For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 8, 2013 USDL-13-0013 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Second Quarter 2012 

From June 2011 to June 2012, employment increased in 287 of the 328 largest U.S. counties, the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Yakima, Wash., posted the largest increase, with a gain of 8.2 

percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.8 percent. Within Yakima, the largest 

employment increase occurred in natural resources and mining, which gained 8,646 jobs over the year 

(34.6 percent). Madison, Ill., St. Clair, Ill., and Clay, Mo., had the largest over-the-year decreases in 

employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with losses of 2.0 percent each. County employment 

and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, 

which produces detailed information on local employment and wages within 7 months after the end of 

each quarter. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 1.3 percent to $903 in the second quarter of 

2012. Washington, Ore., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 

8.5 percent. Within Washington County, a total wage gain of $159.4 million (16.0 percent) in the 

manufacturing industry had the largest contribution to the increase in average weekly wages. Within this 

industry, large payouts, which included bonuses, significantly boosted the county’s average weekly 

wages. Williamson, Texas, experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 17.0 

percent over the year. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, June 2011-12 

(U.S. average = 1.8 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, second quarter 2011-12 

(U.S. average = 1.3 percent) 

8.2

5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

Yakima, 

Wash.

Montgomery, 

Texas

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Williamson, 

Tenn.

Delaware, 

Ohio

8.5

7.8 7.2 7.1

6.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

Washington, 

Ore.

Washington, 

Pa.

McLean, 

Ill.

San Mateo, 

Calif.

Weld, 

Colo.
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2012 employment, June 2011-12 employment 

increase, and June 2011-12 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

June 2012 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) June 2011-12 June 2011-12

(thousands)

United States 132,896.0 United States 2,366.8 United States 1.8

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,961.9 Harris, Texas 78.3 Yakima, Wash. 8.2

Cook, Ill. 2,428.3 Los Angeles, Calif. 64.1 Montgomery, Texas 5.7

New York, N.Y. 2,392.0 New York, N.Y. 56.2 Elkhart, Ind. 5.6

Harris, Texas 2,121.7 Dallas, Texas 46.1 Williamson, Tenn. 5.5

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,635.4 Maricopa, Ariz. 44.3 Delaware, Ohio 5.4

Dallas, Texas 1,475.1 King, Wash. 34.7 Utah, Utah 5.0

Orange, Calif. 1,416.5 Orange, Calif. 33.4 Rutherford, Tenn. 4.9

San Diego, Calif. 1,283.3 Santa Clara, Calif. 32.8 Kern, Calif. 4.8

King, Wash. 1,174.4 Cook, Ill. 31.0 Lafayette, La. 4.8

Miami-Dade, Fla. 974.6 San Diego, Calif. 26.7 Gregg, Texas 4.8

Large County Employment 

In June 2012, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 132.9 million, up by 1.8 

percent or 2.4 million, from June 2011. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs accounted for 

70.9 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.2 percent of total wages. These 328 counties had a net job 

growth of 1.7 million over the year, accounting for 73.3 percent of the overall U.S. employment 

increase. (See chart 3.) 

Yakima, Wash., had the largest percentage increase in employment (8.2 percent) among the largest U.S. 

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

Angeles, Calif.; New York, N.Y.; Dallas, Texas; and Maricopa, Ariz. These counties had a combined 

over-the-year gain of 289,000, or 12.2 percent of the overall employment increase for the U.S. (See table 

A.) 

Employment declined in 38 of the large counties from June 2011 to June 2012. Three counties, 

Madison, Ill., St. Clair, Ill., and Clay, Mo., had the largest over-the-year percentage decreases in 

employment (-2.0 percent each). Within Madison, construction was the largest contributor to the 

decrease in employment with a loss of 998 jobs (-17.9 percent). The largest employment decrease in St. 

Clair occurred within local government in the education and health services industry, which lost 463 

jobs (-6.1 percent), followed by construction where 452 jobs were lost (-10.9 percent) within the private 

sector. Within Clay, manufacturing had the largest employment decline, with a loss of 1,584 jobs (-15.2 

percent). Benton, Wash., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by New 

London, Conn. (See table 1.) 
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2012 average weekly wages, second quarter 2011-12

increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2011-12 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

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

second quarter 2012 wage, second quarter 2011-12 weekly wage, second

quarter 2011-12

United States $903 United States $12 United States 1.3

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,754 San Mateo, Calif. $100 Washington, Ore. 8.5

New York, N.Y. 1,646 Washington, Ore. 88 Washington, Pa. 7.8

Washington, D.C. 1,544 Washington, Pa. 64 McLean, Ill. 7.2

San Mateo, Calif. 1,515 McLean, Ill. 62 San Mateo, Calif. 7.1

Arlington, Va. 1,493 Jefferson, Texas 55 Weld, Colo. 6.4

San Francisco, Calif. 1,487 Davidson, Tenn. 52 Jefferson, Texas 6.3

Fairfield, Conn. 1,425 Franklin, Ohio 50 Davidson, Tenn. 5.8

Fairfax, Va. 1,422 San Francisco, Calif. 48 Franklin, Ohio 5.6

Suffolk, Mass. 1,381 Weld, Colo. 47 Lucas, Ohio 5.0

Somerset, N.J. 1,345 Harris, Texas 46 Lake, Ind. 4.8

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 1.3 percent during the year ending in the second 

quarter of 2012. Among the 328 largest counties, 233 had over-the-year increases in average weekly 

wages. (See chart 4.) Washington, Ore., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties (8.5 

percent). 

