0.4 173

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.1 804.6 1.6 126 1,108 -0.3 225

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.5 321.6 0.2 240 943 2.2 59

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.8 179.6 0.5 213 742 -0.7 257

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.5 575.5 1.5 131 1,208 0.8 140

Worcester, MA ................... 20.5 322.3 0.9 178 792 -0.8 264

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.3 146.3 -2.4 314 769 5.6 14

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.1 162.4 -0.3 274 787 7.1 10

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.6 116.2 -1.2 306 711 0.3 182

Kent, MI ............................. 14.6 341.8 -1.6 310 730 1.2 113

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.3 322.7 -4.0 320 839 -1.1 277

Oakland, MI ....................... 40.4 697.4 -3.5 319 931 0.1 198

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.8 115.2 0.2 240 696 -0.9 270

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.5 89.2 -1.5 309 722 4.6 16

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.2 195.2 -0.8 295 913 1.6 82

Wayne, MI .......................... 33.6 769.1 -2.6 316 905 -1.5 291

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.9 115.7 -0.9 299 748 -0.5 241

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.4 173.4 0.3 230 755 -2.6 304

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.9 841.4 0.2 240 982 -0.9 270

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

third quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.6 90.7 0.9 178 $880 2.7 42

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.4 333.3 -0.4 277 851 -1.2 283

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.8 96.3 0.9 178 641 -2.4 302

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.5 80.3 1.4 136 632 1.1 120

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.3 84.8 6.8 4 628 7.2 9

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 128.5 1.3 147 697 1.3 102

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 82.6 1.6 126 620 0.8 140

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 87.3 -0.7 289 747 -1.8 299

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 154.4 2.4 83 615 -1.3 286

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.6 367.8 1.0 170 799 0.5 165

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.9 122.8 2.5 73 679 -0.6 249

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.7 625.8 0.7 192 825 -0.2 219

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.0 223.6 -0.1 261 869 -0.1 212

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.4 314.5 1.2 156 734 -0.9 270

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.9 154.8 0.6 204 649 -0.6 249

Clark, NV ........................... 46.2 922.5 4.4 16 751 -0.3 225

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.0 221.3 2.0 105 749 0.1 198

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.5 196.8 -0.3 274 861 1.1 120

Rockingham, NH ................ 11.0 140.9 1.4 136 764 -2.7 308

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.9 152.5 1.4 136 694 -0.3 225

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.7 450.7 0.6 204 969 0.3 182

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.6 202.0 0.4 220 843 -0.6 249

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.8 213.3 1.1 161 794 -1.5 291

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.7 360.1 0.4 220 990 -1.1 277

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.5 104.7 0.2 240 714 -0.4 234

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.2 236.1 -0.8 295 1,061 2.9 36

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 227.7 1.1 161 980 -0.4 234

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.3 396.4 0.2 240 996 3.2 30

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.8 259.2 0.3 230 830 -0.2 219

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.3 288.6 1.3 147 1,136 4.5 17

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.1 152.4 0.3 230 669 -0.1 212

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.8 177.3 -0.2 266 835 -10.2 323

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.2 173.1 1.5 131 1,165 1.0 127

Union, NJ ........................... 15.1 229.6 0.3 230 967 -0.7 257

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.0 335.0 3.4 43 709 0.4 173

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 227.7 -0.1 261 801 -0.5 241

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.8 221.8 0.6 204 789 1.8 72

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 94.4 -0.2 266 641 2.6 44

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 118.4 0.4 220 814 4.1 22

Erie, NY ............................. 23.4 454.1 -0.9 299 689 0.4 173

Kings, NY ........................... 44.0 462.9 1.0 170 691 0.9 134

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.8 380.3 -0.4 277 782 1.8 72

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.2 600.1 1.0 170 867 1.4 94

New York, NY .................... 116.2 2,292.3 1.9 111 1,421 0.3 182

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 110.1 1.3 147 605 -1.3 286

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 250.6 -0.5 285 734 2.1 62

Orange, NY ........................ 9.8 130.0 0.3 230 676 1.2 113

Queens, NY ....................... 41.9 489.6 1.1 161 782 -1.4 288

Richmond, NY .................... 8.5 91.3 1.9 111 711 0.0 203

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.6 113.1 0.6 204 831 2.8 38

Suffolk, NY ......................... 49.6 617.2 0.5 213 850 1.8 72

Westchester, NY ................ 36.3 413.9 0.5 213 1,029 1.8 72

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

third quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.3 112.9 2.2 96 $629 2.4 52

