Technical information: (202) 691-6567

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

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 06-1859

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT

Thursday, October 26, 2006

County Changes for the 2006 County Employment and Wages News Releases:

 Four Counties Added and One County Dropped

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2006

In March 2006, Collin County, Texas, had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment

among the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Collin County, a Dallas suburb, experienced an over-the-year

employment gain of 7.8 percent compared with national job growth of 2.2 percent. Orleans County (New

Orleans), La., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2006, with

an increase of 33.3 percent. The high average weekly wage growth rate for Orleans County was related to

the disproportionate job and pay losses in lower-paid industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. The

U.S. average weekly wage increased by 8.1 percent over the same time span.

Of the 325 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2005 annual average employment, 133

had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in March 2006, and 184

experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the

national average in 127 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was

below the national average in 193 counties. (See chart 2.)

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

Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from

reports submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 8.8 million employer

reports cover 132.6 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the

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

March 2006 employment and 2006 first-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table

4 of this release. Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth

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

quarter 2006 and final data for 2005 will be available later in October on the BLS Web site.

Counties with employment of 75,000 or more are included in this release. For 2006 data,

four counties have been added to the publication tables: Douglas, Colo., Weld, Colo., Boone,

Ky., and Butler, Pa. One county, Potter, Texas, which had data for 2005 published in the 2005

releases, will be excluded from this and future 2006 releases because it no longer has an

employment level of 75,000 or more.
2

Large County Employment

In March 2006, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 132.6 million, up

by 2.2 percent from March 2005. The 325 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for

70.9 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 77.7 percent of total covered wages. These 325

counties had a net job gain of 1,864,798 over the year, accounting for 65.4 percent of the U.S. employment increase. Employment increased in 289 of the large counties from March 2005 to March 2006.

Collin, Texas, had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (7.8 percent). Lee, Fla.,

had the next largest increase, 7.7 percent, followed by the counties of Brazoria, Texas (7.5 percent), and

Manatee, Fla., and Clark, Nev. (7.2 percent each). (See table 1.)

Employment declined in 32 counties from March 2005 to March 2006. The largest percentage decline

in employment was in Orleans County, La. (-38.7 percent), followed by the counties of Harrison, Miss.

(-18.8 percent), and Jefferson, La. (-11.7 percent). Employment losses in these three Gulf Coast counties

reflected the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Monterey, Calif., had the next largest employment

decline (-3.6 percent), followed by Boone, Ky. (-3.3 percent).

The largest gains in employment from March 2005 to March 2006 were recorded in the counties of Los

Angeles, Calif. (107,700), Maricopa, Ariz. (102,100), Harris, Texas (83,000), Clark, Nev. (60,900), and

Dallas, Texas (44,300). (See table A.)

The largest declines in employment occurred in the Katrina-affected counties of Orleans, La. (-93,500),

Jefferson, La. (-25,000), and Harrison, Miss. (-17,100), followed by the counties of Oakland, Mich.

(-14,200), and Wayne, Mich. (-12,600).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2006 was $838. Average weekly wages were

higher than the national average in 101 of the largest 325 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the

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

growth, and March 2005-06 percent growth in employment 

U.S. 132,613.1 U.S. 2,852.5 U.S. 2.2

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,179.3 Los Angeles, Calif. 107.7 Collin, Texas 7.8

Cook, Ill. 2,502.0 Maricopa, Ariz. 102.1 Lee, Fla. 7.7

New York, N.Y. 2,271.0 Harris, Texas 83.0 Brazoria, Texas 7.5

Harris, Texas 1,924.0 Clark, Nev. 60.9 Manatee, Fla. 7.2

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,791.4 Dallas, Texas 44.3 Clark, Nev. 7.2

Orange, Calif. 1,512.1 New York, N.Y. 40.9 Lake, Fla. 7.0

Dallas, Texas 1,439.9 Orange, Calif. 36.2 Pasco, Fla. 6.9

San Diego, Calif. 1,313.3 King, Wash. 34.7 Seminole, Fla. 6.6

King, Wash. 1,126.8 Riverside, Calif. 30.9 Collier, Fla. 6.4

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,014.5 Cook, Ill. 28.0 Will, Ill. 6.4

Hamilton, Ind. 6.4

Employment in large counties

Growth in employment, 

March 2005-06 

( thousands)

March 2006 employment Percent growth in employment, 

(thousands) March 2005-06
3

top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,223. Fairfield, Conn.,

was second with an average weekly wage of $1,836, followed by Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,584), Somerset,

N.J. ($1,522), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,519). (See table B.)

There were 222 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of

2006. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($477), followed by the

counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($490), Horry, S.C. ($524), Webb, Texas ($527), and Yakima, Wash. ($550).

(See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 8.1 percent. Among the largest counties,

Orleans, La., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 33.3 percent from the

first quarter of 2005. McLean, Ill., was second with growth of 20.5 percent, followed by the counties of

Jefferson, La. (19.0 percent), Harrison, Miss. (18.0 percent), and Montgomery, Texas (17.0 percent). The

high average weekly wage growth rates for Orleans, Harrison, and Jefferson Counties were related to the

disproportionate job and pay losses in lower-paid industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina.

Two counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Cumberland County, Pa.,

had the largest decrease, -3.7 percent, followed by Trumbull, Ohio (-0.4 percent). The lowest over-the-year

increases in average weekly wages were in Clayton, Ga. (1.3 percent), Kalamazoo, Mich. (1.9 percent), and

Benton, Ark. (2.2 percent).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2005 annual average employment levels), all reported increases in employment from March 2005 to March 2006. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the fastest

growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 6.0 percent increase. Within Maricopa County,

employment rose in every industry group except two—natural resources and mining, and information. The

largest gains were in construction (13.8 percent) and education and health services (7.3 percent). Harris,

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

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

 weekly wages

U.S. $838 U.S. $63 U.S. 8.1

New York, N.Y. $2,223 Orleans, La. $244 Orleans, La. 33.3

Fairfield, Conn. 1,836 Fairfield, Conn. 224 McLean, Ill. 20.5

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,584 Santa Clara, Calif. 213 Jefferson, La. 19.0

Somerset, N.J. 1,522 New York, N.Y. 195 Harrison, Miss. 18.0

San Francisco, Calif. 1,519 Somerset, N.J. 158 Montgomery, Texas 17.0

Suffolk, Mass. 1,494 Norfolk, Mass. 153 Norfolk, Mass. 16.7

Arlington, Va. 1,402 McLean, Ill. 146 Santa Clara, Calif. 15.5

Washington, D.C. 1,371 San Francisco, Calif. 144 Oklahoma, Okla. 15.3

San Mateo, Calif. 1,338 Arapahoe, Colo. 143 Arapahoe, Colo. 15.2

Hudson, N.J. 1,316 Fairfax, Va. 133 Sarasota, Fla. 14.1

Average weekly wage, 

first quarter 2006

Growth in 

average weekly wage, 

first quarter 2005-06

Percent growth in 

average weekly wage, 

first quarter 2005-06

Average weekly wage in large counties
4

Texas, had the next largest increase in employment, 4.5 percent, followed by Dallas, Texas, and King, Wash.