Of the 328 largest counties, 86 experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. 

Williamson, Texas, had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 17.0 percent. Within 

Williamson, total wages in trade, transportation, and utilities decreased by $212.4 million (-30.5 percent) 

over the year. This decline reflects a return to pay levels seen previously following a big payout in the 

second quarter of 2011. Williamson also received large payouts in this industry in the first quarter of 

2012. Kitsap, Wash., had the second largest decline in average weekly wages, followed by Arlington, 

Va., Durham, N.C., and Benton, Wash. (See table 1.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June 

2012. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest gain (3.8 percent). Within Harris, professional and business 

services had the largest over-the-year level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of 

20,285 jobs (6.0 percent). Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.3 percent) 

among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.) 

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

Texas, experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages (4.1 percent), largely due to substantial 

total wage gains over the year in trade, transportation, and utilities ($960.6 million or 17.3 percent). 

Miami-Dade, Fla., had the only average weekly wage decline (-0.5 percent) among the 10 largest 

counties.
- 4 - 

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 328 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2011. June 2012 employment and 2012 

second quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release. 

The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the 

ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to 

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 132.9 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the second quarter of 2012 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 third quarter 2012 is scheduled to be released on 

Thursday, March 28, 2013. 
Technical Note 

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

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

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

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

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

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

in this release are based on the 2012 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2012 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 329 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2011 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2012 data, seven counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Okaloosa, Fla.; Tippecanoe, 

Ind.; Johnson, Iowa; St. Tammany, La.; Saratoga, N.Y.; Delaware, 

Ohio; and Gregg, Texas. These counties will be included in all 2012 

quarterly releases. One county, Jackson, Ore., which was published 

in the 2011 releases, will be excluded from this and future 2012 

releases because its 2011 annual average employment level was 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. 

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

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2012

Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.8 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 486,000 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 lossesUses UI file as a sampling frame and to 

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking)

Principal

products

Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry

Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry

Principal uses Major uses include:

— Detailed locality data

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys

Major uses include:

— Business cycle analysis

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm

Major uses include:

— Principal national economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites

www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/
The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures 

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

QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and publication product. 

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the 

table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers on 

behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies 

which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to the 

quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on 

the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2011. 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 2011, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 129.4 million jobs. The 

estimated 124.8 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.7 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $6.217 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.2 percent of the gross domestic product. 

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

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

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

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

have an impact on the employment and wages reported by employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may affect the 

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values that 

can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may 

differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage 

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

meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, and, in 

some states, employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options. Over-the-year 

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in 

average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between 

the current quarter and prior year levels. 

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

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

within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the work 

force could increase significantly when there is a large decline in the 

number of employees that had been receiving below-average wages. 

Wages may include payments to workers not present in the employment counts because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month. When comparing average weekly wage 

levels between industries, states, or quarters, these factors should be 

taken into consideration. 

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that consists of some quarters having more pay periods than others. Most federal employees 

are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result of this schedule, in 

some quarters, federal wages contain payments for six pay periods, 

while in other quarters their wages include payments for seven pay 

periods. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may 

reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages 

may be attributed, in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the 

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

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

wages in the current period, which contain six pay periods, are compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay periods. The effect 

on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced in federal 

government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. 

This pattern may exist in private sector pay; however, because there 

are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, 

monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect is most visible in counties 

with large concentrations of federal employment. 

In order to ensure the highest possible quality of data, states verify 

with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, and 

ownership classification of all establishments on a 4-year cycle. 

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of 

the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also 

are introduced in the first quarter. 

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 
number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point 

in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry 

for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic events, others 

reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation. 

The over-the-year changes of employment and wages presented in 

this release have been adjusted to account for most of the administrative corrections made to the underlying establishment reports. This is 

done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the overthe-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted 

version of the final 2011 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

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

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

Web site, or from data published in prior BLS news releases, may 

differ substantially from the over-the-year changes presented in this 

news release. 

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

measures presented in this release account for most of the administrative changes—those occurring when employers update the industry, location, and ownership information of their establishments. The 

most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of 

updated information about the county location of individual establishments. Included in these adjustments are administrative changes 

involving the classification of establishments that were previously 

reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry 

categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, adjusted data 

account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers 

who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a 

single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured 

in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties include those designated as independent cities in some jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where counties 

have not been created. County data also are presented for the New 

England states for comparative purposes even though townships are 

the more common designation used in New England (and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined as census 

regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2011 edition 

of this publication, which was published in October 2012, contains 

selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) 

on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 

2012 version of this news release. Tables and additional content 

from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2011 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn11.htm. The 2012 

edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be 

available later in 2013. 