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 87.6 1.7 118 617 0.8 140

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.9 116.7 -0.7 289 605 -1.5 291

Durham, NC ....................... 6.3 177.1 3.8 28 1,037 1.5 86

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.6 180.7 0.8 187 762 -0.1 212

Guilford, NC ....................... 13.8 275.1 0.5 213 714 1.1 120

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 28.7 544.4 3.5 37 922 3.1 34

New Hanover, NC .............. 6.9 101.9 3.5 37 644 1.4 94

Wake, NC .......................... 25.0 426.7 3.6 33 789 1.3 102

Cass, ND ........................... 5.7 96.2 3.4 43 649 0.2 194

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 146.0 1.0 170 694 -2.4 302

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.1 757.1 -0.4 277 800 -0.6 249

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.3 683.2 0.4 220 805 0.4 173

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.1 525.5 -0.7 289 871 0.8 140

Lake, OH ............................ 6.9 100.5 -0.4 277 646 -2.7 308

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 102.3 -0.2 266 672 -3.7 317

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.9 225.5 -0.7 289 720 1.3 102

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.3 105.4 0.6 204 584 0.0 203

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.0 273.5 -1.8 312 777 3.7 27

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 162.9 -0.7 289 633 0.6 158

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 274.8 0.3 230 715 -1.7 298

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.8 83.1 -4.5 321 777 12.3 3

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.0 424.0 1.5 131 708 3.2 30

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.1 342.8 2.6 68 705 0.3 182

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.4 148.1 2.0 105 740 -0.5 241

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.7 85.9 1.6 126 599 -0.3 225

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 150.6 2.3 89 634 0.3 182

Marion, OR ........................ 9.2 142.3 2.1 99 638 4.1 22

Multnomah, OR .................. 26.8 442.5 3.3 48 803 0.5 165

Washington, OR ................ 15.8 247.7 3.2 51 925 -1.5 291

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.3 683.8 0.4 220 823 1.5 86

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 169.8 2.2 96 716 1.3 102

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.0 264.6 1.1 161 766 0.8 140

Butler, PA ........................... 4.7 77.6 2.5 73 668 1.2 113

Chester, PA ....................... 14.9 236.0 1.4 136 983 -0.2 219

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.9 126.7 0.5 213 733 -2.7 308

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.3 183.0 2.5 73 766 -1.5 291

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 209.7 0.8 187 826 1.6 82

Erie, PA .............................. 7.2 129.0 -0.5 285 632 0.8 140

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.7 101.8 0.9 178 613 -0.5 241

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.1 229.6 0.1 252 687 -1.2 283

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.4 178.3 2.5 73 781 2.9 36

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 143.3 -1.0 301 623 -0.6 249

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.5 484.6 0.2 240 964 0.6 158

Northampton, PA ............... 6.4 99.0 1.2 156 701 -0.4 234

Philadelphia, PA ................ 29.2 632.9 -0.3 274 929 0.8 140

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 79.0 2.0 105 715 4.5 17

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 138.8 -1.4 308 652 2.0 65

York, PA ............................. 8.9 175.5 1.3 147 697 -0.7 257

Kent, RI .............................. 5.7 83.5 0.4 220 849 18.4 1

Providence, RI ................... 18.2 291.1 0.4 220 754 0.8 140

Charleston, SC .................. 13.8 203.7 2.6 68 671 -0.3 225

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

third quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Greenville, SC .................... 13.8 231.6 1.6 126 $684 -0.1 212

Horry, SC ........................... 9.6 117.4 4.6 9 517 2.8 38

Lexington, SC .................... 6.4 92.9 4.2 22 613 1.0 127

Richland, SC ...................... 10.7 212.7 -0.8 295 705 2.3 55

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.8 116.7 0.7 192 698 2.2 59

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.3 113.4 2.0 105 668 0.6 158