(3.2 percent each). The smallest employment gains occurred in Cook County, Ill., (1.1 percent), followed by

San Diego, Calif. (1.6 percent), and New York, N.Y. (1.8 percent). (See table 2.)

All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Miami-Dade,

Fla., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, increasing by 11.0 percent. Within

Miami-Dade County, average weekly wages increased the most in natural resources and mining (20.3 percent). San Diego, Calif., was second in wage growth, increasing by 10.8 percent, followed by Maricopa,

Ariz. (10.5 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in Cook, Ill. (6.5 percent), followed by Orange, Calif. (8.2 percent), and Dallas, Texas (8.4 percent).

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows March 2006 employment and the 2006 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest

county in each state, which is based on 2005 annual average employment levels. (This table includes two

counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that have employment levels below 75,000.) The

employment levels in these counties in March 2006 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los Angeles

County, Calif., to 41,000 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was

in New York, N.Y. ($2,223), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Laramie, Wyo. ($633). Due to

substantial job losses related to Hurricane Katrina, Orleans County was replaced by East Baton Rouge as

the largest county in Louisiana in 2005.

For More Information

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

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

data also may be obtained by e-mailing QCEWinfo@bls.gov or by calling (202) 691-6567.

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

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and ongoing labor market trends. The effects of Hurricane Katrina, which hit

the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, were first reflected in the September QCEW employment

counts and the wage totals for the third quarter of 2005. The impact of this catastrophic storm

in parts of Louisiana and Mississippi continue to be reflected in monthly employment and quarterly wage totals in the first quarter of 2006. For more information, see the QCEW section of

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

Hurricane Katrina
Technical Note

These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative

program, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

(QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data

are derived from summaries of employment and total pay of

workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance

(UI) legislation and provided by State Workforce Agencies

(SWAs). The summaries are a result of the administration of

state unemployment insurance programs that require most

employers to pay quarterly taxes based on the employment and

wages of workers covered by UI. Data for 2006 are preliminary

and subject to revision.

For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as

having employment levels of 75,000 or greater. In addition,

data for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in

calculating U.S. averages, rankings, or in the analysis in the

text. Each year, these large counties are selected on the basis

of the preliminary annual average of employment for the

previous year. The 326 counties presented in this release were

derived using 2005 preliminary annual averages of

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

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

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

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

published in the 2005 releases, no longer has an employment

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

The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each year based

on the annual average employment from the preceding year.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may

differ from data released by the individual states. These

potential differences result from the states’ continuing receipt

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

ments 6.8 million private-sector employers

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

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

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

Other employment, including railroads, religious organizations, and

other non-UI-covered jobs

Publication Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

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

quarter quarter month

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

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

 data summarizes gross job gains sample estimates to first quarter

 and losses

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

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

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

state, and national levels by NAICS supersectors and by size

detailed industry of firm

Future expansions will include data

at the county, MSA, and state level

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

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

- Periodic universe counts for - Analysis of employer dynamics indicator

benchmarking sample survey underlying economic expansions - Official time series for

estimates and contractions employment change measures

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

establishment surveys pansion and contraction by size indicators

of firm

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

Web sites

•

•

•

•

 •

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

 QCEW BED CES

•

UI levels
of UI data over time and ongoing review and editing. The

individual states determine their data release timetables.

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures

The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based

employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these

measures—QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED),

and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the

quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however,

each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage,

estimation procedure, and publication product.

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result

in somewhat different measures of employment change over

time. It is important to understand program differences and the

intended uses of the program products. (See table on the

previous page.) Additional information on each program can

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

the previous page.

Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI

laws are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted

to the SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers

covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal

Employees (UCFE) program, employment and wage data are

compiled from quarterly reports that are sent to the appropriate

SWA by the specific federal agency. In addition to the

quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called

the “Multiple Worksite Report,” which provides detailed

information on the location and industry of each of their

establishments. The employment and wage data included in

this release are derived from microdata summaries of nearly 9

million employer reports of employment and wages submitted

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

employment rather than place of residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable

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

workers in 131.6 million jobs. The estimated 126.7 million

workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)

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

representing 94.5 percent of the wage and salary component of

personal income and 43.0 percent of the gross domestic

product.

Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed

workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members

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

employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student

workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit

organizations.

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These

changes may have an impact on the employment and wages

reported by employers covered under the UI program.

Coverage changes may affect the over-the-year comparisons

presented in this news release.

Concepts and methodology

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers

who worked during or received pay for the pay period including

the 12th of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of

covered firms are reported, including production and sales

workers, corporation officials, executives, supervisory

personnel, and clerical workers. Workers on paid vacations

and part-time workers also are included.

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing

quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly

employment levels (all employees, as described above) and

dividing the result by 13, for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These

calculations are made using unrounded employment and wage

values. The average wage values that can be calculated using

rounded data from the BLS database may differ from the

averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage data are

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

meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities,

and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred

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

Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may

reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total

quarterly wages between the current quarter and prior year

levels.

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

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

periods within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage

of the work force could increase significantly when there is a

large decline in the number of employees that had been receiving

below-average wages. Wages may include payments to workers

not present in the employment counts because they did not work

during the pay period including the 12th of the month. When

comparing average weekly wage levels between industries,

states, or quarters, these factors should be taken into

consideration.

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic,

sometimes large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that

consists of some quarters having more pay periods than others.

Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As

a result of this schedule, in some quarters, federal wages contain

payments for six pay periods, while in other quarters their wages

include payments for seven pay periods. Over-the-year

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect this calendar

effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages may be attributed,

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

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

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

wages in the current period, which contain six pay periods, are

compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay periods.

The effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced

in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll
processing. This pattern may exist in private sector pay, however,

because there are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly,

semimonthly, monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect is most

visible in counties with large concentrations of federal employment.

In order to ensure the highest possible quality of

data, states verify with employers and update, if necessary, the

industry, location, and ownership classification of all

establishments on a 3-year cycle. Changes in establishment

classification codes resulting from this process are introduced

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

resulting from improved employer reporting also are introduced

in the first quarter.

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect

the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry

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

or industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic

events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example,

economic change would come from a firm relocating into the

county; administrative change would come from a company

correcting its county designation.

