Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 

News United States 

Department 

of Labor 

Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 09-0841 

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

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT 

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 Tuesday, July 21, 2009 

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FOURTH QUARTER 2008 

From December 2007 to December 2008, employment declined in 285 of the 334 largest U.S. counties, 

according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. 

Elkhart County, Ind., located about 100 miles east of Chicago, posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 

17.8 percent over the year, compared with a national job decrease of 2.3 percent. Manufacturing sustained the 

largest employment losses in Elkhart. Montgomery County, Texas, which is about 20 miles north of Houston, 

experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the largest counties in the U.S., 

with a gain of 2.7 percent. 

St. Louis City, Mo., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the fourth quarter of 2008, 

with an increase of 56.8 percent coming predominantly from the professional and business services and 

manufacturing supersectors. The U.S. average weekly wage rose by 2.2 percent over the same time span. 

Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2007 annual average employment) 151 had 

over-the-year percentage change in employment below the national average (-2.3 percent) in December 2008; 174 

large counties experienced changes above the national average. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average 

weekly wages was higher than the national average (2.2 percent) in 180 of the largest U.S. counties, but was 

below the national average in 137 counties. (See chart 4.) 

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 

C hart 1. Large co unties ranked by percent decline in 

 emplo yment, D ecember 2007-08 

 (U.S. average = -2.3 percent)

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Elkhart, Ind. Lee, Fla. Sarasota,

Fla.

Collier, Fla. M arion,

Fla.

M acomb,

M ich.

Washoe,

Nev.

P ercent

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in

 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2007-08 

 (U.S. average = 2.2 percent)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

St. Louis City, Mo. Clayton, Ga. Calcasieu, La. East Baton Rouge,

La.

Jefferson, Texas

Percent
2 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by December 2008 employment, December 2007-08 employment 

decrease, and December 2007-08 percent decrease in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

December 2008 employment Decrease in employment, Percent decrease in employment, 

(thousands) December 2007-08 December 2007-08 

 (thousands) 

 

United States 133,870.4 United States -3,170.1 United States -2.3 

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,152.9 Los Angeles, Calif. -147.8 Elkhart, Ind. -17.8 

Cook, Ill. 2,480.0 Maricopa, Ariz. -107.2 Lee, Fla. -9.2 

New York, N.Y. 2,386.4 Orange, Calif. -73.8 Sarasota, Fla. -8.1 

Harris, Texas 2,078.1 Cook, Ill. -71.0 Collier, Fla. -8.0 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,741.0 Clark, Nev. -60.0 Marion, Fla. -7.9 

Dallas, Texas 1,484.4 Riverside, Calif. -44.7 Macomb, Mich. -7.9 

Orange, Calif. 1,451.2 Miami-Dade, Fla. -43.8 Washoe, Nev. -7.9 

San Diego, Calif. 1,309.1 Broward, Fla. -43.1 Seminole, Fla. -7.5 

King, Wash. 1,175.3 Wayne, Mich. -42.3 Horry, S.C. -7.1 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,003.9 San Diego, Calif. -39.9 Riverside, Calif. -7.0 

 Genesee, Mich. -7.0 

submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports 

cover 133.9 million full- and part-time workers. 

Large County Employment

In December 2008, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 133.9 million, down by 

2.3 percent from December 2007. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.5 

percent of total U.S. employment and 77.2 percent of total wages. These 334 counties had a net job decline of 

2,467,500 over the year, accounting for 77.8 percent of the overall U.S. employment decrease. 

Employment declined in 285 counties from December 2007 to December 2008. The largest percentage 

decline in employment was in Elkhart, Ind. (-17.8 percent). Lee, Fla., had the next largest percentage decline (-9.2 

percent), followed by the counties of Sarasota, Fla. (-8.1 percent), Collier, Fla. (-8.0 percent), and Marion, Fla., 

Macomb, Mich., and Washoe, Nev. (-7.9 percent each). The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Los 

Angeles, Calif. (-147,800), followed by the counties of Maricopa, Ariz. (-107,200), Orange, Calif. (-73,800), 

Cook, Ill. (-71,000), and Clark, Nev. (-60,000). (See table A.) Combined employment losses in these five counties 

over the year totaled 459,800 or 14.5 percent of the employment decline for the U.S. as a whole. 

Employment rose in 37 of the large counties from December 2007 to December 2008. More than a third of 

these growing counties were located in Texas (13 counties). Neighboring Louisiana had the second largest 

number of counties (4) that experienced employment growth. Montgomery, Texas, had the largest over-the-year 

percentage increase in employment (2.7 percent) among the largest counties in the U.S. Jefferson, Texas, had the 

next largest increase, 2.5 percent, followed by the counties of Lubbock, Texas (2.4 percent), Fort Bend, Texas 

(2.2 percent), and Orleans, La. (2.1 percent). The largest gains in the level of employment from December 2007 to 

December 2008 were recorded in the counties of Harris, Texas (20,000), Orleans, La. (3,500), Montgomery, 

Texas (3,400), Bronx, N.Y. (3,200), and Jefferson, Texas (3,100). 
3 

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2008 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2007-08 

growth in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2007-08 percent growth in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 

Average weekly wage, Growth in average weekly Percent growth in average 

fourth quarter 2008 wage, fourth quarter 2007-08 weekly wage, fourth 

 quarter 2007-08 

 

United States $918 United States $20 United States 2.2 

 

New York, N.Y. $1,856 St. Louis City, Mo. $546 St. Louis City, Mo. 56.8 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,596 Mercer, N.J. 89 Clayton, Ga. 9.9 

Washington, D.C. 1,570 Clayton, Ga. 77 Calcasieu, La. 9.0 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,568 Washington, D.C. 76 East Baton Rouge, La. 8.0 

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,566 Madison, Ala. 73 Jefferson, Texas 8.0 

Arlington, Va. 1,509 Jefferson, Texas 70 Madison, Ala. 7.9 

St. Louis City, Mo. 1,508 Calcasieu, La. 69 Mercer, N.J. 7.7 

Somerset, N.J. 1,498 Alexandria City, Va. 69 Lake, Ind. 7.4 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,491 East Baton Rouge, La. 65 Bristol, Mass. 7.3 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,439 Providence, R.I. 62 Providence, R.I. 7.1 

 Newport News City, Va. 7.1 

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2008 was $918. Average weekly wages were 

higher than the national average in 106 of the largest 334 U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., held the top position 

among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,856. Fairfield, Conn., was second with 

an average weekly wage of $1,596, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,570), Suffolk, Mass. ($1,568), and Santa 

Clara, Calif. ($1,566). (See table B.) Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 2.2 percent. Among 

the largest counties, St. Louis City, Mo., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 

56.8 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007. Clayton, Ga., was second with growth of 9.9 percent, followed by 

the counties of Calcasieu, La. (9.0 percent), and East Baton Rouge, La. and Jefferson, Texas (8.0 percent each). 