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.2 451.4 1.4 136 792 2.5 49

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 195.0 0.7 192 685 -0.1 212

Knox, TN ............................ 10.7 226.7 3.0 54 670 0.3 182

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.0 99.8 3.5 37 711 6.0 13

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.1 509.4 0.2 240 814 0.0 203

Bell, TX .............................. 4.4 95.5 0.9 178 615 3.2 30

Bexar, TX ........................... 31.1 704.2 3.6 33 696 3.0 35

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.4 83.2 4.3 20 748 4.2 19

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.7 84.3 1.4 136 558 1.3 102

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.3 121.4 4.1 25 493 1.4 94

Collin, TX ........................... 15.3 270.0 7.2 3 921 0.9 134

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.0 1,466.0 2.7 65 961 2.2 59

Denton, TX ......................... 9.7 157.1 (7) - 693 (7) - 

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.0 264.1 1.4 136 570 2.3 55

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.5 116.4 4.4 16 820 -5.0 321

Galveston, TX .................... 5.1 93.6 (7) - 723 7.1 10

Harris, TX ........................... 92.7 1,959.1 4.2 22 950 2.0 65

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.1 203.7 3.7 30 514 2.8 38

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 121.7 2.7 65 781 10.5 4

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.6 122.9 2.5 73 594 0.5 165

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 102.9 1.2 156 633 1.3 102

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.3 111.6 5.7 5 723 -1.0 273

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 150.0 2.1 99 671 2.6 44

Smith, TX ........................... 5.1 91.5 2.5 73 691 1.9 70

Tarrant, TX ......................... 35.4 744.7 2.8 60 814 3.2 30

Travis, TX .......................... 26.6 553.0 4.5 12 883 -0.1 212

Webb, TX ........................... 4.6 85.3 3.0 54 525 0.2 194

Williamson, TX ................... 6.3 108.6 5.5 6 742 -5.7 322

Davis, UT ........................... 7.3 101.6 4.2 22 635 -0.2 219

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 39.4 572.1 4.6 9 729 1.4 94

Utah, UT ............................ 13.0 169.2 5.5 6 617 4.2 19

Weber, UT ......................... 5.8 91.8 2.5 73 593 1.7 79

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.8 96.6 1.1 161 778 1.8 72

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.4 157.4 0.9 178 1,323 1.2 113

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.1 118.3 2.2 96 719 2.0 65

Fairfax, VA ......................... 31.8 576.3 1.7 118 1,179 -0.8 264

Henrico, VA ........................ 8.8 175.1 0.7 192 809 -0.7 257

Loudoun, VA ...................... 7.6 126.4 1.0 170 966 -4.2 320

Prince William, VA ............. 6.6 104.0 1.7 118 714 -0.8 264

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.9 94.8 1.0 170 1,025 1.2 113

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.4 98.9 1.5 131 639 1.6 82

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 97.9 0.1 252 711 -0.4 234

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 141.4 -1.1 302 757 -0.8 264

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 161.5 0.6 204 890 1.0 127

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.3 178.8 -0.2 266 627 1.3 102

Clark, WA ........................... 11.4 131.4 2.3 89 723 0.4 173

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

third quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

King, WA ............................ 75.6 1,167.1 3.6 33 $1,044 4.7 15

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.5 84.5 2.0 105 709 -3.3 314

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.0 269.4 2.6 68 716 0.1 198

Snohomish, WA ................. 16.9 235.3 8.2 2 798 -0.7 257

Spokane, WA ..................... 14.8 206.9 3.4 43 651 0.9 134

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.6 96.9 3.5 37 733 2.8 38

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.7 80.8 2.7 65 632 3.8 26

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.8 108.5 2.8 60 537 2.1 62

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 108.1 0.7 192 676 1.2 113

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 149.2 -0.1 261 707 2.3 55

Dane, WI ............................ 13.9 299.4 -0.5 285 784 0.8 140

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.4 497.2 0.1 252 783 0.4 173

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 102.5 -0.2 266 680 0.4 173

Racine, WI ......................... 4.2 76.9 0.0 257 715 -2.6 304

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.3 235.8 0.5 213 790 1.4 94

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.8 89.1 -0.2 266 737 0.0 203

