For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Friday, October 16, 2009 USDL-09-1241 

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 2009 

From March 2008 to March 2009, employment declined in 323 of the 334 largest U.S. counties 

according to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart County, Ind., 

located about 100 miles east of Chicago, posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 23.4 

percent over the year, compared with a national job decrease of 4.2 percent. Nearly 80 percent of the 

employment decline in Elkhart occurred in manufacturing, which lost 22,100 jobs over the year. 

Arlington County, Va., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among 

the largest counties in the U.S., with a gain of 2.6 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage fell by 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009. This is the largest overthe-year decline in U.S. average weekly wages dating back to 1978, when these quarterly data were first 

comparable. (See Technical Note.) The financial activities supersector sustained the largest decline in 

average weekly wages, with a decrease of 15.9 percent. Total wages for this industry fell by $37.9 

billion over the year. New York County, N.Y., had the largest over-the-year decrease in average weekly 

wages in the first quarter of 2009, with a loss of 23.4 percent. The area’s substantial over-the-year wage 

declines, which were largely attributable to lower bonus payments in financial activities, had a 

significant impact on the national average weekly wage trend in the first quarter of 2009. Excluding 

New York County, the national average weekly wage decrease is 1.3 percent—a difference of 1.2 

percentage points. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

employment, March 2008-09 

(U.S. average = -4.2 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

average weekly wages, first quarter 2008-09 

(U.S. average = -2.5 percent) 

-23.4

-10.8 -10.5 -10.4 -10.2

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Macomb, 

Mich.

Marion, 

Fla.

Washoe, 

Nev.

Horry, 

S.C.

-23.4

-10.3 -10.0 -9.7 -9.0

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

New York, 

N.Y.

Mecklenburg, 

N.C.

Fairfield, 

Conn.

Hudson, 

N.J.

Suffolk, 

Mass.
- 2 - 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by March 2009 employment, March 2008-09 employment 

decrease, and March 2008-09 percent decrease in employment 

 

Employment in large counties 

March 2009 employment 

(thousands) 

Decrease in employment, 

March 2008-09 

(thousands)

Percent decrease in 

employment, 

March 2008-09 

 

United States 128,992.2 United States -5,676.3 United States -4.2

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,996.3 Los Angeles, Calif. -206.5 Elkhart, Ind. -23.4

Cook, Ill. 2,381.5 Maricopa, Ariz. -133.9 Macomb, Mich. -10.8

New York, N.Y. 2,290.3 Cook, Ill. -108.4 Marion, Fla. -10.5

Harris, Texas 2,028.4 Orange, Calif. -102.8 Washoe, Nev. -10.4

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,671.0 New York, N.Y. -84.9 Horry, S.C. -10.2

Dallas, Texas 1,425.7 Clark, Nev. -83.3 Seminole, Fla. -9.7

Orange, Calif. 1,399.5 Miami-Dade, Fla. -62.8 Ottawa, Mich. -9.7

San Diego, Calif. 1,263.0 San Diego, Calif. -61.6 Catawba, N.C. -9.7

King, Wash. 1,135.9 Wayne, Mich. -59.0 Lee, Fla. -9.5

Miami-Dade, Fla. 963.9 Broward, Fla. -58.6 Sarasota, Fla. -9.5

Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2008 annual average employment), 

154 had over-the-year percentage changes in employment equal to or below the national average (-4.2 

percent) in March 2009; 178 large counties experienced changes above the national average. (See chart 

3.) The percent change in average weekly wages was equal to or lower than the national average (-2.5 

percent) in 76 of the largest U.S. counties but was above the national average in 255 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 submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.1 

million employer reports cover 129 million full- and part-time workers. 

Large County Employment 

In March 2009, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129 million, down by 

4.2 percent from March 2008. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.5 

percent of total U.S. employment and 77.7 percent of total wages. These 334 counties had a net job 

decline of 4,160,200 over the year, accounting for 73.3 percent of the overall U.S. employment decrease. 

Employment declined in 323 counties from March 2008 to March 2009. The largest percentage decline 

in employment was in Elkhart, Ind. (-23.4 percent). Macomb, Mich., had the next largest percentage 

decline (-10.8 percent), followed by the counties of Marion, Fla. (-10.5 percent), Washoe, Nev. (-10.4 

percent), and Horry, S.C. (-10.2 percent). The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Los 

Angeles, Calif. (-206,500), followed by the counties of Maricopa, Ariz. (-133,900), Cook, Ill. 

(-108,400), Orange, Calif. (-102,800), and New York, N.Y. (-84,900). (See table A.) Combined 

employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 636,500 or 11.2 percent of the 

employment decline for the U.S. as a whole. 
- 3 - 

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by first quarter 2009 average weekly wages, first quarter 

2008-09 decrease in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2008-09 percent decrease in average 

weekly wages 

 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 Percent decrease in average 

weekly wage, first 

quarter 2008-09 

Average weekly wage, Decrease in average weekly 

first quarter 2009 wage, first quarter 2008-09 

 

 

United States $882 United States -$23 United States -2.5

 

New York, N.Y. $2,149 New York, N.Y. -$657 New York, N.Y. -23.4

San Mateo, Calif. 1,786 Fairfield, Conn. -192 Mecklenburg, N.C. -10.3

Fairfield, Conn. 1,735 Suffolk, Mass. -155 Fairfield, Conn. -10.0

Somerset, N.J. 1,734 Hudson, N.J. -150 Hudson, N.J. -9.7

Suffolk, Mass. 1,558 Mecklenburg, N.C. -121 Suffolk, Mass. -9.0

San Francisco, Calif. 1,523 San Francisco, Calif. -100 Westmoreland, Pa. -8.9

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,519 Westchester, N.Y. -92 Elkhart, Ind. -8.7

Arlington, Va. 1,472 Hennepin, Minn. -80 Trumbull, Ohio -7.1

Washington, D.C. 1,461 Union, N.J. -72 Westchester, N.Y. -7.0

Hudson, N.J. 1,394 Santa Clara, Calif. -70 Hennepin, Minn. -6.7

Morris, N.J. 1,394 

Employment rose in eight of the large counties from March 2008 to March 2009. None of the large 

counties grew by more than three percent over the year. Arlington, Va., had the largest over-the-year 

percentage increase in employment (2.6 percent) among the largest counties in the U.S. Montgomery, 

Texas, had the next largest increase (1.5 percent), followed by the counties of Fort Bend, Texas (1.2 

percent), Bronx, N.Y. (1.1 percent), and Anchorage, Alaska, and East Baton Rouge, La. (0.3 percent 

each). The largest gains in the level of employment from March 2008 to March 2009 were recorded in 

the counties of Arlington, Va. (3,900), Bronx, N.Y. (2,400), Montgomery, Texas (1,900), Fort Bend, 

Texas (1,500), and East Baton Rouge, La. (900). 