Average weekly wages are affected by the number of high-paying and low-paying jobs in an industry. The 2.2 

percent over-the-year gain in average weekly wages for the nation is partially due to large employment declines in 

several industries. The largest over-the-year December percent employment declines were in construction (-10.2 

percent), manufacturing (-6.2 percent), professional and business services (-4.1 percent), and trade, transportation, 

and utilities (-3.5 percent). (See table 2.) Trade, transportation and utilities posted the largest number of jobs lost 

(-957,500) followed by manufacturing (-850,400), construction (-749,900), and professional and business services 

(-735,400). Among these industries, average weekly wage growth was strongest in construction (4.9 percent), and 

professional and business services (3.7 percent). (See Technical Note.) 

There were 228 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the fourth quarter of 

2008. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Hidalgo, Texas ($574), followed by the counties of Horry, 

S.C. ($581), Cameron, Texas ($584), Webb, Texas ($600), and Yakima, Wash. ($624). (See table 1.) Forty-three 

large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Pulaski, Ark., had the largest 

decrease (-14.3 percent), followed by the counties of Lake, Ill. (-9.9 percent), Santa Clara, Calif. (-7.8 percent), 

Douglas, Colo. (-5.9 percent), and San Mateo, Calif. (-5.4 percent).
4 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Nine of the 10 largest counties (based on 2007 annual average employment levels) experienced over-the-year 

perc

industry 

nt 

Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. King, Wash., had 

the 

iLargest County by State

ent declines in employment in December 2008. Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the largest decline in 

employment among the 10 largest counties with a 5.8 percent decrease. Within Maricopa, every private 

group except education and health services experienced employment declines, with construction experiencing the

largest decline, -25.3 percent. (See table 2.) Orange, Calif., had the next largest decline in employment, -4.8 

percent, followed by Miami-Dade, Fla. (-4.2 percent). Harris, Texas, experienced the only percentage gain in

employment (1.0 percent) among the 10 largest counties. Within Harris County, the largest gains in employme

were in natural resources and mining (7.1 percent) and education and health services (3.1 percent). Dallas, Texas, 

had the smallest decrease in employment, -1.2 percent, followed by New York, N.Y. (-1.3 percent). 

fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 4.0 percent. Within King County, 

average weekly wages increased the most in the natural resources and mining industry (11.8 percent). Miam

Dade, Fla., and Harris, Texas, tied for second in wage growth with a gain of 2.6 percent each. The only wage 

decrease occurred in New York, N.Y. (-0.6 percent). Dallas, Texas, had the smallest increase in wages, 1.1 

percent, followed by Orange, Calif. (1.4 percent). 

Table 3 shows December 2008 employment and the 2008 fourth quarter average weekly wage in the largest 

cou

For More Information

nty in each state, which is based on 2007 annual average employment levels. The employment levels in the 

counties in table 3 in December 2008 ranged from approximately 4.15 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to

43,800 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. 

($1,856), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($738). 

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 334 counties with annual 

ave

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

Fin

67. 

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

rele

rage employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2007. December 2008 employment and 2008 fourth-quarter 

average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. 

al data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth quarter of 2007 

are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Updated data for first, second, and third quarter 

2008, as well as preliminary data for fourth quarter 2008 and preliminary annual averages for 2008, will be 

available later online. Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling (202) 691-65

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

The County Employment and Wages release for first quarter 2009 is scheduled to be released on Friday, 

October 16, 2009. 
Technical Note 

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

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

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

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

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

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

in this release are based on the 2007 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2008 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 335 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2007 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2008 data, six counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Shelby, Ala., Boone, Ky., St. 

Tammany, La., Yellowstone, Mont., Warren, Ohio, and Potter, 

Texas. These counties will be included in all 2008 quarterly releases. The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each year 

based on the annual average employment from the preceding year. 

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

7.1 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the 

county, MSA, state, and national 

levels by detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for 

benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/ 
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 2007. 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. UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 135.4 

million jobs. The estimated 130.3 million workers in these jobs 

(after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.2 percent 

of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received 

$6.018 trillion in pay, representing 94.6 percent of the wage and 

salary component of personal income and 43.6 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. Overthe-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 

over-the-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an 

adjusted version of the final 2007 quarterly data as the base data. 

The adjusted prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year 

percent change in employment and wages are not published. These 

adjusted prior-year levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS Web site. Over-the-year change calculations 

based on data from the Web site, or from data published in prior 

BLS news releases, may differ substantially from the over-the-year 

changes presented in this news release. 

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

measures presented in this release 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 will also 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 2007 edition of this bulletin contains selected data produced by Business 

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

selected data from the first quarter 2008 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from the 2007 Employment 

and Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn07.htm. These tables present 

final 2007 annual averages. The tables will also be included on 

the CD which accompanies the hardcopy version of the Annual 

Bulletin. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2007 is 

available for sale as a chartbook from the United States Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 

371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone (866) 512-1800, outside 

Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number is (202) 512-1800. The fax number is (202) 512-2104. 

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 335 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2008 2

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,177.5 133,870.4 -2.3 – $918 2.2 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 19.0 355.3 -3.3 234 922 2.2 181

Madison, AL ....................... 9.0 182.5 -0.4 51 997 7.9 6

Mobile, AL .......................... 10.2 174.5 -1.6 118 806 5.1 31

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.7 135.4 -3.8 261 824 5.4 27

Shelby, AL ......................... 5.0 75.5 -2.1 153 842 -1.2 304

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.5 86.0 -1.8 131 783 2.1 188

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.2 148.2 1.5 8 969 4.9 35

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 103.6 1,741.0 -5.8 305 892 2.1 188

Pima, AZ ............................ 21.3 366.7 -3.4 241 805 4.5 48

Benton, AR ........................ 5.6 94.7 -2.2 160 844 6.3 15

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.2 250.3 -1.2 92 847 -14.3 324

Washington, AR ................. 5.8 90.9 -2.4 177 747 2.2 181

Alameda, CA ...................... 54.4 669.9 -4.0 267 1,161 0.1 277

Butte, CA ........................... 8.1 74.4 -3.1 222 698 4.6 45

Contra Costa, CA ............... 30.4 335.8 -3.6 252 1,135 1.7 209

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.9 345.9 -1.6 118 737 1.7 209