San Juan, PR ..................... 14.8 299.0 -4.3 (8) 514 1.6 (8) 

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

These 325 U.S. counties comprise 70.7 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 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

third quarter 20062

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-063

United States5 .................................................... 8,841.2 134,988.9 1.5 $784 0.9

Private industry .............................................. 8,562.2 113,752.0 1.7 776 0.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 124.0 1,895.7 3.3 761 3.7

Construction ............................................... 882.5 7,852.5 3.2 829 1.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 363.4 14,152.6 -0.5 947 0.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,899.4 25,982.1 1.1 685 0.4

Information ................................................. 144.9 3,034.8 -0.7 1,217 0.7

Financial activities ...................................... 852.0 8,175.1 1.0 1,133 1.9

Professional and business services ........... 1,437.6 17,684.7 3.1 938 1.0

Education and health services ................... 799.9 16,992.1 2.6 748 0.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 711.4 13,290.1 2.0 334 0.9

Other services ............................................ 1,128.5 4,373.4 0.8 510 1.0

Government ................................................... 279.0 21,236.9 0.8 832 1.7

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 392.8 4,161.2 0.7 894 1.7

Private industry .............................................. 389.1 3,608.2 0.8 872 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 12.2 7.4 1,184 -1.9

Construction ............................................... 14.2 160.0 2.8 896 1.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 15.9 463.8 -1.7 937 3.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 55.6 807.9 0.8 750 0.8

Information ................................................. 9.0 206.4 -1.6 1,486 1.3

Financial activities ...................................... 25.2 247.2 -0.2 1,440 3.0

Professional and business services ........... 43.4 603.5 1.4 978 -1.4

Education and health services ................... 28.2 469.4 1.7 834 2.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.1 392.5 1.9 513 2.8

Other services ............................................ 169.9 245.1 1.9 413 2.2

Government ................................................... 3.7 553.0 0.2 1,038 4.6

Cook, IL .............................................................. 135.0 2,553.4 0.7 928 1.0

Private industry .............................................. 133.8 2,241.8 0.9 925 1.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.6 -0.9 1,036 7.2

Construction ............................................... 11.8 100.6 3.1 1,147 3.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.2 245.6 -1.8 956 -0.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.5 477.6 0.3 784 3.3

Information ................................................. 2.5 58.6 -3.0 1,275 -2.8

Financial activities ...................................... 15.5 219.5 0.4 1,433 2.9

Professional and business services ........... 27.6 441.4 2.5 1,135 -0.1

Education and health services ................... 13.2 363.4 1.8 813 1.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.3 236.1 2.0 411 2.2

Other services ............................................ 13.4 93.8 -1.9 670 1.1

Government ................................................... 1.2 311.5 -0.8 (6) (6) 

New York, NY ..................................................... 116.2 2,292.3 1.9 1,421 0.3

Private industry .............................................. 115.9 1,852.5 2.4 1,519 0.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -7.3 1,571 15.5

Construction ............................................... 2.2 32.4 5.1 1,395 2.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 38.9 -7.5 1,105 2.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.3 241.0 1.2 1,081 1.1

Information ................................................. 4.2 132.4 0.5 1,825 2.9

Financial activities ...................................... 17.8 369.7 3.2 2,619 0.7

Professional and business services ........... 23.2 464.3 2.9 1,637 0.7

Education and health services ................... 8.3 276.2 1.5 967 -0.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.7 198.8 2.1 685 -0.3

Other services ............................................ 16.8 85.3 1.2 855 4.3

Government ................................................... 0.2 439.9 -0.5 1,010 -4.6

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

third quarter 20062 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-063

Harris, TX ........................................................... 92.7 1,959.1 4.2 $950 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 92.3 1,708.2 4.5 960 1.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.4 73.7 10.7 2,286 -6.3

Construction ............................................... 6.3 142.0 7.1 917 6.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 178.4 5.5 1,204 1.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 409.4 3.4 846 1.7

Information ................................................. 1.3 31.9 0.7 1,169 1.0

Financial activities ...................................... 10.1 117.4 0.2 1,182 5.2

Professional and business services ........... 18.0 320.2 5.1 1,074 1.4

Education and health services ................... 9.7 204.0 3.6 812 0.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 170.1 4.3 358 0.6