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation fell 2.5 percent over the year in the first quarter of 2009. This is 

the largest over-the-year decline in U.S. average weekly wages dating back to 1978. During that time 

span, over-the-year declines in average weekly wages occurred in only two other quarters: first quarter 

1993 (-0.9 percent) and fourth quarter 1994 (-1.1 percent). The average weekly wages in those two 

quarters declined because employment growth outpaced total wage growth; in the first quarter of 2009, 

both employment and wages decreased. 

Among the 334 largest counties, 202 had over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages this quarter. 

The largest wage losses occurred in New York, N.Y., with a decline of 23.4 percent from the first 

quarter of 2008. Mecklenburg, N.C., had the second largest decline (-10.3 percent), followed by the 

counties of Fairfield, Conn. (-10.0 percent), Hudson, N.J. (-9.7 percent), and Suffolk, Mass. (-9.0 

percent). (See table B.) 

Of the 334 largest counties, 120 experienced growth in average weekly wages. San Mateo, Calif., led the 

nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 23.7 percent from the first quarter of 
- 4 - 

2008. Benton, Ark., was second with a gain of 16.7 percent, followed by the counties of Solano, Calif. 

(16.0 percent), Pulaski, Ark. (10.7 percent), and Peoria, Ill. (6.2 percent). 

The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2009 was $882. Average weekly wages were 

higher than the national average in 103 of the 334 largest U.S. counties. Three of the five counties with 

the highest average weekly wages in the nation were also among the five counties with the largest overthe-year losses in average weekly wages. Despite suffering the largest average weekly wage losses in the 

nation, New York, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average 

weekly wage of $2,149. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,786, 

followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,735), Somerset, N.J. ($1,734), and Suffolk, Mass. ($1,558). There were 

230 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of 2009. The 

lowest average weekly wage was reported in Horry, S.C. ($525), followed by the counties of Cameron, 

Texas ($527), Hidalgo, Texas ($538), Webb, Texas ($552), and Lake, Fla. ($576). (See table 1.) 

Average weekly wages are affected not only by changes in total wages but also by employment changes 

in high- and low-paying industries. (See Technical Note.) The 2.5-percent over-the-year decrease in 

average weekly wages for the nation was partially due to large employment declines in high-paying 

industries such as manufacturing. (See table 2.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties (based on 2008 annual average employment levels) experienced over-theyear percent declines in employment in March 2009. Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the largest decline in 

employment among the 10 largest counties with a 7.4 percent decrease. Within Maricopa, every private 

industry group except education and health services experienced employment declines, with 

construction experiencing the largest decline (-30.7 percent). (See table 2.) Orange, Calif., had the next 

largest decline in employment, -6.8 percent, followed by Miami-Dade, Fla. (-6.1 percent). Harris, Texas, 

experienced the smallest decline in employment (-1.1 percent) among the 10 largest counties. Dallas, 

Texas (-3.3 percent), and New York, N.Y. (-3.6 percent), had the second and third smallest employment 

losses, respectively. 

Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages. The 

nation-leading 23.4-percent wage decrease in New York, N.Y., was fueled by significant wage losses in 

the finance industry (-35.2 percent). New York’s average weekly wage loss was followed by Cook, Ill. 

(-5.4 percent), and Dallas, Texas (-3.3 percent). San Diego, Calif., had the smallest decrease in wages 

(-1.1 percent), followed by Miami-Dade, Fla. (-1.2 percent). The only wage increase occurred in King, 

Wash. (0.2 percent). 

Largest County by State 

Table 3 shows March 2009 employment and the 2009 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest 

county in each state, which is based on 2008 annual average employment levels. The employment levels 

in the counties in table 3 in March 2009 ranged from approximately four million in Los Angeles County, 

Calif., to 42,900 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in 

New York, N.Y. ($2,149), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($697). 
- 5 - 

For More Information 

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 334 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2008. March 2009 employment and 2009 

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

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

Note. Data for the first quarter of 2009 and final data for 2008 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 2009 is scheduled to be released 

on Wednesday, January 13, 2010. 

County Changes for the 2009 County Employment and Wages News Releases 

Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2008 are included in this release and 

will be included in future 2009 releases. For 2009 data, two counties have been added to the 

publication tables: Johnson, Iowa, and Gregg, Texas. Two counties, Boone, Ky., and St. Tammany, 

La., will be excluded from 2009 releases. 
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 2009 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 2008 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2009 data, two counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Johnson, Iowa, and Gregg, 

Texas. These counties will be included in all 2009 quarterly releases. Two counties, Boone, Ky., and St. Tammany, La., which were 

published in the 2008 releases, will be excluded from this and 

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments in first quarter 2009 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

7.0 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/ 
future 2009 releases because their 2008 annual average employment 

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

and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from 

the preceding year. 

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures 

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

QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a 

somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and 

publication product. 

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown 

in the table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) 

program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly 

reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers 

on behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to 

the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple 

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information 

on the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2008. 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 

2008, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 134.8 million 

jobs. The estimated 129.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.5 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received 

$6.142 trillion in pay, representing 93.8 percent of the wage and 

salary component of personal income and 42.5 percent of the gross 

domestic product. 

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

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

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

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes 

may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by 

employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may 

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using 

unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values 

that can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database 

may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly 

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

value of meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, 

and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred 

compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options. 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 2008 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 account for administrative changes caused by multiunit 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 are 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,

first quarter 2009 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,113.9 128,992.2 -4.2 – $882 -2.5 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.6 341.2 -5.1 242 890 -2.5 256

Madison, AL ....................... 8.9 178.7 -1.8 38 930 1.3 49

Mobile, AL .......................... 10.0 168.9 -4.1 174 713 0.4 96

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.5 131.4 -5.2 249 726 0.4 96

Shelby, AL ......................... 5.0 72.1 -5.1 242 867 -1.0 183

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.4 83.4 -3.7 137 731 2.0 30

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 144.8 0.3 5 928 1.3 49

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 104.0 1,671.0 -7.4 304 854 -1.3 200

