For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, September 29, 2011 USDL-11-1397 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

First Quarter 2011 

From March 2010 to March 2011, employment increased in 256 of the 322 largest U.S. counties, the 

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

a gain of 6.2 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.3 percent. Within Elkhart, 

the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 5,125 jobs over the year (12.4 

percent). Sacramento, Calif., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment 

among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 1.6 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 5.2 percent to $935 in the first quarter of 

2011. Among the large counties in the U.S., Peoria, Ill., had the largest over-the-year increase in average 

weekly wages in the first quarter of 2011 with a gain of 18.9 percent. Within Peoria, professional and 

business services had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in average weekly 

wages. Williamson, Texas, experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 3.8 

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, March 2010-11 

(U.S. average = 1.3 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, first quarter 2010-11 

(U.S. average = 5.2 percent) 

6.2

4.7 4.3 4.3 4.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Elkhart,

Ind.

Ottawa, 

Mich.

Washington,

Pa.

Prince William,

Va.

Benton, 

Wash.

18.9

12.4 12.0 11.9 11.3

0

5

10

15

20

Peoria,

Ill.

Santa Clara,

Calif.

Macomb,

Mich.

Clayton,

Ga.

Wayne,

Mich.
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by March 2011 employment, March 2010-11 employment 

increase, and March 2010-11 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

March 2011 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) March 2010-11 March 2010-11 

 (thousands) 

 

United States 127,851.0 United States 1,622.8 United States 1.3

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,887.9 Harris, Texas 44.6 Elkhart, Ind. 6.2

Cook, Ill. 2,333.9 New York, N.Y. 43.4 Ottawa, Mich. 4.7

New York, N.Y. 2,304.1 Los Angeles, Calif. 37.3 Washington, Pa. 4.3

Harris, Texas 2,014.4 Orange, Calif. 26.7 Prince William, Va. 4.3

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,628.8 Dallas, Texas 26.7 Benton, Wash. 4.3

Dallas, Texas 1,416.9 Santa Clara, Calif. 24.6 Butler, Pa. 4.2

Orange, Calif. 1,370.6 Cook, Ill. 22.9 Loudoun, Va. 4.2

San Diego, Calif. 1,239.7 Maricopa, Ariz. 21.1 Williamson, Tenn. 4.1

King, Wash. 1,117.2 King, Wash. 20.0 Washington, Ore. 4.0

Miami-Dade, Fla. 967.7 Hennepin, Minn. 19.3 Collier, Fla. 3.8

Large County Employment 

In March 2011, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 127.9 million, up by 

1.3 percent or 1.6 million workers, from March 2010. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more 

employees accounted for 70.7 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.4 percent of total wages. These 

322 counties had a net job growth of 1,054,300 over the year, accounting for 65.0 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 (6.2 

percent). The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; New 

York, N.Y.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Orange, Calif.; and Dallas, Texas. These counties had a combined 

over-the-year gain of 178,700, or 11.0 percent of the employment increase for the U.S. 

Employment declined in 53 of the large counties from March 2010 to March 2011. Sacramento, Calif., 

had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-1.6 percent). Within Sacramento, 

construction was the largest contributor to the decrease in employment with a loss of 9.5 percent. 

Montgomery, Ala., and Atlantic, N.J., tied for the second largest employment decrease, followed by San 

Joaquin, Calif., Marion, Fla., and Champaign, Ill., which tied for the third largest decline. (See table 1.) 

 
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by first quarter 2011 average weekly wages, first quarter 2010-11 

increase in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2010-11 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 

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

first quarter 2011 wage, first quarter 2010-11 weekly wage, first 

 quarter 2010-11 

 

United States $935 United States $46 United States 5.2

 

New York, N.Y. $2,634 New York, N.Y. $222 Peoria, Ill. 18.9

Fairfield, Conn. 1,888 Santa Clara, Calif. 205 Santa Clara, Calif. 12.4

Somerset, N.J. 1,867 Peoria, Ill. 150 Macomb, Mich. 12.0

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,863 Somerset, N.J. 114 Clayton, Ga. 11.9

San Francisco, Calif. 1,723 San Francisco, Calif. 112 Wayne, Mich. 11.3

Suffolk, Mass. 1,625 Fulton, Ga. 111 Brazoria, Texas 10.0

Arlington, Va. 1,549 Wayne, Mich. 104 Saginaw, Mich. 9.8

Washington, D.C. 1,540 Fairfield, Conn. 102 Stark, Ohio 9.7

Hudson, N.J. 1,509 Hartford, Conn. 102 Butler, Pa. 9.3

San Mateo, Calif. 1,485 Macomb, Mich. 101 New York, N.Y. 9.2

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 5.2 percent over the year in the first quarter of 

2011. Among the 322 largest counties, 315 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. (See 

chart 4.) Peoria, Ill., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties (18.9 percent). 

Of the 322 largest counties, 3 experienced declines in average weekly wages. Williamson, Texas, had 

the largest wage decline with a loss of 3.8 percent over the year. Trade, transportation, and utilities 

contributed significantly to the county’s overall average weekly wage loss. Hudson, N.J., had the second 

largest percent decline in average weekly wages among the counties, followed by Durham, N.C. (See 

table 1.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

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

2011. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain in employment (2.3 percent). Within Harris, 

professional and business services had the largest over-the-year increase among all private industry 

groups with a gain of 16,522 workers (5.3 percent). Los Angeles, Calif., and Cook, Ill., both had the 

smallest percent increase in employment. (See table 2.) 