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 329 largest counties,

second quarter 2012 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,224.5 132,896.0 1.8 – $903 1.3 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.6 338.2 1.5 168 913 3.4 32

Madison, AL ....................... 8.9 178.5 0.1 280 1,010 0.9 182

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.7 164.2 -1.0 317 791 1.7 120

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.3 128.3 1.3 184 783 0.0 234

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.2 84.7 2.4 86 792 1.8 111

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.3 155.5 2.1 107 998 0.9 182

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 95.5 1,635.4 2.8 64 905 2.6 74

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.1 343.5 1.9 130 795 0.4 211

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 97.4 2.1 107 844 3.2 37

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.4 243.6 0.9 222 825 1.6 128

Washington, AR ................. 5.5 92.7 2.2 100 728 -1.0 289

Alameda, CA ...................... 58.4 660.2 2.7 72 1,181 0.2 221

Contra Costa, CA ............... 31.0 326.3 2.2 100 1,091 -0.5 269

Fresno, CA ......................... 32.3 351.8 3.2 44 702 -0.3 254

Kern, CA ............................ 18.6 299.7 4.8 8 813 2.9 53

Los Angeles, CA ................ 452.9 3,961.9 1.6 158 1,006 1.3 142

Marin, CA ........................... 12.0 107.0 3.6 27 1,122 1.5 133

Monterey, CA ..................... 13.3 187.0 1.5 168 770 2.3 82

Orange, CA ........................ 106.6 1,416.5 2.4 86 1,014 1.3 142

Placer, CA .......................... 11.2 131.4 3.0 57 898 2.7 66

Riverside, CA ..................... 52.8 575.1 2.3 98 749 1.1 163

Sacramento, CA ................ 55.6 592.7 1.7 151 1,018 1.4 140

San Bernardino, CA ........... 53.7 609.8 1.4 176 791 2.3 82

San Diego, CA ................... 102.8 1,283.3 2.1 107 989 0.9 182

San Francisco, CA ............. 58.1 585.8 4.3 15 1,487 3.3 33

San Joaquin, CA ................ 18.2 216.3 2.0 122 758 -0.5 269

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.9 106.5 3.4 34 750 -1.4 302

San Mateo, CA .................. 25.3 342.1 4.3 15 1,515 7.1 4

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.9 189.4 2.0 122 863 3.1 43

Santa Clara, CA ................. 65.6 903.1 3.8 22 1,754 1.2 153

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.4 99.3 1.7 151 834 4.0 20

Solano, CA ......................... 10.5 122.1 2.0 122 909 0.2 221

Sonoma, CA ...................... 19.6 176.5 1.5 168 842 -1.2 294

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.5 168.2 2.8 64 761 1.3 142

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.6 150.9 0.3 266 634 2.3 82

Ventura, CA ....................... 24.7 308.1 1.1 204 926 -0.3 254

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.3 92.2 2.2 100 934 4.1 17

Adams, CO ........................ 8.9 161.9 2.4 86 834 2.6 74

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.9 288.9 3.0 57 1,041 1.8 111

Boulder, CO ....................... 13.1 162.2 2.7 72 1,048 2.0 101

Denver, CO ........................ 26.0 435.9 3.6 27 1,088 1.0 170

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.7 97.3 4.2 17 980 0.1 228

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.8 240.1 0.7 235 843 2.2 87

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.8 214.7 1.8 140 907 0.9 182

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.1 135.9 3.3 41 782 3.7 25

Weld, CO ........................... 5.8 85.2 3.7 24 786 6.4 5

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.8 413.5 1.8 140 1,425 -2.9 318

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.7 496.6 1.3 184 1,097 -0.1 243

New Haven, CT ................. 22.4 358.0 0.9 222 952 0.7 196

New London, CT ................ 6.9 125.5 -1.3 324 926 2.1 96

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.0 265.6 0.1 280 $1,071 1.9 108

Washington, DC ................. 35.5 717.9 0.9 222 1,544 0.3 215

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.5 115.8 0.7 235 786 1.0 170

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.4 188.2 -0.3 298 829 -3.2 321

Broward, FL ....................... 63.2 698.7 2.0 122 830 -0.6 276

Collier, FL .......................... 11.8 110.6 4.2 17 781 -1.9 311

Duval, FL ........................... 27.1 438.1 1.3 184 862 1.5 133

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 117.3 -0.8 313 736 1.0 170

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.9 576.6 2.4 86 868 1.0 170

Lake, FL ............................. 7.2 77.6 2.1 107 614 -0.5 269

Lee, FL ............................... 18.6 196.2 2.0 122 730 -0.1 243

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 134.8 -0.8 313 768 0.0 234

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.3 100.7 2.5 83 712 -0.8 285

Marion, FL .......................... 7.9 89.7 1.2 196 654 -0.3 254

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 88.9 974.6 2.3 98 876 -0.5 269

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.1 77.0 1.2 196 750 -0.7 282

Orange, FL ......................... 36.1 672.8 3.2 44 790 -0.4 262

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.6 499.9 2.8 64 873 -0.2 252