Pima, AZ ............................ 21.2 356.5 -5.1 242 746 -3.7 290

Benton, AR ........................ 5.6 91.4 -4.6 211 1,029 16.7 2

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.0 244.7 -2.3 62 877 10.7 4

Washington, AR ................. 5.8 88.8 -3.3 111 684 -1.0 183

Alameda, CA ...................... 54.4 647.7 -6.1 276 1,109 -3.1 275

Butte, CA ........................... 8.1 71.2 -5.4 259 654 2.5 21

Contra Costa, CA ............... 30.5 324.8 -5.0 235 1,088 -1.6 229

Fresno, CA ......................... 31.0 327.1 -4.3 189 688 -0.3 137

Kern, CA ............................ 18.4 258.0 -3.8 148 767 1.1 59

Los Angeles, CA ................ 431.2 3,996.3 -4.9 229 967 -2.4 252

Marin, CA ........................... 11.9 103.2 -5.3 255 1,051 -1.9 240

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.9 151.1 -6.1 276 789 -0.9 178

Orange, CA ........................ 102.3 1,399.5 -6.8 294 992 -2.7 260

Placer, CA .......................... 11.0 127.5 -7.7 308 844 1.1 59

Riverside, CA ..................... 48.8 575.6 -8.3 318 743 -0.7 160

Sacramento, CA ................ 55.1 605.3 -4.5 205 970 0.6 86

San Bernardino, CA ........... 51.0 619.9 -6.4 284 735 -0.7 160

San Diego, CA ................... 99.6 1,263.0 -4.7 216 934 -1.1 187

San Francisco, CA ............. 52.5 551.7 -3.5 122 1,523 -6.2 319

San Joaquin, CA ................ 18.2 207.8 -5.0 235 723 -0.8 173

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.9 100.9 -4.8 221 753 1.1 59

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.2 326.4 -4.8 221 1,786 23.7 1

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.4 177.6 -4.7 216 826 0.9 73

Santa Clara, CA ................. 61.4 863.3 -5.3 255 1,519 -4.4 301

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.1 88.7 -4.2 179 818 0.2 109

Solano, CA ......................... 10.3 121.1 -4.4 200 1,016 16.0 3

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.9 178.0 -7.3 301 807 -1.3 200

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.2 160.5 -6.3 283 717 0.7 83

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.7 136.9 -4.7 216 603 -0.7 160

Ventura, CA ....................... 24.0 304.7 -5.7 267 912 -1.7 234

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.1 96.9 -3.8 148 808 0.2 109

Adams, CO ........................ 9.1 149.7 -4.6 211 798 -1.4 206

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.3 270.7 -4.2 179 1,074 -0.2 134

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.9 153.5 -3.7 137 1,016 -4.0 296

Denver, CO ........................ 25.6 424.1 -4.3 189 1,139 -2.7 260

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.5 88.9 -3.8 148 990 3.9 8

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.3 234.2 -4.1 174 797 1.1 59

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.3 203.7 -3.1 103 894 -1.2 196

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.2 124.9 -2.6 75 762 0.8 77

Weld, CO ........................... 6.0 80.5 -2.7 79 723 1.0 68

Fairfield, CT ....................... 33.0 401.5 -4.0 169 1,735 -10.0 329

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.6 488.4 -3.1 103 1,142 -3.9 294

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT ................. 22.6 350.6 -4.4 200 $911 -1.1 187

New London, CT ................ 7.0 125.9 -2.4 69 941 0.0 121

New Castle, DE ................. 18.2 268.1 -5.2 249 1,114 -0.8 173

Washington, DC ................. 33.3 679.2 -0.1 10 1,461 -1.9 240

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.8 116.6 -5.0 235 740 2.4 24

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.9 192.1 -6.9 298 788 1.7 35

Broward, FL ....................... 64.1 699.1 -7.7 308 812 -0.7 160

Collier, FL .......................... 12.2 122.6 -8.6 320 722 -3.9 294

Duval, FL ........................... 27.3 444.0 -5.2 249 848 -4.3 299

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.2 120.0 -7.4 304 678 0.6 86

Hillsborough, FL ................. 38.0 585.9 -7.5 306 859 1.8 32

Lake, FL ............................. 7.5 82.7 -6.8 294 576 -2.9 268

Lee, FL ............................... 19.5 201.9 -9.5 323 694 -3.3 278

Leon, FL ............................. 8.3 139.1 -4.2 179 726 1.7 35

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.5 114.8 -6.0 274 646 -1.8 237

Marion, FL .......................... 8.4 94.2 -10.5 330 608 0.2 109

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 84.7 963.9 -6.1 276 858 -1.2 196

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.1 77.1 -4.0 169 693 1.6 37

Orange, FL ......................... 36.0 653.8 -7.7 308 785 -1.5 217

Palm Beach, FL ................. 50.2 510.7 -7.8 311 844 -1.5 217

Pasco, FL ........................... 10.2 96.8 -7.3 301 603 1.5 41

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.6 402.3 -6.7 291 740 -0.4 143

Polk, FL .............................. 12.8 197.8 -6.5 286 652 -1.2 196

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.1 140.5 -9.5 323 718 0.0 121

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.5 161.6 -9.7 325 735 -0.9 178

Volusia, FL ......................... 14.1 155.3 -7.8 311 606 -1.6 229

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 80.8 -4.3 189 691 0.3 102

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.8 129.7 -5.9 268 734 1.8 32

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.5 108.4 -4.8 221 772 -4.9 307

Cobb, GA ........................... 21.0 302.6 -5.4 259 951 -1.2 196

De Kalb, GA ....................... 18.0 282.7 -5.1 242 939 -1.1 187

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.6 711.1 -5.0 235 1,212 -3.7 290

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 24.1 300.0 -6.8 294 853 -2.3 250

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 92.5 -4.5 205 693 -1.7 234

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 99.6 -2.8 87 728 0.3 102

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.8 438.9 -3.4 117 801 0.4 96

Ada, ID ............................... 14.8 194.0 -7.3 301 749 0.7 83

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 88.3 -3.5 122 729 3.1 12

Cook, IL ............................. 141.1 2,381.5 -4.4 200 1,084 -5.4 311

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.2 556.2 -5.5 264 1,028 -3.4 281

Kane, IL ............................. 12.8 192.7 -7.2 300 755 -0.7 160

Lake, IL .............................. 21.2 311.0 -5.0 235 1,120 -1.4 206

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.5 94.3 -5.9 268 705 -3.3 278

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 84.3 -1.4 29 893 -2.7 260

Madison, IL ........................ 5.9 91.9 -4.3 189 714 1.4 46

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.8 100.5 -4.3 189 895 6.2 5

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 75.5 -4.8 221 888 2.9 15

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 94.2 -2.3 62 696 3.6 10

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 126.3 -1.9 44 863 1.6 37

Will, IL ................................ 14.1 187.2 -3.7 137 749 -1.1 187

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Winnebago, IL .................... 7.0 126.1 -6.7 291 $743 -1.1 187