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

N.Y., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 9.2 percent. Within New 

York, the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth occurred in financial activities, 

largely due to significant total wage gains over the year ($5,287.0 million or 15.4 percent). Orange, 

Calif., had the smallest average weekly wage increase.
- 4 - 

For More Information 

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 322 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2010. March 2011 employment and 2011 

first 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 127.9 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the first quarter of 2011 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 second quarter 2011 is scheduled to be released 

on Tuesday, January 10, 2012. 

Industry Changes to Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data 

Beginning with the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data presented in this release, the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics is introducing 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/fr17au11.pdf. For more 

information on the impact of the change, please see http://www.bls.gov/cew/naics2012.htm. 

County Changes for the 2011 County Employment and Wages News Releases 

Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2010 are included in this release and 

will be included in future 2011 releases. Four counties will be excluded: Okaloosa, Fla., Rock Island, 

Ill., St. Tammany, La., and Potter, Texas. No counties have been added to the publication tables. 
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 2012 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2011 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 323 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2010 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2011 data, four counties, Okaloosa, Fla., Rock Island, Ill., St. Tammany, La., and Potter, Texas, 

which were published in the 2010 releases, will be excluded from 

this and future 2011 releases because their 2010 annual average 

employment levels were less than 75,000.

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments in first quarter of 2011 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.7 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 440,000 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/ 
No counties have been added to the publication tables. 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 2010. 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 2010, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 127.8 million jobs. The 

estimated 123.2 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.3 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $5.976 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.1 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 2010 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 

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2009 edition 

of this publication, which was published in March 2011, 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 print version of the annual bulletin, Employment and 

Wages Annual Averages. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online, 2009 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn09.htm. The 2010 

edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be 

available later in 2011. 

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 323 largest counties,

first quarter 2011 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,074.3 127,851.0 1.3 – $935 5.2 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.8 328.8 -0.5 280 919 4.9 99

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 176.4 -0.8 294 978 4.4 134

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 165.0 0.9 169 741 4.7 111

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.3 127.2 -1.5 314 764 4.1 157

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.2 83.1 1.5 106 778 5.9 64

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 147.4 1.7 86 958 2.6 264

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 93.8 1,628.8 1.3 132 889 5.1 89

Pima, AZ ............................ 18.9 344.0 -0.7 290 768 4.2 148

Benton, AR ........................ 5.4 92.5 ( 7) – 1,110 6.5 45

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.1 241.6 0.3 229 819 5.5 80

Washington, AR ................. 5.5 89.2 ( 7) – 726 4.6 116

Alameda, CA ...................... 56.4 632.2 -0.1 264 1,183 4.0 165

Contra Costa, CA ............... 30.3 312.6 -0.1 264 1,210 6.4 49

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.9 322.4 1.6 97 709 3.4 200

Kern, CA ............................ 18.0 259.5 1.8 80 790 4.2 148

Los Angeles, CA ................ 438.0 3,887.9 1.0 158 1,046 6.6 43

Marin, CA ........................... 11.9 101.5 2.4 42 1,103 7.2 29

Monterey, CA ..................... 13.0 148.1 -0.3 274 808 1.6 301

Orange, CA ........................ 104.8 1,370.6 2.0 65 1,035 3.3 213

Placer, CA .......................... 10.9 126.2 1.3 132 876 4.5 125

Riverside, CA ..................... 50.1 559.0 -0.1 264 748 3.2 219

Sacramento, CA ................ 54.3 573.9 -1.6 316 1,025 5.1 89

San Bernardino, CA ........... 51.5 592.0 -0.3 274 754 3.3 213

San Diego, CA ................... 100.7 1,239.7 1.4 118 1,003 7.2 29

San Francisco, CA ............. 55.1 548.6 2.9 26 1,723 7.0 35

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.4 196.0 -1.4 311 752 3.2 219

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.7 100.0 1.1 148 742 2.1 285

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.6 322.3 1.5 106 1,485 1.6 301

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.6 173.9 1.4 118 869 5.1 89

Santa Clara, CA ................. 63.1 857.3 3.0 19 1,863 12.4 2

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.1 87.3 1.5 106 814 2.1 285

Solano, CA ......................... 10.2 118.1 0.2 242 921 2.7 260

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.9 174.9 1.6 97 846 3.4 200

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.2 156.5 -0.2 271 748 2.5 268

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.5 134.7 1.1 148 622 2.8 248

Ventura, CA ....................... 24.3 300.6 1.4 118 964 4.4 134

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.2 89.0 ( 7) – 892 ( 7) – 

Adams, CO ........................ 8.8 151.3 0.8 180 806 4.1 157

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.6 272.0 2.0 65 1,130 2.7 260

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.8 153.1 1.7 86 1,050 3.9 170

Denver, CO ........................ 25.0 417.8 2.0 65 1,212 5.0 94

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.3 87.9 0.6 196 1,069 7.1 34

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.7 232.0 1.4 118 812 2.9 242

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.7 200.3 0.5 206 929 3.7 183

