For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Wednesday, November 21, 2018 USDL-18-1859 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES – SECOND QUARTER 2018

From June 2017 to June 2018, employment increased in 309 of the 349 largest U.S. counties, the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. In June 2018, national employment (as measured 

by the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program) increased to 147.4 million, a 1.5 

percent increase over the year. Midland, TX, had the largest over-the-year increase in 

employment with a gain of 11.6 percent. Employment data in this release are presented for June 

2018, and average weekly wage data are presented for second quarter 2018. 

Among the 349 largest counties, 340 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. In 

the second quarter of 2018, average weekly wages for the nation increased to $1,055, a 3.4 

percent increase over the year. Marin, CA, had the largest second quarter over-the-year wage 

gain at 11.7 percent. (See table 1.) 

Chart 1. Percent change in employment, June 2017 to June 2018, by largest gains and losses 

-3.0% -1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 9.0% 11.0%

McLean, IL

Saginaw, MI

Kanawha, WV

Jefferson, LA

Montgomery, AL

Anchorage, AK

Ingham, MI

Williamson, TX

Spartanburg, SC

Lexington, SC

Charleston, SC

Calcasieu, LA

Boone, KY

Weld, CO

Williamson, TN

Utah, UT

Montgomery, TX

Yakima, WA

Newport News City, VA

Fort Bend, TX

York, SC

Midland, TX
Large County Employment in June 2018 

Midland, TX, had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (11.6 percent). 

Within Midland, the largest employment increase occurred in natural resources and mining, 

which gained 6,009 jobs over the year (25.7 percent).

McLean, IL, experienced the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment, with a 

loss of 2.0 percent. Within McLean, financial activities had the largest decrease in employment

with a loss of 892 jobs (-4.5 percent) over the year. 

Large County Average Weekly Wage in Second Quarter 2018

Marin, CA, had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly wages (11.7 

percent). Within Marin, an average weekly wage gain of $439 (26.5 percent) over the year in 

professional and business services made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in 

average weekly wages.

New Hanover, NC, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in average weekly wages 

with a loss of 6.4 percent. Within New Hanover, professional and business services had the 

largest impact on the county’s change, with an average weekly wage decrease of $511 (-33.2 

percent) over the year. 

Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage, second quarter 2017 to second quarter 2018, by 

largest gains and losses

-7.0% -5.0% -3.0% -1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 9.0% 11.0%

New Hanover, NC

Spartanburg, SC

Morris, NJ

Clackamas, OR

Fairfield, CT

McLennan, TX

Washington, OR

Essex, MA

Weld, CO

San Francisco, CA

St. Louis, MO

Santa Clara, CA

McLean, IL

San Mateo, CA

King, WA

Lake, IL

Marin, CA
Ten Largest Counties

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

weekly wages. In June 2018, Maricopa, AZ, had the largest over-the-year employment

percentage gain among the 10 largest counties (2.8 percent). Within Maricopa, trade, 

transportation, and utilities had the largest over-the-year employment increase with a gain of

10,775 jobs (2.9 percent). (See table 2.)

In second quarter 2018, King, WA, experienced the largest over-the-year average weekly wage 

percentage gain among the 10 largest counties (9.3 percent). Within King, trade, transportation, 

and utilities had the largest impact on the county’s change, with an average weekly wage 

increase of $270 (16.7 percent) over the year.

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 349 U.S. 

counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2017. June 2018 

employment and second quarter 2018 average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 

of this release.

The most current news release on quarterly measures of gross job flows is available from QCEW 

Business Employment Dynamics at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf. 

Several BLS regional offices issue QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. Links to 

these releases are available at www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm. 

The QCEW news release schedule is available at www.bls.gov/cew/releasecalendar.htm.

____________ 

The County Employment and Wages full data update for second quarter 2018 is scheduled

to be released on Thursday, December 6, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. (EST). 

The County Employment and Wages news release for third quarter 2018 is scheduled to be 

released on Wednesday, February 20, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. (EST). 

New BLS Local Data iPhone App Includes QCEW Data

BLS has partnered with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of the Chief Information 

Officer to develop a new mobile app for iPhones. The BLS Local Data app is ideal for 

customers, such as jobseekers and economic and workforce development professionals, who 

want to know more about local labor markets. For more information, please go to: 

https://blogs.bls.gov/blog/2018/10/18/new-bls-local-data-app-now-available/
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 2017 North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). Data for 2018 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 349 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2017 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2018 data, three counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Cabarrus, N.C.; Pitt, N.C.; 

and Kent, R.I. These counties will be included in all 2018 quarterly 

releases. The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each year 

based on the annual average employment from the preceding year.

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

QCEW BED CES

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 10.0 million establishments in first quarter of 2018 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by 8.0

million private-sector employers

• Sample survey: 651,000 establishments

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs

Publication frequency

• Quarterly

— Within 5 months after the end of 

each quarter

• Quarterly

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter

• Monthly

— Usually the 3rd Friday after the end 

of the week including the 12th of the 

month

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

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

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking)

Principal

products

• Provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, employment, and wages at the county, 

metropolitan statistical area (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 federal economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites

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

from data released by the individual states. These potential differences 

result from the states' continuing receipt of UI data over time and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine their data 

release timetables.

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures

The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based employment measures for any given quarter: QCEW, Business Employment 

Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES). Each of 

these measures 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 9.8 million employer 

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

2017. 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 2017, UI and 

UCFE programs covered workers in 143.9 million jobs. The estimated 

138.6 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.4 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $7.968 trillion in pay, representing 

94.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income 

and 40.9 percent of the gross domestic product.

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

Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, and 

employees of certain small nonprofit organizations.

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

have an impact on the employment and wages reported by employers 

covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may affect the overthe-year comparisons presented in this news release.

Concepts and methodology

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

reported, including production and sales workers, corporation officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. Workers on paid vacations and part-time workers also are included.

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

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

can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage data are 

non-wage cash payments such as bonuses, the cash value of meals and 

lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, and, in some states, 

employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans such 

as 401(k) plans and stock options. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between the current quarter and 

prior year levels.

Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time to parttime workers as well as the number of individuals in high-paying and 

low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay periods within a 

quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the workforce could 

increase significantly when there is a large decline in the number of 

employees that had been receiving below-average wages. Wages may 

include payments to workers not present in the employment counts 

because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of 

the month. When comparing average weekly wage levels between industries, states, or quarters, these factors should be taken into consideration.

Wages measured by QCEW may be subject to periodic and sometimes large fluctuations. This variability may be due to calendar effects resulting from some quarters having more pay dates than others. 