Allen, IN ............................. 9.1 169.4 -5.1 242 717 -1.5 217

Elkhart, IN .......................... 5.0 92.0 -23.4 332 642 -8.7 325

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.9 108.1 -3.1 103 837 -6.5 321

Lake, IN ............................. 10.4 184.2 -4.6 211 756 0.4 96

Marion, IN .......................... 24.2 547.1 -4.2 179 932 -2.5 256

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 115.1 -6.2 281 715 -3.2 277

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 73.7 -2.7 79 764 0.0 121

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 102.9 -3.6 126 709 -2.7 260

Johnson, IA ........................ 3.5 74.9 0.2 7 769 1.3 49

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 123.9 -0.2 12 825 -1.1 187

Polk, IA .............................. 14.9 265.9 -2.0 48 892 -1.3 200

Scott, IA ............................. 5.3 84.7 -3.9 161 695 -0.1 130

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.6 302.4 -3.6 126 906 -3.5 284

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.3 251.6 -2.8 87 789 -5.4 311

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 93.1 -1.5 32 748 1.9 31

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 78.4 -1.4 29 771 -4.2 298

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.3 168.0 -4.5 205 776 1.4 46

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.0 407.6 -4.3 189 841 -0.9 178

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.4 122.4 -2.4 69 699 0.6 86

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 86.0 -1.4 29 758 2.2 26

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.4 263.0 0.3 5 829 1.5 41

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.9 195.3 -2.1 51 799 0.4 96

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.9 133.8 -0.7 15 827 1.3 49

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.5 168.9 -0.6 14 959 -4.7 304

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.2 163.7 -3.4 117 794 -3.5 284

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.5 225.0 -3.5 122 929 -0.3 137

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.4 363.1 -3.8 148 887 -1.4 206

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 91.3 -3.3 111 886 2.7 18

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 79.9 -2.5 74 810 -1.5 217

Howard, MD ....................... 8.8 142.2 -3.7 137 1,038 0.9 73

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.7 444.0 -2.0 48 1,234 -0.6 153

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.8 305.1 -3.0 99 921 1.1 59

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.9 326.8 -3.6 126 1,011 -2.0 243

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.0 78.5 -5.2 249 742 -0.7 160

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.3 204.9 -5.0 235 747 -2.9 268

Essex, MA .......................... 20.7 286.3 -3.5 122 895 -3.0 270

Hampden, MA .................... 14.6 191.4 -2.8 87 794 -3.6 287

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.3 791.7 -3.0 99 1,276 -0.5 149

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.2 308.5 -3.1 103 1,020 -4.0 296

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.6 167.5 -3.4 117 787 -1.4 206

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.7 574.8 -2.4 69 1,558 -9.0 327

Worcester, MA ................... 20.6 306.8 -3.7 137 858 -1.8 237

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.7 127.1 -5.9 268 715 -4.4 301

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.7 151.5 -5.4 259 812 -0.6 153

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 108.3 -5.9 268 784 1.8 32

Kent, MI ............................. 14.2 302.4 -8.1 315 780 0.8 77

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.5 270.5 -10.8 331 849 -3.0 270

Oakland, MI ....................... 38.8 618.3 -7.8 311 973 -4.8 306

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 95.9 -9.7 325 695 -2.1 246

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.3 77.6 -6.4 284 $698 -2.8 264

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 181.7 -3.4 117 932 -1.3 200

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.8 671.7 -8.1 315 936 ( 7) – 

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.5 106.2 -5.3 255 796 -0.1 130

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.3 166.4 -3.6 126 860 -1.1 187

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.2 800.8 -4.4 200 1,108 -6.7 322

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 87.3 -1.9 44 933 2.6 19

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.9 315.9 -3.8 148 1,011 0.7 83

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.8 91.7 -4.3 189 710 2.6 19

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.4 76.0 -5.4 259 697 1.6 37

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 83.3 -4.2 179 676 1.3 49

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.3 126.2 -0.7 15 759 0.9 73

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 80.5 -2.6 75 661 1.1 59

Clay, MO ............................ 4.9 86.5 -3.6 126 785 -3.4 281

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 150.1 -3.6 126 644 0.8 77

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.4 357.0 -3.7 137 897 0.3 102

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 118.3 -3.3 111 714 -4.3 299

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.2 578.1 -3.9 161 960 0.6 86

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 222.0 -5.3 255 1,024 -1.3 200

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.8 75.1 -2.7 79 697 0.1 114

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.7 310.5 -2.1 51 855 4.9 6

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.1 153.6 -2.4 69 681 -0.4 143

Clark, NV ........................... 50.4 834.2 -9.1 321 814 -4.7 304

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.6 187.8 -10.4 329 785 -1.4 206

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.2 187.9 -3.6 126 927 -5.5 314

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.7 128.9 -4.3 189 823 -2.1 246

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.0 134.0 -6.2 281 745 -5.6 315

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.3 428.5 -3.9 161 1,109 -3.1 275

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.4 195.7 -3.9 161 915 -1.5 217

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.0 197.1 -4.8 221 877 0.1 114

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.2 346.5 -3.8 148 1,153 -3.8 292

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 100.4 -3.1 103 776 -1.1 187

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.0 232.5 -2.9 97 1,394 -9.7 328

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 224.9 -2.6 75 1,157 -5.3 310

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.9 380.5 -5.9 268 1,135 -1.5 217

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.7 243.5 -4.3 189 918 -1.5 217

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.0 272.7 -3.7 137 1,394 -1.6 229

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.3 140.8 -3.8 148 721 -0.8 173

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.5 167.8 -5.9 268 909 1.2 58

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.3 167.8 -3.2 109 1,734 -2.0 243

Union, NJ ........................... 14.9 218.5 -5.5 264 1,116 -6.1 317

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.8 317.7 -4.2 179 770 1.6 37

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 222.4 -1.8 38 881 2.1 27

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.3 228.7 1.1 4 803 -0.6 153

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 92.3 -3.0 99 692 -0.6 153

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 112.2 -2.7 79 900 -0.7 160

Erie, NY ............................. 23.7 444.3 -2.1 51 759 -0.7 160

Kings, NY ........................... 47.4 474.9 -0.7 15 725 -1.0 183

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.1 369.9 -1.8 38 828 -3.8 292

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.5 582.9 -2.6 75 962 0.1 114

