For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, June 30, 2011 USDL-11-0962 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Fourth Quarter 2010 

From December 2009 to December 2010, employment increased in 220 of the 326 largest U.S. 

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

increase, with a gain of 5.2 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 0.9 percent. 

Within Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 4,185 jobs 

over the year (10.3 percent). Manatee, Fla., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in 

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

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 3.0 percent to $971 in the fourth quarter of 

2010. Among the large counties in the U.S., Olmsted, Minn., had the largest over-the-year increase in 

average weekly wages in the fourth quarter of 2010 with a gain of 31.9 percent. Within Olmsted, 

education and health services had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in average 

weekly wages. Union, N.J., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 2.8 

percent over the year. County employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of 

Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, December 2009-10 

(U.S. average = 0.9 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2009-10 

(U.S. average = 3.0 percent) 

5.2 5.0

4.0 4.0 3.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Elkhart,

Ind.

Benton,

Wash.

Peoria,

Ill.

Washington,

Pa.

Lehigh,

Pa.

31.9

14.4

9.0 8.1 7.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Olmsted,

Minn.

Santa Clara,

Calif.

Williamson,

Tenn.

Rock Island,

Ill.

Lake,

Ind.
- 2 - 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by December 2010 employment, December 2009-10 employment 

increase, and December 2009-10 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

December 2010 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) December 2009-10 December 2009-10 

 (thousands) 

 

United States 129,451.6 United States 1,139.2 United States 0.9

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,931.6 New York, N.Y. 37.5 Elkhart, Ind. 5.2

Cook, Ill. 2,379.8 Harris, Texas 35.6 Benton, Wash. 5.0

New York, N.Y. 2,335.9 Dallas, Texas 22.4 Peoria, Ill. 4.0

Harris, Texas 2,019.3 Maricopa, Ariz. 18.8 Washington, Pa. 4.0

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,643.9 Cook, Ill. 15.9 Lehigh, Pa. 3.7

Dallas, Texas 1,429.9 Kings, N.Y. 15.8 Montgomery, Texas 3.6

Orange, Calif. 1,382.0 King, Wash. 15.7 Kings, N.Y. 3.2

San Diego, Calif. 1,256.1 Travis, Texas 15.2 Washington, Ore. 3.2

King, Wash. 1,131.8 Santa Clara, Calif. 14.0 Denton, Texas 3.2

Miami-Dade, Fla. 970.3 Hennepin, Minn. 12.8 Arlington, Va. 3.0

Large County Employment 

In December 2010, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129.5 million, up 

by 0.9 percent or 1.1 million workers, from December 2009. The 326 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more 

employees accounted for 70.9 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.8 percent of total wages. These 

326 counties had a net job growth of 704,131 over the year, accounting for 61.8 percent of the overall 

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

Elkhart, Ind., had the largest percentage increase in employment among the largest U.S. counties. The 

five counties with the largest increases in employment level (New York, N.Y.; Harris, Texas; Dallas, 

Texas; Maricopa, Ariz.; and Cook, Ill.) had a combined over-the-year gain of 130,200, or 11.4 percent 

of the employment increase for the U.S. 

Employment declined in 83 of the large counties from December 2009 to December 2010. Manatee, 

Fla., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.0 percent) in the nation. 

Within Manatee, professional and business services was the largest contributor to the decrease in 

employment with a loss of 14.0 percent. San Joaquin, Calif., experienced the second largest employment 

decrease, followed by Volusia, Fla., Marion, Fla., and Broome, N.Y. 

 
- 3 - 

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2010 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2009-10 

increase in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2009-10 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 

Average weekly wage, Increase in average weekly Percent increase in average 

fourth quarter 2010 wage, fourth quarter 2009-10 weekly wage, fourth 

 quarter 2009-10 

 

United States $971 United States $28 United States 3.0

 

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,943 Olmsted, Minn. $317 Olmsted, Minn. 31.9

New York, N.Y. 1,929 Santa Clara, Calif. 245 Santa Clara, Calif. 14.4

Washington, D.C. 1,688 Williamson, Tenn. 92 Williamson, Tenn. 9.0

Fairfield, Conn. 1,668 Rock Island, Ill. 90 Rock Island, Ill. 8.1

Arlington, Va. 1,668 San Mateo, Calif. 86 Lake, Ind. 7.6

Suffolk, Mass. 1,651 Arlington, Va. 76 Ottawa, Mich. 6.6

San Francisco, Calif. 1,573 Washington, D.C. 72 Lafayette, La. 6.5

San Mateo, Calif. 1,564 Fulton, Ga. 70 Jefferson, Colo. 6.4

Fairfax, Va. 1,541 Suffolk, Mass. 70 Weld, Colo. 6.2

Somerset, N.J. 1,448 Middlesex, Mass. 69 Lorain, Ohio 6.2

 Alexandria City, Va. 69 

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

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

2010. Among the 326 largest counties, 294 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See 

chart 4.) Olmsted, Minn., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties, 31.9 percent. This 

increase was largely due to a 55.1 percent increase in average weekly wages in education and health 

services. 

Union, N.J., had the largest wage decline with a loss of 2.8 percent over the year. Professional and 

business services contributed significantly to the county’s overall average weekly wage loss. 

Montgomery, Ala., and Montgomery, Pa., had the second largest percent decline in average weekly 

wages among the counties, followed by Collin, Texas, Benton, Ark., and Williamson, Texas. 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

Nine of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent increases in employment in 

December 2010. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain in employment with a 1.8 percent increase. 