Pasco, FL ........................... 10.0 92.5 1.5 168 664 -0.3 254

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.6 382.6 1.3 184 805 0.5 205

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 184.1 0.7 235 698 2.0 101

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.4 134.5 3.0 57 751 0.3 215

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.8 156.6 1.9 130 757 -0.3 254

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.3 147.1 1.3 184 668 1.7 120

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 80.4 1.1 204 708 2.9 53

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.7 134.0 2.4 86 755 0.0 234

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 111.9 -0.1 291 869 2.2 87

Cobb, GA ........................... 21.4 303.1 1.9 130 959 3.0 51

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.9 276.2 -0.3 298 957 3.2 37

Fulton, GA .......................... 41.5 723.8 3.1 51 1,171 2.0 101

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 24.1 308.2 1.2 196 887 2.4 80

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.6 94.2 -0.1 291 716 0.6 200

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 97.0 -1.0 317 784 2.9 53

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.6 443.0 2.1 107 844 1.7 120

Ada, ID ............................... 13.7 200.8 2.9 62 778 0.4 211

Champaign, IL ................... 4.3 87.3 0.1 280 789 4.2 13

Cook, IL ............................. 148.8 2,428.3 1.3 184 1,052 1.3 142

Du Page, IL ........................ 37.2 576.6 1.8 140 1,054 2.1 96

Kane, IL ............................. 13.3 196.8 1.6 158 795 -0.1 243

Lake, IL .............................. 22.1 331.3 1.5 168 1,156 2.2 87

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.7 96.0 0.9 222 744 0.0 234

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 86.9 1.1 204 926 7.2 3

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 94.4 -2.0 326 742 1.1 163

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 103.9 1.5 168 869 3.1 43

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.6 92.5 -2.0 326 735 0.0 234

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 130.2 -1.1 321 928 1.2 153

Will, IL ................................ 15.2 205.8 1.0 210 794 -0.3 254

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 126.8 0.4 262 774 3.5 30

Allen, IN ............................. 8.9 176.5 0.7 235 734 -2.1 312

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 112.4 5.6 3 747 2.8 61

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.5 114.5 0.7 235 $840 2.8 61

Lake, IN ............................. 10.4 190.4 1.8 140 846 4.8 10

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 565.7 3.6 27 905 1.3 142

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 116.2 0.4 262 751 2.7 66

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 78.8 4.6 11 776 0.0 234

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 104.9 -1.0 317 728 -1.1 292

Johnson, IA ........................ 3.6 78.0 1.7 151 826 2.9 53

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 128.9 1.0 210 846 1.1 163

Polk, IA .............................. 15.1 275.0 2.7 72 882 1.0 170

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 89.5 1.8 140 738 3.9 22

Johnson, KS ...................... 21.0 313.3 3.4 34 929 2.0 101

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.3 240.6 1.2 196 818 0.2 221

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 94.7 0.6 246 771 -1.0 289

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 85.4 3.6 27 839 -1.4 302

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.5 178.5 1.7 151 808 -1.6 308

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.5 427.9 2.1 107 895 1.8 111

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.6 120.5 -0.3 298 767 0.5 205

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 84.9 1.6 158 764 1.3 142

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 15.0 254.7 2.7 72 855 3.1 43

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.0 191.5 -1.0 317 824 0.5 205

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.2 139.3 4.8 8 891 4.2 13

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.4 175.7 3.1 51 902 -2.7 316

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.6 79.2 1.2 196 740 -1.2 294

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.7 174.3 1.8 140 807 0.9 182

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.6 242.4 3.6 27 958 -0.8 285

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.2 366.1 1.1 204 917 1.8 111

Frederick, MD .................... 6.2 94.2 0.5 253 889 2.7 66

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 88.2 3.2 44 917 2.8 61

Howard, MD ....................... 9.2 162.0 2.7 72 1,106 2.7 66

Montgomery, MD ............... 33.1 455.8 1.4 176 1,222 1.2 153

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 302.6 0.0 288 979 -0.4 262

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.9 329.9 0.1 280 1,020 -1.4 302

Barnstable, MA .................. 8.9 101.1 3.3 41 758 0.4 211

Bristol, MA ......................... 16.0 214.1 0.1 280 826 -1.3 299

Essex, MA .......................... 21.4 312.1 1.8 140 953 -3.0 319

Hampden, MA .................... 15.3 201.0 1.6 158 832 2.2 87

Middlesex, MA ................... 48.8 833.8 2.1 107 1,342 -3.2 321

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.3 325.5 2.0 122 1,055 0.9 182

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.9 181.4 3.1 51 867 -0.7 282

Suffolk, MA ........................ 23.2 598.1 2.0 122 1,381 -0.7 282

Worcester, MA ................... 21.3 320.6 0.9 222 910 0.0 234

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.2 130.1 0.3 266 741 0.7 196

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.3 153.7 -0.4 305 839 1.7 120

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.3 110.3 0.9 222 814 1.9 108