The effect is most visible in counties with a dominant employer. In 

particular, this effect has been observed in counties where government 

employers represent a large fraction of overall employment. Similar 

calendar effects can result from private sector pay practices. However, 

these effects are typically less pronounced for two reasons: employment is less concentrated in a single private employer, and private employers use a variety of pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly). 

For example, the effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be 

pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal 

payroll processing. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly 

pay schedule. As a result, in some quarters federal wages include six 

pay dates, while in other quarters there are seven pay dates. Over-theyear comparisons of average weekly wages may also reflect this calendar effect. Growth in average weekly wages may be attributed, in 

part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year, which 

include seven pay dates, with year-ago wages that reflect only six pay 

dates. An opposite effect will occur when wages in the current quarter 

reflecting six pay dates are compared with year-ago wages for a quarter including seven pay dates. 

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

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

ownership classification of all establishments on a 3-year cycle. 

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of the 

year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also are 

introduced in the first quarter.
QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are 

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

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

a number of reasons that reflect economic events or administrative 

changes. For example, economic change would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative change would come from a 

company correcting its county designation.

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

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

done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the over-theyear changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2017 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 eliminate the effect of most of the 

administrative changes (those occurring when employers update the 

industry, location, and ownership information of their establishments). The most common adjustments for administrative change are 

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

changes involving the classification of establishments that were previously reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry categories. Adjusted data account for improvements in reporting employment and wages for individual and multi-unit establishments. To accomplish this, adjustments were implemented to account 

for: administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start 

reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity (first quarter of 2008); selected large administrative changes in 

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

improvements in reporting of employment and wages (third quarter of 

2014). These adjustments allow QCEW to include county employment and wage growth rates in this news release that would otherwise 

not meet publication standards.

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

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

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

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

even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data.

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

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

Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information 

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

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

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

states for comparative purposes even though townships are the more 

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

Additional statistics and other information

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2017 edition of this 

publication, which was published in September 2018, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on 

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

2018 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from

the 2017 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online 

are now available at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn17.htm. The 2018 

edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be 

available in September 2019. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available from BED at www.bls.gov/bdm, (202) 691-6467, or 

data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/forms/bdm.

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

message referral phone number: (800) 877-8339.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 350 largest counties,

second quarter 2018

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

United States4.............................. 10,048.0 147,431.2 1.5 - $1,055 3.4 -

Jefferson, AL................................ 18.9 350.6 1.4 144 1,034 2.7 204

Madison, AL................................. 9.7 200.7 1.7 118 1,102 2.9 185

Mobile, AL.................................... 10.3 171.5 0.9 206 874 1.9 278

Montgomery, AL........................... 6.4 132.3 -0.8 343 860 2.4 233

Shelby, AL.................................... 5.9 85.5 0.3 281 985 3.8 86

Tuscaloosa, AL............................. 4.6 93.0 0.9 206 861 1.3 313

Anchorage, AK............................. 8.3 150.7 -0.8 343 1,105 3.9 77

Maricopa, AZ................................ 100.0 1,950.6 2.8 44 1,016 3.0 172

Pima, AZ....................................... 19.0 364.3 1.6 129 884 3.8 86

Benton, AR................................... 6.6 120.2 0.9 206 1,029 1.0 323

Pulaski, AR................................... 14.4 251.8 0.3 281 922 1.5 301

Washington, AR........................... 6.2 108.3 2.0 94 869 0.1 339

Alameda, CA................................ 64.7 793.7 2.1 82 1,421 3.3 136

Butte, CA..................................... 8.6 84.0 1.6 129 798 3.8 86

Contra Costa, CA......................... 32.9 371.2 0.4 271 1,278 3.0 172

Fresno, CA................................... 36.4 398.7 1.3 159 832 3.5 112

Kern, CA....................................... 19.7 327.5 1.0 193 869 3.1 160

Los Angeles, CA........................... 497.6 4,442.1 1.3 159 1,177 4.0 69

Marin, CA..................................... 12.5 117.7 0.8 219 1,422 11.7 1

Merced, CA................................. 6.7 81.9 1.0 193 790 0.5 331

Monterey, CA............................... 14.0 214.4 3.0 39 894 2.2 253

Napa, CA..................................... 5.9 81.4 1.7 118 1,036 2.7 204

Orange, CA.................................. 123.2 1,628.9 1.7 118 1,157 2.7 204

Placer, CA.................................... 13.3 169.6 3.5 19 1,042 3.1 160

Riverside, CA............................... 66.1 740.7 3.0 39 852 3.3 136

Sacramento, CA........................... 59.2 667.5 2.6 55 1,136 3.0 172

San Bernardino, CA..................... 60.4 749.4 2.8 44 883 2.3 244

San Diego, CA.............................. 112.9 1,473.5 2.0 94 1,137 3.4 124

San Francisco, CA....................... 61.2 741.6 3.2 28 2,083 7.6 8

San Joaquin, CA.......................... 18.1 254.9 2.1 82 887 2.8 197

San Luis Obispo, CA.................... 10.5 120.1 0.5 257 910 4.7 32

San Mateo, CA............................. 28.5 405.3 1.7 118 2,357 9.0 4

Santa Barbara, CA....................... 15.5 205.2 1.6 129 1,028 4.7 32

Santa Clara, CA........................... 73.6 1,106.1 2.3 72 2,573 8.2 6

Santa Cruz, CA............................ 9.6 110.2 -0.2 323 983 4.0 69

Solano, CA................................... 11.6 142.7 1.4 144 1,075 1.5 301

Sonoma, CA................................. 20.3 212.7 1.8 110 1,015 4.2 59

Stanislaus, CA.............................. 16.0 192.1 1.9 103 884 2.9 185

Tulare, CA.................................... 10.8 170.5 -0.1 316 739 4.4 44

Ventura, CA.................................. 27.7 331.3 0.9 206 1,036 2.2 253

Yolo, CA....................................... 6.8 105.8 0.9 206 1,144 3.8 86

Adams, CO................................... 11.3 214.1 3.5 19 1,019 4.7 32

Arapahoe, CO.............................. 22.4 335.9 1.8 110 1,201 2.8 197

Boulder, CO.................................. 15.7 185.6 2.6 55 1,235 3.5 112

Denver, CO.................................. 33.4 524.6 3.1 34 1,269 4.7 32

Douglas, CO................................. 12.4 128.2 1.9 103 1,170 3.0 172

El Paso, CO.................................. 20.3 279.0 2.0 94 936 4.1 66

Jefferson, CO............................... 20.6 242.1 2.0 94 1,082 3.3 136

Larimer, CO.................................. 12.5 165.6 3.1 34 931 4.3 50

Weld, CO...................................... 7.6 110.7 4.2 9 954 6.8 9

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 350 largest counties,

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Fairfield, CT................................. 35.9 429.1 -0.3 331 $1,488 -1.1 345