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New York, NY .................... 119.1 2,290.3 -3.6 126 $2,149 -23.4 331

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 107.1 -2.2 57 678 0.1 114

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 243.0 -2.8 87 800 0.0 121

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 127.0 -2.8 87 726 0.3 102

Queens, NY ....................... 44.0 489.5 -2.7 79 828 -2.8 264

Richmond, NY .................... 8.8 91.2 -2.3 62 733 -1.5 217

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 111.7 -2.8 87 927 -0.7 160

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 73.2 -2.2 57 724 -1.8 237

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.5 597.4 -3.6 126 922 2.8 16

Westchester, NY ................ 36.4 401.9 -3.8 148 1,224 -7.0 323

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.2 110.5 -4.1 174 655 -0.3 137

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.6 78.6 -9.7 325 625 -5.4 311

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.4 118.6 -0.4 13 659 0.3 102

Durham, NC ....................... 7.2 181.9 -1.0 22 1,224 -2.8 264

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.3 179.4 -3.7 137 805 -3.0 270

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.9 263.7 -6.0 274 757 -1.7 234

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 33.5 543.6 -4.6 211 1,058 -10.3 330

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.6 97.2 -6.8 294 706 0.6 86

Wake, NC .......................... 29.3 432.4 -4.0 169 880 0.2 109

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 97.0 -1.1 23 717 0.1 114

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 137.3 -6.1 276 769 -0.5 149

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 37.6 693.4 -4.5 205 892 -1.5 217

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.9 651.7 -3.1 103 897 -0.8 173

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.9 491.6 -3.8 148 949 -1.4 206

Lake, OH ............................ 6.7 94.6 -4.1 174 720 -1.4 206

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 92.5 -5.2 249 716 -0.3 137

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.8 198.6 -6.5 286 772 0.0 121

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.4 95.8 -4.3 189 622 0.8 77

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.8 244.1 -5.6 266 777 -3.0 270

Stark, OH ........................... 9.0 151.2 -5.4 259 677 0.4 96

Summit, OH ....................... 15.0 257.0 -5.1 242 811 -0.2 134

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 69.3 -8.4 319 659 -7.1 324

Warren, OH ........................ 4.3 72.2 -4.3 189 730 -1.6 229

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.7 415.2 -1.9 44 790 -0.1 130

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.5 337.5 -3.3 111 802 -2.0 243

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.7 140.2 -7.1 299 779 -1.3 200

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 75.3 -7.9 314 628 1.1 59

Lane, OR ........................... 10.9 135.8 -9.3 322 655 -0.3 137

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 131.2 -5.1 242 689 2.1 27

Multnomah, OR .................. 27.9 425.8 -4.9 229 873 -1.4 206

Washington, OR ................ 16.0 233.2 -6.5 286 1,006 -1.4 206

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.2 664.9 -1.8 38 953 0.5 94

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 160.9 -4.2 179 764 -0.7 160

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.8 249.5 -4.8 221 845 -0.7 160

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 77.3 -1.9 44 736 -0.7 160

Chester, PA ....................... 15.2 235.7 -2.3 62 1,114 -0.4 143

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 121.0 -3.7 137 797 1.1 59

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 176.6 -2.2 57 848 0.6 86

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 203.2 -2.8 87 941 -2.4 252

Erie, PA .............................. 7.4 121.5 -3.3 111 688 0.6 86

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 98.9 -2.8 87 $646 0.0 121

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.4 217.7 -4.2 179 720 -1.5 217

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.8 169.4 -3.8 148 858 -1.4 206

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 137.0 -1.8 38 668 -0.9 178

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.5 467.1 -3.7 137 1,162 -2.4 252

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 96.7 -3.2 109 769 -0.1 130

Philadelphia, PA ................ 31.1 624.5 -1.1 23 1,050 -1.4 206

Washington, PA ................. 5.4 77.5 -1.3 26 783 2.5 21

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.4 130.3 -2.7 79 689 -8.9 326

York, PA ............................. 9.1 169.6 -4.1 174 756 -0.3 137

Kent, RI .............................. 5.6 73.2 -6.6 290 758 -2.1 246

Providence, RI ................... 17.8 265.6 -4.9 229 865 -3.5 284

Charleston, SC .................. 12.0 201.7 -4.7 216 739 0.8 77

Greenville, SC .................... 12.5 226.2 -6.1 276 731 -0.7 160

Horry, SC ........................... 8.1 104.0 -10.2 328 525 -0.9 178

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 94.6 -3.9 161 629 -1.6 229

Richland, SC ...................... 9.3 207.9 -4.2 179 782 1.0 68

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.1 112.4 -8.2 317 749 -3.6 287

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.4 113.1 -0.7 15 720 -1.9 240

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.5 420.5 -3.8 148 876 -1.1 187

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.6 180.0 -6.5 286 754 1.3 49

Knox, TN ............................ 11.1 217.6 -4.8 221 715 0.1 114

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 93.4 -7.6 307 737 -0.5 149

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.8 478.5 -4.8 221 861 -3.4 281

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 84.8 -2.8 87 949 0.0 121

Bell, TX .............................. 4.6 102.7 0.0 9 680 1.5 41

Bexar, TX ........................... 32.7 717.8 -1.5 32 774 -1.5 217

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.7 85.4 -2.8 87 821 -5.1 309

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 86.6 ( 7) – 644 ( 7) – 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 122.5 -2.3 62 527 0.8 77

Collin, TX ........................... 17.3 283.2 ( 7) – 1,030 ( 7) – 

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.9 1,425.7 -3.3 111 1,085 -3.3 278

Denton, TX ......................... 10.7 166.6 -1.6 34 763 0.1 114

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.6 266.8 -2.1 51 603 0.3 102

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.5 129.9 1.2 3 956 -0.6 153

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 90.5 -6.7 291 864 3.1 12

Gregg, TX .......................... 4.0 72.9 -2.9 97 736 -0.4 143

Harris, TX ........................... 97.9 2,028.4 -1.1 23 1,143 -2.6 258

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.6 218.9 -1.7 35 538 1.3 49

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 124.0 -0.8 19 863 1.1 59

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.8 123.1 -0.1 10 633 1.3 49

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 101.0 -1.3 26 696 0.6 86

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.3 126.9 1.5 2 794 -1.0 183

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 154.1 -1.3 26 734 -2.8 264

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 75.3 0.2 7 714 -0.4 143

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 92.3 -1.8 38 720 1.3 49

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.3 752.4 -2.2 57 862 -2.3 250