Kent, MI ............................. 14.0 337.9 4.4 14 801 1.6 128

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.1 294.9 1.5 168 916 3.3 33

Oakland, MI ....................... 37.9 667.5 3.4 34 1,003 1.3 142

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.5 110.2 2.4 86 744 2.8 61

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.2 83.4 0.1 280 727 1.0 170

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 192.6 3.4 34 964 3.1 43

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.4 690.2 1.6 158 975 1.5 133

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.2 112.1 1.9 130 $868 0.8 192

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.9 176.2 1.3 184 880 -0.9 288

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.4 850.1 2.1 107 1,120 0.3 215

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.5 92.1 2.8 64 1,031 1.7 120

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.1 320.5 0.8 230 1,003 0.9 182

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.6 95.0 -0.7 311 726 -3.2 321

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.4 81.5 1.8 140 722 3.3 33

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.4 84.1 0.3 266 670 0.3 215

Hinds, MS .......................... 5.9 120.7 -1.1 321 793 1.9 108

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 86.6 2.9 62 714 2.6 74

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 87.4 -2.0 326 816 1.5 133

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 154.0 3.6 27 695 2.2 87

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.6 349.0 1.0 210 920 3.1 43

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.3 127.1 1.3 184 738 3.8 24

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.1 567.5 -0.3 298 956 3.7 25

St. Louis City, MO .............. 9.3 217.3 1.0 210 953 -3.1 320

Yellowstone, MT ................ 6.0 78.9 2.1 107 766 4.4 12

Douglas, NE ....................... 17.3 318.6 1.7 151 810 -0.4 262

Lancaster, NE .................... 9.3 157.8 2.1 107 732 1.5 133

Clark, NV ........................... 48.5 822.0 1.9 130 807 0.1 228

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.5 185.4 0.7 235 809 0.1 228

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.0 190.5 1.4 176 977 -1.2 294

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.6 139.1 1.9 130 848 -0.5 269

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.7 145.6 3.4 34 765 -2.3 313

Bergen, NJ ......................... 33.1 433.6 1.4 176 1,127 3.6 28

Burlington, NJ .................... 10.9 196.6 1.0 210 963 1.8 111

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.1 195.1 0.4 262 899 0.7 196

Essex, NJ ........................... 20.4 339.5 0.7 235 1,096 -2.6 315

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.1 99.2 0.5 253 789 -1.4 302

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.8 233.8 1.4 176 1,233 0.0 234

Mercer, NJ ......................... 10.9 232.8 1.1 204 1,155 -2.8 317

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.7 387.6 2.4 86 1,068 -2.4 314

Monmouth, NJ ................... 19.9 252.6 0.2 278 905 -1.8 310

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.2 275.8 0.7 235 1,266 1.3 142

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.2 159.2 1.9 130 739 0.8 192

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.2 173.0 0.6 246 928 0.2 221

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.0 175.6 1.0 210 1,345 2.6 74

Union, NJ ........................... 14.3 221.7 0.7 235 1,130 0.1 228

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 309.8 -0.4 305 799 2.2 87

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 221.9 1.2 196 929 -0.3 254

Bronx, NY .......................... 17.1 237.2 0.5 253 868 -0.1 243

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 91.7 -0.1 291 733 1.4 140

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 111.6 -0.3 298 960 1.1 163

Erie, NY ............................. 23.8 460.0 0.6 246 793 1.8 111

Kings, NY ........................... 52.9 522.7 2.8 64 736 -0.4 262

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.2 380.1 0.6 246 862 0.9 182

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.6 603.4 1.4 176 1,042 0.6 200

New York, NY .................... 122.7 2,392.0 2.4 86 1,646 0.2 221

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 107.2 -0.6 308 741 1.0 170

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.9 243.5 -0.4 305 849 3.2 37

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 133.5 0.2 278 807 -0.1 243

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Queens, NY ....................... 47.1 521.6 2.2 100 $846 -0.1 243

Richmond, NY .................... 9.0 92.5 -0.1 291 770 -0.5 269

Rockland, NY ..................... 10.0 117.0 0.5 253 989 -0.6 276

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.6 80.7 3.1 51 815 1.6 128

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.8 641.9 1.0 210 974 -0.6 276

Westchester, NY ................ 36.1 413.8 0.1 280 1,195 -0.8 285

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.1 112.9 1.9 130 681 1.5 133

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 79.2 0.8 230 686 1.3 142

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 119.1 -0.7 311 739 -1.3 299

Durham, NC ....................... 7.4 185.7 2.2 100 1,180 -3.6 325

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 173.6 1.6 158 811 -0.5 269

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.2 259.5 -0.2 296 783 0.8 192

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 33.3 562.0 2.7 72 1,000 0.5 205

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.4 96.8 0.3 266 738 1.2 153

Wake, NC .......................... 29.8 459.5 3.1 51 890 0.9 182

Cass, ND ........................... 6.1 107.9 4.6 11 789 2.7 66

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 139.6 1.3 184 789 0.8 192

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 35.6 706.1 1.9 130 916 2.2 87

Delaware, OH .................... 4.4 81.4 5.4 5 881 0.9 182

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.6 672.1 2.5 83 935 5.6 8

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.2 494.7 1.6 158 970 1.0 170