Kern, CA ............................ 18.5 285.6 -1.2 92 794 4.5 48

Los Angeles, CA ................ 433.9 4,152.9 -3.4 241 1,075 1.8 204

Marin, CA ........................... 12.1 108.6 -2.0 145 1,152 -2.0 310

Monterey, CA ..................... 13.0 152.3 -3.4 241 801 3.4 95

Orange, CA ........................ 102.7 1,451.2 -4.8 286 1,043 1.4 235

Placer, CA .......................... 11.0 130.5 -5.9 311 892 1.8 204

Riverside, CA ..................... 47.5 593.2 -7.0 317 745 2.2 181

Sacramento, CA ................ 54.7 610.8 -3.6 252 1,006 3.2 107

San Bernardino, CA ........... 49.8 640.3 -5.8 305 788 3.0 122

San Diego, CA ................... 100.0 1,309.1 -3.0 208 981 2.0 192

San Francisco, CA ............. 52.7 574.0 -0.9 76 1,491 -2.4 314

San Joaquin, CA ................ 18.1 214.5 -4.4 282 796 3.2 107

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.8 101.8 -2.8 196 765 1.7 209

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.2 342.4 -1.6 118 1,439 -5.4 320

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.4 180.5 -2.0 145 868 1.6 218

Santa Clara, CA ................. 61.2 901.1 -1.7 126 1,566 -7.8 322

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.2 90.0 -4.2 273 821 -2.3 312

Solano, CA ......................... 10.2 124.8 -3.1 222 903 3.9 71

Sonoma, CA ...................... 19.0 185.8 -4.9 291 896 3.0 122

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.1 166.7 -4.3 278 759 3.8 77

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.7 147.6 -3.0 208 651 3.7 81

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.7 310.4 -3.4 241 926 -5.1 318

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.0 99.1 -2.2 160 883 3.2 107

Adams, CO ........................ 9.2 152.4 -2.2 160 840 1.3 237

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.3 279.7 -2.2 160 1,054 -2.8 315

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.9 161.1 -0.9 76 1,047 -1.5 308

Denver, CO ........................ 25.6 445.0 -1.5 109 1,111 -1.3 305

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.5 93.8 0.5 24 933 -5.9 321

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.3 241.7 -2.9 204 834 3.9 71

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.5 210.9 -0.8 70 926 2.0 192

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.4 129.9 -0.4 51 837 3.1 114

Weld, CO ........................... 6.0 82.3 -0.9 76 765 2.5 159

Fairfield, CT ....................... 33.1 420.2 -2.2 160 1,596 1.1 247

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.6 504.5 -1.5 109 1,111 1.0 253

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT ................. 22.7 366.4 -2.2 160 $978 3.3 101

New London, CT ................ 7.0 130.1 -0.8 70 910 -0.4 290

New Castle, DE ................. 18.3 278.7 -3.7 255 1,055 2.3 169

Washington, DC ................. 34.4 687.5 0.3 29 1,570 5.1 31

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.8 121.7 -2.0 145 740 -0.1 282

Brevard, FL ........................ 15.0 195.7 -5.8 305 856 3.9 71

Broward, FL ....................... 65.6 729.6 -5.6 302 874 0.8 259

Collier, FL .......................... 12.6 125.4 -8.0 324 811 ( 7) – 

Duval, FL ........................... 27.7 455.5 -4.3 278 874 0.8 259

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.1 122.9 -5.8 305 720 2.1 188

Hillsborough, FL ................. 38.3 609.9 -6.1 312 872 2.7 143

Lake, FL ............................. 7.6 83.6 -5.5 300 665 -0.9 300

Lee, FL ............................... 20.1 203.3 -9.2 326 760 -0.3 286

Leon, FL ............................. 8.3 141.9 -3.3 234 783 0.5 268

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.4 114.1 -4.3 278 691 -0.7 297

Marion, FL .......................... 8.6 97.6 -7.9 321 657 3.5 88

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 86.8 1,003.9 -4.2 273 924 2.6 151

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.2 77.1 -3.8 261 735 2.8 139

Orange, FL ......................... 36.3 678.3 -4.6 285 829 1.1 247

Palm Beach, FL ................. 51.4 527.4 -6.3 314 914 1.6 218

Pasco, FL ........................... 10.4 100.9 -3.3 234 672 3.1 114

Pinellas, FL ........................ 32.1 410.9 -6.2 313 808 1.9 200

Polk, FL .............................. 12.8 199.3 -5.4 298 706 1.7 209

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.4 144.4 -8.1 325 783 1.4 235

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.9 168.9 -7.5 320 789 -0.3 286

Volusia, FL ......................... 14.2 158.2 -6.4 315 665 1.5 224

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.8 84.1 -1.0 80 716 1.8 204

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.9 133.8 -3.3 234 799 4.4 52

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.5 111.1 -4.0 267 856 9.9 2

Cobb, GA ........................... 21.2 312.7 -4.2 273 959 3.1 114

De Kalb, GA ....................... 18.1 294.0 -3.1 222 936 1.6 218

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.9 732.2 -3.4 241 1,183 1.0 253

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 24.5 310.9 -5.3 297 894 -0.8 299

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.9 94.7 -2.7 193 721 1.5 224

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 101.2 -1.4 104 770 5.5 23

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.8 449.5 -2.4 177 850 3.8 77

Ada, ID ............................... 15.0 202.9 -5.0 293 814 -1.1 301

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 92.0 -0.6 63 777 5.7 19

Cook, IL ............................. 141.0 2,480.0 -2.8 196 1,118 1.5 224

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.2 586.1 -3.5 248 1,059 0.2 273

Kane, IL ............................. 12.8 203.3 -4.9 291 836 1.7 209

Lake, IL .............................. 21.2 328.0 -2.5 183 1,143 -9.9 323

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.5 100.6 -3.1 222 784 -0.4 290

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 85.9 -0.3 47 836 2.7 143

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 95.9 -0.6 63 770 5.5 23

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.8 105.3 0.0 38 869 3.5 88

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 79.4 -1.2 92 1,082 2.0 192

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 96.8 -1.9 139 755 4.4 52

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 128.8 -1.1 84 897 3.9 71

Will, IL ................................ 13.9 194.5 -2.0 145 824 3.5 88

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Winnebago, IL .................... 7.0 134.3 -3.0 208 $775 3.1 114

