Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 

News United States 

Department 

of Labor 

Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 09-0032 

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

For release: 10:00 A.M. EST 

Media contact: 691-5902 Tuesday, January 13, 2009 

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2008 

From June 2007 to June 2008, employment declined in more than half of the largest U.S. counties, according 

to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Lee County, 

Fla., which contains the Cape Coral-Fort Myers area, posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 8.8 

percent over the year, compared with a national job decrease of 0.3 percent. Orleans County, La., which includes 

the city of New Orleans, experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the 

largest counties in the U.S., with a gain of 5.6 percent. 

Rock Island County, Ill., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 

2008, with an increase of 10.5 percent coming largely from the manufacturing supersector. The U.S. average 

weekly wage rose by 2.6 percent over the same time span. 

Of the 334 largest counties in the United States (as measured by 2007 annual average employment) 159 had 

over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (-0.3 percent) in June 2008; 157 large 

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

wages was higher than the national average (2.6 percent) in 157 of the largest U.S. counties but was below the 

national average in 162 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 136.6 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation and for 

C hart 2. T o p ranking large co unties by percent gro wth in

 average weekly wages, seco nd quarter 2008 

 (U.S. average = 2.6 percent)

0

5

10

15

20

Rock Island, Ill. Weld, Colo. Utah, Utah Whatcom, Wash. East Baton

Rouge, La.

P ercent

C hart 1. T o p ranking large co unties by percent gro wth in 

 emplo yment, June 2008 

 (U.S. average = -0.3 percent)

0

5

10

15

20

Orleans, La. Williamson,

Texas

Fort Bend,

Texas

Tulare, Calif. M ontgomery,

Texas

P ercent
2 

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

and June 2007-08 percent growth in employment 

Employment in large counties

 

June 2008 employment Growth in employment, Percent growth in employment, 

(thousands) June 2007-08 June 2007-08 

 (thousands) 

 

United States 136,631.8 United States -397.0 United States -0.3 

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,229.7 Harris, Texas 56.1 Orleans, La. 5.6 

Cook, Ill. 2,533.4 New York, N.Y. 24.0 Williamson, Texas 4.3 

New York, N.Y. 2,392.5 King, Wash. 20.0 Fort Bend, Texas 4.2 

Harris, Texas 2,073.4 Dallas, Texas 17.1 Tulare, Calif. 4.0 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,741.0 Bexar, Texas 15.0 Montgomery, Texas 3.8 

Orange, Calif. 1,502.4 Tarrant, Texas 13.3 Bell, Texas 3.6 

Dallas, Texas 1,498.9 Santa Clara, Calif. 9.3 Cass, N.D. 3.5 

San Diego, Calif. 1,336.7 Orleans, La. 9.2 Brazos, Texas 3.0 

King, Wash. 1,201.4 Travis, Texas 9.0 Denton, Texas 3.0 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 992.7 Washington, D.C. 7.9 Harris, Texas 2.8 

 

the 334 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2007. June 2008 employment 

and 2008 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. Final 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/. Preliminary data for first quarter 2008 also are available on the 

BLS Web site. Updated data for first quarter 2008 and preliminary data for second quarter 2008 will be available 

later in January on the BLS Web site. 

Large County Employment

In June 2008, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 136.6 million, down by 0.3 

percent from June 2007. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.3 percent of 

total U.S. employment and 76.8 percent of total wages. These 334 counties had a net job decline of 407,700 over 

the year, which exceeds the overall U.S. employment decline by 3 percent, or 11,000 jobs. 

Employment declined in 188 counties from June 2007 to June 2008. The largest percentage decline in 

employment was in Lee, Fla. (-8.8 percent). Collier, Fla., had the next largest percentage decline (-6.8 percent), 

followed by the counties of Sarasota, Fla., and Elkhart, Ind. (-6.5 percent each), and Marion, Fla. (-6.0 percent). 

The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Maricopa, Ariz. (-55,100), followed by the counties of 

Riverside, Calif. (-29,400), Hillsborough, Fla. (-27,100), Orange, Calif. (-26,100), and Palm Beach, Fla. 

(-25,700). Combined employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 163,400, or 41 percent of the 

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

Employment rose in 125 of the large counties from June 2007 to June 2008. Orleans County, La., had the 

largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (5.6 percent). Williamson, Texas, had the next largest 

increase, 4.3 percent, followed by the counties of Fort Bend, Texas (4.2 percent), Tulare, Calif. (4.0 percent), and 

Montgomery, Texas (3.8 percent). The largest gains in the level of employment from June 2007 to June 2008 

were recorded in the counties of Harris, Texas (56,100), New York, N.Y. (24,000), King, Wash. (20,000), Dallas, 

Texas (17,100), and Bexar, Texas (15,000). (See table A.) 
3 

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

growth in average weekly wages, and second 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 

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

 quarter 2007-08 

 

United States $841 United States $21 United States 2.6 

 

New York, N.Y. $1,569 Rock Island, Ill. $82 Rock Island, Ill. 10.5 

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,529 Washington, D.C. 80 Weld, Colo. 10.4 

Washington, D.C. 1,433 Weld, Colo. 72 Utah, Utah 9.4 

Arlington, Va. 1,376 St. Louis City, Mo. 62 Whatcom, Wash. 8.3 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,334 Middlesex, Mass. 61 East Baton Rouge, La. 7.8 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,325 Utah, Utah 60 Montgomery, Texas 7.3 

Fairfax, Va. 1,317 East Baton Rouge, La. 57 St. Louis City, Mo. 6.9 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,309 Montgomery, Texas 54 Cumberland, N.C. 6.1 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,291 Whatcom, Wash. 53 Oklahoma, Okla. 6.0 

Somerset, N.J. 1,277 Jefferson, Colo. 49 Jefferson, Colo. 5.9 

 Washington, D.C. 5.9 

 

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2008 was $841. Average weekly wages were 

higher than the national average in 109 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 $1,569. Santa Clara, Calif., was second 

with an average weekly wage of $1,529, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,433), Arlington, Va. ($1,376), and 

San Francisco, Calif. ($1,334). (See table B.) 