Hartford, CT.................................. 28.5 518.7 0.7 235 1,219 0.5 331

New Haven, CT............................ 24.7 371.7 0.4 271 1,071 0.5 331

New London, CT.......................... 7.7 127.9 0.5 257 1,007 0.9 325

New Castle, DE............................ 20.2 291.6 1.2 176 1,143 1.0 323

Sussex, DE.................................. 7.0 86.8 2.1 82 748 2.6 216

Washington, DC........................... 40.0 777.2 1.3 159 1,713 2.6 216

Alachua, FL.................................. 7.2 130.0 1.7 118 878 3.9 77

Bay, FL......................................... 5.6 80.8 2.2 76 772 2.0 268

Brevard, FL................................... 16.0 214.1 3.3 27 946 1.5 301

Broward, FL.................................. 69.5 803.2 1.2 176 998 4.5 40

Collier, FL..................................... 14.3 139.4 2.5 63 927 5.7 17

Duval, FL..................................... 29.7 513.7 2.6 55 980 2.0 268

Escambia, FL............................... 8.1 134.9 1.4 144 810 3.3 136

Hillsborough, FL........................... 43.1 674.6 1.6 129 1,002 3.6 104

Lake, FL....................................... 8.4 94.5 2.1 82 730 4.0 69

Lee, FL......................................... 22.3 253.4 2.6 55 864 4.2 59

Leon, FL....................................... 8.7 149.4 2.0 94 841 3.3 136

Manatee, FL................................. 11.0 119.4 2.5 63 827 4.8 31

Marion, FL.................................... 8.4 102.3 1.4 144 740 3.5 112

Miami-Dade, FL............................ 99.0 1,125.0 0.9 206 1,000 3.0 172

Okaloosa, FL................................ 6.6 84.4 1.3 159 885 2.4 233

Orange, FL................................... 43.0 841.3 3.5 19 919 1.9 278

Osceola, FL.................................. 7.2 92.3 3.5 19 731 2.1 261

Palm Beach, FL............................ 56.8 597.9 0.8 219 1,015 1.2 317

Pasco, FL..................................... 11.1 112.7 3.0 39 760 1.6 295

Pinellas, FL................................... 33.4 434.5 1.9 103 913 2.8 197

Polk, FL........................................ 13.4 214.0 1.9 103 800 3.5 112

Sarasota, FL................................ 16.1 168.3 2.7 48 871 3.4 124

Seminole, FL................................ 15.1 193.1 3.2 28 917 2.9 185

Volusia, FL................................... 14.5 169.2 1.5 138 770 2.4 233

Bibb, GA....................................... 4.3 82.7 0.5 257 806 4.1 66

Chatham, GA................................ 8.0 156.0 1.6 129 887 3.1 160

Clayton, GA.................................. 4.0 122.9 2.8 44 1,022 1.3 313

Cobb, GA...................................... 21.8 365.1 1.8 110 1,067 0.4 335

DeKalb, GA................................. 17.7 302.2 0.8 219 1,053 2.5 225

Fulton, GA.................................... 43.4 874.4 2.1 82 1,353 1.2 317

Gwinnett, GA................................ 25.0 355.9 1.8 110 971 0.5 331

Hall, GA....................................... 4.5 87.9 1.3 159 906 5.5 21

Muscogee, GA.............................. 4.5 94.6 1.2 176 797 2.4 233

Richmond, GA.............................. 4.4 104.7 0.2 293 855 1.4 307

Honolulu, HI.................................. 26.0 474.7 0.2 293 994 1.9 278

Maui + Kalawao, HI...................... 6.3 78.1 0.5 257 869 3.7 93

Ada, ID......................................... 16.2 246.5 3.9 16 921 3.7 93

Champaign, IL.............................. 4.1 90.4 0.3 281 913 3.3 136

Cook, IL........................................ 138.7 2,626.3 0.9 206 1,220 3.2 150

DuPage, IL................................. 34.7 628.3 0.1 303 1,160 1.6 295

Kane, IL........................................ 12.6 218.6 -0.5 335 930 2.5 225

Lake, IL........................................ 20.3 348.1 -0.1 316 1,411 9.3 2

McHenry, IL.................................. 7.8 100.7 0.2 293 856 3.5 112

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 350 largest counties,

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

McLean, IL.................................... 3.4 82.2 -2.0 349 $1,002 9.0 4

Madison, IL................................... 5.4 101.6 3.0 39 817 3.7 93

Peoria, IL...................................... 4.2 107.8 1.3 159 1,054 3.3 136

St. Clair, IL.................................... 5.1 92.3 -0.5 335 818 -0.1 342

Sangamon, IL............................... 4.8 131.7 -0.2 323 1,001 1.3 313

Will, IL.......................................... 14.7 249.6 1.3 159 898 1.8 285