The over-the-year changes of employment and wages

presented in this release have been adjusted to account for most

of the administrative corrections made to the underlying

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

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

changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final

2005 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted prior-year

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

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

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

from the Web site, or from data published in prior BLS news

releases, may differ substantially from the over-the-year changes

presented in this news release.

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

measures presented in this release account for most of the

administrative changes—those occurring when employers

update the industry, location, and ownership information of their

establishments. The most common adjustments for administrative

change are the result of updated information about the county

location of individual establishments. Included in these

adjustments are administrative changes involving the

classification of establishments that were previously reported in

the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry

categories. The adjusted data do not account for administrative

changes caused by multi-unit employers who start reporting for

each individual establishment rather than as a single entity.

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages

news release are valid for comparisons between the starting and

ending points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release.

Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the

one featured in a release even if the changes were calculated

using adjusted data.

County definitions are assigned according to Federal

Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS)

as issued by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology, after approval by the Secretary of Commerce

pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology

Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security

Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties

include those designated as independent cities in some

jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census

areas where counties have not been created. County data also

are presented for the New England states for comparative

purposes even though townships are the more common

designation used in New England (and New Jersey). The

regions referred to in this release are defined as census

regions.

Additional statistics and other information

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features

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

states. The 2005 edition of this bulletin contains selected data

produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job

gains and losses, as well as selected data from the fourth

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

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

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

will contain only selected graphic representations of QCEW

data; the data tables themselves will be published exclusively

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

Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2005 will be

available for sale in late 2006 from the United States

Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents,

P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone 866-512-1800,

outside of Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the

telephone number is 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512-

2104. Also, the 2005 bulletin will be available in a portable

document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://

www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn05.htm.

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also

are available upon request from the Division of Administrative

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

e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov.

Information in this release will be made available to

sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone:

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

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

first quarter 20062

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,770.7 132,613.1 2.2 - $838 8.1 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.6 371.4 1.1 208 845 7.2 181

Madison, AL ....................... 8.2 170.6 2.7 103 866 8.4 105

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 170.7 3.2 77 659 9.7 54

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.6 136.7 3.3 72 683 8.6 97

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 84.1 5.0 28 669 6.9 201

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.0 142.1 1.8 157 836 5.4 284

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 89.1 1,791.4 6.0 15 822 10.5 32

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.3 366.7 4.2 46 704 9.0 79

Benton, AR ........................ 5.1 92.9 5.4 19 792 2.2 319

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.0 247.3 2.5 120 728 6.6 219

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 92.4 5.0 28 627 7.5 160

Alameda, CA ...................... 49.4 683.9 1.1 208 1,099 9.9 47

Contra Costa, CA ............... 28.3 342.3 0.3 274 1,073 5.1 288

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.6 333.7 2.8 100 637 6.5 227

Kern, CA ............................ 17.2 262.5 5.1 26 692 6.0 259

Los Angeles, CA ................ 392.0 4,179.3 2.6 111 944 9.3 65

Marin, CA ........................... 11.8 107.2 0.7 244 1,010 7.6 155

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.2 152.1 -3.6 319 767 10.4 35

Orange, CA ........................ 95.5 1,512.1 2.5 120 967 8.2 123

Placer, CA .......................... 10.4 136.7 2.7 103 793 8.0 131

Riverside, CA ..................... 42.8 632.8 5.1 26 707 8.4 105

Sacramento, CA ................ 50.1 639.6 2.9 94 911 7.1 189

San Bernardino, CA ........... 46.0 654.7 3.8 60 700 7.7 145

San Diego, CA ................... 92.2 1,313.3 1.6 172 904 10.8 28

San Francisco, CA ............. 44.6 533.0 2.9 94 1,519 10.5 32

San Joaquin, CA ................ 16.9 217.8 0.2 279 682 7.1 189

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.0 104.3 1.6 172 666 7.4 164

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.3 333.8 2.1 139 1,338 10.0 44

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.6 184.0 2.7 103 786 7.1 189

Santa Clara, CA ................. 55.4 871.7 3.0 91 1,584 15.5 7

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.7 93.0 1.6 172 819 12.3 16

Solano, CA ......................... 10.0 129.6 1.6 172 780 7.7 145

Sonoma, CA ...................... 17.8 188.3 0.8 234 784 6.8 207

Stanislaus, CA ................... 13.9 171.5 1.4 189 677 6.6 219

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.8 137.7 1.4 189 575 9.1 73

Ventura, CA ....................... 21.8 321.0 1.8 157 891 4.5 298

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.4 97.4 1.8 157 765 9.1 73

Adams, CO ........................ 9.1 150.9 4.1 48 762 8.1 128

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.4 272.0 1.8 157 1,081 15.2 9

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.3 154.2 1.6 172 987 7.2 181

Denver, CO ........................ 25.0 424.7 1.6 172 1,065 8.8 88

Douglas, CO ...................... 8.6 84.0 5.3 22 853 9.5 62

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.0 242.5 3.0 91 739 6.6 219

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.6 204.3 0.5 262 849 6.8 207

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.9 124.0 1.8 157 719 7.2 181

Weld, CO ........................... 5.8 78.3 4.0 53 672 10.7 29

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.5 409.3 1.1 208 1,836 13.9 11

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.8 487.3 1.6 172 1,112 6.6 219

New Haven, CT ................. 22.2 362.4 1.3 195 872 6.9 201

New London, CT ................ 6.8 128.0 -0.2 295 847 8.3 113

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 19.6 280.2 0.7 244 $1,113 10.3 37

Washington, DC ................. 31.4 664.9 0.3 274 1,371 7.3 175

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.4 126.1 2.1 139 614 4.8 293

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.4 209.4 2.6 111 746 6.6 219

Broward, FL ....................... 63.3 753.5 3.3 72 791 (7) - 

Collier, FL .......................... 12.3 140.6 6.4 9 729 3.6 310

Duval, FL ........................... 25.5 460.2 3.3 72 841 9.9 47

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 130.4 3.2 77 642 8.6 97

Hillsborough, FL ................. 35.9 644.1 4.2 46 782 8.3 113

Lake, FL ............................. 6.8 84.8 7.0 6 587 9.5 62

Lee, FL ............................... 18.5 227.4 7.7 2 708 9.6 56

Leon, FL ............................. 7.9 147.9 1.8 157 648 4.0 307

Manatee, FL ....................... 8.8 129.9 7.2 4 636 9.8 53

Marion, FL .......................... 7.8 103.0 4.4 40 587 7.7 145

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 85.9 1,014.5 2.2 134 826 11.0 25