Lake, OH ............................ 6.4 95.9 0.9 222 760 0.5 205

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.0 97.1 3.0 57 751 2.9 53

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.1 203.5 2.8 64 804 5.0 9

Mahoning, OH .................... 5.9 97.9 2.2 100 651 0.6 200

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.1 246.0 1.0 210 788 0.4 211

Stark, OH ........................... 8.8 155.0 1.9 130 688 0.0 234

Summit, OH ....................... 14.3 258.5 1.2 196 803 1.6 128

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.9 432.3 2.8 64 832 0.1 228

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.5 335.7 1.6 158 837 2.7 66

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.7 141.3 2.4 86 847 1.3 142

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 138.8 0.4 262 712 1.1 163

Marion, OR ........................ 9.4 134.3 1.1 204 730 0.7 196

Multnomah, OR .................. 29.8 442.3 2.1 107 920 -0.3 254

Washington, OR ................ 16.5 252.2 2.6 81 1,122 8.5 1

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.6 693.5 1.0 210 966 2.0 101

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 164.4 0.1 280 812 0.5 205

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.7 253.2 0.3 266 878 2.1 96

Butler, PA ........................... 4.9 84.6 0.5 253 829 -1.2 294

Chester, PA ....................... 15.1 239.1 0.0 288 1,158 -0.1 243

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.1 125.5 1.6 158 853 2.3 82

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.5 178.3 -0.6 308 890 1.0 170

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.9 212.9 1.4 176 962 1.2 153

Erie, PA .............................. 7.7 126.7 0.3 266 722 1.7 120

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 96.7 -1.2 323 685 -0.4 262

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.7 222.9 1.0 210 749 1.2 153

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 178.3 0.5 253 885 2.7 66

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 139.8 -0.3 298 711 2.0 101

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.5 471.9 1.5 168 1,111 2.4 80

Northampton, PA ............... 6.6 103.6 0.9 222 787 1.0 170

Philadelphia, PA ................ 35.4 629.4 -0.1 291 1,070 4.1 17

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Washington, PA ................. 5.6 87.3 2.4 86 $887 7.8 2

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 135.7 0.7 235 726 0.3 215

York, PA ............................. 9.1 171.3 -0.3 298 781 -1.1 292

Providence, RI ................... 17.3 271.6 0.6 246 888 -1.0 289

Charleston, SC .................. 11.9 219.9 3.4 34 773 -1.2 294

Greenville, SC .................... 12.1 235.8 2.5 83 789 0.3 215

Horry, SC ........................... 7.6 118.3 0.3 266 532 1.3 142

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 96.9 2.7 72 687 3.9 22

Richland, SC ...................... 8.9 204.1 0.6 246 802 3.1 43

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.8 114.8 3.2 44 801 2.2 87

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.6 118.3 2.7 72 763 3.2 37

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.2 429.2 2.4 86 950 5.8 7

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 186.0 2.2 100 798 1.8 111

Knox, TN ............................ 10.9 218.8 0.7 235 778 1.7 120

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.4 101.9 4.9 7 825 4.0 20

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.0 472.6 2.1 107 949 3.2 37

Williamson, TN ................... 6.2 98.1 5.5 4 959 -1.4 302

Bell, TX .............................. 4.9 108.7 1.3 184 738 1.0 170

Bexar, TX ........................... 35.1 751.1 2.0 122 799 0.1 228

Brazoria, TX ....................... 5.0 93.3 4.1 19 899 4.2 13

Brazos, TX ......................... 4.0 86.3 2.6 81 689 1.5 133

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 129.9 1.4 176 571 0.2 221

Collin, TX ........................... 19.2 310.6 4.1 19 1,048 -0.4 262

Dallas, TX .......................... 68.9 1,475.1 3.2 44 1,074 2.0 101

Denton, TX ......................... 11.5 186.7 3.7 24 794 1.0 170

El Paso, TX ........................ 14.0 277.3 1.3 184 653 0.6 200

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.8 144.1 4.6 11 908 2.5 79

Galveston, TX .................... 5.4 98.1 1.3 184 815 0.2 221

Gregg, TX .......................... 4.2 78.7 4.8 8 837 1.8 111

Harris, TX ........................... 103.2 2,121.7 3.8 22 1,165 4.1 17

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 11.4 228.0 0.8 230 583 2.3 82

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 123.2 0.5 253 929 6.3 6

Lubbock, TX ....................... 7.1 125.6 1.0 210 689 0.6 200

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 101.4 0.3 266 744 3.3 33

Montgomery, TX ................ 9.1 142.2 5.7 2 867 3.6 28

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 156.8 3.3 41 804 4.7 11

Smith, TX ........................... 5.7 93.9 0.8 230 767 1.2 153

Tarrant, TX ......................... 38.6 784.7 2.4 86 895 -0.2 252

Travis, TX .......................... 32.1 605.7 3.4 34 1,009 3.7 25

Webb, TX ........................... 4.9 91.1 2.7 72 635 3.1 43

Williamson, TX ................... 8.0 135.2 3.2 44 860 -17.0 328

Davis, UT ........................... 7.3 110.1 3.2 44 723 -0.6 276

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.6 591.7 4.0 21 855 2.6 74

Utah, UT ............................ 12.9 178.8 5.0 6 706 -1.3 299

Weber, UT ......................... 5.4 90.8 1.8 140 692 3.0 51

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.1 97.9 1.8 140 918 2.9 53

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.5 167.3 -0.8 313 1,493 -3.8 326