Winnebago, IL.............................. 6.0 128.4 -0.1 316 869 3.2 150

Allen, IN........................................ 8.9 189.7 1.7 118 858 3.5 112

Elkhart, IN..................................... 4.8 139.8 3.2 28 940 2.6 216

Hamilton, IN.................................. 9.5 144.7 2.4 69 978 2.5 225

Lake, IN........................................ 10.4 188.9 0.7 235 879 2.7 204

Marion, IN..................................... 24.2 599.7 0.1 303 1,048 2.0 268

St. Joseph, IN............................... 5.8 124.2 0.2 293 852 3.1 160

Tippecanoe, IN............................. 3.5 84.6 2.3 72 899 2.9 185

Vanderburgh, IN........................... 4.8 109.4 1.3 159 826 -0.1 342

Johnson, IA.................................. 4.3 84.4 0.6 250 980 3.7 93

Linn, IA......................................... 6.9 133.7 0.7 235 1,008 3.9 77

Polk, IA........................................ 17.6 306.6 0.9 206 1,050 3.7 93

Scott, IA........................................ 5.7 92.7 -0.1 316 842 3.8 86

Johnson, KS................................. 23.6 352.2 2.0 94 1,068 2.9 185

Sedgwick, KS............................... 12.6 250.8 1.2 176 882 2.7 204

Shawnee, KS................................ 5.1 96.4 -0.1 316 900 6.3 13

Wyandotte, KS............................. 3.5 90.8 2.2 76 1,009 3.2 150

Boone, KY................................... 4.5 94.0 4.0 10 907 3.0 172

Fayette, KY................................... 11.1 193.8 1.0 193 934 2.0 268

Jefferson, KY................................ 25.5 471.6 0.7 235 1,032 1.6 295

Caddo, LA.................................... 7.3 112.1 -0.3 331 836 3.5 112

Calcasieu, LA............................... 5.4 102.6 4.0 10 926 5.0 28

East Baton Rouge, LA.................. 15.9 263.6 0.8 219 989 3.6 104

Jefferson, LA................................ 14.1 189.8 -0.9 346 941 4.3 50

Lafayette, LA................................ 9.8 129.5 0.3 281 883 2.7 204

Orleans, LA.................................. 13.0 192.9 -0.1 316 967 4.2 59

St. Tammany, LA.......................... 8.5 89.0 1.6 129 878 3.7 93

Cumberland, ME.......................... 13.7 189.9 1.4 144 944 3.6 104

Anne Arundel, MD........................ 15.2 276.8 0.9 206 1,118 2.8 197

Baltimore, MD............................... 21.3 382.5 0.2 293 1,039 3.7 93

Frederick, MD............................... 6.5 103.6 1.5 138 946 1.6 295

Harford, MD.................................. 5.8 95.9 1.4 144 989 4.4 44

Howard, MD................................. 10.0 174.2 0.3 281 1,268 3.5 112

Montgomery, MD.......................... 32.9 478.4 0.3 281 1,392 4.0 69

Prince George's, MD.................... 16.1 320.3 0.0 310 1,112 4.3 50

Baltimore City, MD....................... 13.6 345.5 1.1 186 1,222 3.4 124

Barnstable, MA............................. 9.6 108.3 -0.6 340 893 2.9 185

Bristol, MA.................................... 18.0 232.8 0.2 293 975 2.3 244

Essex, MA.................................... 26.6 334.2 0.8 219 1,163 6.6 10

Hampden, MA.............................. 18.8 210.5 0.5 257 916 2.1 261

Middlesex, MA.............................. 56.0 934.8 1.7 118 1,571 3.4 124

Norfolk, MA................................... 25.6 359.5 0.1 303 1,230 3.3 136

Plymouth, MA............................... 16.3 200.4 0.7 235 999 0.1 339

Suffolk, MA................................... 30.8 684.7 1.9 103 1,711 3.7 93

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 350 largest counties,

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Worcester, MA.............................. 26.1 354.0 0.7 235 $1,039 2.9 185

Genesee, MI................................. 6.8 136.5 0.3 281 861 3.1 160

Ingham, MI................................... 6.0 150.6 -0.8 343 1,005 3.2 150

Kalamazoo, MI............................. 5.0 121.2 1.3 159 963 2.9 185

Kent, MI....................................... 14.6 411.6 3.4 25 900 1.7 289

Macomb, MI.................................. 17.6 339.5 1.5 138 1,042 3.4 124

Oakland, MI.................................. 39.4 750.3 0.8 219 1,168 3.3 136

Ottawa, MI.................................... 5.7 130.2 1.7 118 883 3.4 124

Saginaw, MI.................................. 3.9 84.0 -1.3 348 841 2.9 185

Washtenaw, MI............................. 8.2 210.6 1.5 138 1,126 3.0 172

Wayne, MI.................................... 31.1 731.5 0.8 219 1,125 1.4 307

Anoka, MN.................................... 7.5 128.0 2.6 55 1,018 3.2 150

Dakota, MN.................................. 10.4 191.4 0.0 310 1,041 3.8 86

Hennepin, MN.............................. 40.8 931.1 0.8 219 1,318 3.5 112

Olmsted, MN................................ 3.6 100.8 0.8 219 1,122 4.3 50

Ramsey, MN................................. 14.0 333.9 0.3 281 1,142 0.9 325

St. Louis, MN................................ 5.4 100.5 0.3 281 885 3.3 136

Stearns, MN................................. 4.4 88.0 0.2 293 871 4.3 50

Washington, MN........................... 5.9 89.8 2.5 63 910 2.5 225

Harrison, MS................................ 4.6 86.4 -0.5 335 734 2.2 253

Hinds, MS..................................... 5.8 120.5 -0.5 335 865 2.1 261

Boone, MO................................... 4.8 93.2 -0.2 323 835 1.7 289

Clay, MO...................................... 5.6 106.1 1.4 144 916 3.5 112

Greene, MO.................................. 8.9 167.2 0.8 219 822 4.3 50

Jackson, MO................................ 21.9 373.6 -0.2 323 1,061 3.2 150

St. Charles, MO............................ 9.5 149.4 0.0 310 847 3.5 112

St. Louis, MO................................ 39.0 612.0 0.7 235 1,137 7.8 7

St. Louis City, MO........................ 14.6 230.2 0.3 281 1,108 1.3 313

Yellowstone, MT........................... 6.7 82.5 -0.2 323 901 3.0 172

Douglas, NE................................. 19.1 342.1 0.4 271 960 2.7 204

Lancaster, NE............................... 10.4 172.1 1.6 129 847 3.0 172

Clark, NV..................................... 55.4 992.6 2.7 48 916 3.3 136

Washoe, NV................................. 14.7 222.5 2.3 72 944 4.1 66

Hillsborough, NH.......................... 12.2 206.7 0.8 219 1,127 4.2 59

Merrimack, NH............................. 5.2 78.3 0.2 293 987 4.7 32

Rockingham, NH.......................... 11.0 153.4 0.5 257 1,030 2.0 268

Atlantic, NJ................................... 6.6 135.3 2.2 76 903 5.6 20

Bergen, NJ................................... 33.3 452.3 0.8 219 1,197 1.2 317

Burlington, NJ............................... 11.1 205.1 0.2 293 1,070 1.4 307

Camden, NJ................................. 12.2 209.2 -0.1 316 1,013 1.8 285

Essex, NJ.................................... 20.7 347.6 0.4 271 1,263 2.5 225

Gloucester, NJ.............................. 6.4 112.6 2.6 55 890 2.1 261

Hudson, NJ................................... 15.2 265.4 0.3 281 1,408 4.7 32

Mercer, NJ.................................... 11.2 257.8 0.5 257 1,287 1.8 285

Middlesex, NJ.............................. 22.5 432.6 1.0 193 1,199 1.4 307

Monmouth, NJ.............................. 20.3 274.4 0.6 250 1,019 3.1 160

Morris, NJ..................................... 17.1 300.8 1.0 193 1,496 -2.4 347

Ocean, NJ.................................... 13.5 179.6 1.7 118 826 2.6 216

Passaic, NJ.................................. 12.7 168.7 0.3 281 1,018 2.0 268

Somerset, NJ............................... 10.3 193.1 0.8 219 1,549 6.2 14

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 350 largest counties,

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Union, NJ..................................... 14.5 230.5 1.3 159 $1,271 3.9 77