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.1 83.2 4.7 34 648 9.3 65

Orange, FL ......................... 34.1 674.6 3.6 63 757 6.9 201

Palm Beach, FL ................. 48.8 568.9 3.5 64 806 4.4 301

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.2 100.5 6.9 7 563 8.9 84

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.2 450.1 3.2 77 710 8.2 123

Polk, FL .............................. 12.3 212.3 4.1 48 624 7.2 181

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.7 161.3 4.9 30 729 14.1 10

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.2 176.9 6.6 8 709 4.4 301

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.7 169.6 4.3 45 574 5.7 269

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 85.2 -0.4 302 697 10.5 32

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.3 134.2 2.9 94 687 9.6 56

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 108.2 0.3 274 754 1.3 321

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.2 315.6 3.1 87 895 7.4 164

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.8 293.4 1.6 172 907 7.7 145

Fulton, GA .......................... 38.2 748.3 1.9 150 1,164 7.7 145

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 22.4 315.7 3.5 64 898 11.4 22

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 98.3 1.3 195 655 8.1 128

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 107.3 2.8 100 670 7.4 164

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.0 448.2 2.6 111 742 7.1 189

Ada, ID ............................... 14.3 204.6 6.2 12 730 9.3 65

Champaign, IL ................... 4.0 90.1 1.2 202 657 6.3 242

Cook, IL ............................. 132.7 2,502.0 1.1 208 1,047 6.5 227

Du Page, IL ........................ 34.1 581.6 1.4 189 1,006 9.2 70

Kane, IL ............................. 11.9 203.2 1.8 157 740 7.7 145

Lake, IL .............................. 19.9 319.1 0.8 234 1,065 10.9 27

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.0 97.9 3.9 56 689 7.0 197

McLean, IL ......................... 3.5 83.8 2.7 103 858 20.5 2

Madison, IL ........................ 5.8 93.2 -0.1 291 673 6.0 259

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 100.6 1.6 172 829 8.1 128

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.4 75.3 1.3 195 838 13.4 12

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.3 93.1 0.5 262 636 7.4 164

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 129.3 0.1 284 776 2.8 318

Will, IL ................................ 12.2 174.0 6.4 9 719 4.7 296

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 134.4 0.0 290 704 7.6 155

Allen, IN ............................. 8.9 181.7 2.5 120 700 6.2 250

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 128.8 3.9 56 $702 10.4 35

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.0 98.4 6.4 9 830 6.4 234

Lake, IN ............................. 10.0 192.4 0.7 244 718 6.7 214

Marion, IN .......................... 23.6 572.9 0.2 279 900 10.0 44

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 123.3 -0.7 307 676 6.3 242

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 108.4 1.1 208 693 7.8 141

Linn, IA ............................... 6.1 118.9 1.4 189 774 6.9 201

Polk, IA .............................. 14.3 264.4 2.4 125 859 8.3 113

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 87.2 1.1 208 660 9.1 73

Johnson, KS ...................... 19.8 299.4 0.7 244 883 8.5 101

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.1 246.8 3.4 68 796 12.7 14

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 92.1 -1.4 312 694 10.2 42

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 77.0 2.0 145 779 7.4 164

Boone, KY .......................... 3.3 73.7 -3.3 318 722 3.0 316

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.0 169.3 0.9 229 725 6.3 242

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.3 424.0 1.9 150 799 7.4 164

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 126.1 3.3 72 647 8.7 93

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.8 84.4 2.2 134 698 9.2 70

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.6 260.3 6.2 12 709 7.9 136

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.4 188.0 -11.7 320 752 19.0 3

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.1 127.4 5.8 17 723 12.6 15

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.1 148.1 -38.7 322 977 33.3 1

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.9 166.7 1.1 208 751 6.1 255

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.2 222.2 2.3 130 863 8.0 131

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.5 374.5 2.3 130 851 6.5 227

Frederick, MD .................... 5.8 91.9 2.1 139 788 9.0 79

Harford, MD ....................... 5.5 81.5 3.2 77 775 10.7 29

Howard, MD ....................... 8.4 141.9 3.1 87 948 9.1 73

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.6 462.3 2.4 125 1,133 8.8 88

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.4 311.5 0.7 244 865 8.5 101

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.0 348.0 -0.5 304 951 6.4 234

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.1 83.3 0.8 234 696 6.6 219

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.3 217.5 0.7 244 704 6.0 259

Essex, MA .......................... 20.3 291.2 1.0 223 880 9.7 54

Hampden, MA .................... 14.0 196.5 0.5 262 766 5.4 284

Middlesex, MA ................... 46.5 791.3 1.9 150 1,177 7.2 181

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.3 315.3 0.6 257 1,069 16.7 6

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.6 172.7 1.1 208 742 5.5 278

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.3 563.5 1.2 202 1,494 7.3 175

Worcester, MA ................... 20.2 314.8 0.8 234 820 9.0 79

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.3 145.6 -1.0 310 745 5.1 288

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.0 160.8 -1.2 311 778 5.6 275

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 116.2 0.3 274 733 1.9 320

Kent, MI ............................. 14.5 338.8 1.0 223 728 5.7 269

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.1 323.6 -0.6 305 856 3.4 312

Oakland, MI ....................... 40.3 694.0 -2.0 315 977 5.4 284

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.8 109.4 -0.2 295 704 4.6 297

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.5 85.8 -2.9 317 719 5.4 284

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.2 195.0 -0.2 295 911 6.4 234

Wayne, MI .......................... 33.7 772.6 -1.6 314 923 3.1 315

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 8.3 113.5 2.0 145 $755 4.9 292

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.9 170.9 2.6 111 811 7.6 155

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.9 831.4 1.8 157 1,047 4.8 293

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.7 88.8 2.9 94 892 3.8 309

Ramsey, MN ...................... 16.2 327.4 1.6 172 928 6.3 242

St. Louis, MN ..................... 6.1 93.6 2.1 139 653 5.7 269

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.6 78.2 3.2 77 635 10.1 43

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.4 73.5 -18.8 321 663 18.0 4

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 128.7 0.9 229 715 8.8 88

Boone, MO ......................... 4.4 81.9 3.4 68 615 7.1 189

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 88.0 2.7 103 728 5.1 288

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 152.4 3.3 72 613 6.4 234

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.8 364.7 0.8 234 844 8.9 84

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.8 119.8 3.1 87 695 6.3 242

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.9 616.3 0.7 244 900 9.9 47

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.0 219.5 0.1 284 981 7.4 164

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.4 308.1 1.0 223 778 9.9 47

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.9 151.8 0.5 262 644 5.7 269

Clark, NV ........................... 44.2 905.4 7.2 4 769 6.8 207

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.7 214.8 4.0 53 734 4.0 307

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.4 195.0 1.3 195 886 7.3 175

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.9 134.0 1.7 169 816 6.7 214

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.8 143.8 0.6 257 731 8.3 113