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.9 124.4 1.2 139 795 5.3 83

Weld, CO ........................... 5.7 80.6 3.6 12 776 7.6 22

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.4 396.3 2.3 49 1,888 5.7 73

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.3 481.1 1.1 148 1,260 8.8 11

New Haven, CT ................. 22.2 344.3 0.9 169 956 4.7 111

New London, CT ................ 6.9 122.0 0.0 257 960 4.7 111

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.5 261.9 1.6 97 $1,194 6.3 51

Washington, DC ................. 34.8 702.3 2.5 35 1,540 2.4 272

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.5 115.4 0.2 242 730 3.5 197

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.3 187.1 -0.5 280 801 2.2 279

Broward, FL ....................... 61.8 682.9 0.3 229 834 3.2 219

Collier, FL .......................... 11.5 119.6 3.8 10 767 4.1 157

Duval, FL ........................... 26.5 439.1 1.8 80 891 3.1 226

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.8 120.1 0.8 180 690 4.2 148

Hillsborough, FL ................. 36.6 574.6 0.7 188 880 4.5 125

Lake, FL ............................. 7.1 79.3 1.1 148 586 2.8 248

Lee, FL ............................... 18.2 199.9 1.4 118 711 4.3 143

Leon, FL ............................. 8.1 137.9 0.4 216 722 1.0 310

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.3 104.1 0.3 229 668 3.6 188

Marion, FL .......................... 7.8 89.0 -1.4 311 614 2.8 248

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 85.5 967.7 1.9 74 874 3.4 200

Orange, FL ......................... 35.2 655.7 2.1 56 805 4.4 134

Palm Beach, FL ................. 48.7 496.5 0.7 188 886 4.4 134

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.7 98.6 2.4 42 596 2.8 248

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.1 379.7 -1.1 304 765 2.8 248

Polk, FL .............................. 12.3 191.4 -0.5 280 668 3.9 170

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.2 135.3 1.4 118 722 2.4 272

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.7 154.4 -0.5 280 735 3.1 226

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.2 151.0 -0.7 290 629 2.8 248

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 79.0 0.1 249 699 2.5 268

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 128.0 0.7 188 752 3.9 170

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.2 101.5 1.0 158 844 11.9 4

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.6 285.6 0.7 188 962 4.0 165

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.4 272.4 1.0 158 992 6.0 60

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.7 710.8 1.2 139 1,370 8.8 11

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.4 298.6 2.7 30 879 3.4 200

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.6 92.8 0.9 169 749 5.9 64

Richmond, GA ................... 4.6 99.3 1.7 86 743 3.9 170

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.5 436.5 1.5 106 821 3.1 226

Ada, ID ............................... 14.0 190.0 0.4 216 773 4.9 99

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 86.3 -1.4 311 750 2.9 242

Cook, IL ............................. 145.1 2,333.9 1.0 158 1,145 5.8 70

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.5 546.6 1.8 80 1,076 3.4 200

Kane, IL ............................. 13.2 187.8 0.9 169 777 2.8 248

Lake, IL .............................. 21.7 303.1 ( 7) – 1,230 ( 7) – 

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 89.7 -0.5 280 727 4.5 125

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 84.8 0.1 249 904 2.1 285

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 94.3 2.0 65 738 2.1 285

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 99.8 2.5 35 944 18.9 1

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 93.6 0.6 196 709 2.0 293

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 125.9 1.2 139 907 3.4 200

Will, IL ................................ 14.7 192.9 0.9 169 793 5.0 94

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 122.9 0.3 229 769 7.6 22

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 170.4 2.1 56 747 4.0 165

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 102.5 6.2 1 698 5.4 82

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.3 107.8 2.5 35 924 6.6 43

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 181.1 0.6 196 $791 5.6 77

Marion, IN .......................... 23.8 542.2 1.0 158 987 3.6 188

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 114.9 0.7 188 723 3.1 226

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 104.0 0.1 249 729 5.7 73

Linn, IA ............................... 6.2 123.4 1.7 86 847 3.9 170

Polk, IA .............................. 14.5 260.6 -0.5 280 940 4.9 99

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 84.2 1.1 148 725 6.1 57

Johnson, KS ...................... 21.1 295.8 1.5 106 955 2.5 268

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.5 237.6 0.1 249 816 6.9 37

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 93.9 -1.1 304 751 4.3 143

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.3 79.3 1.8 80 826 4.4 134

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.6 169.5 1.7 86 811 6.0 60

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.6 407.9 1.3 132 873 3.4 200

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.5 120.4 0.5 206 736 6.8 38

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 5.0 82.2 0.2 242 768 4.8 105

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.7 254.2 0.1 249 831 2.8 248

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.0 192.1 0.4 216 831 3.6 188

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.1 132.0 2.3 49 847 4.7 111

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.1 173.1 1.2 139 983 3.0 236

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.5 164.1 1.3 132 835 4.8 105

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.5 224.7 1.1 148 958 ( 7) – 

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.1 357.7 0.3 229 920 2.3 276

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 90.4 0.3 229 904 5.9 64

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 81.4 2.5 35 844 4.5 125

Howard, MD ....................... 8.9 147.7 2.5 35 1,141 6.5 45

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.9 445.7 2.0 65 1,311 3.9 170