Bernalillo, NM............................... 18.9 329.4 0.5 257 886 2.3 244

Albany, NY................................... 10.4 235.5 0.4 271 1,138 4.2 59

Bronx, NY..................................... 19.2 322.2 1.2 176 1,058 2.3 244

Broome, NY.................................. 4.5 87.9 0.7 235 866 3.7 93

Dutchess, NY............................... 8.4 114.5 0.7 235 1,038 1.4 307

Erie, NY........................................ 24.7 475.0 0.4 271 949 3.2 150

Kings, NY..................................... 64.2 772.5 2.5 63 918 2.2 253

Monroe, NY.................................. 19.0 391.6 0.0 310 996 3.1 160

Nassau, NY.................................. 54.3 647.2 0.5 257 1,175 2.5 225

New York, NY............................... 128.9 2,474.7 0.7 235 2,025 4.4 44

Oneida, NY................................... 5.3 107.4 0.1 303 833 2.6 216

Onondaga, NY.............................. 12.9 249.4 0.5 257 984 3.7 93

Orange, NY.................................. 10.5 148.5 1.8 110 941 4.0 69

Queens, NY.................................. 54.0 708.1 2.1 82 1,062 3.9 77

Richmond, NY.............................. 10.0 124.0 1.4 144 997 3.4 124

Rockland, NY............................... 11.0 129.3 2.0 94 1,016 2.6 216

Saratoga, NY................................ 6.0 92.7 2.7 48 995 4.3 50

Suffolk, NY................................... 53.4 688.3 0.1 303 1,134 3.4 124

Westchester, NY.......................... 36.4 441.9 0.9 206 1,353 1.4 307

Buncombe, NC............................. 9.3 132.8 3.2 28 805 2.7 204

Cabarrus, NC............................... 4.8 77.3 2.0 94 760 1.7 289

Catawba, NC................................ 4.4 88.7 1.0 193 812 2.4 233

Cumberland, NC........................... 6.2 120.9 1.4 144 820 3.4 124

Durham, NC................................. 8.5 204.4 2.7 48 1,256 1.8 285

Forsyth, NC.................................. 9.2 187.1 2.4 69 928 0.9 325

Guilford, NC.................................. 14.4 281.1 0.8 219 906 1.7 289

Mecklenburg, NC.......................... 38.5 698.8 2.5 63 1,201 4.4 44

New Hanover, NC........................ 8.4 116.0 2.1 82 829 -6.4 349

Pitt, NC....................................... 3.8 77.5 3.1 34 824 2.0 268

Wake, NC..................................... 35.2 568.9 3.2 28 1,100 5.1 25

Cass, ND...................................... 7.3 118.7 -0.2 323 951 3.7 93

Butler, OH..................................... 7.8 155.4 1.2 176 903 0.4 335

Cuyahoga, OH.............................. 35.8 732.7 0.5 257 1,059 2.9 185

Delaware, OH............................... 5.4 90.7 1.1 186 988 2.4 233

Franklin, OH................................. 32.3 758.5 1.5 138 1,029 1.6 295

Hamilton, OH................................ 23.8 524.3 0.5 257 1,105 3.0 172

Lake, OH...................................... 6.3 97.7 0.5 257 858 2.8 197

Lorain, OH.................................... 6.2 100.5 1.1 186 809 2.3 244

Lucas, OH.................................... 10.1 210.1 1.3 159 869 2.7 204

Mahoning, OH.............................. 5.9 99.1 1.7 118 735 2.2 253

Montgomery, OH.......................... 11.8 255.7 0.2 293 897 3.6 104

Stark, OH..................................... 8.6 162.2 1.1 186 778 2.0 268

Summit, OH................................. 14.3 268.9 -0.3 331 918 3.4 124

Warren, OH................................. 5.1 97.5 2.1 82 914 1.9 278

Cleveland, OK.............................. 5.9 80.3 0.9 206 777 3.9 77

Oklahoma, OK.............................. 28.2 457.2 1.4 144 979 3.1 160

Tulsa, OK..................................... 22.6 358.3 1.3 159 942 3.0 172

Clackamas, OR............................ 15.4 168.1 1.1 186 1,007 -2.0 346

Deschutes, OR............................. 8.9 85.1 3.1 34 860 1.5 301

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 350 largest counties,

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Jackson, OR................................ 7.7 90.6 2.6 55 $800 1.1 320