Allen, IN ............................. 9.1 180.0 -3.0 208 748 -1.1 301

Elkhart, IN .......................... 5.0 101.3 -17.8 327 686 -3.9 316

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.8 111.3 -1.1 84 852 -1.3 305

Lake, IN ............................. 10.4 193.2 -2.6 189 826 7.4 8

Marion, IN .......................... 24.3 571.8 -2.8 196 913 2.8 139

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 121.0 -4.2 273 761 3.5 88

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.4 76.8 -0.6 63 773 5.3 29

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 107.8 -0.4 51 767 5.5 23

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 127.2 1.0 14 896 2.3 169

Polk, IA .............................. 14.9 273.7 -1.1 84 904 2.4 163

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 88.8 -0.4 51 751 1.3 237

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.7 316.0 -1.1 84 949 1.3 237

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.3 261.6 0.3 29 846 5.2 30

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 96.4 0.7 22 753 0.9 255

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 80.9 0.2 35 854 2.2 181

Boone, KY .......................... 3.4 74.5 -2.6 189 800 4.8 39

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.0 178.1 ( 7) – 832 ( 7) – 

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.0 423.8 -3.3 234 871 1.5 224

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.5 125.3 -1.9 139 762 1.7 209

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 5.1 87.9 0.6 23 832 9.0 3

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.8 265.9 0.3 29 874 8.0 4

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.7 200.5 -1.5 109 876 4.0 67

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.1 137.4 0.5 24 911 4.8 39

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.6 173.6 2.1 5 1,002 4.2 62

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.5 75.3 -2.2 160 749 2.6 151

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.2 173.4 -2.3 175 822 3.0 122

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.5 233.3 -1.4 104 963 3.8 77

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.5 374.5 -2.7 193 963 0.7 264

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 93.4 -3.1 222 890 3.1 114

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 82.6 ( 7) – 846 ( 7) – 

Howard, MD ....................... 8.7 147.5 ( 7) – 1,073 3.9 71

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.9 460.3 -1.3 100 1,219 1.9 200

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.7 312.5 -3.0 208 993 2.5 159

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.0 340.4 -1.6 118 1,112 1.5 224

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.1 84.2 -3.2 230 813 3.2 107

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.3 215.0 -3.0 208 854 7.3 9

Essex, MA .......................... 20.9 298.2 -1.5 109 976 3.3 101

Hampden, MA .................... 14.5 199.2 -1.4 104 867 6.4 13

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.8 826.2 -0.4 51 1,296 -1.1 301

Norfolk, MA ........................ 24.2 326.4 -1.1 84 1,139 2.3 169

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.7 175.9 -1.9 139 894 3.5 88

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.8 593.4 -0.5 58 1,568 1.3 237

Worcester, MA ................... 20.7 318.5 -2.2 160 931 2.2 181

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.8 134.3 -7.0 317 804 0.2 273

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.8 158.3 -3.8 261 886 3.4 95

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.6 112.1 -4.1 270 855 7.0 12

Kent, MI ............................. 14.3 323.8 -5.5 300 832 3.2 107

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.7 291.2 -7.9 321 966 5.1 31

Oakland, MI ....................... 39.3 660.7 -5.4 298 1,096 4.3 58

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 102.9 -5.2 295 $794 4.3 58

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.4 81.8 -5.8 305 776 3.6 86

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 187.3 -3.8 261 971 1.5 224

Wayne, MI .......................... 32.1 709.8 -5.6 302 1,032 4.2 62

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.8 113.2 -3.7 255 839 1.1 247

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.6 172.8 -2.4 177 898 1.6 218

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.5 837.8 -2.4 177 1,146 2.7 143

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.6 89.5 -1.8 131 975 6.4 13

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.3 328.9 -1.3 100 980 2.3 169

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.9 96.0 -1.9 139 759 4.4 52

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.5 82.2 -1.2 92 700 3.6 86

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 85.0 -3.1 222 702 3.4 95

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.4 127.6 -1.8 131 809 3.3 101

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 82.5 -0.7 69 691 3.1 114

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 88.2 -3.4 241 821 -0.2 285

Greene, MO ....................... 8.2 155.6 -2.1 153 685 3.2 107

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.8 368.6 -0.9 76 926 3.8 77

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 122.0 -3.0 208 733 -0.5 293

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.8 600.5 -3.0 208 990 1.3 237

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 231.2 -1.2 92 1,508 56.8 1

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.8 78.2 -0.2 45 738 1.2 245

Douglas, NE ....................... 16.1 322.8 0.0 38 842 -2.1 311

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.2 158.5 -0.1 43 726 3.7 81

Clark, NV ........................... 51.0 870.0 -6.5 316 856 -2.3 312

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.7 201.6 -7.9 321 867 0.0 280

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.4 195.9 -2.6 189 1,062 1.8 204

Rockingham, NH ................ 11.0 136.1 -2.3 175 906 1.6 218

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.0 139.3 -4.0 267 818 1.7 209

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.6 450.4 -2.5 183 1,188 0.4 270

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.5 198.2 -3.9 266 968 3.0 122

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.1 205.9 -2.8 196 1,008 5.5 23

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.5 359.7 -2.5 183 1,170 3.3 101

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.4 104.0 -1.3 100 855 2.0 192

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 237.1 -2.2 160 1,205 2.3 169

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.3 230.4 -0.6 63 1,249 7.7 7

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.0 398.0 -3.7 255 1,148 2.2 181

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.9 254.6 -2.8 196 1,016 1.3 237

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.1 285.3 -2.9 204 1,351 2.5 159

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.5 146.3 -2.5 183 792 2.9 131

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.6 175.4 -3.7 255 974 4.1 65

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.3 173.1 -2.1 153 1,498 2.9 131

Union, NJ ........................... 15.1 230.8 -3.1 222 1,166 2.6 151

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.8 329.9 -2.0 145 812 3.0 122

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 228.3 -1.4 104 945 4.9 35

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.1 230.0 1.4 10 889 ( 7) – 

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 95.5 -1.1 84 727 4.3 58

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 116.1 -2.2 160 904 3.4 95

Erie, NY ............................. 23.7 464.1 -0.5 58 794 3.0 122

Kings, NY ........................... 46.8 488.2 0.3 29 816 3.3 101

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.1 382.4 -0.8 70 859 1.1 247

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.5 611.8 -1.7 126 $1,049 1.5 224