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.7 297.8 0.6 196 933 2.1 285

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.7 327.8 0.6 196 1,081 3.7 183

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.3 78.3 0.1 249 759 4.5 125

Bristol, MA ......................... 16.6 205.0 1.4 118 791 6.3 51

Essex, MA .......................... 22.0 291.6 1.7 86 955 6.3 51

Hampden, MA .................... 15.5 191.7 1.4 118 812 1.0 310

Middlesex, MA ................... 49.9 796.6 0.9 169 1,370 7.3 27

Norfolk, MA ........................ 24.8 309.4 0.5 206 1,066 4.5 125

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.5 166.6 0.6 196 815 5.0 94

Suffolk, MA ........................ 23.5 574.8 1.4 118 1,625 5.0 94

Worcester, MA ................... 21.8 309.2 1.6 97 908 7.2 29

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.3 126.1 0.0 257 742 8.3 15

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.4 151.0 -0.4 277 879 6.0 60

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.3 106.2 0.9 169 816 5.0 94

Kent, MI ............................. 13.7 310.0 3.0 19 792 3.4 200

Macomb, MI ....................... 16.8 277.6 3.0 19 941 12.0 3

Oakland, MI ....................... 37.0 618.7 2.7 30 1,019 7.5 24

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.5 101.2 4.7 2 714 6.1 57

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.1 79.1 1.6 97 760 9.8 7

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 188.9 2.1 56 925 1.1 307

Wayne, MI .......................... 30.7 660.6 1.5 106 1,021 11.3 5

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.1 104.0 0.3 229 829 7.2 29

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.7 165.0 0.3 229 895 3.6 188

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.5 805.9 2.4 42 1,197 7.7 20

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 85.4 -0.3 274 968 3.4 200

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Ramsey, MN ...................... 13.9 310.1 0.2 242 $1,093 6.2 55

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.7 91.2 0.2 242 722 5.6 77

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.3 77.2 2.5 35 700 2.2 279

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 82.0 0.7 188 668 1.7 300

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.0 121.6 -1.1 304 778 3.9 170

Boone, MO ......................... 4.4 82.0 1.0 158 692 3.1 226

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 89.3 0.8 180 850 2.4 272

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 147.0 -0.6 287 661 4.6 116

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.0 338.9 0.0 257 894 1.6 301

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.1 120.2 2.2 53 744 1.6 301

St. Louis, MO ..................... 31.8 560.8 0.1 249 973 3.6 188

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.8 212.1 -0.6 287 1,037 2.8 248

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.9 74.6 0.0 257 721 4.6 116

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.8 307.4 0.9 169 853 3.1 226

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.1 151.5 0.4 216 711 3.6 188

Clark, NV ........................... 47.2 795.2 0.4 216 790 1.8 297

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.6 179.9 -0.8 294 789 3.4 200

Hillsborough, NH ................ 11.8 185.0 1.3 132 975 5.9 64

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.5 129.7 1.3 132 857 5.7 73

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.8 128.3 -1.5 314 772 2.8 248

Bergen, NJ ......................... 33.5 420.2 0.6 196 1,152 2.8 248

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.1 189.1 -1.1 304 957 3.5 197

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.4 191.3 -0.9 298 903 5.7 73

Essex, NJ ........................... 20.9 336.0 -0.8 294 1,229 4.5 125

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.2 96.4 0.3 229 766 1.1 307

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.8 229.4 0.0 257 1,509 -1.5 317

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.2 226.1 0.5 206 1,283 5.3 83

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.9 371.7 -0.2 271 1,191 4.6 116

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.2 237.4 -0.7 290 945 2.7 260

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.4 264.9 -0.5 280 1,462 2.5 268

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.2 140.2 -0.2 271 746 3.2 219

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.2 169.1 0.5 206 921 3.1 226

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.1 164.9 0.4 216 1,867 6.5 45

Union, NJ ........................... 14.6 215.1 -0.9 298 1,199 1.9 294

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 308.5 -0.4 277 781 2.6 264

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 215.2 -0.9 298 937 2.9 242

Bronx, NY .......................... 17.0 234.1 0.8 180 818 3.2 219

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 89.5 -1.0 302 703 4.5 125

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.1 109.3 -0.1 264 917 1.8 297

Erie, NY ............................. 23.7 444.8 0.5 206 794 4.6 116

Kings, NY ........................... 50.9 503.9 3.7 11 725 1.1 307

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.1 366.1 0.5 206 847 3.4 200

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.7 578.6 0.4 216 1,015 3.3 213

New York, NY .................... 121.9 2,304.1 1.9 74 2,634 9.2 10

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 104.6 -1.3 310 708 4.1 157

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 236.8 -0.1 264 831 4.3 143

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 128.2 1.5 106 755 2.2 279

Queens, NY ....................... 45.7 494.0 1.6 97 844 4.2 148

Richmond, NY .................... 9.0 90.8 1.8 80 758 3.6 188

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 112.0 1.2 139 991 2.6 264

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.8 596.3 0.7 188 972 4.2 148

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Westchester, NY ................ 36.2 397.8 1.0 158 $1,332 1.4 305