Within Harris, trade, transportation, and utilities had the largest over-the-year increase among all private 

industry groups with a gain of 7,830 workers (1.8 percent). (See table 2.) Employment was unchanged in 

Los Angeles, Calif., over the year. 

All of the 10 largest U.S. counties had an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. San Diego, 

Calif., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 5.3 percent. Within San 

Diego, the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth occurred in professional and 

business services, where total wages increased by $268.7 million over the year (6.8 percent). Maricopa, 

Ariz., had the smallest wage increase.
- 4 - 

For More Information 

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 326 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2009. December 2010 employment and 

2010 fourth quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release. 

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

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

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.1 million employer reports cover 129.5 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the fourth quarter of 2010 will be available later at 

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

(202) 691-6567. 

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

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

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

Thursday, September 29, 2011. 

Upcoming Industry Changes to Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data 

The 2010 data will be the last from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) 

program using the 2007 version of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

Beginning with the release of first quarter 2011 data, the program will switch to the 2012 version of 

the North American Industry Classification System as the basis for the assignment and tabulation of 

economic data by industry. For more information on the change, please see the Federal Register 

notice at http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/federal_register_notices/notices/fr12my10.pdf. 
Technical Note 

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

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

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

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

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

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

in this release are based on the 2007 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2010 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 327 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2009 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2010 data, two counties have 

been added to the publication tables: St. Tammany Parish, La., and 

Benton, Wash. These counties will be included in all 2010 quarterly 

releases. Ten counties, Shelby, Ala.; Butte, Calif.; Tippecanoe, Ind.; 

Johnson, Iowa; Saratoga, N.Y.; Trumbull, Ohio; Warren, Ohio; 

Kent, R.I.; Gregg, Texas; and Racine, Wis., which were published 

in the 2009 releases, will be excluded from this and

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.0 million establishments in first quarter of 2010 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.7 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/ 
future 2010 releases because their 2009 annual average employment 

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

sorted each year based on the annual average employment from the 

preceding year. 

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures 

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

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

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

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

table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

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

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

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

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

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on 

the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.0 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2009. 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 2009, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 128.6 million jobs. The 

estimated 123.6 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.1 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $5.859 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.4 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.5 percent of the gross domestic product. 

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

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

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

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

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

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

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

can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may 

differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage 

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

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

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

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in 

average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between 

the current quarter and prior year levels. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

taken into consideration. 

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

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

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

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

while in other quarters their wages include payments for seven pay 

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

reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages 

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

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

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

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

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

government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. 

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

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

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

with large concentrations of federal employment. 

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

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

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

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

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

are introduced in the first quarter. 

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

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

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

reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation. 

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

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

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

version of the final 2009 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

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

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

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

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

news release. 

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

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

most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of 

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

involving the classification of establishments that were previously 

reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry 

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

account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers 

who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a 

single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

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

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

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

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

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

England states for comparative purposes even though townships are 

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

regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 

features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 

2009 edition of this bulletin contains selected data produced by 

Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as 

well as selected data from the first quarter 2010 version of this news 

release. This web-only publication has replaced the annual print 

bulletin, Employment and Wages Annual Averages. The March 2010 

issue of this annual bulletin was the final one to be issued on paper. 

Tables and additional content from the 2009 Employment and Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn09.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. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2010 2

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,093.5 129,451.6 0.9 – $971 3.0 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.9 332.7 -0.8 284 972 2.6 144

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 179.9 0.0 221 1,087 3.8 71

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.9 166.3 0.8 151 856 3.0 124

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.3 129.4 -0.7 280 873 -2.1 316

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 83.6 1.8 47 832 4.3 45

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 149.3 1.1 116 1,031 2.1 192

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 94.6 1,643.9 1.2 103 937 1.1 251

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.1 347.1 -0.9 287 846 1.8 210

Benton, AR ........................ 5.4 93.9 2.0 35 839 -1.6 313

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.9 244.9 0.2 206 872 0.8 271

Washington, AR ................. 5.5 90.6 1.7 52 805 3.7 74

Alameda, CA ...................... 56.1 631.2 -0.5 268 1,260 4.9 29

Contra Costa, CA ............... 30.1 315.0 -1.4 304 1,175 3.9 59

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.8 326.0 0.5 173 766 0.9 264

Kern, CA ............................ 18.0 267.1 2.5 21 859 4.8 32

Los Angeles, CA ................ 437.6 3,931.6 0.0 221 1,158 5.2 19

Marin, CA ........................... 12.0 103.7 1.4 84 1,197 3.6 80

Monterey, CA ..................... 13.0 144.6 2.2 29 822 -0.1 296

Orange, CA ........................ 104.5 1,382.0 0.9 139 1,112 4.4 41

Placer, CA .......................... 11.0 125.5 1.7 52 960 ( 7) – 

Riverside, CA ..................... 49.2 556.8 -0.9 287 772 2.1 192

Sacramento, CA ................ 54.1 577.1 -1.7 307 1,059 4.0 53

San Bernardino, CA ........... 50.8 605.4 -0.1 234 825 2.5 152

San Diego, CA ................... 100.4 1,256.1 0.5 173 1,075 5.3 17

San Francisco, CA ............. 54.8 557.9 1.7 52 1,573 1.7 220

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.4 197.8 -2.5 315 822 1.0 255

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.8 97.8 1.4 84 804 0.6 279

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.4 323.5 0.3 199 1,564 5.8 12