Travis, TX .......................... 29.3 563.2 -2.2 57 950 -2.6 258

Webb, TX ........................... 4.8 86.4 -2.3 62 552 -0.4 143

Williamson, TX ................... 7.3 119.7 -1.7 35 857 -6.2 319

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 97.5 -4.5 205 $682 0.9 73

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.4 561.4 -4.2 179 820 1.0 68

Utah, UT ............................ 12.8 164.5 -5.0 235 659 1.5 41

Weber, UT ......................... 5.6 90.7 -4.9 229 625 1.0 68

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.0 91.3 -2.4 69 869 -3.0 270

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.8 157.3 2.6 1 1,472 0.0 121

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 115.0 -4.0 169 784 -0.8 173

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.2 568.5 -2.1 51 1,389 0.3 102

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 173.4 -3.7 137 947 -5.0 308

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.2 128.2 -1.7 35 1,053 -4.6 303

Prince William, VA ............. 7.4 100.0 -3.0 99 773 1.4 46

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 98.0 -0.9 20 1,200 1.5 41

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.8 94.7 -4.6 211 701 4.2 7

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 96.0 -3.6 126 790 -0.5 149

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.9 140.0 -2.1 51 851 3.0 14

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.4 152.5 -3.9 161 1,035 -6.1 317

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.6 163.9 -4.7 216 687 1.0 68

Clark, WA ........................... 12.0 126.4 -4.0 169 772 0.5 94

King, WA ............................ 75.4 1,135.9 -3.9 161 1,127 0.2 109

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.4 81.6 -2.7 79 771 3.8 9

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.2 264.6 -3.6 126 797 -0.6 153

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.5 241.2 -5.2 249 893 -0.2 134

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.0 199.8 -4.4 200 724 3.3 11

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.8 98.2 -2.3 62 786 2.1 27

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.7 79.5 -3.9 161 702 2.8 16

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.9 94.2 -3.8 148 600 2.4 24

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 106.0 -0.9 20 785 2.5 21

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 142.5 -3.4 117 775 -1.5 217

Dane, WI ............................ 13.8 292.1 -2.7 79 840 -2.1 246

Milwaukee, WI ................... 20.7 471.9 -4.5 205 882 -0.6 153

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 100.0 -3.8 148 717 -2.4 252

Racine, WI ......................... 4.1 70.7 -4.9 229 756 -3.6 287

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.9 220.5 -4.9 229 866 0.0 121

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 86.6 -2.0 48 777 -5.7 316

San Juan, PR ..................... 12.6 275.5 -2.7 ( 8) 593 0.2 ( 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,

first quarter 2009 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,113.9 128,992.2 -4.2 $882 -2.5

Private industry .............................................. 8,819.8 106,866.1 -5.1 882 -3.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 126.3 1,670.1 -3.8 993 -2.3

Construction ............................................... 860.9 5,937.8 -15.4 906 0.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 356.4 12,096.6 -10.6 1,062 -1.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,912.2 24,597.3 -5.5 733 -1.6

Information ................................................. 148.0 2,858.8 -5.0 1,439 -2.0

Financial activities ...................................... 853.1 7,651.3 -4.4 1,596 -15.9

Professional and business services ........... 1,533.8 16,534.8 -6.4 1,129 -0.2

Education and health services ................... 861.3 18,245.7 2.2 776 1.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 739.1 12,715.3 -3.1 351 -2.2

Other services ............................................ 1,234.6 4,357.1 -2.1 543 -0.5

Government ................................................... 294.2 22,126.1 0.5 884 1.6

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 431.2 3,996.3 -4.9 967 -2.4

Private industry .............................................. 427.3 3,395.0 -5.7 945 -3.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.7 -6.2 1,479 -15.8

Construction ............................................... 14.0 123.3 -17.4 973 0.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 14.4 401.4 -9.3 1,063 -1.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 54.0 744.8 -7.2 776 -1.5

Information ................................................. 8.9 197.3 -7.3 1,755 1.8

Financial activities ...................................... 24.0 223.4 -6.8 1,577 -12.1

Professional and business services ........... 43.3 541.8 -8.3 1,149 -2.1

Education and health services ................... 28.6 499.8 1.1 865 2.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.5 384.1 -3.9 519 -2.4

Other services ............................................ 202.9 258.5 3.0 424 -3.9

Government ................................................... 3.9 601.3 -0.3 1,090 -0.2

Cook, IL .............................................................. 141.1 2,381.5 -4.4 1,084 -5.4

Private industry .............................................. 139.8 2,069.2 -5.0 1,093 -6.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.9 -3.7 792 -12.8

Construction ............................................... 12.3 71.9 -14.4 1,317 0.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.9 206.7 -9.5 1,013 -4.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.5 438.8 -6.5 797 -4.3

Information ................................................. 2.6 53.5 ( 6) 1,644 -8.7

Financial activities ...................................... 15.6 197.7 -5.0 2,397 -17.4

Professional and business services ........... 29.1 398.3 -8.0 1,403 -0.6

Education and health services ................... 14.1 385.9 3.1 839 1.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.9 216.4 -3.6 404 -2.9

Other services ............................................ 14.7 94.8 -1.4 729 1.1

Government ................................................... 1.4 312.3 0.0 1,022 1.6

New York, NY ..................................................... 119.1 2,290.3 -3.6 2,149 -23.4

Private industry .............................................. 118.8 1,837.8 -4.4 2,425 -24.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.2 1.3 1,967 -16.9

Construction ............................................... 2.4 34.0 -7.2 1,479 -6.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 30.4 -15.3 1,365 -8.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.7 230.7 -6.6 1,136 -5.4

Information ................................................. 4.5 129.0 -4.7 2,449 -7.9

Financial activities ...................................... 19.0 355.9 -6.2 6,379 -35.2

Professional and business services ........... 25.4 463.7 -5.6 2,095 -10.2

Education and health services ................... 8.8 293.9 0.7 998 0.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.9 208.9 -3.0 725 -5.0

Other services ............................................ 18.2 86.9 -1.3 999 -9.0

Government ................................................... 0.3 452.6 0.0 1,017 1.2

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 97.9 2,028.4 -1.1 $1,143 -2.6

Private industry .............................................. 97.4 1,766.7 -1.5 1,175 -3.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 82.8 ( 6) 3,483 -5.5

Construction ............................................... 6.7 149.0 -6.5 1,051 0.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 182.5 -2.0 1,411 -7.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.3 418.9 -1.5 1,029 -3.1

Information ................................................. 1.4 31.3 -3.4 1,314 -3.2