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.8 110.5 2.1 56 676 4.8 105

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 78.4 2.8 28 692 7.5 24

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 118.9 1.3 132 695 4.2 148

Durham, NC ....................... 7.1 177.8 1.4 118 1,276 -0.5 316

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.9 170.6 -0.8 294 891 7.9 18

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.0 260.6 1.7 86 802 4.8 105

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 31.9 546.4 2.8 28 1,231 7.3 27

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.2 96.2 2.1 56 741 4.2 148

Wake, NC .......................... 28.6 437.2 3.3 14 917 1.9 294

Cass, ND ........................... 5.9 100.2 3.0 19 765 6.7 41

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 136.5 0.4 216 781 0.5 314

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 35.7 675.4 0.5 206 953 7.4 26

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.2 644.1 1.4 118 920 4.4 134

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.1 478.5 0.8 180 992 4.1 157

Lake, OH ............................ 6.5 90.9 0.4 216 774 3.6 188

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.1 91.3 2.5 35 750 7.0 35

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.3 196.4 1.5 106 793 5.9 64

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.1 94.5 1.7 86 632 4.6 116

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.2 238.9 0.8 180 782 3.3 213

Stark, OH ........................... 8.7 148.5 2.2 53 703 9.7 8

Summit, OH ....................... 14.3 248.9 0.3 229 841 2.2 279

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.4 413.5 2.0 65 837 5.5 80

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.2 324.5 0.2 242 825 5.1 89

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.5 135.2 0.6 196 798 3.4 200

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 73.2 -1.1 304 644 2.7 260

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 134.7 0.9 169 672 3.4 200

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 128.0 -1.0 302 699 1.9 294

Multnomah, OR .................. 29.0 424.9 2.0 65 918 5.2 85

Washington, OR ................ 16.2 239.4 4.0 9 1,120 6.8 38

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.1 666.8 1.5 106 997 5.2 85

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 161.7 1.4 118 780 4.0 165

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.6 244.9 0.5 206 855 3.1 226

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 80.2 4.2 6 799 9.3 9

Chester, PA ....................... 14.9 233.3 1.1 148 1,164 2.9 242

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 120.5 1.1 148 815 3.7 183

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 173.3 0.4 216 889 4.6 116

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 205.3 1.7 86 1,003 3.7 183

Erie, PA .............................. 7.6 121.9 3.2 15 695 6.8 38

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 96.4 -0.4 277 665 2.9 242

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.4 214.0 0.4 216 734 4.7 111

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.6 170.4 2.0 65 879 3.8 180

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 136.3 1.0 158 684 4.1 157

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.1 456.4 0.2 242 1,198 2.1 285

Northampton, PA ............... 6.4 97.6 0.6 196 791 4.6 116

Philadelphia, PA ................ 33.7 628.0 1.2 139 1,079 4.5 125

Washington, PA ................. 5.5 80.2 4.3 3 867 8.8 11

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.3 128.8 1.1 148 716 6.1 57

York, PA ............................. 9.0 168.2 1.6 97 789 3.5 197

Providence, RI ................... 17.4 263.9 0.0 257 895 2.3 276

Charleston, SC .................. 11.6 206.6 2.9 26 774 5.9 64

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Greenville, SC .................... 12.1 228.3 2.7 30 $770 5.2 85

Horry, SC ........................... 7.5 101.9 0.4 216 534 2.9 242

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 93.5 0.9 169 650 4.0 165

Richland, SC ...................... 8.8 201.8 -0.9 298 794 3.1 226

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.8 110.9 1.5 106 761 2.6 264

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 111.9 1.4 118 748 4.9 99

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.1 415.0 1.0 158 927 3.2 219

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 181.0 2.0 65 785 0.1 315

Knox, TN ............................ 10.7 215.4 1.9 74 750 3.0 236

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 95.7 1.6 97 771 2.1 285

Shelby, TN ......................... 18.9 458.0 0.1 249 915 4.9 99

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 89.6 4.1 8 1,054 4.4 134

Bell, TX .............................. 4.7 106.9 2.4 42 736 4.1 157

Bexar, TX ........................... 33.8 730.6 1.4 118 838 6.5 45

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.9 87.8 3.2 15 922 10.0 6

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 86.7 -1.1 304 659 3.0 236

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 126.5 1.5 106 546 3.0 236

Collin, TX ........................... 18.2 291.0 3.1 17 1,075 5.8 70

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.9 1,416.9 1.9 74 1,156 5.2 85

Denton, TX ......................... 11.1 175.2 3.0 19 780 3.9 170

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.8 272.8 0.8 180 626 3.3 213

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.2 133.0 2.4 42 979 8.2 16

Galveston, TX .................... 5.3 95.1 2.6 34 827 4.4 134

Harris, TX ........................... 100.9 2,014.4 2.3 49 1,258 7.7 20

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 11.0 226.0 2.3 49 556 3.2 219

Jefferson, TX ..................... 6.0 120.9 1.9 74 920 8.1 17

Lubbock, TX ....................... 7.0 124.4 2.2 53 653 2.8 248

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 99.8 0.3 229 727 3.0 236

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.7 130.8 3.0 19 886 7.9 18

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 152.7 -0.1 264 748 6.4 49

Smith, TX ........................... 5.4 92.0 0.9 169 739 3.8 180

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.6 750.5 1.7 86 900 3.3 213

Travis, TX .......................... 30.5 576.1 2.7 30 1,002 6.0 60

Webb, TX ........................... 4.8 87.6 2.4 42 590 4.8 105

Williamson, TX ................... 7.6 128.4 3.0 19 953 -3.8 318

Davis, UT ........................... 7.1 100.8 ( 7) – 704 2.3 276

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 36.2 559.5 1.7 86 856 3.8 180