Other services ............................................ 10.6 56.0 1.4 551 0.7

Government ................................................... 0.4 250.9 2.1 878 4.9

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 92.3 1,819.1 4.4 792 0.5

Private industry .............................................. 91.7 1,605.4 4.8 779 -0.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.1 2.2 682 12.9

Construction ............................................... 9.5 177.8 5.9 804 1.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 136.9 2.3 1,082 0.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 19.7 366.7 4.1 750 -1.8

Information ................................................. 1.5 31.3 -1.3 1,024 3.7

Financial activities ...................................... 11.3 150.3 2.7 1,027 -0.1

Professional and business services ........... 19.9 316.8 5.8 756 -0.4

Education and health services ................... 8.9 188.6 6.2 835 -0.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 174.0 4.2 368 -1.6

Other services ............................................ 6.4 47.8 3.0 550 0.5

Government ................................................... 0.6 213.7 1.2 897 7.3

Orange, CA ........................................................ 95.9 1,517.9 1.1 897 -1.1

Private industry .............................................. 94.5 1,378.8 1.2 893 -1.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 5.1 -16.5 636 1.4

Construction ............................................... 7.1 111.0 3.7 972 1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.6 183.4 0.5 1,083 2.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.9 271.2 0.2 826 0.2

Information ................................................. 1.4 31.1 -2.3 1,199 -3.5

Financial activities ...................................... 11.5 137.0 -5.1 1,381 -5.9

Professional and business services ........... 19.4 280.4 3.7 931 0.1

Education and health services ................... 9.9 138.9 4.8 849 0.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 172.2 3.0 387 0.0

Other services ............................................ 14.4 48.5 -1.7 549 0.5

Government ................................................... 1.4 139.0 0.3 938 -1.6

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.0 1,466.0 2.7 961 2.2

Private industry .............................................. 66.5 1,306.9 3.0 969 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 7.4 3.4 3,640 48.6

Construction ............................................... 4.3 80.4 2.4 877 2.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 148.8 2.0 1,099 -3.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 303.9 1.4 907 1.8

Information ................................................. 1.7 52.7 -2.0 1,300 2.9

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 140.8 3.3 1,285 6.4

Professional and business services ........... 14.0 263.3 4.4 1,050 2.2

Education and health services ................... 6.4 139.2 4.1 876 -1.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.1 128.1 4.6 436 3.1

Other services ............................................ 6.4 38.9 1.2 608 0.7

Government ................................................... 0.4 159.1 0.3 894 3.4

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

third quarter 20062 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-063

San Diego, CA ................................................... 92.5 1,321.7 0.9 $850 -0.7

Private industry .............................................. 91.0 1,106.4 0.9 832 -0.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.6 -1.6 527 0.6

Construction ............................................... 7.3 95.0 0.7 877 -1.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 103.6 -0.7 1,112 1.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.6 220.1 0.4 695 -0.3

Information ................................................. 1.3 37.1 -0.7 1,554 -19.2

Financial activities ...................................... 10.1 83.8 -0.8 1,041 -3.5

Professional and business services ........... 16.6 215.6 1.2 1,052 4.9

Education and health services ................... 8.0 123.5 1.3 816 1.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 160.0 3.5 397 -0.3

Other services ............................................ 22.0 56.0 1.2 479 1.3

Government ................................................... 1.5 215.3 1.2 944 -0.1

King, WA ............................................................ 75.6 1,167.1 3.6 1,044 4.7

Private industry .............................................. 75.2 1,015.2 4.2 1,052 4.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.1 -3.7 1,193 17.4

Construction ............................................... 6.6 70.5 11.0 954 0.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 112.4 11.5 1,198 -3.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 221.2 1.9 876 2.8

Information ................................................. 1.7 74.0 5.2 2,812 19.4

Financial activities ...................................... 6.8 76.0 -0.4 1,247 6.5

Professional and business services ........... 12.4 183.7 5.7 1,095 0.3

Education and health services ................... 6.3 118.2 2.3 796 0.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.9 110.8 2.6 423 2.4

Other services ............................................ 17.8 45.2 0.0 537 2.7

Government ................................................... 0.5 151.9 -0.4 984 4.5