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.7 169.1 0.0 221 919 2.6 144

Santa Clara, CA ................. 62.6 862.3 1.6 69 1,943 14.4 2

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.2 86.7 0.1 215 848 2.8 133

Solano, CA ......................... 10.2 123.0 0.3 199 945 4.0 53

Sonoma, CA ...................... 19.0 176.6 1.0 125 930 4.6 37

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.2 157.0 0.9 139 792 0.5 282

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.5 140.1 -0.5 268 668 0.3 287

Ventura, CA ....................... 24.2 300.9 1.2 103 983 2.7 141

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.2 92.4 ( 7) – 915 ( 7) – 

Adams, CO ........................ 8.9 148.9 0.5 173 875 3.1 118

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.7 272.8 1.1 116 1,116 1.5 232

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.8 154.5 1.3 93 1,122 5.2 19

Denver, CO ........................ 25.1 426.5 1.9 41 1,215 5.4 16

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.3 91.0 0.7 163 1,165 -1.2 311

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.7 234.2 0.5 173 891 3.1 118

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.8 204.3 0.2 206 1,031 6.4 8

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.9 127.0 1.7 52 858 1.8 210

Weld, CO ........................... 5.7 79.4 2.9 11 820 6.2 9

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.7 407.4 1.3 93 1,668 3.9 59

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.3 491.3 0.9 139 1,177 1.7 220

New Haven, CT ................. 22.4 352.8 -0.4 259 1,039 2.8 133

New London, CT ................ 6.9 125.0 -0.4 259 956 1.5 232

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.4 267.7 1.1 116 $1,123 4.9 29

Washington, DC ................. 35.5 698.5 1.6 69 1,688 4.5 38

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 115.7 -1.1 298 837 3.2 111

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.4 188.9 -0.3 251 906 1.0 255

Broward, FL ....................... 62.4 692.4 0.2 206 923 2.4 161

Collier, FL .......................... 11.6 119.4 0.9 139 849 1.7 220

Duval, FL ........................... 26.6 439.2 1.0 125 939 2.8 133

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.8 120.3 0.8 151 771 1.6 226

Hillsborough, FL ................. 36.7 575.3 0.2 206 939 1.1 251

Lake, FL ............................. 7.2 79.5 -0.9 287 671 -0.6 303

Lee, FL ............................... 18.4 198.1 0.9 139 775 -1.0 309

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 139.7 0.3 199 831 1.7 220

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.4 103.5 -4.0 316 741 2.1 192

Marion, FL .......................... 7.9 89.5 -1.9 312 680 0.6 279

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 85.7 970.3 0.9 139 966 1.4 236

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 74.1 -0.9 287 801 0.3 287

Orange, FL ......................... 35.4 661.2 1.9 41 862 1.2 246

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.0 499.9 -0.2 246 977 1.0 255

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.7 97.9 1.0 125 686 0.9 264

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.7 384.7 -1.0 295 891 4.9 29

Polk, FL .............................. 12.3 193.5 -0.1 234 728 -0.7 305

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.4 135.2 -0.1 234 814 1.2 246

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.8 156.4 -0.4 259 795 0.4 285

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.3 149.2 -2.1 314 692 1.8 210

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 79.8 -0.3 251 755 0.8 271

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 128.4 1.0 125 823 1.2 246

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.2 103.4 ( 7) – 820 ( 7) – 

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.8 288.4 0.5 173 997 3.2 111

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.6 275.4 -1.0 295 993 2.1 192

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.9 715.4 ( 7) – 1,289 5.7 13

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.6 300.7 1.7 52 942 3.7 74

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 92.3 0.4 187 777 2.6 144

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 98.4 -0.5 268 820 2.8 133

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.8 440.6 1.1 116 896 2.4 161

Ada, ID ............................... 14.2 193.0 0.0 221 868 5.2 19

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 87.6 -1.8 309 793 -0.3 300

Cook, IL ............................. 144.6 2,379.8 0.7 163 1,157 1.8 210

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.5 556.0 1.4 84 1,125 3.6 80

Kane, IL ............................. 13.1 191.8 0.8 151 867 1.5 232

Lake, IL .............................. 21.6 309.2 -0.8 284 1,255 4.8 32

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 92.9 -0.8 284 817 3.4 97

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 85.6 ( 7) – 925 2.2 180

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 94.5 2.1 31 801 0.5 282

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 101.7 4.0 3 926 3.8 71

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 74.3 0.2 206 1,206 8.1 4

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 94.4 0.1 215 803 2.3 170

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 127.9 1.2 103 952 2.5 152

Will, IL ................................ 14.5 195.5 1.2 103 864 3.3 102

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 125.0 0.8 151 828 3.9 59

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 172.5 1.7 52 782 1.0 255

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 101.4 5.2 1 $739 -0.7 305

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.1 109.6 1.5 77 912 3.6 80

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 184.6 0.4 187 859 7.6 5

Marion, IN .......................... 23.7 549.3 0.4 187 965 2.3 170

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 115.2 -0.3 251 796 -0.3 300

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 104.8 0.5 173 835 6.1 11

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 126.5 2.0 35 923 4.5 38

Polk, IA .............................. 14.7 266.4 0.0 221 969 3.9 59

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 86.3 1.4 84 796 4.2 49

Johnson, KS ...................... 21.1 300.4 0.9 139 994 1.1 251

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.6 240.5 -0.4 259 900 3.2 111