Utah, UT ............................ 12.5 164.9 3.1 17 681 3.7 183

Weber, UT ......................... 5.4 87.9 -0.1 264 642 2.4 272

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 92.8 2.1 56 878 3.1 226

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.2 166.6 3.6 12 1,549 0.8 313

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.5 113.0 0.8 180 830 4.1 157

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.4 572.9 2.1 56 1,479 4.4 134

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 171.5 1.2 139 1,027 6.3 51

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.7 134.7 4.2 6 1,093 2.1 285

Prince William, VA ............. 7.6 108.3 4.3 3 808 1.3 306

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 93.6 ( 7) – 1,226 ( 7) – 

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 94.0 1.0 158 724 4.2 148

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.8 95.3 0.6 196 826 4.3 143

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 137.7 0.7 188 861 3.6 188

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 148.5 1.1 148 1,071 4.9 99

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.2 159.4 -0.7 290 $717 5.8 70

Benton, WA ........................ 5.7 80.8 4.3 3 959 4.8 105

Clark, WA ........................... 13.3 125.7 0.4 216 800 4.3 143

King, WA ............................ 83.1 1,117.2 1.8 80 1,185 5.6 77

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.7 80.2 0.0 257 798 1.8 297

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.8 259.3 0.3 229 821 3.0 236

Snohomish, WA ................. 19.2 241.1 2.1 56 968 8.8 11

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.9 194.3 -0.6 287 751 4.6 116

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.4 96.5 0.3 229 800 1.0 310

Whatcom, WA .................... 7.0 77.7 1.6 97 745 6.7 41

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.9 95.0 1.2 139 606 2.2 279

Kanawha, WV .................... 5.9 104.4 1.2 139 797 5.1 89

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 142.6 0.5 206 803 4.2 148

Dane, WI ............................ 14.0 293.6 1.5 106 878 6.2 55

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.6 464.6 1.0 158 929 7.2 29

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 99.1 2.1 56 747 3.9 170

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.7 217.9 2.4 42 902 3.9 170

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 88.5 1.9 74 831 2.2 279

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.9 259.7 -2.5 ( 8) 598 -0.2 ( 8) 

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

These 322 large U.S. counties comprise 70.7 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 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,

first quarter 2011 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 4

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,074.3 127,851.0 1.3 $935 5.2

Private industry .............................................. 8,776.1 106,054.4 1.8 941 5.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 127.3 1,701.7 5.3 1,116 9.7

Construction ............................................... 774.2 5,137.6 -0.9 917 2.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 339.8 11,556.7 1.9 1,164 7.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,875.9 24,316.5 1.3 766 5.5

Information ................................................. 143.9 2,659.8 -1.8 1,609 9.7

Financial activities ...................................... 811.3 7,354.6 -0.3 1,886 10.2

Professional and business services ........... 1,553.4 16,972.0 4.1 1,212 5.1

Education and health services ................... 902.8 18,941.2 1.9 793 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 752.2 12,842.6 2.3 363 2.8

Other services ............................................ 1,297.0 4,349.8 1.2 559 3.5

Government ................................................... 298.2 21,796.6 -1.3 902 2.0

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 438.0 3,887.9 1.0 1,046 6.6

Private industry .............................................. 432.4 3,321.8 1.6 1,030 7.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.0 -0.9 1,645 7.2

Construction ............................................... 12.7 102.4 -2.8 1,000 4.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 13.2 368.7 -0.7 1,149 7.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 51.5 735.0 1.7 804 5.8

Information ................................................. 8.3 186.1 1.0 1,997 10.1

Financial activities ...................................... 22.1 209.6 -0.5 1,907 12.0

Professional and business services ........... 41.2 546.4 2.1 1,265 6.2

Education and health services ................... 28.8 511.8 2.7 912 4.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.9 387.9 2.9 589 13.9

Other services ............................................ 205.8 243.0 -2.6 442 5.2

Government ................................................... 5.7 566.1 -2.4 1,139 2.5

Cook, IL .............................................................. 145.1 2,333.9 1.0 1,145 5.8

Private industry .............................................. 143.7 2,033.8 1.6 1,154 6.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.8 -2.9 782 -5.1

Construction ............................................... 12.2 56.4 -2.8 1,276 -0.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.6 193.7 1.0 1,104 7.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 28.1 427.4 1.5 841 8.5

Information ................................................. 2.6 51.3 -1.1 1,849 8.4

Financial activities ...................................... 15.4 184.8 -2.0 2,867 15.7

Professional and business services ........... 30.4 400.1 2.6 1,432 1.6

Education and health services ................... 15.1 402.1 3.0 835 2.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.6 219.8 2.4 422 5.0

Other services ............................................ 15.8 93.3 0.8 743 3.5

Government ................................................... 1.4 300.1 -2.8 1,085 ( 6) 