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.6 443.4 0.4 269 1,061 7.9 136

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.5 202.6 1.9 150 853 7.2 181

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.6 209.5 1.5 185 824 8.0 131

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.6 360.5 1.4 189 1,121 6.7 214

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.4 104.0 3.9 56 742 9.1 73

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 235.5 0.1 284 1,316 6.2 250

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 227.3 2.6 111 1,068 7.4 164

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.2 395.0 0.9 229 1,083 5.6 275

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.6 253.2 1.6 172 885 5.5 278

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.1 284.3 1.0 223 1,286 8.3 113

Ocean, NJ .......................... 11.9 144.7 1.9 150 701 8.7 93

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.7 179.1 2.2 134 864 7.5 160

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.2 172.4 3.5 64 1,522 11.6 20

Union, NJ ........................... 15.0 228.3 0.3 274 1,106 9.6 56

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.9 328.0 4.4 40 705 7.3 175

Albany, NY ......................... 9.7 226.0 -0.1 291 820 5.5 278

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.7 221.9 1.2 202 745 5.8 265

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 94.3 1.1 208 641 6.3 242

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 116.9 0.1 284 835 4.4 301

Erie, NY ............................. 23.3 449.5 -0.1 291 715 6.4 234

Kings, NY ........................... 43.3 458.5 1.6 172 705 7.3 175

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.7 378.3 -0.1 291 806 8.2 123

Nassau, NY ........................ 51.8 590.4 0.5 262 909 5.7 269

New York, NY .................... 115.3 2,271.0 1.8 157 2,223 9.6 56

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 107.7 0.4 269 614 5.0 291

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.7 245.5 0.7 244 753 7.7 145

Orange, NY ........................ 9.7 128.3 1.8 157 689 6.8 207

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Queens, NY ....................... 41.1 477.6 1.1 208 $801 6.0 259

Richmond, NY .................... 8.3 88.7 0.6 257 703 6.2 250

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.5 111.4 0.6 257 877 8.8 88

Suffolk, NY ......................... 49.0 599.8 0.6 257 848 7.8 141

Westchester, NY ................ 36.1 407.6 0.5 262 1,193 8.0 131

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.2 109.9 1.3 195 614 7.2 181

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 87.3 1.2 202 642 11.5 21

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.8 116.4 0.8 234 595 6.8 207

Durham, NC ....................... 6.4 173.0 2.4 125 1,137 10.3 37

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.6 181.3 2.0 145 761 4.5 298

Guilford, NC ....................... 13.9 273.8 1.3 195 726 6.5 227

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 28.3 530.6 3.2 77 1,167 8.4 105

New Hanover, NC .............. 6.8 97.8 4.5 37 663 9.0 79

Wake, NC .......................... 24.7 416.8 4.8 33 829 8.5 101

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 92.1 4.1 48 649 6.6 219

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 141.5 1.7 169 725 5.8 265

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.3 745.0 0.1 284 865 6.5 227

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.4 675.5 1.4 189 837 7.9 136

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.2 523.4 0.7 244 909 6.7 214

Lake, OH ............................ 6.9 98.9 -0.2 295 690 3.4 312

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 100.1 0.2 279 690 5.5 278

Lucas, OH .......................... 11.0 224.2 1.1 208 749 6.1 255

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.4 102.4 1.5 185 595 8.0 131

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.1 275.0 -0.2 295 758 4.4 301

Stark, OH ........................... 9.2 160.2 -0.7 307 644 8.8 88

Summit, OH ....................... 15.0 268.6 1.1 208 756 6.5 227

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.9 84.3 -1.4 312 701 -0.4 322

Oklahoma, OK ................... 22.7 420.0 2.6 111 755 15.3 8

Tulsa, OK ........................... 18.9 339.5 4.4 40 774 13.0 13

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.3 145.3 2.8 100 741 6.0 259

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.6 81.6 0.8 234 597 6.2 250

Lane, OR ........................... 10.7 146.9 2.6 111 622 6.3 242

Marion, OR ........................ 9.0 133.6 1.7 169 629 6.1 255

Multnomah, OR .................. 26.5 432.1 2.6 111 839 7.7 145

Washington, OR ................ 15.5 242.9 4.9 30 965 8.3 113

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.0 674.7 0.9 229 871 7.1 189

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 165.7 2.3 130 725 8.5 101

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.7 259.9 2.2 134 793 9.2 70

Butler, PA ........................... 4.7 75.1 0.9 229 671 7.2 181

Chester, PA ....................... 15.0 231.1 1.8 157 1,083 9.9 47

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.8 124.7 1.1 208 757 -3.7 323

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.1 178.7 2.4 125 789 3.4 312

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 206.4 0.4 269 895 11.9 18

Erie, PA .............................. 7.2 126.1 0.5 262 632 8.4 105

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.7 100.3 1.9 150 615 7.0 197

Lancaster, PA .................... 11.9 224.2 0.4 269 691 8.3 113

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.3 174.1 3.0 91 815 7.1 189

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 141.6 0.8 234 639 8.3 113

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.9 482.2 1.5 185 1,118 10.6 31

Northampton, PA ............... 6.3 96.8 2.0 145 714 6.4 234

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Philadelphia, PA ................ 29.2 632.0 0.4 269 $979 9.3 65

Washington, PA ................. 5.4 76.7 2.5 120 695 9.3 65

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 135.9 0.2 279 639 9.0 79

York, PA ............................. 8.8 173.5 2.1 139 709 6.0 259

Kent, RI .............................. 5.7 80.5 0.7 244 734 7.5 160

Providence, RI ................... 18.2 282.0 0.1 284 802 4.8 293

Charleston, SC .................. 12.8 197.3 1.8 157 681 8.6 97

Greenville, SC .................... 12.8 228.1 2.3 130 695 5.6 275

Horry, SC ........................... 8.7 109.4 5.3 22 524 9.6 56

Lexington, SC .................... 6.0 89.9 2.2 134 614 8.3 113

Richland, SC ...................... 9.9 211.1 3.4 68 700 8.9 84

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.5 115.5 0.2 279 742 8.6 97

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.1 110.7 2.6 111 683 7.6 155

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.0 442.1 3.1 87 812 5.7 269

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 190.4 (7) - 699 (7) - 

Knox, TN ............................ 10.6 219.3 2.4 125 682 6.7 214

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.0 97.8 4.4 40 710 7.9 136

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.0 502.4 1.5 185 813 7.3 175