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 93.8 0.4 187 811 2.3 170

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.3 80.3 1.7 52 893 0.0 295

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.6 177.7 ( 7) – 847 -0.1 296

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.5 416.8 1.7 52 924 1.7 220

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.5 122.0 0.8 151 817 2.5 152

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 82.4 -0.9 287 806 2.8 133

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.6 255.7 -1.7 307 904 0.9 264

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.9 195.5 0.4 187 911 1.4 236

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.1 132.4 1.6 69 946 6.5 7

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.0 172.4 1.4 84 1,036 3.0 124

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.3 76.1 0.7 163 816 ( 7) – 

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.5 170.1 1.0 125 875 1.4 236

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.5 230.0 1.3 93 1,054 ( 7) – 

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.3 367.1 -0.1 234 1,022 1.7 220

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 93.1 1.2 103 966 3.4 97

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 82.6 1.4 84 940 4.3 45

Howard, MD ....................... 8.9 148.7 ( 7) – 1,182 4.4 41

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.9 451.5 1.0 125 1,326 2.2 180

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.7 305.3 0.4 187 1,040 1.0 255

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.7 326.8 -0.4 259 1,157 4.0 53

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.3 83.2 0.1 215 836 0.5 282

Bristol, MA ......................... 16.4 211.0 1.6 69 860 -0.8 307

Essex, MA .......................... 21.7 298.4 1.8 47 1,040 2.5 152

Hampden, MA .................... 15.3 196.2 1.7 52 881 -1.1 310

Middlesex, MA ................... 49.3 817.3 1.2 103 1,411 5.1 24

Norfolk, MA ........................ 24.5 318.6 1.7 52 1,188 3.1 118

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.3 172.4 0.5 173 915 0.8 271

Suffolk, MA ........................ 23.1 580.1 2.0 35 1,651 4.4 41

Worcester, MA ................... 21.5 314.7 1.3 93 969 2.0 198

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.4 128.7 0.8 151 834 0.8 271

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.5 153.6 0.6 169 936 2.6 144

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.4 107.8 -0.4 259 880 4.4 41

Kent, MI ............................. 13.9 314.9 2.5 21 871 1.8 210

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.0 280.2 1.9 41 990 2.0 198

Oakland, MI ....................... 37.5 623.3 1.5 77 1,127 2.9 131

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.6 100.4 ( 7) – 842 6.6 6

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.2 81.0 1.0 125 800 1.1 251

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 193.6 ( 7) – 1,009 2.7 141

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.2 665.1 0.0 221 1,065 3.1 118

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.1 104.9 -0.7 280 $894 4.1 51

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.7 168.5 0.0 221 950 3.6 80

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.1 817.0 1.6 69 1,211 5.0 26

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.3 87.0 -0.2 246 1,312 31.9 1

Ramsey, MN ...................... 13.9 317.6 0.2 206 1,070 3.1 118

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.6 93.3 0.4 187 781 3.9 59

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.3 78.4 0.2 206 761 2.0 198

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 82.5 -0.2 246 710 -1.4 312

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.1 122.9 -1.8 309 847 2.2 180

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 82.7 1.3 93 738 3.4 97

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 90.9 1.7 52 916 3.9 59

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 148.0 -1.0 295 728 2.4 161

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.2 341.8 -0.6 275 975 2.5 152

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 122.5 2.3 28 754 0.9 264

St. Louis, MO ..................... 31.9 567.0 -0.6 275 1,046 4.1 51

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.9 216.4 -0.4 259 1,048 3.9 59

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.9 75.5 -0.2 246 803 4.7 35

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.9 315.5 1.2 103 881 0.7 278

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.2 154.4 1.1 116 769 2.4 161

Clark, NV ........................... 47.2 798.2 -1.5 306 870 -0.3 300

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.7 186.7 -0.3 251 877 1.0 255

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.0 188.4 0.5 173 1,095 2.8 133

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.6 134.0 1.5 77 946 1.8 210

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.9 131.5 -1.8 309 824 -0.6 303

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.1 433.8 0.2 206 1,229 1.9 205

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.3 193.3 -0.9 287 1,044 3.1 118

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.8 195.9 -1.2 301 1,030 1.8 210

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.4 342.3 -1.1 298 1,231 1.9 205

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 99.0 -1.4 304 870 0.6 279

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 232.9 0.3 199 1,276 2.6 144

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.4 226.9 -0.3 251 1,283 5.0 26

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.3 382.6 -0.5 268 1,178 1.0 255

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.6 245.5 -0.1 234 1,035 0.3 287

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.8 271.3 -1.1 298 1,420 -0.9 308

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.4 144.4 -0.1 234 828 1.3 242

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.5 173.0 0.9 139 1,004 0.8 271

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.2 168.0 -0.1 234 1,448 2.8 133

Union, NJ ........................... 14.9 221.8 0.1 215 1,200 -2.8 318

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.8 312.9 -1.3 302 849 -0.2 299

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 219.8 -0.9 287 981 2.2 180

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.8 234.3 0.5 173 927 0.2 291

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 91.3 -1.9 312 762 1.5 232

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 112.4 0.3 199 976 3.2 111

Erie, NY ............................. 23.6 456.7 0.9 139 838 2.3 170

Kings, NY ........................... 50.2 506.0 3.2 7 837 0.2 291

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.1 373.0 0.3 199 895 1.0 255

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.6 597.6 0.4 187 1,119 0.9 264