There were 224 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter of 

2008. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($535), followed by the counties 

of Hidalgo, Texas ($538), Horry, S.C. ($539), Webb, Texas ($562), and Yakima, Wash. ($580). (See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 2.6 percent. Among the largest counties, Rock 

Island, Ill., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 10.5 percent from the second 

quarter of 2007. Weld, Colo., was second with growth of 10.4 percent, followed by the counties of Utah, Utah 

(9.4 percent), Whatcom, Wash. (8.3 percent), and East Baton Rouge, La. (7.8 percent). 

Twenty-six large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Clayton, Ga., had the 

largest decrease (-43.7 percent), followed by the counties of Boone, Ky. (-10.0 percent), Ventura, Calif., and 

Trumbull, Ohio (-4.8 percent each), and Queens, N.Y. (-4.3 percent). 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

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

percent increases in employment in June 2008. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in employment 

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

natural resources and mining (6.0 percent) and construction (4.9 percent). King, Wash., had the next largest 

increase in employment, 1.7 percent, followed by Dallas, Texas (1.2 percent). Maricopa, Ariz., experienced the 
4 

largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 3.1 percent decrease. Within Maricopa, nine 

industry groups experienced employment declines, with construction experiencing the largest decline, -18.8 

percent. Miami-Dade, Fla., had the next largest decline in employment, -2.1 percent, followed by Orange, Calif. 

(-1.7 percent). (See table 2.) 

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

Calif., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 4.2 percent. Within San 

Diego County, average weekly wages increased the most in the information industry (22.9 percent), followed by 

government (6.4 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain of 3.9 percent, followed by 

Miami-Dade, Fla. (3.1 percent). The smallest wage gain occurred in Orange, Calif. (0.2 percent), followed by 

Cook, Ill. (1.9 percent). The only wage decline among the 10 largest counties occurred in Dallas, Texas (-0.2 

percent). 

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows June 2008 employment and the 2008 second quarter average weekly wage in the largest county 

in each state, which is based on 2007 annual average employment levels. (This table includes one county—

Laramie, Wyo.—that had an employment level below 75,000 in 2007.) The employment levels in the counties in 

table 3 in June 2008 ranged from approximately 4.23 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 44,600 in Laramie 

County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,569), while the 

lowest average weekly wage was in Minnehaha, S.D. ($682). 

For More Information

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

visit the QCEW Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW data also may be 

obtained by 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 third quarter 2008 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, 

April 8, 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. The 

employment and wage data included in this release are derived from 

microdata summaries of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS. These reports are 

based on place of employment rather than place of residence. 

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable from 

state to state. In 2007, 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 expected to be available for sale as a chartbook by the end of the 

first quarter of 2009 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,

second quarter 2008 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,107.3 136,631.8 -0.3 – $841 2.6 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 19.0 362.3 -0.8 200 840 1.9 218

Madison, AL ....................... 8.9 183.4 2.5 14 892 3.4 88

Mobile, AL .......................... 10.1 177.0 1.4 34 706 3.4 88

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.8 139.3 -1.2 232 734 5.5 16

Shelby, AL ......................... 5.0 76.4 -0.1 141 776 0.9 273

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.5 86.2 -0.6 191 724 4.3 41

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.2 151.1 1.5 33 914 2.5 166

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 102.2 1,741.0 -3.1 302 845 2.1 203

Pima, AZ ............................ 21.2 364.8 -1.9 277 748 2.0 212

Benton, AR ........................ 5.6 96.3 0.0 126 786 5.4 17

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.9 251.4 -0.1 141 765 3.2 109

Washington, AR ................. 5.8 93.2 -1.0 215 698 1.6 242

Alameda, CA ...................... 53.5 688.9 -0.8 200 1,094 1.0 270

Butte, CA ........................... 7.9 76.4 -1.2 232 645 4.2 43

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.7 344.9 -1.5 253 1,057 3.2 109

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.1 366.3 -0.4 172 687 3.3 94

Kern, CA ............................ 18.1 288.3 0.5 88 748 3.3 94

Los Angeles, CA ................ 421.0 4,229.7 -0.2 153 946 2.6 158

Marin, CA ........................... 11.9 111.3 0.9 60 1,067 1.5 248

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.7 185.9 0.9 60 751 1.6 242

Orange, CA ........................ 101.2 1,502.4 -1.7 267 954 0.2 294

Placer, CA .......................... 10.9 139.0 -2.1 282 815 -0.1 302

Riverside, CA ..................... 46.2 622.5 -4.5 316 719 2.0 212

Sacramento, CA ................ 53.5 634.9 -1.8 273 944 3.5 79

San Bernardino, CA ........... 48.2 655.4 -2.6 295 740 1.8 228

San Diego, CA ................... 98.3 1,336.7 -0.4 172 926 4.2 43

San Francisco, CA ............. 51.3 576.9 ( 7) – 1,334 1.1 268

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.7 231.4 -1.3 241 739 2.6 158

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.7 107.6 -1.9 277 713 1.7 237

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.0 344.6 0.5 88 1,291 0.5 285

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.3 194.9 0.3 105 800 2.3 186

Santa Clara, CA ................. 59.7 917.6 1.0 53 1,529 1.6 242

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.0 104.3 -0.8 200 756 0.8 275

Solano, CA ......................... 10.0 127.8 -2.1 282 853 4.5 31

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.6 194.6 -1.7 267 826 2.5 166

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.6 179.8 -0.9 209 718 2.9 129

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.4 160.9 4.0 4 591 2.2 194

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.5 320.0 -1.5 253 867 -4.8 324

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.8 103.1 -1.2 232 812 4.9 24