New York, NY .................... 118.9 2,386.4 -1.3 100 1,856 -0.6 294

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 112.0 -0.5 58 720 5.6 20

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 252.9 -1.6 118 849 0.7 264

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 132.6 -1.5 109 778 4.4 52

Queens, NY ....................... 43.7 507.0 -0.3 47 926 3.7 81

Richmond, NY .................... 8.7 95.5 -0.2 45 835 4.0 67

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 117.5 -1.7 126 1,002 ( 7) – 

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 76.5 -2.2 160 762 3.4 95

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.6 626.9 -2.2 160 1,037 ( 7) – 

Westchester, NY ................ 36.5 424.3 -2.2 160 1,234 -1.4 307

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.2 115.9 -2.1 153 724 1.7 209

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.6 83.8 -4.8 286 695 1.5 224

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 121.9 1.0 14 711 4.9 35

Durham, NC ....................... 7.2 185.0 ( 7) – 1,131 ( 7) – 

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.3 184.8 -2.5 183 826 2.7 143

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.8 275.4 -3.6 252 797 2.0 192

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 33.4 567.7 -1.7 126 1,016 1.5 224

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.5 101.0 -4.8 286 755 2.4 163

Wake, NC .......................... 29.2 448.8 -2.1 153 915 1.8 204

Cass, ND ........................... 5.9 100.7 1.5 8 778 2.1 188

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 145.0 -3.8 261 788 1.3 237

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 37.7 724.7 -3.0 208 926 2.0 192

Franklin, OH ....................... 30.0 678.4 -2.2 160 879 3.7 81

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.0 514.3 -1.5 109 980 2.3 169

Lake, OH ............................ 6.7 99.0 -3.0 208 755 2.3 169

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 95.7 -5.0 293 742 3.2 107

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.7 210.6 -4.3 278 776 0.9 255

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.4 100.7 -3.7 255 670 3.4 95

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.9 257.6 -4.5 283 824 2.4 163

Stark, OH ........................... 9.0 158.3 -3.3 234 706 2.9 131

Summit, OH ....................... 15.0 271.3 -2.1 153 827 2.4 163

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 75.1 -3.1 222 752 -0.1 282

Warren, OH ........................ 4.2 74.6 -4.1 270 763 3.0 122

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.9 427.1 0.1 36 852 5.6 20

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.5 349.8 -0.1 43 838 2.3 169

Clackamas, OR .................. 13.1 145.9 -4.5 283 821 0.2 273

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.7 81.2 -5.7 304 665 2.3 169

Lane, OR ........................... 11.1 144.0 -5.8 305 711 2.6 151

Marion, OR ........................ 9.6 135.3 -2.9 204 711 2.3 169

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.7 444.7 -2.6 189 934 2.0 192

Washington, OR ................ 16.4 243.3 -4.2 273 986 -1.8 309

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.3 685.4 -1.0 80 976 3.5 88

Berks, PA ........................... 9.2 167.8 -1.8 131 817 0.2 273

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.1 259.8 -3.0 208 905 2.6 151

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 80.8 0.5 24 806 5.8 18

Chester, PA ....................... 15.3 244.4 -0.4 51 1,181 2.2 181

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 124.5 -1.8 131 823 3.0 122

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 180.8 -1.0 80 883 4.1 65

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.7 213.0 -0.3 47 953 1.1 247

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Erie, PA .............................. 7.4 126.4 -1.8 131 $729 4.0 67

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 101.2 -2.0 145 717 5.9 17

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.5 226.9 -2.7 193 771 4.2 62

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.8 177.6 -1.8 131 906 -0.7 297

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 142.5 -1.0 80 695 1.5 224

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.7 488.0 -1.6 118 1,151 -0.3 286

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 98.3 -3.3 234 805 2.7 143

Philadelphia, PA ................ 31.5 637.6 -0.5 58 1,094 2.8 139

Washington, PA ................. 5.4 80.5 0.9 18 814 4.5 48

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.4 135.7 -0.4 51 728 0.1 277

York, PA ............................. 9.2 177.6 -1.2 92 788 3.0 122

Kent, RI .............................. 5.7 77.6 -4.8 286 783 0.9 255

Providence, RI ................... 18.1 277.8 -3.5 248 931 7.1 10

Charleston, SC .................. 12.8 209.5 -1.9 139 782 -0.4 290

Greenville, SC .................... 13.0 237.1 -2.8 196 795 2.7 143

Horry, SC ........................... 8.5 105.6 -7.1 319 581 -0.3 286

Lexington, SC .................... 5.8 98.4 -1.7 126 680 1.2 245

Richland, SC ...................... 9.7 214.4 -2.1 153 790 3.3 101

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.3 117.9 -5.2 295 776 4.7 42

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.4 116.8 1.2 12 741 0.8 259

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.6 436.1 -3.0 208 976 2.7 143

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.6 189.2 -3.5 248 813 2.8 139

Knox, TN ............................ 11.2 228.9 -1.5 109 796 0.8 259

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 97.5 -4.8 286 842 0.8 259

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.9 497.0 -3.5 248 935 0.1 277

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 87.5 -1.6 118 980 -4.9 317

Bell, TX .............................. 4.6 104.1 1.6 7 705 4.6 45

Bexar, TX ........................... 32.8 731.6 0.0 38 806 1.9 200

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.7 87.8 0.0 38 871 3.9 71

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 86.9 ( 7) – 688 ( 7) – 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 124.5 -0.5 58 584 5.4 27

Collin, TX ........................... 17.4 297.8 0.9 18 1,040 0.7 264

Dallas, TX .......................... 68.6 1,484.4 -1.2 92 1,123 1.1 247

Denton, TX ......................... 10.7 170.5 0.0 38 798 1.9 200

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.6 273.0 -0.6 63 643 2.9 131

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.5 132.3 2.2 4 967 0.5 268

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 93.8 -4.1 270 829 0.0 280

Harris, TX ........................... 98.1 2,078.1 1.0 14 1,187 2.6 151

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.7 222.4 0.9 18 574 2.0 192

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 127.9 2.5 2 941 8.0 4

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.8 126.4 2.4 3 699 2.3 169

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 103.6 ( 7) – 718 2.4 163

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.3 129.6 2.7 1 876 3.7 81

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.1 156.1 0.8 21 806 4.9 35

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 77.5 1.3 11 797 ( 7) – 

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 95.7 1.2 12 809 6.2 16

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.6 770.8 -0.8 70 919 2.7 143