Lane, OR...................................... 12.4 158.0 0.4 271 836 2.7 204

Marion, OR................................... 11.2 159.6 2.0 94 888 3.9 77

Multnomah, OR............................ 35.7 513.5 1.4 144 1,109 3.4 124

Washington, OR........................... 19.7 297.7 1.3 159 1,344 6.6 10

Allegheny, PA............................... 35.7 709.8 1.0 193 1,127 4.3 50

Berks, PA..................................... 9.0 174.9 1.2 176 954 2.7 204

Bucks, PA..................................... 20.1 272.0 1.4 144 975 2.6 216

Butler, PA..................................... 5.1 87.0 -0.2 323 968 2.3 244

Chester, PA.................................. 15.7 254.2 1.2 176 1,350 1.7 289

Cumberland, PA........................... 6.6 135.2 0.7 235 968 3.5 112

Dauphin, PA................................ 7.6 188.3 1.9 103 1,013 1.6 295

Delaware, PA............................... 14.3 227.2 1.4 144 1,094 2.8 197

Erie, PA........................................ 7.0 123.7 0.0 310 793 3.0 172

Lackawanna, PA.......................... 5.7 98.9 0.5 257 807 2.9 185

Lancaster, PA............................... 13.7 245.3 2.1 82 860 2.4 233

Lehigh, PA.................................... 8.9 196.0 1.8 110 989 1.1 320

Luzerne, PA.................................. 7.4 146.6 0.1 303 833 4.5 40

Montgomery, PA........................... 27.8 502.6 1.0 193 1,246 3.3 136

Northampton, PA.......................... 6.8 115.6 0.7 235 897 2.5 225

Philadelphia, PA........................... 35.0 687.3 2.2 76 1,197 2.4 233

Washington, PA............................ 5.5 89.9 1.0 193 1,011 1.9 278

Westmoreland, PA....................... 9.3 136.0 0.4 271 845 3.6 104

York, PA....................................... 9.3 180.4 1.3 159 921 3.1 160

Kent, RI....................................... 5.5 77.2 0.4 271 906 0.9 325

Providence, RI.............................. 18.5 289.3 0.7 235 1,033 1.7 289

Charleston, SC............................. 16.1 258.9 4.0 10 918 0.4 335

Greenville, SC.............................. 14.7 278.0 3.7 17 910 0.8 329

Horry, SC..................................... 9.3 139.4 2.1 82 625 0.3 338

Lexington, SC............................... 6.9 121.0 4.0 10 778 0.0 341

Richland, SC................................ 10.6 224.0 1.0 193 870 2.0 268

Spartanburg, SC........................... 6.5 142.7 4.0 10 862 -2.9 348

York, SC....................................... 6.1 98.3 5.2 2 834 0.8 329

Minnehaha, SD............................. 7.3 128.8 1.0 193 896 2.3 244

Davidson, TN................................ 23.3 498.9 2.7 48 1,081 2.4 233

Hamilton, TN................................ 9.9 206.4 1.6 129 923 3.6 104

Knox, TN...................................... 12.6 239.2 0.9 206 923 5.1 25

Rutherford, TN.............................. 5.8 129.4 2.7 48 937 1.1 320

Shelby, TN.................................... 20.8 501.1 1.1 186 1,036 2.7 204

Williamson, TN............................. 9.0 135.9 4.3 8 1,191 6.1 15

Bell, TX......................................... 5.5 118.5 -0.6 340 900 3.2 150

Bexar, TX..................................... 41.7 866.2 1.5 138 942 3.3 136

Brazoria, TX................................. 5.9 113.2 3.2 28 1,094 1.5 301

Brazos, TX.................................... 4.6 101.5 3.6 18 794 4.3 50

Cameron, TX................................ 6.5 139.3 0.8 219 642 4.4 44

Collin, TX...................................... 25.6 417.5 3.5 19 1,236 5.7 17

Dallas, TX..................................... 77.5 1,710.0 1.8 110 1,246 2.5 225

Denton, TX.................................. 15.3 247.5 2.2 76 955 3.1 160

El Paso, TX.................................. 15.2 303.7 1.1 186 733 2.4 233

Fort Bend, TX............................... 13.6 190.5 5.0 3 958 2.6 216

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 350 largest counties,

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-183

Ranking by

percent

change

Galveston, TX............................... 6.2 110.9 1.4 144 $905 -0.4 344

Harris, TX..................................... 115.0 2,309.3 1.3 159 1,269 3.1 160

Hidalgo, TX................................... 12.5 260.9 2.1 82 645 2.4 233

Jefferson, TX................................ 5.8 124.0 0.4 271 1,063 4.0 69

Lubbock, TX................................. 7.6 139.6 0.9 206 842 5.3 23

McLennan, TX.............................. 5.3 113.4 0.7 235 886 6.6 10

Midland, TX.................................. 5.7 103.7 11.6 1 1,377 4.2 59

Montgomery, TX........................... 11.6 186.7 4.8 6 1,050 4.5 40

Nueces, TX.................................. 8.3 164.8 -0.2 323 892 3.6 104

Potter, TX..................................... 4.0 77.6 0.0 310 860 3.9 77

Smith, TX..................................... 6.4 103.6 1.3 159 858 4.9 30

Tarrant, TX................................... 43.9 900.6 1.9 103 1,038 3.0 172

Travis, TX..................................... 41.5 751.7 3.0 39 1,226 3.3 136

Webb, TX..................................... 5.5 101.2 1.0 193 687 3.2 150

Williamson, TX............................. 11.2 174.6 4.0 10 1,012 2.0 268

Davis, UT..................................... 8.7 132.0 2.2 76 871 3.1 160

Salt Lake, UT................................ 46.0 704.9 3.1 34 1,010 4.4 44

Utah, UT....................................... 16.7 242.4 4.8 6 859 5.7 17

Weber, UT.................................... 6.2 105.9 2.6 55 791 3.8 86

Chittenden, VT............................. 6.9 103.0 -0.5 335 1,023 4.6 39

Arlington, VA................................ 9.2 180.0 0.6 250 1,653 2.9 185

Chesterfield, VA........................... 9.3 139.0 0.6 250 881 2.1 261

Fairfax, VA.................................... 37.3 619.8 1.4 144 1,577 2.2 253

Henrico, VA.................................. 11.8 194.3 1.0 193 982 2.3 244

Loudoun, VA................................ 12.6 171.8 1.7 118 1,191 1.9 278

Prince William, VA........................ 9.4 133.6 2.1 82 925 4.5 40

Alexandria City, VA...................... 6.3 93.5 -0.4 334 1,416 2.2 253

Chesapeake City, VA................... 6.1 102.4 1.3 159 829 2.1 261

Newport News City, VA................ 3.9 102.9 5.0 3 994 2.1 261

Norfolk City, VA........................... 6.0 143.9 0.6 250 1,064 2.3 244

Richmond City, VA....................... 7.8 155.0 0.8 219 1,115 2.6 216

Virginia Beach City, VA................ 12.3 183.0 -0.7 342 808 3.9 77

Benton, WA.................................. 5.8 95.4 2.3 72 1,022 1.5 301

Clark, WA..................................... 14.9 163.4 3.4 25 1,003 5.1 25

King, WA...................................... 89.2 1,405.6 2.5 63 1,605 9.3 2

Kitsap, WA.................................... 6.7 91.0 2.4 69 1,016 4.0 69

Pierce, WA................................... 22.6 313.3 2.7 48 978 5.2 24

Snohomish, WA............................ 21.5 290.2 1.6 129 1,149 4.2 59

Spokane, WA............................... 16.2 226.7 1.8 110 909 4.7 32

Thurston, WA............................... 8.4 117.7 3.5 19 989 5.8 16

Whatcom, WA.............................. 7.3 92.9 2.8 44 908 5.5 21

Yakima, WA................................. 7.8 128.5 5.0 3 737 3.2 150

Kanawha, WV............................... 5.7 99.5 -1.2 347 896 2.2 253

Brown, WI..................................... 7.1 161.6 0.7 235 900 4.0 69

Dane, WI...................................... 16.0 339.3 1.2 176 1,040 3.6 104

Milwaukee, WI.............................. 27.1 493.3 0.6 250 987 1.9 278

Outagamie, WI............................. 5.4 111.1 1.2 176 892 3.4 124

Waukesha, WI.............................. 13.3 249.2 0.6 250 1,029 2.8 197

Winnebago, WI............................. 3.9 94.8 0.1 303 969 5.0 28

San Juan, PR............................... 10.4 241.4 0.2 (5) 668 6.9 (5)

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

2 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

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

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

(UCFE) programs. These 349 U.S. counties comprise 72.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 2018

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-182

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-182

United States3................................................................. 10,048.0 147,431.2 1.5 $1,055 3.4

 Private industry............................................................. 9,748.2 125,712.2 1.7 1,045 3.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 137.9 2,065.1 2.9 1,075 5.7

 Construction............................................................... 807.3 7,407.6 3.7 1,159 3.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 350.4 12,717.5 1.6 1,264 2.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 1,923.2 27,365.7 1.0 891 3.6