Bell, TX .............................. 4.3 94.7 1.2 202 610 9.1 73

Bexar, TX ........................... 30.7 693.2 3.9 56 738 7.4 164

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.4 83.7 7.5 3 822 9.9 47

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.7 84.0 6.0 15 564 4.1 306

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.3 120.5 4.0 53 477 4.4 301

Collin, TX ........................... 14.9 258.4 7.8 1 990 7.5 160

Dallas, TX .......................... 66.5 1,439.9 3.2 77 1,033 8.4 105

Denton, TX ......................... 9.5 155.4 (7) - 679 6.3 242

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.0 262.6 3.2 77 568 7.4 164

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.4 113.1 4.5 37 883 7.8 141

Galveston, TX .................... 5.0 91.3 3.7 61 755 12.0 17

Harris, TX ........................... 91.8 1,924.0 4.5 37 1,033 8.7 93

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 9.9 207.2 4.6 36 490 5.8 265

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 123.0 4.9 30 761 6.4 234

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.5 119.9 1.2 202 609 10.3 37

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 101.4 -0.2 295 637 5.5 278

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.2 107.7 6.1 14 785 17.0 5

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 150.2 2.7 103 685 11.7 19

Smith, TX ........................... 5.1 90.9 1.3 195 669 6.5 227

Tarrant, TX ......................... 35.1 730.5 2.9 94 839 8.4 105

Travis, TX .......................... 26.0 541.2 4.1 48 934 7.7 145

Webb, TX ........................... 4.5 83.7 5.4 19 527 7.8 141

Williamson, TX ................... 6.1 104.9 4.7 34 838 4.5 298

Davis, UT ........................... 7.0 97.7 5.2 25 635 6.9 201

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.7 553.3 4.4 40 744 9.4 64

Utah, UT ............................ 12.3 161.3 5.6 18 589 6.9 201

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 89.7 2.0 145 579 7.6 155

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.7 93.1 -0.6 305 847 11.0 25

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.3 157.0 1.6 172 1,402 8.2 123

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.0 117.0 3.2 77 738 7.0 197

Fairfax, VA ......................... 31.6 568.4 2.5 120 1,314 11.3 24

Henrico, VA ........................ 8.7 172.9 1.0 223 919 2.9 317

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Loudoun, VA ...................... 7.4 123.9 4.1 48 $1,114 11.4 22

Prince William, VA ............. 6.5 102.7 5.4 19 717 9.6 56

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.9 93.0 1.0 223 1,054 8.9 84

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.3 99.0 (7) - 631 8.2 123

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 98.4 0.8 234 711 6.8 207

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.6 141.1 -2.0 315 768 6.1 255

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 161.4 2.7 103 987 8.7 93

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.2 175.8 1.1 208 630 8.4 105

Clark, WA ........................... 10.8 127.6 3.7 61 722 6.6 219

King, WA ............................ 74.1 1,126.8 3.2 77 1,041 10.3 37

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.3 83.5 2.9 94 698 6.2 250

Pierce, WA ......................... 19.3 262.0 3.5 64 737 7.4 164

Snohomish, WA ................. 16.4 228.7 5.3 22 839 10.0 44

Spokane, WA ..................... 14.3 201.4 3.4 68 651 6.4 234

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.3 95.2 2.7 103 715 5.8 265

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.5 78.6 2.1 139 625 7.9 136

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.4 92.0 1.9 150 550 7.0 197

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 107.3 0.8 234 706 7.1 189

Brown, WI .......................... 6.8 145.5 0.7 244 744 8.3 113

Dane, WI ............................ 14.1 294.5 0.7 244 812 10.3 37

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.8 486.6 -0.3 301 843 8.4 105

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 100.0 -0.4 302 705 5.5 278

Racine, WI ......................... 4.3 74.3 -0.8 309 722 6.8 207

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.5 229.1 0.7 244 823 7.7 145

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.9 86.8 1.1 208 777 3.5 311

San Juan, PR ..................... 14.7 306.0 -2.4 (8) 531 3.1 (8) 

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

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

Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. 8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

first quarter 20062

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-063

United States5 .................................................... 8,770.7 132,613.1 2.2 $838 8.1

Private industry .............................................. 8,492.7 111,080.5 2.5 843 8.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 123.5 1,634.5 2.7 882 13.2

Construction ............................................... 867.6 7,296.6 7.3 823 9.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 365.3 14,104.7 -0.4 1,022 8.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,890.9 25,624.0 1.8 708 7.8

Information ................................................. 144.0 3,041.5 -0.1 1,374 10.4

Financial activities ...................................... 840.5 8,101.5 2.3 1,629 9.9

Professional and business services ........... 1,413.1 17,153.3 4.2 1,020 8.7

Education and health services ................... 790.1 16,830.1 2.8 714 7.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 703.7 12,626.1 2.4 338 8.0

Other services ............................................ 1,127.3 4,320.5 0.8 508 7.2

Government ................................................... 277.9 21,532.5 0.8 808 5.3

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 392.0 4,179.3 2.6 944 9.3

Private industry .............................................. 388.2 3,591.9 3.0 927 9.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.8 -4.8 1,067 -6.7

Construction ............................................... 14.0 154.1 8.0 883 8.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 16.1 469.5 -0.8 1,002 11.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 55.3 803.3 2.4 768 8.3

Information ................................................. 9.0 214.5 4.9 1,649 4.7

Financial activities ...................................... 24.7 248.0 2.5 1,680 8.5

Professional and business services ........... 42.6 593.1 4.3 1,103 13.2

Education and health services ................... 28.1 471.1 2.7 804 10.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.1 383.9 3.3 503 11.3

Other services ............................................ 170.4 242.9 6.4 403 2.8

Government ................................................... 3.8 587.4 0.3 1,046 8.5

Cook, IL .............................................................. 132.7 2,502.0 1.1 1,047 6.5

Private industry .............................................. 131.5 2,186.2 1.4 1,061 7.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.3 8.0 1,032 6.6

Construction ............................................... 11.4 89.2 4.8 1,182 5.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.3 245.7 -3.3 987 3.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.2 471.5 0.3 803 8.1

Information ................................................. 2.5 59.4 -2.5 1,628 9.2

Financial activities ...................................... 14.9 216.8 0.7 2,411 12.2

Professional and business services ........... 27.3 423.4 3.8 1,286 3.9

Education and health services ................... 13.1 361.0 2.2 765 7.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.1 219.2 3.1 388 9.0

Other services ............................................ 13.2 93.7 -0.3 668 6.4

Government ................................................... 1.2 315.8 -0.6 953 2.6

New York, NY ..................................................... 115.3 2,271.0 1.8 2,223 9.6

Private industry .............................................. 115.0 1,824.7 2.2 2,524 9.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 1.0 2,606 53.7

Construction ............................................... 2.1 29.7 3.7 1,387 4.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 39.2 -8.5 1,349 11.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.4 237.9 2.1 1,139 6.5

Information ................................................. 4.2 129.6 0.4 2,445 9.2