Adams, CO ........................ 9.3 158.7 2.1 19 770 2.7 145

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.6 286.6 0.5 88 961 0.3 291

Boulder, CO ....................... 13.0 164.8 2.0 23 976 0.4 289

Denver, CO ........................ 25.9 453.9 1.0 53 1,019 2.9 129

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.6 96.2 2.7 11 906 ( 7) – 

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.7 249.1 -1.0 215 773 2.8 137

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.8 215.8 0.6 78 873 5.9 10

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.4 134.3 0.1 114 725 0.7 278

Weld, CO ........................... 6.1 84.7 1.2 41 763 10.4 2

Fairfield, CT ....................... 33.0 428.2 0.6 78 1,325 0.8 275

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.6 515.0 0.5 88 1,013 -2.1 320

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT ................. 22.7 371.0 -0.5 182 $897 2.2 194

New London, CT ................ 7.0 133.5 1.7 28 879 3.3 94

New Castle, DE ................. 18.3 281.5 -1.1 225 965 ( 7) – 

Washington, DC ................. 32.6 691.4 1.2 41 1,433 5.9 10

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.8 120.9 ( 7) – 696 ( 7) – 

Brevard, FL ........................ 15.1 201.8 -3.4 305 806 4.0 54

Broward, FL ....................... 66.3 742.2 -3.3 304 796 2.3 186

Collier, FL .......................... 12.7 118.7 -6.8 327 783 ( 7) – 

Duval, FL ........................... 27.4 462.5 -2.4 293 806 1.8 228

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.2 125.1 -4.1 311 674 3.1 117

Hillsborough, FL ................. 38.0 611.6 -4.2 315 802 2.4 175

Lake, FL ............................. 7.4 80.6 -5.1 322 623 3.8 66

Lee, FL ............................... 20.2 204.2 -8.8 328 730 2.4 175

Leon, FL ............................. 8.3 142.2 -1.6 259 715 3.3 94

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.4 113.1 0.8 67 674 -1.9 319

Marion, FL .......................... 8.7 100.5 -6.0 324 624 3.3 94

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 88.2 992.7 -2.1 282 838 3.1 117

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.2 78.8 -4.5 316 702 2.9 129

Orange, FL ......................... 37.4 681.8 -1.8 273 767 2.4 175

Palm Beach, FL ................. 51.6 529.5 -4.6 319 836 2.8 137

Pasco, FL ........................... 10.3 94.9 -3.1 302 648 3.3 94

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.9 423.3 -3.7 310 734 3.4 88

Polk, FL .............................. 12.9 197.4 -3.5 307 661 2.3 186

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.5 145.0 -6.5 325 728 1.3 259

Seminole, FL ...................... 15.2 174.8 -3.6 308 745 1.6 242

Volusia, FL ......................... 14.2 158.0 -5.5 323 636 2.7 145

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 85.5 0.5 88 646 1.3 259

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 136.1 -2.2 290 723 4.0 54

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 113.0 -2.1 282 764 -43.7 327

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.7 318.9 -0.3 160 876 1.5 248

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.8 298.8 -0.5 182 892 -0.2 303

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.1 741.3 -0.4 172 1,079 -0.4 305

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.5 319.1 -2.4 293 840 1.0 270

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 96.6 -1.2 232 671 4.8 27

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 100.9 -0.5 182 711 3.9 58

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.6 450.5 -1.0 215 790 4.2 43

Ada, ID ............................... 15.2 212.8 -1.5 253 748 0.1 295

Champaign, IL ................... 4.1 92.6 0.0 126 715 5.0 22

Cook, IL ............................. 139.3 2,533.4 -0.8 200 999 1.9 218

Du Page, IL ........................ 35.9 601.4 -1.0 215 982 2.5 166

Kane, IL ............................. 12.8 212.3 -2.1 282 756 1.9 218

Lake, IL .............................. 21.1 343.8 -0.1 141 1,046 0.5 285

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.5 106.2 0.2 110 732 1.9 218

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 86.7 0.5 88 806 3.1 117

Madison, IL ........................ 5.9 96.3 -0.5 182 698 5.8 12

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.8 106.1 0.1 114 786 2.5 166

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 80.6 -0.1 141 861 10.5 1

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.4 97.7 1.0 53 689 4.1 49

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 130.8 -0.6 191 842 5.4 17

Will, IL ................................ 13.7 199.9 1.2 41 761 2.7 145

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 137.9 -1.0 215 $711 2.6 158

Allen, IN ............................. 9.1 182.1 -0.6 191 706 1.6 242

Elkhart, IN .......................... 5.0 119.8 -6.5 325 702 -1.7 318

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.7 115.1 2.1 19 797 -0.7 310

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 195.8 -0.8 200 744 4.9 24

Marion, IN .......................... 24.2 580.9 -0.2 153 844 2.1 203

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 123.7 -1.4 246 714 2.6 158

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 75.7 -1.7 267 721 3.4 88

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 107.4 -0.3 160 698 2.9 129

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 127.4 0.9 60 792 2.6 158

Polk, IA .............................. 14.8 279.5 0.8 67 822 1.4 253

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 90.9 0.2 110 670 2.3 186

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.4 321.5 0.8 67 884 1.3 259

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.2 264.6 1.8 25 786 1.3 259

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 97.9 1.7 28 715 -0.8 313

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 82.2 2.2 17 808 2.0 212

Boone, KY .......................... 3.6 75.1 1.3 37 754 -10.0 326

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.4 179.2 ( 7) – 772 2.5 166

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.9 435.0 -1.6 259 822 1.7 237

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 125.5 0.0 126 715 2.7 145

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 88.6 -0.1 141 721 4.9 24

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.1 259.7 1.8 25 790 7.8 5

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.8 201.9 1.1 48 772 2.5 166

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.7 136.4 0.6 78 811 4.5 31

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.3 173.2 5.6 1 920 4.2 43

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.1 75.6 -0.7 197 685 3.6 72

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.2 176.9 0.6 78 756 1.9 218

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.6 237.5 0.0 126 891 3.0 126

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.7 379.7 -0.5 182 859 2.9 129