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.8 118.3 2.1 107 813 1.6 128

Fairfax, VA ......................... 35.1 598.1 2.1 107 1,422 -0.4 262

Henrico, VA ........................ 10.2 179.4 2.8 64 896 1.2 153

Loudoun, VA ...................... 10.0 144.2 3.7 24 1,076 2.9 53

Prince William, VA ............. 8.0 115.2 3.5 33 812 1.1 163

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.2 95.9 1.6 158 $1,293 2.8 61

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 96.2 0.0 288 741 4.2 13

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.8 94.7 -0.8 313 861 1.8 111

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.6 138.6 0.3 266 877 -0.1 243

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.1 148.5 0.3 266 966 -1.6 308

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.4 169.8 1.0 210 706 -1.5 307

Benton, WA ........................ 5.7 83.0 -1.7 325 922 -3.4 324

Clark, WA ........................... 13.5 131.5 1.8 140 826 2.1 96

King, WA ............................ 82.2 1,174.4 3.0 57 1,167 2.9 53

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.7 81.2 -0.6 308 823 -4.2 327

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.7 265.3 0.8 230 837 1.7 120

Snohomish, WA ................. 19.2 258.2 3.1 51 974 2.2 87

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.9 200.6 0.3 266 764 1.2 153

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.5 97.6 -0.2 296 818 -0.6 276

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.9 81.4 1.7 151 777 3.5 30

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.8 110.5 8.2 1 617 1.1 163

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 105.5 0.5 253 814 2.1 96

Brown, WI .......................... 6.5 149.3 0.5 253 779 3.2 37

Dane, WI ............................ 14.1 308.6 2.1 107 871 -0.1 243

Milwaukee, WI ................... 23.1 473.3 1.2 196 877 -0.6 276

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.1 104.4 1.7 151 752 1.2 153

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.6 231.7 0.6 246 895 3.1 43

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.6 90.1 0.3 266 839 2.7 66

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.4 264.2 2.8 ( 7) 596 -0.3 ( 7) 

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

These 328 U.S. counties comprise 70.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 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 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 2012 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 4

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,224.5 132,896.0 1.8 $903 1.3

Private industry .............................................. 8,928.1 111,708.5 2.4 891 1.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 130.2 2,120.8 7.1 996 3.8

Construction ............................................... 748.7 5,726.3 1.7 966 3.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 335.3 11,996.6 2.0 1,111 1.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,883.2 25,240.5 1.7 768 2.1

Information ................................................. 143.8 2,686.3 0.0 1,437 2.8

Financial activities ...................................... 809.7 7,540.1 1.3 1,320 2.6

Professional and business services ........... 1,589.9 17,985.5 3.7 1,153 1.7

Education and health services ................... 926.8 19,330.2 2.0 847 1.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 769.1 14,307.6 3.5 374 2.5

Other services ............................................ 1,375.6 4,552.6 1.7 576 2.1

Government ................................................... 296.4 21,187.6 -1.2 964 -1.0

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 452.9 3,961.9 1.6 1,006 1.3

Private industry .............................................. 447.3 3,414.8 2.3 977 1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 9.7 0.6 1,287 5.8

Construction ............................................... 12.1 109.3 3.4 1,046 4.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 12.6 367.7 -0.2 1,067 -1.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 50.8 750.7 1.6 826 2.7

Information ................................................. 8.3 187.1 -1.8 1,749 3.3

Financial activities ...................................... 21.9 210.6 1.1 1,459 2.7

Professional and business services ........... 41.9 569.4 4.2 1,222 1.2

Education and health services ................... 29.6 527.2 2.2 958 2.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.3 420.2 5.4 543 -0.5

Other services ............................................ 217.6 242.8 -1.3 457 4.6

Government ................................................... 5.6 547.0 -2.1 1,187 0.3

Cook, IL .............................................................. 148.8 2,428.3 1.3 1,052 1.3

Private industry .............................................. 147.4 2,128.9 1.7 1,034 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.8 -5.4 955 6.9

Construction ............................................... 12.4 64.9 -2.8 1,241 1.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.6 194.9 0.3 1,100 1.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 28.9 441.8 0.6 826 0.6

Information ................................................. 2.7 54.3 0.0 1,535 2.1

Financial activities ...................................... 15.6 185.2 -0.5 1,812 1.0

Professional and business services ........... 31.4 425.7 3.6 1,328 1.8

Education and health services ................... 15.6 410.4 2.2 881 2.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 13.2 249.5 3.2 469 1.3

Other services ............................................ 16.4 98.1 1.1 777 1.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 299.4 -1.2 1,174 1.9

New York, NY ..................................................... 122.7 2,392.0 2.4 1,646 0.2

Private industry .............................................. 122.4 1,956.8 3.0 1,769 0.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 3.5 1,652 -7.7