Financial activities ...................................... 17.5 361.5 2.5 6,879 11.3

Professional and business services ........... 23.1 454.2 2.7 2,067 6.9

Education and health services ................... 8.1 281.5 1.5 929 5.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.5 195.2 1.9 734 9.7

Other services ............................................ 16.7 84.0 0.8 912 7.2

Government ................................................... 0.2 446.2 0.3 998 8.6

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-063

Harris, TX ........................................................... 91.8 1,924.0 4.5 $1,033 8.7

Private industry .............................................. 91.4 1,673.1 4.9 1,067 9.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.4 70.8 9.3 3,120 3.4

Construction ............................................... 6.3 141.5 7.6 948 13.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 171.9 4.8 1,398 10.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.3 402.7 4.2 953 9.8

Information ................................................. 1.3 31.5 -1.3 1,311 12.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.0 116.6 2.1 1,464 10.4

Professional and business services ........... 17.9 313.1 6.9 1,106 8.2

Education and health services ................... 9.5 199.1 3.2 767 6.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 166.6 4.0 367 8.9

Other services ............................................ 10.7 56.0 2.2 566 9.3

Government ................................................... 0.4 250.9 1.8 809 5.3

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 89.1 1,791.4 6.0 822 10.5

Private industry .............................................. 88.5 1,579.3 6.7 822 10.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.9 -0.8 741 17.1

Construction ............................................... 9.0 175.7 13.8 856 18.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 136.2 4.1 1,184 6.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 19.0 361.1 5.0 777 8.7

Information ................................................. 1.5 32.1 -2.0 1,078 11.7

Financial activities ...................................... 10.8 148.2 5.8 1,213 12.6

Professional and business services ........... 18.9 301.0 6.3 787 9.6

Education and health services ................... 8.5 183.5 7.3 810 9.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.2 176.4 5.1 381 10.8

Other services ............................................ 6.2 46.8 1.7 552 12.2

Government ................................................... 0.6 212.1 1.2 820 11.4

Orange, CA ........................................................ 95.5 1,512.1 2.5 967 8.2

Private industry .............................................. 94.1 1,361.3 2.8 955 8.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 7.0 -4.7 538 -0.6

Construction ............................................... 7.0 106.2 10.9 1,008 10.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.7 183.4 0.5 1,143 11.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.9 270.8 2.0 884 8.3

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.0 -0.9 1,414 11.9

Financial activities ...................................... 11.3 140.9 1.3 1,599 3.4

Professional and business services ........... 19.0 271.4 4.2 997 10.5

Education and health services ................... 9.8 135.4 2.9 818 6.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 166.3 2.9 369 7.3

Other services ............................................ 14.7 47.8 0.3 540 6.3

Government ................................................... 1.4 150.7 -0.9 1,075 7.6

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 66.5 1,439.9 3.2 1,033 8.4

Private industry .............................................. 66.0 1,279.9 3.5 1,057 8.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.3 7.1 3,020 16.5

Construction ............................................... 4.3 78.6 6.0 884 5.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 147.1 3.4 1,261 7.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 300.4 2.2 944 9.4

Information ................................................. 1.7 52.6 -2.5 1,526 12.4

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 138.7 3.8 1,644 10.2

Professional and business services ........... 14.0 255.4 7.1 1,109 7.3

Education and health services ................... 6.3 135.2 3.9 841 5.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.1 122.4 0.1 489 15.3

Other services ............................................ 6.5 39.8 -1.3 613 8.1

Government ................................................... 0.4 160.0 0.8 843 4.1

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-063

San Diego, CA ................................................... 92.2 1,313.3 1.6 $904 10.8

Private industry .............................................. 90.8 1,092.2 1.9 901 11.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.4 -2.5 511 12.8

Construction ............................................... 7.3 92.9 4.9 937 15.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 104.1 -1.5 1,207 10.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.6 217.0 2.0 729 7.8

Information ................................................. 1.3 36.7 -2.1 2,349 39.9

Financial activities ...................................... 9.9 86.0 4.0 1,294 5.9

Professional and business services ........... 16.2 215.4 1.8 1,056 10.8

Education and health services ................... 8.0 123.9 1.3 779 10.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 150.0 3.6 392 10.1

Other services ............................................ 22.4 54.7 0.7 464 7.7

Government ................................................... 1.4 221.2 0.2 917 6.1

King, WA ............................................................ 74.1 1,126.8 3.2 1,041 10.3

Private industry .............................................. 73.6 974.4 3.8 1,056 10.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.3 1.7 1,325 1.6

Construction ............................................... 6.4 62.8 12.8 961 8.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 109.6 4.6 1,413 16.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 215.3 1.8 916 9.8

Information ................................................. 1.7 69.7 1.2 1,817 9.2

Financial activities ...................................... 6.7 75.7 2.3 1,534 11.8

Professional and business services ........... 12.3 174.5 7.3 1,200 9.9

Education and health services ................... 6.2 116.0 2.5 781 10.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.7 103.1 2.6 447 4.9

Other services ............................................ 16.9 44.5 -0.6 527 8.0

Government ................................................... 0.5 152.4 -0.4 942 5.5

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 85.9 1,014.5 2.2 826 11.0

Private industry .............................................. 85.6 861.6 2.6 801 10.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 11.1 4.0 445 20.3

Construction ............................................... 5.7 49.6 13.4 851 13.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.7 48.3 -1.1 756 9.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.8 247.4 2.3 744 9.6

Information ................................................. 1.7 22.3 -3.1 1,269 11.5

Financial activities ...................................... 10.0 71.1 3.9 1,334 11.4

Professional and business services ........... 17.1 140.0 -2.0 932 13.0

Education and health services ................... 8.6 131.5 4.9 749 6.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.8 102.1 1.9 505 (6) 

Other services ............................................ 7.7 34.5 2.3 481 8.6

Government ................................................... 0.3 152.9 -0.4 965 12.2