New York, NY ..................................................... 121.9 2,304.1 1.9 2,634 9.2

Private industry .............................................. 121.6 1,865.2 3.0 2,995 8.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.2 25.6 2,745 22.8

Construction ............................................... 2.2 29.7 -2.5 1,609 4.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 25.6 -1.3 1,644 9.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.1 234.7 3.2 1,252 6.5

Information ................................................. 4.4 131.8 1.1 2,751 11.4

Financial activities ...................................... 19.0 351.8 2.6 8,684 12.3

Professional and business services ........... 25.4 460.8 2.9 2,512 3.5

Education and health services ................... 9.3 302.8 0.7 1,065 5.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.6 232.3 6.7 762 8.1

Other services ............................................ 18.9 87.4 2.1 1,270 7.2

Government ................................................... 0.3 438.9 -2.3 1,095 4.1

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

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 4

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 100.9 2,014.4 2.3 $1,258 7.7

Private industry .............................................. 100.4 1,749.9 2.7 1,302 8.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.6 77.4 7.3 4,206 7.5

Construction ............................................... 6.5 131.5 -2.4 1,092 2.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 172.6 4.0 1,607 9.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.6 419.4 2.2 1,167 8.5

Information ................................................. 1.3 28.2 -1.6 1,378 6.7

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 111.6 -0.3 1,882 13.9

Professional and business services ........... 20.0 326.7 5.3 1,441 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 11.3 240.6 2.6 876 4.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.1 180.9 3.0 384 0.8

Other services ............................................ 13.5 60.1 1.5 658 7.5

Government ................................................... 0.6 264.4 -0.6 968 3.1

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 93.8 1,628.8 1.3 889 5.1

Private industry .............................................. 93.1 1,412.8 1.8 898 5.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.6 5.0 1,152 16.4

Construction ............................................... 8.5 77.7 -2.5 884 1.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 107.8 1.0 1,439 13.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.7 331.8 1.4 847 6.8

Information ................................................. 1.5 27.0 0.6 1,208 6.5

Financial activities ...................................... 11.0 134.2 1.7 1,270 7.4

Professional and business services ........... 22.0 264.7 2.7 925 3.0

Education and health services ................... 10.4 237.5 2.9 864 1.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 176.0 2.3 409 1.7

Other services ............................................ 6.6 47.9 2.4 585 5.0

Government ................................................... 0.7 215.9 -2.0 829 2.5

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.9 1,416.9 1.9 1,156 5.2

Private industry .............................................. 67.3 1,248.2 2.2 1,180 5.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.7 11.5 4,366 10.2

Construction ............................................... 4.0 66.2 0.2 960 2.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 113.7 -0.2 1,501 16.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 280.1 1.8 982 3.9

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.5 0.0 2,078 11.7

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 137.6 0.9 1,879 8.3

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 263.0 3.8 1,251 1.2

Education and health services ................... 7.1 166.2 3.4 941 2.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 127.8 3.3 474 -1.0

Other services ............................................ 7.1 38.8 2.2 628 3.6

Government ................................................... 0.5 168.7 -0.3 975 1.9

Orange, CA ........................................................ 104.8 1,370.6 2.0 1,035 3.3

Private industry .............................................. 103.4 1,224.2 2.4 1,014 3.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 4.3 -15.9 635 12.6

Construction ............................................... 6.3 67.1 -0.4 1,049 1.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.0 150.3 1.3 1,239 3.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.1 242.5 0.4 944 5.4

Information ................................................. 1.2 24.0 -3.1 1,796 -1.1

Financial activities ...................................... 9.7 103.4 1.7 1,629 2.5

Professional and business services ........... 18.6 248.5 3.9 1,204 5.2

Education and health services ................... 10.3 159.0 ( 6) 883 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 168.9 3.6 408 4.9

Other services ............................................ 21.6 48.8 1.6 516 3.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 146.4 -1.6 1,214 0.9

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

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11 4

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 100.7 1,239.7 1.4 $1,003 7.2

Private industry .............................................. 99.2 1,017.7 1.7 989 8.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 11.4 2.8 491 1.2

Construction ............................................... 6.2 54.7 -0.2 1,033 5.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 92.5 -0.1 1,458 9.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.6 195.4 0.9 797 7.3

Information ................................................. 1.2 24.3 -2.6 1,624 12.5

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 67.1 0.4 1,343 8.7

Professional and business services ........... 16.0 210.1 2.2 1,432 13.4

Education and health services ................... 8.4 146.5 2.9 880 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 152.5 1.5 387 2.4

Other services ............................................ 28.3 56.7 0.7 499 4.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 222.0 0.0 1,068 2.2

King, WA ............................................................ 83.1 1,117.2 1.8 1,185 5.6

Private industry .............................................. 82.5 959.8 2.2 1,198 6.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.5 -0.3 1,492 -3.4

Construction ............................................... 5.8 43.5 -4.5 1,108 0.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.3 97.6 0.8 1,579 14.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 204.8 3.3 1,029 8.4

Information ................................................. 1.8 79.0 1.0 2,280 5.2

Financial activities ...................................... 6.5 63.4 -1.7 1,647 6.9

Professional and business services ........... 14.2 177.6 4.8 1,431 5.8

Education and health services ................... 7.2 134.3 3.4 887 3.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 105.3 1.3 424 -2.3