New York, NY .................... 121.4 2,335.9 1.6 69 1,929 2.5 152

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 108.3 -0.4 259 762 1.3 242

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 243.6 -0.6 275 896 2.2 180

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 132.2 0.8 151 $822 2.4 161

Queens, NY ....................... 45.3 500.3 1.0 125 941 0.9 264

Richmond, NY .................... 8.9 95.9 ( 7) – 827 ( 7) – 

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 114.9 0.7 163 1,035 3.2 111

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.5 612.8 0.5 173 1,067 1.6 226

Westchester, NY ................ 36.2 406.6 0.1 215 1,333 3.0 124

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.9 111.9 1.0 125 747 0.1 294

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 78.3 1.5 77 734 1.4 236

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 119.1 -0.1 234 769 2.7 141

Durham, NC ....................... 7.3 179.8 0.6 169 1,282 3.3 102

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 174.8 -0.3 251 876 3.3 102

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.2 261.7 0.7 163 840 2.1 192

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.2 547.8 2.2 29 1,081 3.9 59

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.3 94.9 -0.1 234 803 0.4 285

Wake, NC .......................... 28.8 437.5 1.5 77 963 3.9 59

Cass, ND ........................... 5.9 101.1 2.1 31 826 3.9 59

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 140.0 1.1 116 841 2.8 133

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 36.2 690.7 0.4 187 989 5.2 19

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.5 658.0 1.5 77 938 2.2 180

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.4 486.8 -0.1 234 1,044 3.5 90

Lake, OH ............................ 6.5 93.3 1.2 103 804 3.5 90

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.1 92.9 1.0 125 787 6.2 9

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.4 201.6 1.9 41 847 1.8 210

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.2 98.2 0.9 139 707 3.5 90

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.3 241.6 0.0 221 857 1.4 236

Stark, OH ........................... 8.8 151.8 1.7 52 741 3.6 80

Summit, OH ....................... 14.5 256.8 1.2 103 873 3.9 59

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.3 418.5 2.5 21 907 4.3 45

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.3 332.1 0.0 221 887 4.5 38

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.4 138.4 0.5 173 869 3.3 102

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 77.5 1.4 84 700 1.6 226

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 135.6 0.1 215 745 2.2 180

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 129.6 -0.5 268 744 2.2 180

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.9 429.2 2.0 35 979 2.5 152

Washington, OR ................ 16.1 240.8 3.2 7 1,070 4.0 53

Allegheny, PA .................... 34.9 674.8 0.7 163 1,033 3.3 102

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 163.5 1.2 103 869 2.5 152

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.6 252.1 1.1 116 953 1.9 205

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 80.9 2.5 21 855 3.8 71

Chester, PA ....................... 14.9 237.8 0.4 187 1,264 2.0 198

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 121.4 0.0 221 886 1.8 210

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.5 175.9 -0.6 275 955 3.0 124

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 209.1 1.7 52 1,011 0.9 264

Erie, PA .............................. 7.6 123.9 2.7 17 754 2.4 161

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 98.5 -0.7 280 741 1.0 255

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.4 219.7 0.8 151 811 2.9 131

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.6 177.2 3.7 5 956 4.0 53

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 138.5 0.9 139 745 1.4 236

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.2 466.4 0.3 199 1,200 -2.1 316

Northampton, PA ............... 6.4 99.3 1.3 93 847 2.5 152

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Philadelphia, PA ................ 33.0 634.3 1.3 93 $1,156 1.2 246

Washington, PA ................. 5.5 81.3 4.0 3 881 2.4 161

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.4 131.9 0.8 151 780 3.7 74

York, PA ............................. 9.1 170.3 1.3 93 838 3.2 111

Providence, RI ................... 17.6 269.2 0.6 169 980 3.0 124

Charleston, SC .................. 11.6 207.4 2.9 11 843 2.3 170

Greenville, SC .................... 12.0 229.1 2.4 26 843 2.3 170

Horry, SC ........................... 7.5 101.3 1.1 116 585 0.2 291

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 93.5 -0.9 287 717 1.3 242

Richland, SC ...................... 8.8 203.6 -0.4 259 836 0.8 271

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.9 112.8 0.8 151 819 2.0 198

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 113.5 0.5 173 806 3.7 74

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.1 422.7 0.8 151 1,051 5.6 14

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 183.1 2.7 17 864 5.2 19

Knox, TN ............................ 10.8 218.0 0.4 187 847 3.5 90

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 95.6 ( 7) – 861 ( 7) – 

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.0 472.0 -0.2 246 1,010 3.3 102