 Information................................................................. 169.4 2,823.9 0.4 2,055 9.1

 Financial activities...................................................... 889.8 8,230.6 1.0 1,589 3.4

 Professional and business services........................... 1,830.5 20,939.2 1.8 1,365 3.3

 Education and health services................................... 1,697.7 22,519.3 1.7 951 2.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 856.3 16,797.5 1.2 449 4.2

 Other services............................................................ 851.1 4,574.8 1.3 725 3.4

 Government.................................................................. 299.7 21,718.9 0.4 1,113 2.7

Los Angeles, CA.............................................................. 497.6 4,442.1 1.3 1,177 4.0

 Private industry............................................................. 491.3 3,859.4 1.4 1,149 4.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 6.8 -18.7 1,064 8.0

 Construction............................................................... 15.2 144.3 3.3 1,243 5.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 12.3 341.7 -2.4 1,358 4.5

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 55.4 826.6 0.1 958 3.1

 Information................................................................. 10.6 188.0 2.3 2,427 9.1

 Financial activities...................................................... 27.6 221.4 -0.1 1,876 6.0

 Professional and business services........................... 50.8 610.3 1.2 1,482 3.8

 Education and health services................................... 237.2 801.7 2.4 881 3.0

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 34.5 535.1 1.1 681 8.4

 Other services............................................................ 27.1 151.9 0.0 775 3.5

 Government.................................................................. 6.3 582.7 0.2 1,367 2.5

Cook, IL........................................................................... 138.7 2,626.3 0.9 1,220 3.2

 Private industry............................................................. 137.5 2,326.8 1.0 1,208 3.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.1 1.3 0.8 1,168 -0.4

 Construction............................................................... 10.9 79.6 3.7 1,457 2.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 5.8 185.3 0.6 1,249 0.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 28.2 472.0 0.5 1,003 3.1

 Information................................................................. 2.4 51.5 -2.0 1,936 8.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 14.0 200.3 1.6 2,122 2.5

 Professional and business services........................... 29.1 480.3 0.9 1,567 4.7

 Education and health services................................... 15.5 450.2 1.5 987 2.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.8 303.2 0.8 558 3.9

 Other services............................................................ 15.8 102.2 2.4 937 -0.1

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 299.5 0.2 1,319 3.3

New York, NY.................................................................. 128.9 2,474.7 0.7 2,025 4.4

 Private industry............................................................. 127.5 2,245.0 0.8 2,066 4.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.0 0.2 14.1 1,993 3.2

 Construction............................................................... 2.4 43.6 4.6 1,924 3.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.0 24.0 -3.5 1,502 5.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 19.3 252.6 -1.3 1,495 10.4

 Information................................................................. 5.0 174.1 1.5 2,766 9.9

 Financial activities...................................................... 19.5 385.7 1.9 3,665 2.1

 Professional and business services........................... 27.4 597.2 0.9 2,277 3.5

 Education and health services................................... 10.2 345.0 0.7 1,396 4.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 14.8 312.9 0.2 906 4.3

 Other services............................................................ 20.4 105.6 0.3 1,216 -2.3

 Government.................................................................. 1.4 229.7 -0.2 1,633 3.1

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

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-182

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-182

Harris, TX........................................................................ 115.0 2,309.3 1.3 $1,269 3.1

 Private industry............................................................. 114.4 2,035.0 1.4 1,286 3.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 1.6 66.1 -0.5 3,065 4.6

 Construction............................................................... 7.6 160.9 1.3 1,361 3.0

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.8 175.1 3.0 1,613 3.7

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 24.8 469.3 1.4 1,154 3.0

 Information................................................................. 1.2 26.3 -3.5 1,447 4.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 12.2 128.6 0.7 1,634 0.4

 Professional and business services........................... 23.2 403.3 1.4 1,594 4.3

 Education and health services................................... 16.1 294.7 1.1 1,044 1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 10.2 240.3 1.6 477 5.8

 Other services............................................................ 11.7 67.9 1.3 820 2.0

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 274.3 0.9 1,149 2.3

Maricopa, AZ.................................................................... 100.0 1,950.6 2.8 1,016 3.0

 Private industry............................................................. 99.2 1,764.6 3.0 1,004 3.0

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 8.5 1.3 944 5.2

 Construction............................................................... 7.7 120.8 7.1 1,087 4.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.3 123.4 3.6 1,486 4.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 19.0 381.3 2.9 927 2.8

 Information................................................................. 1.6 37.1 -0.4 1,359 0.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 11.9 180.3 2.5 1,319 5.0

 Professional and business services........................... 22.5 332.2 2.1 1,078 1.6

 Education and health services................................... 11.7 303.0 3.1 982 0.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.4 219.5 2.6 503 5.9

 Other services............................................................ 6.7 54.0 2.8 752 5.3

 Government.................................................................. 0.7 186.1 0.5 1,114 3.5

Dallas, TX........................................................................ 77.5 1,710.0 1.8 1,246 2.5

 Private industry............................................................. 77.0 1,537.0 2.0 1,251 2.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.5 15.2 3,488 3.2

 Construction............................................................... 4.7 90.9 2.5 1,262 2.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.8 113.3 2.0 1,437 1.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 15.8 348.2 2.7 1,085 3.4

 Information................................................................. 1.4 49.6 -1.7 1,836 -0.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.7 164.1 -0.9 1,715 -0.1

 Professional and business services........................... 17.7 351.3 3.0 1,463 3.6

 Education and health services................................... 9.6 199.1 1.4 1,129 1.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.9 165.6 2.2 517 5.7

 Other services............................................................ 7.0 44.4 0.7 895 12.6

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 173.0 0.4 1,200 2.6

Orange, CA...................................................................... 123.2 1,628.9 1.7 1,157 2.7

 Private industry............................................................. 121.7 1,472.0 1.8 1,142 2.7

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.2 2.5 -6.5 909 1.9

 Construction............................................................... 7.1 105.2 3.9 1,367 4.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 5.1 158.4 -1.4 1,486 6.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 17.4 256.8 0.2 1,023 3.2

 Information................................................................. 1.4 26.3 -1.2 2,027 6.2

 Financial activities...................................................... 12.0 118.0 -0.5 1,764 3.0

 Professional and business services........................... 21.6 308.6 2.5 1,344 -0.2

 Education and health services................................... 35.3 215.9 3.1 941 3.3

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.9 222.8 1.1 512 3.9

 Other services............................................................ 6.9 47.0 0.6 724 1.4

 Government.................................................................. 1.5 156.9 1.0 1,302 2.7

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

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-182

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-182

San Diego, CA................................................................ 112.9 1,473.5 2.0 $1,137 3.4