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 84.1 1,008.4 0.6 792 1.5

Private industry .............................................. 83.8 858.2 1.0 760 1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.4 -2.6 487 4.1

Construction ............................................... 5.8 53.2 13.6 795 -0.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 47.5 -3.2 700 -2.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.9 249.0 1.7 705 -0.8

Information ................................................. 1.6 21.4 -5.4 1,139 3.5

Financial activities ...................................... 10.1 71.3 3.4 1,085 0.3

Professional and business services ........... 16.9 138.2 -5.7 943 7.8

Education and health services ................... 8.6 133.1 3.4 763 1.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 98.4 -0.3 450 (6) 

Other services ............................................ 7.5 34.5 1.9 490 2.3

Government ................................................... 0.3 150.2 -1.4 988 1.6

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, third quarter 20062

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

United States6 .......................... 8,841.2 134,988.9 1.5 $784 0.9

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.6 374.6 0.8 803 1.0

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.2 148.8 0.5 849 -0.7

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 92.3 1,819.1 4.4 792 0.5

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.2 249.9 1.9 717 1.3

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 392.8 4,161.2 0.7 894 1.7

Denver, CO .............................. 25.5 436.3 1.7 988 4.1

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.0 500.4 2.3 945 -2.3

New Castle, DE ........................ 19.6 282.8 0.2 957 4.0

Washington, DC ....................... 32.0 674.2 0.7 1,307 3.6

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 84.1 1,008.4 0.6 792 1.5

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.6 777.7 1.3 1,016 1.0

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.0 452.2 2.3 744 0.5

Ada, ID ..................................... 14.7 210.7 4.4 727 1.1

Cook, IL .................................... 135.0 2,553.4 0.7 928 1.0

Marion, IN ................................. 23.6 583.0 0.2 814 -0.5

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.4 271.3 2.4 783 -1.0

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.0 312.0 3.4 812 -1.6

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.5 433.2 1.7 775 (7) 

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 13.8 262.2 2.5 698 7.4

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.0 172.6 0.7 711 0.3

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.4 467.1 1.3 1,034 0.6

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.1 804.6 1.6 1,108 -0.3

Wayne, MI ................................ 33.6 769.1 -2.6 905 -1.5

Hennepin, MN .......................... 41.9 841.4 0.2 982 -0.9

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.5 128.5 1.3 697 1.3

St. Louis, MO ............................ 33.7 625.8 0.7 825 -0.2

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.5 74.8 1.6 637 3.1

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.4 314.5 1.2 734 -0.9

Clark, NV .................................. 46.2 922.5 4.4 751 -0.3

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.5 196.8 -0.3 861 1.1

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.7 450.7 0.6 969 0.3

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.0 335.0 3.4 709 0.4

New York, NY ........................... 116.2 2,292.3 1.9 1,421 0.3

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 28.7 544.4 3.5 922 3.1

Cass, ND .................................. 5.7 96.2 3.4 649 0.2

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 38.1 757.1 -0.4 800 -0.6

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.0 424.0 1.5 708 3.2

Multnomah, OR ........................ 26.8 442.5 3.3 803 0.5

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.3 683.8 0.4 823 1.5

Providence, RI .......................... 18.2 291.1 0.4 754 0.8

Greenville, SC .......................... 13.8 231.6 1.6 684 -0.1

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.3 113.4 2.0 668 0.6

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.1 509.4 0.2 814 0.0

Harris, TX ................................. 92.7 1,959.1 4.2 950 2.0

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 39.4 572.1 4.6 729 1.4

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.8 96.6 1.1 778 1.8

Fairfax, VA ................................ 31.8 576.3 1.7 1,179 -0.8

King, WA .................................. 75.6 1,167.1 3.6 1,044 4.7

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 108.1 0.7 676 1.2

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.4 497.2 0.1 783 0.4

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, third quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-064