Travis, TX .......................... 29.3 578.8 0.1 36 1,009 -0.6 294

Webb, TX ........................... 4.8 89.4 0.4 28 600 1.5 224

Williamson, TX ................... 7.3 121.6 -0.3 47 895 -5.1 318

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT ........................... 7.4 101.4 -2.2 160 $737 0.7 264

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 38.9 588.6 -1.5 109 847 0.4 270

Utah, UT ............................ 13.3 172.2 -3.2 230 727 1.7 209

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 93.0 -2.8 196 677 0.4 270

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.0 95.3 -1.4 104 896 2.4 163

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.8 158.6 1.9 6 1,509 3.1 114

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.7 120.0 -2.9 204 825 2.9 131

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.3 589.2 -0.8 70 1,407 3.5 88

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 178.0 -2.4 177 916 1.3 237

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.2 133.8 0.3 29 1,091 0.9 255

Prince William, VA ............. 7.3 103.6 -1.2 92 816 -0.6 294

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 102.2 0.5 24 1,311 5.6 20

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.8 98.5 -3.7 255 714 1.6 218

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 99.2 -1.8 131 850 7.1 10

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.9 143.7 -1.1 84 906 4.3 58

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.5 157.8 ( 7) – 1,024 ( 7) – 

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.7 170.8 -3.0 208 726 2.5 159

Clark, WA ........................... 12.3 129.9 -2.8 196 817 2.9 131

King, WA ............................ 77.6 1,175.3 -1.5 109 1,130 4.0 67

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.6 82.7 -2.4 177 822 4.6 45

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.8 269.4 -3.4 241 814 4.4 52

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.9 250.2 -2.5 183 928 2.9 131

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.5 207.2 -2.0 145 737 4.4 52

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.0 100.0 -0.8 70 807 2.9 131

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.9 80.6 -3.2 230 708 2.6 151

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.3 93.5 1.0 14 624 5.1 31

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 109.0 -0.6 63 799 4.7 42

Brown, WI .......................... 6.8 148.1 -1.9 139 821 3.1 114

Dane, WI ............................ 14.2 304.1 -1.1 84 878 4.8 39

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.3 495.4 -1.6 118 923 2.6 151

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.1 103.6 -2.0 145 784 4.5 48

Racine, WI ......................... 4.2 74.7 -3.0 208 879 -0.1 282

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.3 231.0 -3.2 230 920 2.3 169

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.8 91.1 0.3 29 855 4.7 42

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.0 291.7 -2.5 ( 8) 621 2.3 ( 8) 

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

These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.5 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

fourth quarter 2008 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,177.5 133,870.4 -2.3 $918 2.2

Private industry .............................................. 8,884.3 111,752.9 -2.9 919 2.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 127.0 1,802.7 2.0 996 5.1

Construction ............................................... 881.7 6,636.1 -10.2 1,052 4.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 360.0 12,891.3 -6.2 1,094 1.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,925.3 26,316.1 -3.5 766 1.1

Information ................................................. 147.4 2,948.2 -3.4 1,360 0.1

Financial activities ...................................... 862.8 7,853.7 -3.2 1,390 -0.4

Professional and business services ........... 1,537.6 17,366.1 -4.1 1,201 3.7

Education and health services ................... 857.4 18,304.3 2.9 872 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 742.2 12,957.7 -1.7 390 1.8

Other services ............................................ 1,229.1 4,445.7 -0.7 581 2.8

Government ................................................... 293.2 22,117.5 0.9 914 4.0

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 433.9 4,152.9 -3.4 1,075 1.8

Private industry .............................................. 430.0 3,552.8 -3.8 1,064 1.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.5 -2.7 1,261 5.4

Construction ............................................... 14.0 136.7 -12.3 1,138 4.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 14.5 417.6 -5.9 1,107 3.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 53.6 802.4 -5.4 833 -0.8

Information ................................................. 8.8 207.5 ( 6) 1,889 ( 6) 

Financial activities ...................................... 24.1 231.8 -5.7 1,462 -3.8

Professional and business services ........... 42.6 574.2 ( 6) 1,306 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 28.1 500.0 1.8 979 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.2 396.1 -1.6 927 5.9

Other services ............................................ 201.1 258.8 0.5 454 1.1

Government ................................................... 4.0 600.1 ( 6) 1,141 5.6

Cook, IL .............................................................. 141.0 2,480.0 -2.8 1,118 1.5

Private industry .............................................. 139.6 2,169.2 -3.3 1,126 1.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.1 -5.6 998 -5.0

Construction ............................................... 12.4 82.8 -10.5 1,478 6.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.0 219.9 -6.5 1,119 3.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.6 467.7 -4.9 840 -0.4

Information ................................................. 2.6 56.1 -3.2 1,487 -4.3

Financial activities ...................................... 15.7 203.7 -4.3 2,007 0.7

Professional and business services ........... 29.1 423.4 -4.8 1,525 3.5

Education and health services ................... 14.0 386.1 3.1 930 1.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.7 227.5 -2.2 440 0.0

Other services ............................................ 14.6 96.1 -0.1 783 3.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 310.8 0.8 1,058 2.9

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.9 2,386.4 -1.3 1,856 -0.6

Private industry .............................................. 118.6 1,934.3 -1.6 2,041 -0.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.2 -3.6 1,594 4.7

Construction ............................................... 2.4 36.3 0.6 1,939 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 33.7 -8.3 1,565 0.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.0 255.2 -3.3 1,294 -1.5

Information ................................................. 4.6 134.5 -1.5 2,055 -0.3

Financial activities ...................................... 19.2 369.0 -3.9 4,085 -1.3

Professional and business services ........... 25.5 489.1 -2.4 2,173 0.6

Education and health services ................... 8.9 297.7 1.6 1,133 6.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.8 224.3 0.8 889 -0.7

Other services ............................................ 18.0 90.2 0.7 1,102 7.1

Government ................................................... 0.3 452.1 0.0 1,062 1.6

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

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 98.1 2,078.1 1.0 $1,187 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 97.6 1,820.6 0.9 1,215 2.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.6 85.8 7.1 2,872 ( 6) 

Construction ............................................... 6.7 156.9 ( 6) 1,217 ( 6) 

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 187.7 2.4 1,468 -3.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.5 443.1 0.6 1,035 4.0

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.0 -2.4 1,393 8.2

Financial activities ...................................... 10.6 117.9 ( 6) 1,517 4.7

Professional and business services ........... 19.6 336.9 ( 6) 1,448 3.7

Education and health services ................... 10.4 224.3 3.1 958 3.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.6 175.2 -0.6 404 4.7