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 116.2 -3.9 1,511 -12.7

Professional and business services ........... 19.6 321.4 -4.5 1,321 2.1

Education and health services ................... 10.4 224.3 3.9 851 1.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.7 179.8 1.2 374 -2.3

Other services ............................................ 11.9 59.1 0.3 628 -0.8

Government ................................................... 0.5 261.7 2.2 926 3.7

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 104.0 1,671.0 -7.4 854 -1.3

Private industry .............................................. 103.3 1,444.9 -8.6 852 -1.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.5 -1.0 855 -14.2

Construction ............................................... 10.8 100.5 -30.7 877 -0.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 111.9 -11.2 1,227 -2.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.2 344.5 -7.7 801 -0.7

Information ................................................. 1.7 29.0 -5.0 1,166 0.0

Financial activities ...................................... 12.8 137.5 -4.9 1,145 -7.5

Professional and business services ........... 23.0 270.4 -11.5 896 3.1

Education and health services ................... 10.3 214.8 3.6 875 0.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.5 178.1 -5.2 398 -1.7

Other services ............................................ 7.3 47.8 -6.5 567 -1.2

Government ................................................... 0.7 226.1 0.5 868 -1.3

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.9 1,425.7 -3.3 1,085 -3.3

Private industry .............................................. 67.3 1,257.6 -3.8 1,103 -3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.3 ( 6) 3,066 -13.0

Construction ............................................... 4.3 76.3 -9.8 942 -0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 123.7 -8.2 1,267 -3.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.0 287.9 ( 6) 964 -4.1

Information ................................................. 1.7 46.7 -6.5 1,823 ( 6) 

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 140.3 ( 6) 1,632 -13.3

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 255.0 -6.4 1,219 -2.5

Education and health services ................... 6.7 154.6 4.5 920 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.4 126.3 ( 6) 499 -1.4

Other services ............................................ 6.7 37.7 -3.0 624 0.8

Government ................................................... 0.5 168.0 0.7 950 3.6

Orange, CA ........................................................ 102.3 1,399.5 -6.8 992 -2.7

Private industry .............................................. 100.9 1,244.8 -7.4 967 -3.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 5.1 -16.0 561 -3.4

Construction ............................................... 6.9 78.3 -18.1 1,072 -1.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.3 159.9 -8.8 1,148 -3.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.3 253.7 -8.5 916 -0.1

Information ................................................. 1.4 28.2 -4.8 1,567 0.8

Financial activities ...................................... 10.7 106.7 ( 6) 1,502 -12.0

Professional and business services ........... 19.4 244.0 -10.4 1,121 -2.4

Education and health services ................... 10.2 150.7 1.7 873 1.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 167.0 -4.7 382 -3.3

Other services ............................................ 19.2 47.7 -3.0 513 -4.6

Government ................................................... 1.4 154.7 -1.8 1,188 1.5

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 99.6 1,263.0 -4.7 $934 -1.1

Private industry .............................................. 98.3 1,035.8 -5.5 916 -1.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 9.7 -13.8 540 0.7

Construction ............................................... 7.0 64.1 -18.1 975 -0.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 99.3 ( 6) 1,309 0.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.4 197.1 -7.9 744 ( 6) 

Information ................................................. 1.3 37.8 -1.2 1,604 -16.1

Financial activities ...................................... 9.4 71.4 -6.0 1,257 -5.6

Professional and business services ........... 16.5 201.2 -6.9 1,208 2.7

Education and health services ................... 8.3 142.2 3.2 851 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 152.2 -5.6 393 -6.9

Other services ............................................ 27.6 57.4 0.2 466 -2.1

Government ................................................... 1.3 227.2 -0.4 1,017 2.7

King, WA ............................................................ 75.4 1,135.9 -3.9 1,127 0.2

Private industry .............................................. 74.9 979.2 -4.6 1,136 -0.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.8 -9.6 1,553 -1.2

Construction ............................................... 6.4 57.1 -18.7 1,130 4.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 104.2 -7.2 1,366 -5.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 206.7 -5.7 967 1.5

Information ................................................. 1.8 80.7 4.0 2,125 -0.9

Financial activities ...................................... 6.8 69.7 -6.7 1,579 -5.0

Professional and business services ........... 13.6 176.9 -6.8 1,311 0.2

Education and health services ................... 6.6 130.4 5.1 857 2.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.1 105.0 -4.2 422 -5.8

Other services ............................................ 16.3 45.8 0.6 634 5.8

Government ................................................... 0.5 156.6 0.8 1,074 6.0

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 84.7 963.9 -6.1 858 -1.2

Private industry .............................................. 84.4 813.6 -6.9 818 -1.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.0 -8.8 403 -12.6

Construction ............................................... 6.1 37.7 -25.4 861 6.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 38.4 -16.7 783 0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.0 238.8 -6.0 765 -0.6

Information ................................................. 1.5 18.5 -7.1 1,308 -3.5

Financial activities ...................................... 9.8 63.7 -9.0 1,353 -9.7

Professional and business services ........... 17.7 124.5 -8.7 992 0.1

Education and health services ................... 9.4 144.1 1.8 801 1.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.9 102.0 -4.2 471 -1.5

Other services ............................................ 7.5 35.3 -5.5 529 -0.4

Government ................................................... 0.4 150.3 -1.7 1,074 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 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, first quarter 2009 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,113.9 128,992.2 -4.2 $882 -2.5

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.6 341.2 -5.1 890 -2.5

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 144.8 0.3 928 1.3

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 104.0 1,671.0 -7.4 854 -1.3

Pulaski, AR ............................... 15.0 244.7 -2.3 877 10.7

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 431.2 3,996.3 -4.9 967 -2.4

Denver, CO .............................. 25.6 424.1 -4.3 1,139 -2.7

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.6 488.4 -3.1 1,142 -3.9

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.2 268.1 -5.2 1,114 -0.8

Washington, DC ....................... 33.3 679.2 -0.1 1,461 -1.9

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 84.7 963.9 -6.1 858 -1.2

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.6 711.1 -5.0 1,212 -3.7

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.8 438.9 -3.4 801 0.4

Ada, ID ..................................... 14.8 194.0 -7.3 749 0.7

Cook, IL .................................... 141.1 2,381.5 -4.4 1,084 -5.4

Marion, IN ................................. 24.2 547.1 -4.2 932 -2.5

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.9 265.9 -2.0 892 -1.3

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.6 302.4 -3.6 906 -3.5

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.0 407.6 -4.3 841 -0.9

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.4 263.0 0.3 829 1.5

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.2 163.7 -3.4 794 -3.5

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.7 444.0 -2.0 1,234 -0.6

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.3 791.7 -3.0 1,276 -0.5

Wayne, MI ................................ 31.8 671.7 -8.1 936 ( 7) 