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 95.7 -0.9 209 806 2.9 129

Harford, MD ....................... 5.7 84.9 -2.0 280 762 0.0 300

Howard, MD ....................... 8.7 151.3 0.1 114 973 1.9 218

Montgomery, MD ............... 33.1 462.8 -0.8 200 1,110 1.6 242

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.7 317.7 0.3 105 926 3.9 58

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.0 341.3 -1.0 215 1,004 3.0 126

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 101.4 -1.6 259 725 2.5 166

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.5 221.4 -1.4 246 773 2.4 175

Essex, MA .......................... 20.9 305.6 0.0 126 902 2.7 145

Hampden, MA .................... 14.3 202.2 -0.5 182 766 2.4 175

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.5 834.5 0.8 67 1,240 5.2 19

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.3 329.6 -0.5 182 1,013 2.7 145

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.8 180.7 -1.0 215 829 3.1 117

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.7 596.6 0.9 60 1,309 2.2 194

Worcester, MA ................... 20.6 324.9 -1.2 232 869 3.3 94

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.8 138.3 -4.7 320 728 0.1 295

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.8 162.6 -1.0 215 822 3.5 79

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 115.6 -2.1 282 776 4.4 35

Kent, MI ............................. 14.2 335.2 -2.1 282 767 2.4 175

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.6 308.3 -4.5 316 881 2.4 175

Oakland, MI ....................... 39.0 682.7 -3.6 308 991 4.5 31

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 109.7 -2.2 290 $703 1.2 265

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.3 84.2 -4.8 321 693 2.2 194

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 187.5 -1.5 253 902 -2.3 321

Wayne, MI .......................... 32.0 735.3 -2.8 297 952 2.1 203

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.9 115.4 -1.9 277 840 1.1 268

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.7 177.6 -1.8 273 847 3.5 79

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.8 851.5 -0.4 172 1,069 0.7 278

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.6 91.4 -0.9 209 863 3.5 79

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.4 335.3 0.0 126 920 1.3 259

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.9 99.4 -0.2 153 709 0.4 289

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.6 82.9 0.0 126 658 3.9 58

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 87.6 0.6 78 656 0.6 281

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.4 127.5 0.2 110 733 2.9 129

Boone, MO ......................... 4.6 83.4 -0.1 141 663 3.1 117

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 89.5 -3.0 301 794 -0.8 313

Greene, MO ....................... 8.2 155.4 -1.2 232 662 5.1 20

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.7 374.0 0.7 71 863 3.9 58

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 125.6 -1.4 246 702 0.6 281

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.8 615.1 -0.7 197 907 2.6 158

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 233.9 0.0 126 958 6.9 7

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.8 78.3 0.6 78 688 1.8 228

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.8 324.6 1.3 37 788 2.7 145

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.0 159.2 0.4 102 670 2.6 158

Clark, NV ........................... 50.4 918.9 -1.2 232 796 3.0 126

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.6 210.7 -4.1 311 788 2.1 203

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.3 198.6 0.0 126 928 0.5 285

Rockingham, NH ................ 11.0 141.4 -1.6 259 814 -3.8 322

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.2 152.1 -0.2 153 754 1.8 228

Bergen, NJ ......................... 35.2 455.7 -0.9 209 1,030 0.9 273

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.7 205.3 -1.5 253 905 3.5 79

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.3 212.5 -0.4 172 875 0.0 300

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.8 363.4 -0.6 191 1,060 0.3 291

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.4 105.6 -0.9 209 778 2.2 194

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.3 237.5 -0.3 160 1,133 2.8 137

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.5 233.0 0.7 71 1,092 3.4 88

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.5 405.0 -2.0 280 1,049 3.3 94

Monmouth, NJ ................... 21.2 269.2 -0.1 141 891 1.8 228

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.5 291.5 -2.1 282 1,182 -0.7 310

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.7 160.2 -0.1 141 712 1.9 218

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.9 180.6 -0.3 160 888 1.4 253

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.5 177.4 -0.8 200 1,277 -0.4 305

Union, NJ ........................... 15.3 237.9 -0.6 191 1,074 2.1 203

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.5 334.5 -0.5 182 748 3.3 94

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 230.1 0.1 114 881 2.7 145

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.9 227.4 0.9 60 820 2.6 158

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 97.4 0.1 114 688 3.5 79

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.4 117.8 -1.4 246 880 4.4 35

Erie, NY ............................. 23.6 466.1 1.2 41 747 3.2 109

Kings, NY ........................... 45.9 482.5 1.1 48 728 2.1 203

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.1 386.5 -0.1 141 823 2.2 194

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.5 615.4 -0.3 160 $962 0.6 281

New York, NY .................... 118.6 2,392.5 1.0 53 1,569 2.0 212

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 113.1 0.1 114 678 2.4 175

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 256.1 -0.3 160 786 3.3 94

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 134.0 0.0 126 752 3.6 72

Queens, NY ....................... 43.3 508.3 1.4 34 840 -4.3 323

Richmond, NY .................... 8.8 94.5 -0.2 153 755 3.6 72

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.8 118.9 0.1 114 932 4.1 49

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 79.4 0.1 114 719 1.8 228

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.6 642.6 -0.2 153 922 3.6 72

Westchester, NY ................ 36.5 430.8 -0.3 160 1,140 2.2 194

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.1 116.5 -0.1 141 658 2.5 166

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.7 85.8 -3.4 305 663 2.8 137

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 120.2 0.5 88 679 6.1 8

Durham, NC ....................... 7.0 186.5 1.3 37 1,085 2.4 175

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.3 187.8 0.9 60 761 -1.4 317

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.9 279.2 -0.7 197 746 1.5 248

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 33.1 569.1 1.1 48 945 1.4 253

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.5 103.8 -1.7 267 686 3.3 94

Wake, NC .......................... 28.7 453.6 1.4 34 839 2.7 145

Cass, ND ........................... 5.9 101.2 3.5 7 699 4.2 43

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 147.7 0.5 88 745 3.6 72

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.0 743.4 -1.6 259 871 3.3 94