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 90.5 2.8 14 1,110 9.0 3

Bell, TX .............................. 4.7 106.9 2.4 26 769 ( 7) – 

Bexar, TX ........................... 33.8 728.4 1.2 103 865 2.2 180

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.8 87.6 2.6 20 897 4.2 49

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 87.7 0.5 173 714 2.6 144

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 125.9 1.2 103 610 2.2 180

Collin, TX ........................... 18.2 292.0 2.9 11 1,091 -1.8 315

Dallas, TX .......................... 68.1 1,429.9 1.6 69 1,167 3.4 97

Denton, TX ......................... 11.0 175.9 3.2 7 836 0.8 271

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.7 274.9 1.7 52 692 1.3 242

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.1 133.1 2.1 31 981 3.3 102

Galveston, TX .................... 5.3 95.8 2.8 14 902 3.2 111

Harris, TX ........................... 100.7 2,019.3 1.8 47 1,234 3.5 90

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.9 225.1 2.0 35 611 2.3 170

Jefferson, TX ..................... 6.0 122.4 2.5 21 953 3.3 102

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.9 125.4 1.7 52 743 3.6 80

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 100.4 -0.3 251 792 2.6 144

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.6 131.1 3.6 6 918 4.3 45

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 152.3 0.9 139 826 4.0 53

Potter, TX ........................... 3.9 75.1 0.8 151 839 5.1 24

Smith, TX ........................... 5.4 93.2 1.0 125 829 2.2 180

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.6 758.7 1.7 52 978 3.4 97

Travis, TX .......................... 30.2 576.5 2.7 17 1,092 5.3 17

Webb, TX ........................... 4.8 87.6 1.8 47 653 5.5 15

Williamson, TX ................... 7.5 122.4 2.1 31 887 -1.6 313

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 100.2 1.0 125 784 2.3 170

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.2 568.2 1.2 103 923 3.7 74

Utah, UT ............................ 12.9 167.3 1.8 47 767 3.5 90

Weber, UT ......................... 5.6 88.2 -0.6 275 720 2.4 161

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 95.3 2.0 35 961 2.1 192

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.2 166.0 3.0 10 1,668 4.8 32

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 114.5 -0.5 268 879 3.0 124

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.4 585.9 1.9 41 1,541 3.6 80

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.8 173.3 1.7 52 $958 1.2 246

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.6 135.4 2.8 14 1,194 3.0 124

Prince William, VA ............. 7.6 106.3 1.9 41 871 2.6 144

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 96.4 -1.3 302 1,441 5.0 26

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 96.7 1.0 125 763 -0.1 296

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 96.6 -0.1 234 889 1.9 205

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 137.5 0.0 221 962 1.8 210

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.2 149.0 -0.3 251 1,066 4.7 35

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.4 163.0 -0.7 280 768 1.6 226

Benton, WA ........................ 5.7 79.6 5.0 2 1,023 3.9 59

Clark, WA ........................... 13.5 128.0 1.3 93 860 2.0 198

King, WA ............................ 83.9 1,131.8 1.4 84 1,216 3.6 80

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.8 81.4 0.0 221 890 3.5 90

Pierce, WA ......................... 22.2 262.5 0.2 206 864 2.2 180

Snohomish, WA ................. 19.4 243.2 1.6 69 971 0.3 287

Spokane, WA ..................... 16.4 197.2 -0.5 268 788 1.9 205

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.5 97.2 0.0 221 848 2.3 170

Whatcom, WA .................... 7.1 77.8 0.6 169 758 3.3 102

Yakima, WA ....................... 9.1 92.2 1.4 84 653 2.0 198

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 105.8 -0.1 234 840 2.4 161

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 144.8 1.0 125 868 1.6 226

Dane, WI ............................ 14.0 300.1 1.1 116 928 3.6 80

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.6 473.2 0.5 173 968 2.3 170

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 101.1 0.4 187 801 1.6 226

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.8 222.3 1.3 93 951 3.6 80

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 89.8 1.5 77 902 3.7 74

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.7 269.9 -3.2 ( 8) 669 2.8 ( 8) 

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

These 326 U.S. counties comprise 70.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

fourth quarter 2010 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,093.5 129,451.6 0.9 $971 3.0

Private industry .............................................. 8,795.6 107,606.5 1.2 973 3.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 127.7 1,723.4 4.6 1,056 7.1

Construction ............................................... 790.8 5,392.7 -2.9 1,060 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 342.8 11,569.9 0.7 1,206 5.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,882.5 25,333.3 1.1 806 2.9

Information ................................................. 144.7 2,715.0 -1.8 1,513 4.5

Financial activities ...................................... 816.7 7,431.1 -0.9 1,487 4.4

Professional and business services ........... 1,557.6 17,073.9 3.4 1,289 4.1

Education and health services ................... 899.7 18,949.5 1.8 924 1.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 751.9 12,850.8 1.8 409 2.5

Other services ............................................ 1,289.6 4,363.2 0.5 604 2.5

Government ................................................... 298.0 21,845.1 -0.8 962 2.1

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 437.6 3,931.6 0.0 1,158 5.2

Private industry .............................................. 432.0 3,358.5 0.4 1,156 5.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.6 4.2 1,797 21.3

Construction ............................................... 13.1 102.8 -5.8 1,148 -0.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 13.5 371.6 -1.1 1,204 3.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 52.2 761.8 0.8 884 3.4

Information ................................................. 8.5 198.5 0.8 2,234 9.3

Financial activities ...................................... 22.5 211.5 -0.6 1,601 7.2

Professional and business services ........... 42.1 540.9 1.7 1,464 8.6

Education and health services ................... 29.0 511.8 ( 6) 1,065 ( 6) 

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.3 387.9 1.2 931 2.0

Other services ............................................ 204.3 243.6 -4.5 477 6.0

Government ................................................... 5.6 573.0 -2.4 1,165 2.6

Cook, IL .............................................................. 144.6 2,379.8 0.7 1,157 1.8

Private industry .............................................. 143.2 2,079.8 1.1 1,161 1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.9 0.8 1,154 3.3

Construction ............................................... 12.3 61.5 -8.0 1,420 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.7 194.9 0.0 1,251 7.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.8 448.2 1.5 888 5.8

Information ................................................. 2.6 51.1 -3.6 1,550 -3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 15.4 188.5 -1.7 1,979 -4.5