 Private industry............................................................. 110.9 1,234.6 2.2 1,096 3.7

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.7 10.0 6.4 764 6.6

 Construction............................................................... 7.4 84.3 5.7 1,204 2.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.3 112.0 2.5 1,508 1.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.6 221.3 0.6 857 3.0

 Information................................................................. 1.2 23.8 -2.7 2,087 12.7

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.5 75.1 0.2 1,486 3.3

 Professional and business services........................... 19.2 244.2 3.2 1,574 4.0

 Education and health services................................... 32.9 201.1 1.4 952 2.8

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.5 202.6 1.2 522 4.4

 Other services............................................................ 7.4 51.7 -1.6 639 2.2

 Government.................................................................. 2.0 238.9 0.6 1,350 2.8

King, WA......................................................................... 89.2 1,405.6 2.5 1,605 9.3

 Private industry............................................................. 88.6 1,233.6 2.7 1,638 9.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 3.1 -3.2 1,412 13.0

 Construction............................................................... 6.8 74.1 4.2 1,406 5.5

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.5 102.2 -0.3 1,660 2.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.1 271.4 2.4 1,886 16.7

 Information................................................................. 2.4 111.4 7.6 3,384 13.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 6.8 70.7 3.5 1,705 4.0

 Professional and business services........................... 18.3 230.6 2.3 1,801 8.5

 Education and health services................................... 20.4 176.1 2.2 1,076 4.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.4 147.6 2.6 597 3.1

 Other services............................................................ 9.3 46.4 2.1 904 3.2

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 171.9 0.6 1,370 3.9

Miami-Dade, FL............................................................... 99.0 1,125.0 0.9 1,000 3.0

 Private industry............................................................. 98.7 999.0 0.9 977 2.8

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.3 4.6 671 7.4

 Construction............................................................... 6.9 50.5 3.4 963 3.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.8 40.3 0.0 888 3.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 24.9 284.1 1.2 925 2.9

 Information................................................................. 1.6 18.5 0.2 1,678 -1.2

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.7 75.5 0.1 1,532 2.3

 Professional and business services........................... 22.4 162.3 2.2 1,170 3.5

 Education and health services................................... 10.8 178.7 0.6 985 1.3

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.4 140.1 -1.4 608 4.6

 Other services............................................................ 8.4 39.3 -0.8 651 5.3

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 126.0 0.7 1,168 3.7

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

Note: Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2017 annual average employment. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance

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

second quarter 2018

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-18

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-18

United States2.......................................... 10,048.0 147,431.2 1.5 $1,055 3.4

Alabama.................................................... 127.2 1,969.9 1.2 882 2.8

Alaska........................................................ 22.1 335.8 -0.9 1,043 3.7

Arizona...................................................... 163.5 2,770.8 2.6 973 3.3

Arkansas................................................... 90.5 1,214.6 0.7 824 1.7

California................................................... 1,559.5 17,473.1 1.9 1,265 4.6

Colorado.................................................... 204.9 2,704.4 2.4 1,075 3.2

Connecticut............................................... 120.8 1,704.5 0.3 1,218 0.1

Delaware................................................... 32.6 454.3 1.3 1,023 1.4

District of Columbia................................... 40.0 777.3 1.3 1,713 2.6

Florida....................................................... 688.9 8,568.9 2.1 931 2.9

Georgia...................................................... 278.7 4,440.5 2.0 979 2.3

Hawaii........................................................ 42.7 658.3 0.5 956 2.5

Idaho......................................................... 62.5 745.3 3.1 794 3.8

Illinois........................................................ 375.1 6,061.1 0.8 1,097 3.4

Indiana....................................................... 167.6 3,075.8 1.1 883 2.8

Iowa........................................................... 102.8 1,583.7 0.8 880 3.3

Kansas...................................................... 89.0 1,393.3 1.0 879 3.4

Kentucky.................................................... 123.2 1,905.9 0.9 882 2.3

Louisiana................................................... 133.1 1,918.6 0.4 901 3.7

Maine......................................................... 53.3 636.8 1.0 843 3.6

Maryland.................................................... 172.4 2,712.0 0.7 1,141 3.4

Massachusetts.......................................... 259.0 3,650.1 1.0 1,322 3.5

Michigan.................................................... 246.8 4,424.7 1.3 997 2.9

Minnesota.................................................. 177.1 2,925.6 0.8 1,072 3.3

Mississippi................................................. 74.2 1,130.7 0.2 752 2.7

Missouri..................................................... 203.4 2,829.0 0.5 924 3.9

Montana.................................................... 49.6 478.7 1.1 817 2.5

Nebraska................................................... 72.7 990.8 0.6 859 3.1

Nevada...................................................... 81.9 1,372.4 3.1 931 3.3

New Hampshire......................................... 52.7 670.8 0.8 1,049 3.3

New Jersey............................................... 274.2 4,157.0 0.9 1,201 2.3

New Mexico............................................... 59.7 823.6 1.0 852 3.5

New York.................................................. 650.3 9,579.2 1.7 1,297 4.5

North Carolina........................................... 278.9 4,450.2 2.2 933 3.3

North Dakota............................................. 31.9 426.1 0.8 986 3.4

Ohio........................................................... 296.8 5,461.3 0.7 933 2.3

Oklahoma.................................................. 110.9 1,606.4 1.2 875 3.2

Oregon...................................................... 155.8 1,947.3 1.5 999 3.3

Pennsylvania............................................. 359.9 5,924.9 1.1 1,031 3.1

Rhode Island............................................. 37.9 491.0 0.7 998 1.7

South Carolina.......................................... 135.9 2,126.5 3.4 833 0.0

South Dakota............................................ 33.6 439.7 0.9 807 2.8

Tennessee................................................. 161.7 2,994.1 1.6 932 2.9

Texas......................................................... 687.2 12,326.3 2.2 1,062 3.4

Utah........................................................... 103.1 1,483.9 3.4 899 4.3

Vermont..................................................... 25.6 312.4 -0.8 907 4.3

Virginia...................................................... 277.4 3,941.0 1.3 1,073 2.6

Washington............................................... 247.5 3,444.1 2.7 1,218 6.9

West Virginia............................................. 50.9 702.9 1.6 868 4.8

Wisconsin.................................................. 174.9 2,933.5 0.9 904 3.3

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

second quarter 2018 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2018

(thousands)

June

2018

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2017-18

Second

quarter

2018

Percent

change,

second quarter

2017-18

Wyoming................................................... 26.3 282.2 0.5 $901 3.0

Puerto Rico............................................... 44.3 853.5 -2.3 543 5.2

Virgin Islands............................................ 3.4 33.4 -14.4 838 12.8

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.