Franklin, OH ....................... 30.1 684.1 -0.9 209 817 1.4 253

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.2 522.6 -0.2 153 893 3.2 109

Lake, OH ............................ 6.8 102.7 -1.1 225 697 0.1 295

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 101.1 -1.3 241 689 0.6 281

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.8 215.9 -2.3 292 723 0.3 291

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.5 104.0 -1.7 267 609 2.4 175

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.0 264.0 -2.9 300 761 0.5 285

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 161.9 -1.5 253 661 3.1 117

Summit, OH ....................... 15.1 275.4 -0.3 160 769 1.9 218

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 76.6 -4.1 311 697 -4.8 324

Warren, OH ........................ 4.2 80.1 -1.4 246 695 1.2 265

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.9 425.0 0.7 71 777 6.0 9

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.4 351.2 1.1 48 766 3.2 109

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.7 152.1 0.1 114 780 2.0 212

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.6 83.0 -2.8 297 648 2.5 166

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 151.3 -1.3 241 668 3.2 109

Marion, OR ........................ 9.4 144.1 -0.3 160 677 3.7 70

Multnomah, OR .................. 27.8 452.3 0.7 71 862 2.4 175

Washington, OR ................ 16.0 251.3 -0.8 200 942 3.5 79

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.4 697.6 0.0 126 898 3.1 117

Berks, PA ........................... 9.3 170.3 -0.4 172 771 3.6 72

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.4 268.6 -0.6 191 845 4.4 35

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 81.7 0.9 60 735 5.0 22

Chester, PA ....................... 15.2 247.4 1.2 41 1,108 2.8 137

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.1 127.0 -0.5 182 787 1.4 253

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 186.6 -0.1 141 815 1.0 270

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.8 211.7 0.3 105 890 3.2 109

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Erie, PA .............................. 7.4 129.9 -0.8 200 $677 4.2 43

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 101.7 -1.1 225 652 3.5 79

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.4 233.4 0.5 88 713 2.3 186

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.8 181.9 0.3 105 844 3.7 70

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 143.9 -1.1 225 654 2.0 212

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.7 496.5 0.6 78 1,027 1.3 259

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 100.7 -0.4 172 741 2.3 186

Philadelphia, PA ................ 30.8 634.2 0.1 114 991 4.4 35

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 82.0 1.2 41 737 2.8 137

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 139.0 -0.3 160 693 5.8 12

York, PA ............................. 9.2 178.5 0.6 78 743 1.8 228

Kent, RI .............................. 5.7 80.4 -4.1 311 735 1.7 237

Providence, RI ................... 18.1 283.0 -2.6 295 825 3.3 94

Charleston, SC .................. 12.4 216.1 0.7 71 716 2.7 145

Greenville, SC .................... 12.6 242.6 0.5 88 737 2.1 203

Horry, SC ........................... 8.4 125.5 -1.8 273 539 -0.9 315

Lexington, SC .................... 5.7 98.9 0.7 71 634 1.9 218

Richland, SC ...................... 9.4 215.4 -1.1 225 735 2.9 129

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.1 120.4 -1.2 232 736 4.0 54

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.4 118.2 1.9 24 682 0.7 278

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.7 437.0 -1.4 246 850 3.5 79

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.7 195.3 0.5 88 720 0.8 275

Knox, TN ............................ 11.2 229.8 0.7 71 711 0.1 295

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.4 99.2 0.0 126 745 -0.7 310

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.1 501.0 -1.7 267 850 1.8 228

Williamson, TN ................... 6.0 89.6 1.1 48 891 -0.4 305

Bell, TX .............................. 4.6 103.4 3.6 6 659 4.1 49

Bexar, TX ........................... 32.4 735.1 2.1 19 735 -0.5 308

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.6 86.6 0.0 126 829 3.6 72

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.8 81.9 3.0 8 634 4.6 29

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.5 124.9 1.3 37 535 5.1 20

Collin, TX ........................... 17.0 296.9 ( 7) – 977 ( 7) – 

Dallas, TX .......................... 68.1 1,498.9 1.2 41 1,010 -0.2 303

Denton, TX ......................... 10.5 170.7 3.0 8 720 1.4 253

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.4 269.8 2.1 19 603 1.5 248

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.3 130.2 4.2 3 894 3.1 117

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 97.6 ( 7) – 798 ( 7) – 

Harris, TX ........................... 97.0 2,073.4 2.8 10 1,070 3.9 58

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.6 218.0 2.2 17 538 3.9 58

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 126.0 0.5 88 821 5.7 14

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.8 124.0 2.3 16 639 3.4 88

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 103.9 ( 7) – 666 4.6 29

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.2 126.0 3.8 5 794 7.3 6

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.1 156.2 2.7 11 723 3.1 117

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 76.8 2.6 13 744 ( 7) – 

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 94.9 2.5 14 724 3.9 58

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.3 774.5 1.8 25 841 -1.2 316

Travis, TX .......................... 28.7 582.0 1.6 31 925 2.1 203

Webb, TX ........................... 4.8 88.9 0.5 88 562 1.8 228

Williamson, TX ................... 7.1 123.7 4.3 2 801 1.9 218

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 105.7 -1.0 215 $688 2.7 145

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 38.3 592.0 0.6 78 779 0.1 295

Utah, UT ............................ 13.0 176.2 -1.3 241 696 9.4 3

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 95.3 -0.4 172 656 5.6 15

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.0 95.0 -1.2 232 835 4.1 49

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.7 156.8 1.0 53 1,376 1.5 248

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 122.0 -1.6 259 759 3.8 66

Fairfax, VA ......................... 33.7 592.4 0.1 114 1,317 3.8 66

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.5 181.0 -1.1 225 870 -0.5 308

Loudoun, VA ...................... 8.9 135.0 1.6 31 1,049 3.3 94

Prince William, VA ............. 7.1 106.8 -0.3 160 766 4.1 49

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.1 101.2 0.6 78 1,205 3.9 58