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-064

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.1 42.1 2.5 $757 19.4

San Juan, PR ........................... 14.8 299.0 -4.3 514 1.6

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 22.0 -2.6 644 12.0

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 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

third quarter 20062

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-06

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-06

United States4 .................... 8,841.2 134,988.9 1.5 $784 0.9

Alabama ............................. 117.3 1,938.9 1.6 682 1.9

Alaska ................................ 21.1 324.8 1.4 798 0.1

Arizona ............................... 150.6 2,629.0 4.2 753 1.1

Arkansas ............................ 81.9 1,183.9 1.5 603 0.7

California ............................ 1,270.4 15,655.0 1.5 892 0.6

Colorado ............................ 176.9 2,260.1 2.2 819 1.4

Connecticut ........................ 111.9 1,680.7 1.6 957 -0.9

Delaware ............................ 30.2 424.6 0.5 850 3.4

District of Columbia ............ 32.0 674.2 0.7 1,307 3.6

Florida ................................ 588.1 7,941.7 1.9 713 0.7

Georgia .............................. 264.5 4,039.3 2.0 752 0.5

Hawaii ................................ 37.4 621.2 2.3 722 1.1

Idaho .................................. 55.3 661.2 4.1 613 1.3

Illinois ................................. 350.2 5,883.6 1.1 831 0.7

Indiana ............................... 155.4 2,922.7 0.3 687 -0.3

Iowa ................................... 92.8 1,480.7 1.2 641 0.0

Kansas ............................... 85.6 1,347.3 2.4 662 0.6

Kentucky ............................ 110.7 1,795.1 0.9 656 0.6

Louisiana ........................... 122.5 1,835.7 3.7 683 7.1

Maine ................................. 49.4 610.2 0.6 636 0.8

Maryland ............................ 161.5 2,545.0 0.7 858 0.5

Massachusetts ................... 208.8 3,228.1 0.9 950 0.3

Michigan ............................ 261.0 4,278.9 -1.8 790 0.3

Minnesota .......................... 165.5 2,685.1 0.0 784 -0.6

Mississippi ......................... 69.1 1,134.3 2.9 585 2.1

Missouri ............................. 172.1 2,725.1 1.1 691 0.0

Montana ............................. 41.4 434.4 2.3 581 3.0

Nebraska ........................... 57.8 906.9 1.1 633 0.0

Nevada .............................. 72.4 1,287.6 3.7 751 0.0

New Hampshire ................. 48.9 634.9 0.6 774 0.3

New Jersey ........................ 279.8 3,984.7 0.7 931 0.3

New Mexico ....................... 52.6 826.1 4.4 654 4.0

New York ........................... 573.2 8,471.7 0.8 950 1.1

North Carolina .................... 241.5 3,982.6 1.8 700 1.6

North Dakota ...................... 24.7 342.2 2.0 589 1.4

Ohio ................................... 291.7 5,350.9 -0.1 725 0.3

Oklahoma .......................... 97.3 1,517.6 2.2 633 3.3

Oregon ............................... 128.6 1,729.2 2.7 719 0.7

Pennsylvania ..................... 335.9 5,644.8 0.8 768 0.5

Rhode Island ...................... 36.0 490.8 0.8 763 3.7

South Carolina ................... 132.4 1,866.0 1.8 642 1.1

South Dakota ..................... 29.8 389.6 2.1 571 0.7

Tennessee ......................... 137.1 2,761.1 1.4 698 1.2

Texas ................................. 536.7 10,019.0 3.6 786 2.5

Utah ................................... 88.1 1,188.7 4.8 660 2.0

Vermont ............................. 24.7 305.8 0.6 672 1.4

Virginia ............................... 220.0 3,649.5 1.0 815 -0.1

Washington ........................ 214.5 2,911.9 3.3 823 2.7

West Virginia ...................... 48.2 711.8 1.2 599 1.7

Wisconsin .......................... 161.8 2,800.8 0.5 687 0.1

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

third quarter 20062 — Continued

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

September

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2005-06

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2005-06

Wyoming ............................ 24.1 274.1 4.6 $706 10.0

Puerto Rico ........................ 60.6 1,020.9 -1.9 439 1.2

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.4 43.2 -2.0 692 12.5

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

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

Note: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 2005

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

territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.

Source

April 20

Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 emp

September 2005-06 (U.S. Average = 1.5%)
Larg

Note: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 2005

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

territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.

Source

April 20

Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties wit

employees or more, third quarter 2005-06 (U.S. Average = 0.9%)