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

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

Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, first quarter 20062

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

United States6 .......................... 8,770.7 132,613.1 2.2 $838 8.1

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.6 371.4 1.1 845 7.2

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.0 142.1 1.8 836 5.4

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 89.1 1,791.4 6.0 822 10.5

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.0 247.3 2.5 728 6.6

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 392.0 4,179.3 2.6 944 9.3

Denver, CO .............................. 25.0 424.7 1.6 1,065 8.8

Hartford, CT .............................. 24.8 487.3 1.6 1,112 6.6

New Castle, DE ........................ 19.6 280.2 0.7 1,113 10.3

Washington, DC ....................... 31.4 664.9 0.3 1,371 7.3

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 85.9 1,014.5 2.2 826 11.0

Fulton, GA ................................ 38.2 748.3 1.9 1,164 7.7

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.0 448.2 2.6 742 7.1

Ada, ID ..................................... 14.3 204.6 6.2 730 9.3

Cook, IL .................................... 132.7 2,502.0 1.1 1,047 6.5

Marion, IN ................................. 23.6 572.9 0.2 900 10.0

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.3 264.4 2.4 859 8.3

Johnson, KS ............................. 19.8 299.4 0.7 883 8.5

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.3 424.0 1.9 799 7.4

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 13.6 260.3 6.2 709 7.9

Cumberland, ME ...................... 11.9 166.7 1.1 751 6.1

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.6 462.3 2.4 1,133 8.8

Middlesex, MA .......................... 46.5 791.3 1.9 1,177 7.2

Wayne, MI ................................ 33.7 772.6 -1.6 923 3.1

Hennepin, MN .......................... 43.9 831.4 1.8 1,047 4.8

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.5 128.7 0.9 715 8.8

St. Louis, MO ............................ 33.9 616.3 0.7 900 9.9

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.4 72.9 2.3 635 6.7

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.4 308.1 1.0 778 9.9

Clark, NV .................................. 44.2 905.4 7.2 769 6.8

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.4 195.0 1.3 886 7.3

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.6 443.4 0.4 1,061 7.9

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 16.9 328.0 4.4 705 7.3

New York, NY ........................... 115.3 2,271.0 1.8 2,223 9.6

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 28.3 530.6 3.2 1,167 8.4

Cass, ND .................................. 5.8 92.1 4.1 649 6.6

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 38.3 745.0 0.1 865 6.5

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 22.7 420.0 2.6 755 15.3

Multnomah, OR ........................ 26.5 432.1 2.6 839 7.7

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.0 674.7 0.9 871 7.1

Providence, RI .......................... 18.2 282.0 0.1 802 4.8

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.8 228.1 2.3 695 5.6

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.1 110.7 2.6 683 7.6

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.0 502.4 1.5 813 7.3

Harris, TX ................................. 91.8 1,924.0 4.5 1,033 8.7

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 37.7 553.3 4.4 744 9.4

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.7 93.1 -0.6 847 11.0

Fairfax, VA ................................ 31.6 568.4 2.5 1,314 11.3

King, WA .................................. 74.1 1,126.8 3.2 1,041 10.3

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 107.3 0.8 706 7.1

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.8 486.6 -0.3 843 8.4

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

state, first quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-064

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-064

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.1 40.9 3.6 $633 5.3

San Juan, PR ........................... 14.7 306.0 -2.4 531 3.1

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.3 0.6 616 5.5

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

(UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

first quarter 20062

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-06

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-06

United States4 .................... 8,770.7 132,613.1 2.2 $838 8.1

Alabama ............................. 116.1 1,923.6 2.6 690 7.6

Alaska ................................ 20.6 296.3 2.0 791 6.5

Arizona ............................... 145.1 2,613.3 6.0 767 10.2

Arkansas ............................ 80.5 1,171.6 2.5 621 7.1

California ............................ 1,279.8 15,422.5 2.7 952 9.2

Colorado ............................ 172.2 2,211.3 2.5 858 9.2

Connecticut ........................ 111.2 1,640.1 1.1 1,191 10.0

Delaware ............................ 30.1 415.0 1.7 965 9.8

District of Columbia ............ 31.4 664.9 0.3 1,371 7.3

Florida ................................ 587.0 8,014.1 3.7 735 8.2

Georgia .............................. 260.2 3,989.2 2.8 799 7.7

Hawaii ................................ 37.1 615.1 2.7 719 7.5

Idaho .................................. 53.4 623.3 5.0 609 8.6

Illinois ................................. 344.4 5,733.7 1.6 913 7.7

Indiana ............................... 155.2 2,870.4 1.1 717 7.5

Iowa ................................... 92.2 1,445.7 1.8 662 7.5

Kansas ............................... 84.7 1,317.1 1.7 686 8.7

Kentucky ............................ 108.8 1,769.9 1.8 671 6.8

Louisiana ........................... 121.6 1,793.1 -4.1 697 12.6

Maine ................................. 48.9 577.5 0.9 652 6.2

Maryland ............................ 161.6 2,511.2 2.1 897 7.9

Massachusetts ................... 205.8 3,136.3 1.3 1,045 8.4

Michigan ............................ 257.3 4,207.8 -0.6 816 4.7

Minnesota .......................... 173.0 2,633.0 2.7 827 5.8

Mississippi ......................... 68.6 1,112.1 0.0 597 9.3

Missouri ............................. 172.2 2,680.5 1.6 724 7.7

Montana ............................. 40.6 416.8 3.3 572 7.3

Nebraska ........................... 57.6 888.4 1.0 648 8.0

Nevada .............................. 70.0 1,260.0 6.2 764 6.7

New Hampshire ................. 48.0 617.1 1.7 800 7.5

New Jersey ........................ 278.6 3,933.9 1.8 1,037 7.6

New Mexico ....................... 51.8 795.5 4.0 647 8.6

New York ........................... 566.9 8,329.2 1.0 1,193 8.8

North Carolina .................... 238.4 3,905.5 2.4 744 7.8

North Dakota ...................... 25.2 328.8 2.8 586 6.9

Ohio ................................... 293.3 5,267.2 0.8 751 6.5

Oklahoma .......................... 95.9 1,505.6 3.5 660 11.9

Oregon ............................... 126.8 1,669.7 2.9 734 7.3

Pennsylvania ..................... 334.3 5,551.7 1.6 807 8.0

Rhode Island ...................... 35.9 468.2 0.4 777 5.6

South Carolina ................... 122.5 1,834.1 1.9 661 8.2

South Dakota ..................... 29.4 373.2 2.2 581 6.6

Tennessee ......................... 135.1 2,717.7 2.3 705 6.8

Texas ................................. 530.4 9,850.2 4.0 824 8.6

Utah ................................... 84.4 1,147.2 5.0 660 8.9

Vermont ............................. 24.5 300.5 0.9 688 7.7

Virginia ............................... 218.2 3,613.3 2.5 862 8.6

Washington ........................ 208.1 2,784.0 3.1 833 8.7

West Virginia ...................... 48.2 697.7 2.0 625 7.2

Wisconsin .......................... 164.1 2,712.2 0.8 716 7.5

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

first quarter 20062 — Continued

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

March

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2005-06

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2005-06

Wyoming ............................ 23.5 256.8 5.0 $667 9.3

Puerto Rico ........................ 59.6 1,048.1 0.2 450 3.9

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.4 45.6 2.8 664 2.3

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

March 2005–06 (U.S. Average = 2.2%)

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

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

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

So

O
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75

or more, first quarter 200506 (U.S. Average = 8.1%)

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

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

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

So

Oc