Other services ............................................ 11.9 59.6 0.4 673 3.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 257.5 1.8 988 5.2

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 103.6 1,741.0 -5.8 892 2.1

Private industry .............................................. 102.9 1,512.8 -6.9 893 2.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.0 -4.9 1,026 20.6

Construction ............................................... 11.0 115.5 -25.3 986 3.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 120.8 -8.0 1,217 3.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.9 365.7 -6.8 796 0.9

Information ................................................. 1.7 29.4 -4.1 1,098 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 12.9 140.1 -4.8 1,066 -0.4

Professional and business services ........... 23.2 289.2 -8.5 989 5.0

Education and health services ................... 10.3 216.8 5.7 999 2.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.4 176.8 -5.3 420 -1.4

Other services ............................................ 7.4 48.4 -4.9 613 2.7

Government ................................................... 0.7 228.2 2.0 881 0.1

Orange, CA ........................................................ 102.7 1,451.2 -4.8 1,043 1.4

Private industry .............................................. 101.3 1,301.1 -5.3 1,043 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 4.2 -9.0 665 -2.8

Construction ............................................... 6.9 83.3 -14.9 1,234 4.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.3 166.4 -5.7 1,226 -0.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.2 272.3 -6.9 947 1.4

Information ................................................. 1.3 29.0 -3.8 1,423 4.0

Financial activities ...................................... 10.7 110.0 -7.5 1,582 -2.6

Professional and business services ........... 19.1 258.3 -7.6 1,259 6.0

Education and health services ................... 10.0 150.8 ( 6) 960 ( 6) 

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 171.7 -2.2 406 1.5

Other services ............................................ 18.0 49.0 -0.3 569 -4.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 150.1 -0.8 1,044 3.2

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 68.6 1,484.4 -1.2 1,123 1.1

Private industry .............................................. 68.1 1,314.7 -1.6 1,141 1.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.5 12.6 4,744 38.9

Construction ............................................... 4.4 80.1 -4.3 1,075 1.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 129.8 -5.4 1,224 1.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.2 308.2 -2.1 990 -4.2

Information ................................................. 1.7 47.3 -4.2 1,524 3.6

Financial activities ...................................... 8.8 142.9 -1.2 1,429 -1.7

Professional and business services ........... 15.1 275.6 -2.1 1,375 2.4

Education and health services ................... 6.7 153.9 3.8 1,059 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.4 128.5 ( 6) 493 ( 6) 

Other services ............................................ 6.6 39.0 -1.2 682 3.6

Government ................................................... 0.5 169.7 2.3 984 2.2

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

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 100.0 1,309.1 -3.0 $981 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 98.8 1,082.3 -3.5 960 1.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 9.4 -11.4 577 0.2

Construction ............................................... 7.0 70.4 -14.3 1,140 5.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 100.4 -3.3 1,306 0.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.2 218.3 -6.3 759 0.7

Information ................................................. 1.3 38.6 0.6 1,970 2.3

Financial activities ...................................... 9.5 74.2 -5.7 1,171 -1.0

Professional and business services ........... 16.3 210.9 -4.4 1,238 2.0

Education and health services ................... 8.2 138.3 4.2 953 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 158.2 -2.3 425 3.9

Other services ............................................ 26.9 58.4 2.0 491 1.7

Government ................................................... 1.3 226.8 -0.4 1,079 2.8

King, WA ............................................................ 77.6 1,175.3 -1.5 1,130 4.0

Private industry .............................................. 77.0 1,018.2 -2.0 1,140 4.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.9 7.0 1,573 11.8

Construction ............................................... 6.6 63.8 -11.6 1,197 6.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 108.8 -3.3 1,449 7.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 221.8 -2.9 955 1.0

Information ................................................. 1.8 81.4 6.1 1,982 3.9

Financial activities ...................................... 6.9 72.4 -5.0 1,418 2.6

Professional and business services ........... 13.7 185.4 -3.3 1,378 4.6

Education and health services ................... 6.5 129.3 4.6 894 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.2 108.6 -2.5 450 1.6

Other services ............................................ 17.6 43.7 -0.8 631 3.6

Government ................................................... 0.5 157.1 1.9 1,069 4.2

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 86.8 1,003.9 -4.2 924 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 86.4 851.3 -4.7 907 2.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.6 -10.6 457 -11.1

Construction ............................................... 6.4 42.0 -21.4 973 5.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 41.2 -11.7 818 1.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.5 253.4 -4.0 814 1.2

Information ................................................. 1.5 19.0 -8.1 1,266 5.2

Financial activities ...................................... 10.2 67.2 -7.6 1,387 0.1

Professional and business services ........... 18.2 132.2 -5.2 1,229 6.6

Education and health services ................... 9.4 145.9 2.8 901 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.0 104.0 -1.9 514 0.6

Other services ............................................ 7.6 36.2 -3.3 579 6.0

Government ................................................... 0.4 152.6 -1.1 1,017 ( 6) 

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

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

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

state, fourth quarter 2008 2

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,177.5 133,870.4 -2.3 $918 2.2

Jefferson, AL ............................ 19.0 355.3 -3.3 922 2.2

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.2 148.2 1.5 969 4.9

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 103.6 1,741.0 -5.8 892 2.1

Pulaski, AR ............................... 15.2 250.3 -1.2 847 -14.3

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 433.9 4,152.9 -3.4 1,075 1.8