Other services ............................................ 22.9 51.7 2.7 591 2.1

Government ................................................... 0.6 157.4 -0.1 1,107 2.5

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 85.5 967.7 1.9 874 3.4

Private industry .............................................. 85.1 824.4 2.8 856 4.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.0 3.6 409 10.5

Construction ............................................... 4.9 30.5 -2.5 872 6.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 35.1 -1.2 821 1.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 24.3 243.2 3.2 799 5.1

Information ................................................. 1.4 17.5 -1.3 1,424 3.1

Financial activities ...................................... 8.9 61.1 1.2 1,593 10.2

Professional and business services ........... 17.8 126.5 3.6 1,024 2.9

Education and health services ................... 9.6 152.7 2.6 831 5.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 110.2 3.6 481 3.2

Other services ............................................ 7.7 36.0 4.1 523 1.0

Government ................................................... 0.4 143.3 -2.6 974 -1.6

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2010 annual average employment. 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, 

first quarter 2011 2

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11

United States 4 ................... 9,074.3 127,851.0 1.3 $935 5.2

Alabama ............................. 116.3 1,808.5 0.3 766 4.2

Alaska ................................ 21.2 310.1 2.0 912 3.8

Arizona ............................... 144.8 2,392.1 0.7 837 4.9

Arkansas ............................ 85.7 1,133.5 0.3 715 6.1

California ............................ 1,376.1 14,413.8 1.2 1,066 6.2

Colorado ............................ 169.0 2,179.8 1.3 952 4.4

Connecticut ........................ 110.6 1,589.2 1.4 1,282 6.3

Delaware ............................ 28.3 396.0 2.1 1,026 5.7

District of Columbia ............ 34.8 702.3 2.5 1,540 2.4

Florida ................................ 591.2 7,235.9 1.2 794 3.8

Georgia .............................. 266.7 3,771.0 1.4 885 5.7

Hawaii ................................ 38.6 593.8 1.2 790 3.1

Idaho .................................. 54.2 590.3 -0.1 659 4.1

Illinois ................................. 382.7 5,472.4 1.2 1,003 6.0

Indiana ............................... 159.7 2,717.1 1.9 772 4.5

Iowa ................................... 93.7 1,419.3 0.6 738 4.5

Kansas ............................... 87.9 1,293.3 0.6 748 4.0

Kentucky ............................ 110.8 1,715.6 1.5 737 3.7

Louisiana ........................... 127.4 1,841.3 0.9 798 4.5

Maine ................................. 49.5 558.6 0.1 723 4.8

Maryland ............................ 164.9 2,452.1 1.3 1,010 3.6

Massachusetts ................... 226.4 3,116.5 1.2 1,159 5.8

Michigan ............................ 244.0 3,757.7 2.2 872 7.1

Minnesota .......................... 167.2 2,530.7 1.4 935 6.0

Mississippi ......................... 69.1 1,074.8 0.6 650 3.2

Missouri ............................. 173.9 2,562.3 0.3 786 3.0

Montana ............................. 42.0 412.2 0.4 656 3.6

Nebraska ........................... 60.0 886.2 0.7 721 3.9

Nevada .............................. 71.3 1,102.6 0.4 802 3.0

New Hampshire ................. 47.5 596.3 1.1 876 5.2

New Jersey ........................ 265.0 3,701.1 0.0 1,160 3.5

New Mexico ....................... 54.7 776.5 -0.1 738 3.1

New York ........................... 596.9 8,336.5 1.2 1,368 6.7

North Carolina .................... 252.3 3,809.6 1.6 825 4.3

North Dakota ...................... 26.6 364.5 5.0 748 9.5

Ohio ................................... 286.5 4,870.6 1.4 819 4.6

Oklahoma .......................... 102.8 1,491.5 1.0 739 5.3

Oregon ............................... 131.0 1,590.3 1.3 812 4.6

Pennsylvania ..................... 344.7 5,459.3 1.5 896 4.6

Rhode Island ...................... 35.0 438.1 0.1 863 3.4

South Carolina ................... 110.1 1,767.2 1.4 722 4.5

South Dakota ..................... 30.9 382.3 1.3 659 4.1

Tennessee ......................... 139.5 2,575.9 1.7 793 3.8

Texas ................................. 577.2 10,324.3 2.2 946 5.9

Utah ................................... 82.7 1,156.9 2.0 753 3.4

Vermont ............................. 24.2 291.9 0.9 741 3.8

Virginia ............................... 233.1 3,539.9 1.5 968 4.0

Washington ........................ 235.3 2,785.3 1.2 947 5.2

West Virginia ...................... 48.5 689.3 1.0 723 4.5

Wisconsin .......................... 156.8 2,609.5 1.6 779 5.3

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

first quarter 2011 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2011

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2011

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2010-11

First

quarter

2011

Percent

change,

first quarter

2010-11

Wyoming ............................ 25.0 265.2 1.0 $808 4.4

Puerto Rico ........................ 50.6 923.0 -2.6 500 0.8

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 45.1 0.4 738 1.0

 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 

 September 2011

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

March 2010-11 (U.S. average = 1.3 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 September 2011

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

or more employees, first quarter 2010-11 (U.S. average = 5.2 percent)