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.8 99.8 -1.6 259 668 2.3 186

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 99.8 -1.3 241 757 4.4 35

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.8 145.8 0.0 126 837 2.1 203

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.5 159.1 0.0 126 957 2.2 194

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.6 180.1 -0.4 172 662 2.2 194

Clark, WA ........................... 12.1 134.2 0.4 102 770 2.8 137

King, WA ............................ 76.6 1,201.4 1.7 28 1,056 2.8 137

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.6 84.4 -0.4 172 779 3.2 109

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.4 276.5 -0.3 160 779 4.7 28

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.8 257.2 0.2 110 875 1.7 237

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.2 213.4 0.5 88 691 3.3 94

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.9 101.6 1.0 53 771 3.8 66

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.8 84.1 0.4 102 688 8.3 4

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.8 105.7 -2.8 297 580 4.5 31

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 108.9 -1.1 225 752 4.3 41

Brown, WI .......................... 6.8 151.1 -1.0 215 725 2.7 145

Dane, WI ............................ 14.2 308.2 0.3 105 807 4.0 54

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.4 502.8 -0.1 141 853 4.4 35

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.1 106.6 0.1 114 711 2.3 186

Racine, WI ......................... 4.2 77.2 -1.4 246 757 1.2 265

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.4 237.4 -1.6 259 831 1.7 237

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.8 92.7 1.0 53 769 2.7 145

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.4 284.2 -2.3 ( 8) 571 4.2 ( 8) 

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

These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.3 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,

second quarter 2008 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,107.3 136,631.8 -0.3 $841 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 8,815.2 114,859.8 -0.6 828 2.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 125.6 1,994.2 1.6 903 8.0

Construction ............................................... 889.7 7,388.5 -5.8 902 4.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 360.7 13,565.7 -2.8 1,009 1.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,925.1 26,212.9 -0.7 718 0.4

Information ................................................. 145.7 3,029.2 -1.0 1,282 2.2

Financial activities ...................................... 868.4 8,041.1 -2.2 1,207 0.1

Professional and business services ........... 1,516.8 17,924.3 -0.6 1,045 4.6

Education and health services ................... 844.4 17,877.9 2.8 787 3.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 735.4 13,987.8 0.6 351 2.6

Other services ............................................ 1,180.4 4,558.5 0.7 543 3.0

Government ................................................... 292.1 21,772.0 1.2 911 4.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 421.0 4,229.7 -0.2 946 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 417.0 3,613.1 -0.6 922 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 11.4 -7.7 1,321 16.2

Construction ............................................... 13.9 148.0 -7.9 992 5.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 14.7 438.4 -3.4 1,025 3.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 53.9 799.9 -0.7 776 0.3

Information ................................................. 8.7 220.3 5.0 1,551 1.6

Financial activities ...................................... 24.2 237.1 -5.1 1,402 -0.8

Professional and business services ........... 42.4 589.7 ( 6) 1,126 7.5

Education and health services ................... 27.9 483.1 2.7 863 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.8 408.9 1.0 522 3.6

Other services ............................................ 188.6 254.6 0.1 446 4.2

Government ................................................... 4.0 616.6 2.5 1,091 0.9

Cook, IL .............................................................. 139.3 2,533.4 -0.8 999 1.9

Private industry .............................................. 137.9 2,220.2 -0.9 989 1.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.2 -10.7 911 -7.5

Construction ............................................... 12.3 93.9 -5.5 1,236 5.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.0 230.0 -3.3 1,000 1.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.5 468.8 -1.4 790 0.5

Information ................................................. 2.5 57.4 0.0 1,450 1.6

Financial activities ...................................... 15.8 210.1 -3.3 1,682 3.8

Professional and business services ........... 28.7 437.8 -1.2 1,241 0.8

Education and health services ................... 13.8 373.4 2.2 846 2.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.6 246.0 1.3 436 3.8

Other services ............................................ 14.4 98.2 1.2 720 3.4

Government ................................................... 1.4 313.2 -0.6 1,067 3.9

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.6 2,392.5 1.0 1,569 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 118.3 1,940.6 1.2 1,691 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.2 0.0 3,487 45.4

Construction ............................................... 2.4 37.3 4.2 1,525 6.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 36.0 -5.3 1,286 1.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.7 249.2 -0.2 1,166 2.2

Information ................................................. 4.4 136.1 0.6 1,997 5.2

Financial activities ...................................... 18.9 379.0 -0.7 3,047 -0.1

Professional and business services ........... 25.0 498.4 1.6 1,832 4.3

Education and health services ................... 8.7 288.1 1.5 1,027 4.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.5 219.6 3.3 744 2.3

Other services ............................................ 17.8 89.3 1.9 951 6.6

Government ................................................... 0.3 451.9 0.3 1,052 1.5

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 97.0 2,073.4 2.8 $1,070 3.9

Private industry .............................................. 96.5 1,821.8 2.7 1,089 3.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 83.6 6.0 3,077 ( 6) 

Construction ............................................... 6.7 160.5 4.9 1,048 7.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.7 187.4 3.1 1,299 2.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.3 431.2 2.5 930 1.6

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.5 -1.1 1,248 -1.0

Financial activities ...................................... 10.6 119.6 -0.8 1,303 4.6

Professional and business services ........... 19.4 342.4 1.9 1,223 4.6

Education and health services ................... 10.3 218.8 3.8 867 2.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.5 183.7 2.6 380 0.5

Other services ............................................ 11.5 60.5 2.5 622 4.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 251.6 3.1 935 4.6

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 102.2 1,741.0 -3.1 845 2.1

Private industry .............................................. 101.6 1,558.3 -3.4 826 1.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.4 -3.8 761 8.4

Construction ............................................... 11.0 138.8 -18.8 875 4.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 126.9 -4.8 1,146 2.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.7 368.7 -1.3 779 -3.0

Information ................................................. 1.7 30.9 -0.2 1,013 0.2

Financial activities ...................................... 13.0 144.2 -4.5 1,041 -0.9