Denver, CO .............................. 25.6 445.0 -1.5 1,111 -1.3

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.6 504.5 -1.5 1,111 1.0

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.3 278.7 -3.7 1,055 2.3

Washington, DC ....................... 34.4 687.5 0.3 1,570 5.1

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 86.8 1,003.9 -4.2 924 2.6

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.9 732.2 -3.4 1,183 1.0

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.8 449.5 -2.4 850 3.8

Ada, ID ..................................... 15.0 202.9 -5.0 814 -1.1

Cook, IL .................................... 141.0 2,480.0 -2.8 1,118 1.5

Marion, IN ................................. 24.3 571.8 -2.8 913 2.8

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.9 273.7 -1.1 904 2.4

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.7 316.0 -1.1 949 1.3

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.0 423.8 -3.3 871 1.5

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.8 265.9 0.3 874 8.0

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.2 173.4 -2.3 822 3.0

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.9 460.3 -1.3 1,219 1.9

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.8 826.2 -0.4 1,296 -1.1

Wayne, MI ................................ 32.1 709.8 -5.6 1,032 4.2

Hennepin, MN .......................... 42.5 837.8 -2.4 1,146 2.7

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.4 127.6 -1.8 809 3.3

St. Louis, MO ............................ 32.8 600.5 -3.0 990 1.3

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.8 78.2 -0.2 738 1.2

Douglas, NE ............................. 16.1 322.8 0.0 842 -2.1

Clark, NV .................................. 51.0 870.0 -6.5 856 -2.3

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.4 195.9 -2.6 1,062 1.8

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.6 450.4 -2.5 1,188 0.4

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.8 329.9 -2.0 812 3.0

New York, NY ........................... 118.9 2,386.4 -1.3 1,856 -0.6

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 33.4 567.7 -1.7 1,016 1.5

Cass, ND .................................. 5.9 100.7 1.5 778 2.1

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 37.7 724.7 -3.0 926 2.0

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.9 427.1 0.1 852 5.6

Multnomah, OR ........................ 28.7 444.7 -2.6 934 2.0

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.3 685.4 -1.0 976 3.5

Providence, RI .......................... 18.1 277.8 -3.5 931 7.1

Greenville, SC .......................... 13.0 237.1 -2.8 795 2.7

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.4 116.8 1.2 741 0.8

Shelby, TN ................................ 19.9 497.0 -3.5 935 0.1

Harris, TX ................................. 98.1 2,078.1 1.0 1,187 2.6

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 38.9 588.6 -1.5 847 0.4

Chittenden, VT ......................... 6.0 95.3 -1.4 896 2.4

Fairfax, VA ................................ 34.3 589.2 -0.8 1,407 3.5

King, WA .................................. 77.6 1,175.3 -1.5 1,130 4.0

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 109.0 -0.6 799 4.7

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.3 495.4 -1.6 923 2.6

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 43.8 0.3 $753 2.0

San Juan, PR ........................... 13.0 291.7 -2.5 621 2.3

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.9 -0.3 673 -4.1

 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 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.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

fourth quarter 2008 2

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08

United States 4 ................... 9,177.5 133,870.4 -2.3 $918 2.2

Alabama ............................. 121.6 1,909.8 -3.1 790 3.5

Alaska ................................ 21.4 303.9 1.6 927 5.7

Arizona ............................... 164.5 2,557.9 -5.1 848 2.7

Arkansas ............................ 86.5 1,168.2 -1.5 706 -1.0

California ............................ 1,370.0 15,288.5 -3.2 1,042 0.7

Colorado ............................ 177.1 2,295.8 -1.5 932 0.5

Connecticut ........................ 113.5 1,688.0 -1.7 1,164 1.2

Delaware ............................ 29.4 416.8 -3.0 943 1.9

District of Columbia ............ 34.4 687.5 0.3 1,570 5.1

Florida ................................ 623.0 7,586.6 -5.3 824 1.6

Georgia .............................. 276.7 3,970.3 -3.5 853 2.3

Hawaii ................................ 39.3 614.7 -3.5 821 3.5

Idaho .................................. 57.2 634.1 -3.9 693 1.0

Illinois ................................. 371.5 5,795.8 -2.3 985 1.0

Indiana ............................... 161.4 2,831.3 -3.4 764 2.7

Iowa ................................... 94.6 1,483.7 -1.0 756 3.1

Kansas ............................... 87.2 1,370.2 -0.2 769 3.1

Kentucky ............................ 108.4 1,783.2 -2.6 754 3.0

Louisiana ........................... 128.5 1,907.5 0.1 829 5.9

Maine ................................. 51.1 595.3 -2.1 735 4.0

Maryland ............................ 164.3 2,531.8 -1.9 1,010 2.4

Massachusetts ................... 215.1 3,239.6 -1.1 1,154 1.8

Michigan ............................ 258.2 3,993.3 -4.9 903 3.6

Minnesota .......................... 172.0 2,658.8 -1.9 907 2.6

Mississippi ......................... 71.0 1,117.2 -2.8 679 3.8

Missouri ............................. 175.7 2,700.9 -1.7 842 7.9

Montana ............................. 43.2 433.8 -1.5 678 2.9

Nebraska ........................... 60.4 923.1 -0.3 730 1.0

Nevada .............................. 77.5 1,206.5 -6.5 862 -1.1

New Hampshire ................. 49.9 626.2 -2.0 936 2.2

New Jersey ........................ 273.7 3,927.7 -2.4 1,123 2.8

New Mexico ....................... 54.9 821.2 -1.2 768 3.9

New York ........................... 585.9 8,677.4 -1.0 1,169 1.4

North Carolina .................... 260.1 4,003.8 -3.0 793 1.9

North Dakota ...................... 25.8 354.4 1.9 725 5.1

Ohio ................................... 293.0 5,167.5 -3.2 816 2.6

Oklahoma .......................... 100.8 1,559.8 0.0 755 4.9

Oregon ............................... 134.1 1,676.6 -3.7 808 1.3

Pennsylvania ..................... 344.0 5,645.8 -1.3 897 2.6

Rhode Island ...................... 35.9 464.3 -3.4 887 5.7

South Carolina ................... 119.5 1,837.1 -3.5 731 2.1

South Dakota ..................... 30.8 395.2 0.4 663 2.5

Tennessee ......................... 143.1 2,695.7 -3.3 824 1.4

Texas ................................. 566.6 10,510.8 0.4 933 2.4

Utah ................................... 88.3 1,215.0 -2.1 770 1.4

Vermont ............................. 25.1 304.4 -1.7 774 4.3

Virginia ............................... 233.5 3,656.8 -1.3 953 3.3

Washington ........................ 222.8 2,885.0 -1.8 918 3.7

West Virginia ...................... 48.9 713.8 -0.1 735 7.1

Wisconsin .......................... 161.1 2,753.2 -1.9 793 3.0

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

fourth quarter 2008 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2007-08

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2007-08

Wyoming ............................ 25.2 284.5 1.5 $850 4.3

Puerto Rico ........................ 55.3 1,028.5 -2.9 528 2.3

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.6 45.5 -1.4 731 -0.8

 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 U.S. Counties

-2.2% to 2.7%

-17.8% to -2.3%

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

2007 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

or territory: Laramie, Wyo., and St. Thomas, V.I. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 July 2009

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

December 2007-08 (U.S. average = -2.3 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties

2.3% to 56.8%

-14.3% to 2.2%

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

2007 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

or territory: Laramie, Wyo., and St. Thomas, V.I. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 July 2009

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

or more employees, fourth quarter 2007-08 (U.S. average = 2.2 percent)