Professional and business services ........... 30.4 414.2 3.2 1,584 3.2

Education and health services ................... 15.0 398.9 2.7 976 0.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.5 224.1 1.4 469 3.5

Other services ............................................ 15.6 93.4 -0.8 822 3.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 299.9 -2.4 1,129 2.8

New York, NY ..................................................... 121.4 2,335.9 1.6 1,929 2.5

Private industry .............................................. 121.1 1,894.9 2.4 2,126 2.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 5.0 3,306 58.3

Construction ............................................... 2.2 30.2 -3.1 1,966 -4.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 26.8 0.9 1,915 22.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.0 249.0 3.1 1,350 2.7

Information ................................................. 4.4 131.5 0.0 2,279 6.8

Financial activities ...................................... 19.0 352.9 2.2 4,222 0.6

Professional and business services ........... 25.5 469.3 2.3 2,328 5.1

Education and health services ................... 9.2 303.0 1.2 1,203 1.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.4 236.2 5.1 922 -0.5

Other services ............................................ 18.7 88.8 0.7 1,117 -0.4

Government ................................................... 0.3 441.0 ( 6) 1,094 ( 6) 

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

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 100.7 2,019.3 1.8 $1,234 3.5

Private industry .............................................. 100.2 1,755.8 2.2 1,269 3.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.6 76.3 6.4 3,203 1.8

Construction ............................................... 6.5 130.3 -2.6 1,206 -1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 171.7 1.9 1,588 5.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.6 432.0 1.8 1,101 5.4

Information ................................................. 1.3 28.3 -4.8 1,423 2.9

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 112.9 0.1 1,542 4.9

Professional and business services ........... 19.9 324.4 ( 6) 1,579 5.7

Education and health services ................... 11.2 240.4 3.3 977 -1.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.2 178.4 2.2 420 1.4

Other services ............................................ 13.4 60.1 3.2 682 3.5

Government ................................................... 0.6 263.6 -0.6 1,004 1.3

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 94.6 1,643.9 1.2 937 1.1

Private industry .............................................. 93.9 1,428.3 1.6 940 1.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.9 -0.4 822 -4.1

Construction ............................................... 8.7 79.5 -3.9 990 -1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 107.5 -1.1 1,332 3.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.8 346.4 1.0 862 4.2

Information ................................................. 1.5 27.5 5.3 1,252 0.6

Financial activities ...................................... 11.2 134.6 0.0 1,131 2.6

Professional and business services ........... 21.9 271.3 2.8 1,032 1.8

Education and health services ................... 10.4 235.9 ( 6) 1,028 ( 6) 

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 170.4 1.8 444 1.1

Other services ............................................ 6.8 46.3 2.8 636 -3.0

Government ................................................... 0.7 215.7 -1.6 919 -2.2

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 68.1 1,429.9 1.6 1,167 3.4

Private industry .............................................. 67.6 1,259.4 1.7 1,185 3.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.9 16.7 3,908 3.9

Construction ............................................... 4.0 67.5 -0.3 1,125 -0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 112.8 -1.8 1,372 7.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 288.4 1.0 1,046 5.3

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.0 -1.6 1,643 3.6

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 137.0 0.1 1,486 4.2

Professional and business services ........... 14.9 266.0 4.0 1,403 2.1

Education and health services ................... 7.1 167.6 3.8 1,080 1.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.5 127.0 1.8 527 2.9

Other services ............................................ 7.1 38.3 -0.1 704 5.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 170.5 1.0 1,034 1.5

Orange, CA ........................................................ 104.5 1,382.0 0.9 1,112 4.4

Private industry .............................................. 103.1 1,237.8 1.2 1,119 4.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 3.3 -3.5 677 5.3

Construction ............................................... 6.4 67.3 -0.8 1,237 2.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.0 151.7 0.4 1,368 5.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.4 254.7 0.4 1,008 3.9

Information ................................................. 1.3 24.6 -4.3 1,625 1.1

Financial activities ...................................... 9.8 105.6 1.1 1,871 13.4

Professional and business services ........... 18.9 248.3 2.2 1,308 2.4

Education and health services ................... 10.4 158.2 ( 6) 1,045 ( 6) 

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 169.3 1.2 422 1.9

Other services ............................................ 21.1 48.4 -0.5 560 0.9

Government ................................................... 1.4 144.1 -1.7 1,057 1.1

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

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 100.4 1,256.1 0.5 $1,075 5.3

Private industry .............................................. 99.1 1,029.5 0.6 1,065 5.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 9.0 1.7 627 2.3

Construction ............................................... 6.4 54.5 -5.8 1,174 -0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 92.8 ( 6) 1,482 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.7 207.1 0.5 809 3.1

Information ................................................. 1.2 24.9 -3.7 1,607 9.5

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 68.2 -0.2 1,477 24.5

Professional and business services ........... 16.2 209.0 -0.7 1,559 7.3

Education and health services ................... 8.5 147.9 2.5 1,013 2.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 152.3 2.0 444 1.1

Other services ............................................ 27.9 58.3 1.4 530 4.1

Government ................................................... 1.4 226.6 0.0 1,124 ( 6) 

King, WA ............................................................ 83.9 1,131.8 1.4 1,216 3.6

Private industry .............................................. 83.3 974.5 1.7 1,226 3.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.5 -5.1 1,472 9.3

Construction ............................................... 6.0 45.7 -5.5 1,244 -1.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.3 97.1 -0.7 1,489 -0.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.0 212.3 2.5 1,036 4.2