Professional and business services ........... 22.7 298.7 -4.9 862 6.7

Education and health services ................... 10.0 208.5 5.9 893 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.3 180.5 -0.1 395 0.5

Other services ............................................ 7.3 50.9 -1.4 577 3.2

Government ................................................... 0.7 182.7 0.0 988 4.4

Orange, CA ........................................................ 101.2 1,502.4 -1.7 954 0.2

Private industry .............................................. 99.8 1,343.7 -2.1 937 -0.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 5.6 -6.9 570 -6.3

Construction ............................................... 7.0 91.1 -13.0 1,076 3.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.3 173.5 -3.0 1,121 -2.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.4 273.6 -1.7 900 1.7

Information ................................................. 1.3 29.8 0.1 1,358 3.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.9 114.6 -10.5 1,347 -5.7

Professional and business services ........... 18.9 269.3 -3.4 1,059 4.0

Education and health services ................... 9.9 147.4 4.6 861 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 180.9 2.8 415 1.2

Other services ............................................ 16.5 50.3 3.2 550 -0.4

Government ................................................... 1.4 158.7 1.4 1,099 3.5

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 68.1 1,498.9 1.2 1,010 -0.2

Private industry .............................................. 67.6 1,332.6 1.0 1,016 -0.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.3 16.6 3,143 8.6

Construction ............................................... 4.4 86.0 2.7 924 -1.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 134.1 -4.0 1,149 -3.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.2 304.7 0.3 943 -2.7

Information ................................................. 1.7 49.1 -0.9 1,394 2.4

Financial activities ...................................... 8.8 145.7 1.1 1,318 -0.9

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 282.4 2.7 1,121 0.0

Education and health services ................... 6.6 148.3 2.8 963 -1.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.3 132.8 1.2 463 5.9

Other services ............................................ 6.5 40.1 -0.9 627 4.0

Government ................................................... 0.5 166.3 2.4 962 4.5

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 98.3 1,336.7 -0.4 $926 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 97.0 1,107.0 -0.8 898 3.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.6 0.6 556 2.2

Construction ............................................... 7.0 78.2 -13.0 971 5.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 103.0 0.2 1,207 2.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.2 215.3 -2.4 737 0.8

Information ................................................. 1.3 38.8 2.9 2,311 22.9

Financial activities ...................................... 9.6 76.5 -5.9 1,085 -2.5

Professional and business services ........... 16.1 217.0 -0.8 1,112 3.2

Education and health services ................... 8.1 134.1 3.6 847 5.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 166.7 1.1 405 4.4

Other services ............................................ 25.1 58.7 1.9 474 -0.4

Government ................................................... 1.3 229.7 1.6 1,059 6.4

King, WA ............................................................ 76.6 1,201.4 1.7 1,056 2.8

Private industry .............................................. 76.1 1,043.7 1.7 1,059 2.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.1 -3.9 1,320 8.2

Construction ............................................... 6.8 72.1 -0.9 1,071 6.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 112.2 0.2 1,330 -4.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.0 220.7 0.7 912 1.0

Information ................................................. 1.8 79.4 4.8 1,903 3.9

Financial activities ...................................... 7.0 75.2 -1.2 1,291 1.3

Professional and business services ........... 13.6 193.4 2.8 1,237 5.1

Education and health services ................... 6.5 126.1 4.6 849 4.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.1 115.1 1.4 434 1.6

Other services ............................................ 16.6 46.3 2.0 618 8.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 157.7 2.0 1,034 4.3

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 88.2 992.7 -2.1 838 3.1

Private industry .............................................. 87.9 859.4 -2.4 804 2.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.3 -10.8 479 -4.0

Construction ............................................... 6.6 47.3 -16.4 838 1.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 44.5 -8.5 738 1.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.4 251.9 -1.4 757 1.9

Information ................................................. 1.5 19.9 -4.0 1,381 17.4

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 69.7 -4.1 1,149 0.0

Professional and business services ........... 18.0 132.9 -3.9 988 3.9

Education and health services ................... 9.3 141.8 3.5 811 1.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.9 103.2 -0.8 475 3.3

Other services ............................................ 7.6 36.4 0.0 531 0.8

Government ................................................... 0.4 133.3 -0.5 1,039 6.7

 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, second quarter 2008 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,107.3 136,631.8 -0.3 $841 2.6

Jefferson, AL ............................ 19.0 362.3 -0.8 840 1.9

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.2 151.1 1.5 914 2.5

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 102.2 1,741.0 -3.1 845 2.1

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.9 251.4 -0.1 765 3.2

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 421.0 4,229.7 -0.2 946 2.6

Denver, CO .............................. 25.9 453.9 1.0 1,019 2.9

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.6 515.0 0.5 1,013 -2.1

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.3 281.5 -1.1 965 ( 7) 