Hennepin, MN .......................... 41.2 800.8 -4.4 1,108 -6.7

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.3 126.2 -0.7 759 0.9

St. Louis, MO ............................ 32.2 578.1 -3.9 960 0.6

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.8 75.1 -2.7 697 0.1

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.7 310.5 -2.1 855 4.9

Clark, NV .................................. 50.4 834.2 -9.1 814 -4.7

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.2 187.9 -3.6 927 -5.5

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.3 428.5 -3.9 1,109 -3.1

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.8 317.7 -4.2 770 1.6

New York, NY ........................... 119.1 2,290.3 -3.6 2,149 -23.4

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 33.5 543.6 -4.6 1,058 -10.3

Cass, ND .................................. 5.8 97.0 -1.1 717 0.1

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 37.6 693.4 -4.5 892 -1.5

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.7 415.2 -1.9 790 -0.1

Multnomah, OR ........................ 27.9 425.8 -4.9 873 -1.4

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.2 664.9 -1.8 953 0.5

Providence, RI .......................... 17.8 265.6 -4.9 865 -3.5

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.5 226.2 -6.1 731 -0.7

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.4 113.1 -0.7 720 -1.9

Shelby, TN ................................ 19.8 478.5 -4.8 861 -3.4

Harris, TX ................................. 97.9 2,028.4 -1.1 1,143 -2.6

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 37.4 561.4 -4.2 820 1.0

Chittenden, VT ......................... 6.0 91.3 -2.4 869 -3.0

Fairfax, VA ................................ 34.2 568.5 -2.1 1,389 0.3

King, WA .................................. 75.4 1,135.9 -3.9 1,127 0.2

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.0 106.0 -0.9 785 2.5

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 20.7 471.9 -4.5 882 -0.6

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

state, first quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 42.9 -1.4 $714 1.7

San Juan, PR ........................... 12.6 275.5 -2.7 593 0.2

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.9 23.3 -3.5 629 -1.1

 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. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

first quarter 2009 2

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09

United States 4 ................... 9,113.9 128,992.2 -4.2 $882 -2.5

Alabama ............................. 119.2 1,844.6 -5.2 736 -0.4

Alaska ................................ 21.3 303.5 0.1 887 2.5

Arizona ............................... 164.6 2,459.7 -6.9 807 -1.3

Arkansas ............................ 86.4 1,144.5 -2.9 695 4.2

California ............................ 1,369.6 14,742.5 -5.0 994 -1.2

Colorado ............................ 176.6 2,211.0 -3.9 913 -0.8

Connecticut ........................ 113.0 1,620.1 -3.8 1,189 -5.6

Delaware ............................ 29.3 399.9 -5.1 975 -0.8

District of Columbia ............ 33.3 679.2 -0.1 1,461 -1.9

Florida ................................ 612.2 7,352.2 -7.0 771 -0.8

Georgia .............................. 274.4 3,835.9 -5.4 831 -1.4

Hawaii ................................ 39.2 599.1 -4.9 775 0.4

Idaho .................................. 56.7 603.4 -6.3 638 0.3

Illinois ................................. 372.2 5,552.0 -4.2 951 -3.0

Indiana ............................... 161.3 2,701.1 -5.6 739 -2.4

Iowa ................................... 94.6 1,432.5 -2.5 709 -0.1

Kansas ............................... 87.3 1,326.2 -2.6 719 -2.3

Kentucky ............................ 109.1 1,710.0 -4.6 712 -0.3

Louisiana ........................... 124.2 1,867.4 -1.1 772 0.8

Maine ................................. 51.0 563.1 -3.7 688 -1.9

Maryland ............................ 164.5 2,452.8 -3.1 964 0.1

Massachusetts ................... 213.0 3,102.8 -3.3 1,101 -3.7

Michigan ............................ 253.8 3,765.9 -7.2 825 -3.7

Minnesota .......................... 168.6 2,538.5 -4.0 882 -2.9

Mississippi ......................... 71.0 1,087.9 -4.5 633 -0.2

Missouri ............................. 173.7 2,618.3 -3.4 771 0.1

Montana ............................. 42.9 413.9 -4.2 628 0.5

Nebraska ........................... 59.6 894.8 -2.0 699 1.7

Nevada .............................. 76.6 1,150.8 -9.1 810 -3.5

New Hampshire ................. 48.8 601.2 -3.2 837 -3.0

New Jersey ........................ 271.3 3,775.1 -4.0 1,100 -2.8

New Mexico ....................... 54.9 794.1 -3.5 723 0.7

New York ........................... 588.1 8,332.4 -2.6 1,207 -13.8

North Carolina .................... 260.6 3,852.4 -5.2 766 -2.8

North Dakota ...................... 25.6 341.8 -0.4 666 2.0

Ohio ................................... 293.6 4,937.1 -4.9 790 -1.0

Oklahoma .......................... 100.5 1,517.0 -2.0 709 -0.3

Oregon ............................... 130.7 1,602.8 -6.3 772 -0.6

Pennsylvania ..................... 342.4 5,449.4 -2.9 862 -0.7

Rhode Island ...................... 35.5 441.8 -4.9 831 -2.4

South Carolina ................... 115.3 1,779.4 -5.9 692 -0.4

South Dakota ..................... 30.6 382.9 -1.7 630 -0.3

Tennessee ......................... 142.7 2,586.1 -5.7 751 -1.3

Texas ................................. 564.9 10,237.9 -1.8 886 -1.9

Utah ................................... 85.3 1,162.2 -4.6 726 1.1

Vermont ............................. 24.8 291.7 -3.2 719 -2.0

Virginia ............................... 232.6 3,541.6 -3.0 920 0.1

Washington ........................ 216.4 2,810.6 -3.8 906 0.8

West Virginia ...................... 48.4 690.2 -1.4 704 4.0

Wisconsin .......................... 156.8 2,619.0 -4.3 747 -1.6

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

first quarter 2009 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2008-09

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2008-09

Wyoming ............................ 25.1 272.1 -2.0 $778 -0.1

Puerto Rico ........................ 53.4 967.1 -4.1 496 1.4

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.6 44.6 -4.3 685 -3.1

 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

-4.1% or higher

-4.2% or lower

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

2008 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 

 October 2009

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

March 2008-09 (U.S. average = -4.2 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties

-2.4% or higher

-2.5% or lower

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

2008 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 

 October 2009

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

or more employees, first quarter 2008-09 (U.S. average = -2.5 percent)