Information ................................................. 1.8 79.3 1.3 2,093 3.6

Financial activities ...................................... 6.6 64.4 -2.5 1,449 -4.7

Professional and business services ........... 14.4 180.6 5.0 1,625 11.5

Education and health services ................... 7.1 133.4 1.5 1,004 3.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 107.5 1.6 480 2.3

Other services ............................................ 23.3 51.7 5.6 596 -0.3

Government ................................................... 0.6 157.3 -0.2 1,156 ( 6) 

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 85.7 970.3 0.9 966 1.4

Private industry .............................................. 85.3 826.1 1.6 938 1.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.1 -5.1 522 8.3

Construction ............................................... 5.1 31.0 -6.5 982 0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 34.4 -3.9 934 2.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 24.5 249.0 2.8 849 1.2

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.3 -3.0 1,419 3.2

Financial activities ...................................... 9.0 61.6 -0.2 1,412 0.9

Professional and business services ........... 18.0 126.6 2.0 1,291 4.3

Education and health services ................... 9.7 151.8 1.1 930 1.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 109.6 5.2 534 -0.9

Other services ............................................ 7.7 35.5 1.5 591 2.4

Government ................................................... 0.4 144.2 -2.5 1,122 0.9

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

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

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

fourth quarter 2010 2

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10

United States 4 ................... 9,093.5 129,451.6 0.9 $971 3.0

Alabama ............................. 116.9 1,823.8 0.3 839 2.4

Alaska ................................ 21.3 306.6 1.4 987 2.9

Arizona ............................... 146.2 2,417.0 0.5 892 1.4

Arkansas ............................ 84.6 1,143.4 0.5 738 1.8

California ............................ 1,375.4 14,561.6 0.6 1,128 5.0

Colorado ............................ 169.8 2,203.9 0.9 1,001 3.7

Connecticut ........................ 111.3 1,628.6 0.5 1,226 2.8

Delaware ............................ 28.2 404.9 1.5 1,003 4.4

District of Columbia ............ 35.5 698.5 1.6 1,688 4.5

Florida ................................ 595.6 7,258.9 0.7 871 1.8

Georgia .............................. 268.7 3,790.7 0.7 906 3.4

Hawaii ................................ 38.9 598.0 0.8 859 1.9

Idaho .................................. 54.9 601.7 -0.4 733 3.5

Illinois ................................. 381.4 5,573.7 0.9 1,035 2.9

Indiana ............................... 158.4 2,743.6 1.2 804 2.9

Iowa ................................... 94.7 1,446.1 0.6 797 3.4

Kansas ............................... 88.3 1,311.7 0.2 812 2.5

Kentucky ............................ 110.5 1,747.7 1.3 794 1.7

Louisiana ........................... 126.5 1,849.5 0.3 863 3.5

Maine ................................. 49.5 578.3 -0.1 769 1.3

Maryland ............................ 164.6 2,488.6 1.0 1,080 2.7

Massachusetts ................... 223.5 3,188.2 1.4 1,217 3.3

Michigan ............................ 246.4 3,817.3 1.3 938 2.7

Minnesota .......................... 165.5 2,579.6 0.6 974 5.0

Mississippi ......................... 69.6 1,081.6 0.4 706 1.3

Missouri ............................. 175.1 2,596.8 -0.1 839 2.8

Montana ............................. 42.3 419.5 0.1 721 3.6

Nebraska ........................... 60.7 902.9 0.7 772 2.0

Nevada .............................. 71.5 1,114.5 -0.8 880 0.6

New Hampshire ................. 48.5 610.0 0.6 978 2.1

New Jersey ........................ 270.0 3,792.0 -0.2 1,161 1.5

New Mexico ....................... 55.3 786.7 -0.1 817 2.8

New York ........................... 593.4 8,507.7 1.0 1,219 2.1

North Carolina .................... 253.4 3,831.7 0.7 840 2.7

North Dakota ...................... 26.5 368.8 4.3 809 7.6

Ohio ................................... 287.6 4,963.5 1.1 865 3.0

Oklahoma .......................... 102.6 1,506.9 1.2 797 4.5

Oregon ............................... 130.9 1,609.4 1.0 852 2.8

Pennsylvania ..................... 343.6 5,547.3 1.3 951 2.0

Rhode Island ...................... 35.2 450.8 0.5 940 3.1

South Carolina ................... 109.7 1,770.6 1.2 775 1.6

South Dakota ..................... 31.0 391.1 1.4 714 3.8

Tennessee ......................... 139.6 2,599.4 1.1 878 3.5

Texas ................................. 575.5 10,352.8 2.0 977 3.4

Utah ................................... 84.8 1,170.2 1.1 827 3.9

Vermont ............................. 24.3 299.3 0.9 814 1.1

Virginia ............................... 234.4 3,578.5 0.8 1,028 3.3

Washington ........................ 238.9 2,803.1 1.0 981 2.9

West Virginia ...................... 48.7 698.0 0.6 778 3.5

Wisconsin .......................... 158.6 2,665.9 1.1 836 3.2

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

fourth quarter 2010 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2009-10

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2009-10

Wyoming ............................ 25.1 270.5 1.3 $872 4.9

Puerto Rico ........................ 49.8 956.7 -2.3 559 1.5

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.6 44.9 2.0 805 8.3

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

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

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 June 2011

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

December 2009-10 (U.S. average = 0.9 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 June 2011

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

or more employees, fourth quarter 2009-10 (U.S. average = 3.0 percent)