Washington, DC ....................... 32.6 691.4 1.2 1,433 5.9

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 88.2 992.7 -2.1 838 3.1

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.1 741.3 -0.4 1,079 -0.4

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.6 450.5 -1.0 790 4.2

Ada, ID ..................................... 15.2 212.8 -1.5 748 0.1

Cook, IL .................................... 139.3 2,533.4 -0.8 999 1.9

Marion, IN ................................. 24.2 580.9 -0.2 844 2.1

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.8 279.5 0.8 822 1.4

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.4 321.5 0.8 884 1.3

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.9 435.0 -1.6 822 1.7

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.1 259.7 1.8 790 7.8

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.2 176.9 0.6 756 1.9

Montgomery, MD ...................... 33.1 462.8 -0.8 1,110 1.6

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.5 834.5 0.8 1,240 5.2

Wayne, MI ................................ 32.0 735.3 -2.8 952 2.1

Hennepin, MN .......................... 42.8 851.5 -0.4 1,069 0.7

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.4 127.5 0.2 733 2.9

St. Louis, MO ............................ 32.8 615.1 -0.7 907 2.6

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.8 78.3 0.6 688 1.8

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.8 324.6 1.3 788 2.7

Clark, NV .................................. 50.4 918.9 -1.2 796 3.0

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.3 198.6 0.0 928 0.5

Bergen, NJ ............................... 35.2 455.7 -0.9 1,030 0.9

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.5 334.5 -0.5 748 3.3

New York, NY ........................... 118.6 2,392.5 1.0 1,569 2.0

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 33.1 569.1 1.1 945 1.4

Cass, ND .................................. 5.9 101.2 3.5 699 4.2

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 38.0 743.4 -1.6 871 3.3

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.9 425.0 0.7 777 6.0

Multnomah, OR ........................ 27.8 452.3 0.7 862 2.4

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.4 697.6 0.0 898 3.1

Providence, RI .......................... 18.1 283.0 -2.6 825 3.3

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.6 242.6 0.5 737 2.1

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.4 118.2 1.9 682 0.7

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.1 501.0 -1.7 850 1.8

Harris, TX ................................. 97.0 2,073.4 2.8 1,070 3.9

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 38.3 592.0 0.6 779 0.1

Chittenden, VT ......................... 6.0 95.0 -1.2 835 4.1

Fairfax, VA ................................ 33.7 592.4 0.1 1,317 3.8

King, WA .................................. 76.6 1,201.4 1.7 1,056 2.8

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 108.9 -1.1 752 4.3

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.4 502.8 -0.1 853 4.4

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

state, second quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 44.6 2.0 $706 3.1

San Juan, PR ........................... 13.4 284.2 -2.3 571 4.2

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.8 1.5 661 3.1

 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, 

second quarter 2008 2

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08

United States 4 ................... 9,107.3 136,631.8 -0.3 $841 2.6

Alabama ............................. 121.7 1,955.4 -0.5 720 3.3

Alaska ................................ 21.3 330.6 1.4 860 3.1

Arizona ............................... 163.2 2,543.9 -2.6 806 2.4

Arkansas ............................ 85.6 1,183.5 -0.2 661 3.4

California ............................ 1,322.4 15,760.3 -0.5 955 2.2

Colorado ............................ 179.3 2,346.3 0.8 858 3.1

Connecticut ........................ 113.4 1,722.3 0.5 1,036 0.3

Delaware ............................ 29.1 427.3 -0.9 862 -0.8

District of Columbia ............ 32.6 691.4 1.2 1,433 5.9

Florida ................................ 627.5 7,620.1 -3.4 762 2.6

Georgia .............................. 276.6 4,059.7 -0.6 787 -0.6

Hawaii ................................ 39.1 623.9 -1.3 764 3.9

Idaho .................................. 57.5 671.9 -0.9 636 1.6

Illinois ................................. 367.1 5,930.0 -0.4 893 2.3

Indiana ............................... 160.4 2,906.5 -0.9 715 1.9

Iowa ................................... 93.9 1,521.2 0.1 683 2.9

Kansas ............................... 86.6 1,389.1 1.2 720 2.4

Kentucky ............................ 113.5 1,818.9 -0.5 718 2.6

Louisiana ........................... 122.1 1,900.3 1.2 750 5.5

Maine ................................. 50.8 620.3 0.1 676 2.7

Maryland ............................ 165.6 2,577.7 -0.3 920 2.8

Massachusetts ................... 213.4 3,310.4 0.1 1,044 3.6

Michigan ............................ 258.4 4,163.3 -2.2 825 2.4

Minnesota .......................... 173.6 2,733.9 -0.5 849 1.8

Mississippi ......................... 71.0 1,139.1 0.1 635 4.4

Missouri ............................. 175.2 2,761.6 0.0 752 3.4

Montana ............................. 43.1 450.3 0.1 629 2.9

Nebraska ........................... 59.5 936.1 0.5 676 3.4

Nevada .............................. 76.9 1,271.8 -1.9 797 2.7

New Hampshire ................. 49.3 641.9 -0.4 835 1.5

New Jersey ........................ 278.7 4,054.4 -0.4 1,004 1.6

New Mexico ....................... 54.4 837.2 0.6 715 4.2

New York ........................... 583.5 8,758.2 0.6 1,040 2.3

North Carolina .................... 258.9 4,083.6 -0.1 735 2.4

North Dakota ...................... 25.6 356.4 2.5 654 5.8

Ohio ................................... 294.6 5,315.0 -1.3 757 2.3

Oklahoma .......................... 101.0 1,556.0 1.0 701 5.3

Oregon ............................... 131.3 1,747.4 -0.8 764 3.0

Pennsylvania ..................... 343.2 5,743.3 0.1 827 3.1

Rhode Island ...................... 35.9 481.6 -2.2 796 2.8

South Carolina ................... 118.3 1,907.5 -0.6 681 2.4

South Dakota ..................... 30.5 409.0 1.2 606 2.9

Tennessee ......................... 143.2 2,752.7 -0.4 745 1.9

Texas ................................. 561.4 10,510.3 2.2 849 2.5

Utah ................................... 86.9 1,234.3 0.1 716 2.6

Vermont ............................. 25.0 305.6 -0.9 718 3.0

Virginia ............................... 231.1 3,720.4 -0.3 885 3.0

Washington ........................ 219.3 3,000.9 0.3 862 3.4

West Virginia ...................... 48.9 715.3 0.0 695 5.1

Wisconsin .......................... 160.9 2,836.8 -0.5 730 3.1

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

second quarter 2008 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2007-08

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2007-08

Wyoming ............................ 25.0 296.7 2.7 $780 5.4

Puerto Rico ........................ 56.9 997.8 -2.0 475 3.5

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 45.9 -2.2 703 -0.6

 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 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Largest U.S. Counties

-0.2% to 5.6%

-8.8% to -0.3%

 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 

 January 2009

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

June 2007-08 (U.S. average = -0.3 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties

2.7% to 10.5%

-43.7% to 2.6%

 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 

 January 2009

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

or more employees, second quarter 2007-08 (U.S. average = 2.6 percent)