Construction ............................................... 2.1 31.3 2.6 1,621 0.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 26.3 -0.6 1,202 -2.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.7 249.8 3.1 1,233 0.2

Information ................................................. 4.3 143.8 4.1 2,046 2.3

Financial activities ...................................... 18.8 355.2 -0.5 3,249 1.5

Professional and business services ........... 25.3 488.0 3.1 2,025 0.5

Education and health services ................... 9.2 303.5 1.2 1,120 0.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.9 257.2 7.0 763 0.3

Other services ............................................ 18.9 92.6 3.5 1,022 5.3

Government ................................................... 0.3 435.3 0.0 1,101 -1.2

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

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 4

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 103.2 2,121.7 3.8 $1,165 4.1

Private industry .............................................. 102.6 1,869.5 4.8 1,191 4.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.7 87.9 9.4 2,933 -4.0

Construction ............................................... 6.5 139.9 5.5 1,143 4.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 189.4 7.1 1,415 2.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.2 441.0 3.6 1,141 13.4

Information ................................................. 1.3 28.0 -0.6 1,337 4.0

Financial activities ...................................... 10.7 114.2 2.3 1,423 3.0

Professional and business services ........... 20.6 357.6 6.0 1,374 2.4

Education and health services ................... 11.7 251.5 3.5 898 0.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.5 195.8 5.2 398 1.5

Other services ............................................ 13.7 62.9 1.3 660 3.0

Government ................................................... 0.6 252.2 -2.7 979 0.5

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 95.5 1,635.4 2.8 905 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 94.8 1,456.7 3.0 890 2.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.8 -5.6 828 10.0

Construction ............................................... 8.0 86.0 4.0 941 5.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 113.7 3.2 1,329 -0.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.5 338.2 1.7 838 2.4

Information ................................................. 1.6 28.5 2.6 1,123 2.6

Financial activities ...................................... 10.9 141.4 2.8 1,107 3.8

Professional and business services ........... 22.2 270.6 3.2 953 3.8

Education and health services ................... 10.5 243.0 3.2 927 1.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 175.5 2.8 419 4.5

Other services ............................................ 6.6 47.3 -0.5 606 2.9

Government ................................................... 0.7 178.7 1.5 1,014 2.1

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 68.9 1,475.1 3.2 1,074 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 68.4 1,313.4 3.9 1,082 2.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 9.9 12.9 3,563 15.4

Construction ............................................... 4.0 70.2 3.3 1,003 4.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 112.7 0.9 1,294 6.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 294.5 3.6 992 2.0

Information ................................................. 1.5 46.4 1.6 1,615 0.8

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 143.0 3.2 1,446 3.8

Professional and business services ........... 15.2 286.8 6.9 1,188 1.1

Education and health services ................... 7.5 172.7 2.8 964 -1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.8 135.7 3.9 446 0.7

Other services ............................................ 7.2 41.0 1.7 677 2.0

Government ................................................... 0.5 161.7 -1.9 1,011 -1.0

Orange, CA ........................................................ 106.6 1,416.5 2.4 1,014 1.3

Private industry .............................................. 105.3 1,271.5 2.9 1,000 1.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 3.5 -12.8 736 12.5

Construction ............................................... 6.0 70.7 0.7 1,126 4.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.8 158.6 1.4 1,236 0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.1 245.1 0.8 948 1.8

Information ................................................. 1.2 24.0 -1.9 1,390 -1.5

Financial activities ...................................... 9.6 107.6 2.7 1,501 2.6

Professional and business services ........... 18.7 260.2 5.4 1,140 0.2

Education and health services ................... 10.6 161.5 1.8 939 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 183.9 5.2 445 4.5

Other services ............................................ 23.1 50.1 2.4 563 5.4

Government ................................................... 1.4 145.0 -1.6 1,135 -0.8

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

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12 4

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 102.8 1,283.3 2.1 $989 0.9

Private industry .............................................. 101.4 1,063.1 2.7 966 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 10.9 9.0 634 6.2

Construction ............................................... 5.8 57.6 2.9 1,048 2.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 93.6 -0.8 1,355 1.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.5 205.4 1.8 802 3.6

Information ................................................. 1.1 24.5 0.3 1,479 0.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 70.0 2.9 1,188 2.9

Professional and business services ........... 16.1 216.4 3.3 1,379 1.6

Education and health services ................... 8.7 155.7 2.5 939 3.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 163.7 3.7 414 2.7

Other services ............................................ 30.2 59.5 2.7 503 -1.6

Government ................................................... 1.4 220.2 -0.6 1,099 -3.6

King, WA ............................................................ 82.2 1,174.4 3.0 1,167 2.9

Private industry .............................................. 81.7 1,015.7 3.6 1,171 3.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.3 3.0 7.5 1,372 -7.5

Construction ............................................... 5.3 49.3 6.2 1,143 1.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.2 103.3 5.6 1,417 -0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.3 214.6 3.7 1,019 2.9

Information ................................................. 1.7 81.8 1.6 2,243 9.4

Financial activities ...................................... 6.2 63.4 0.7 1,383 0.9

Professional and business services ........... 13.7 191.2 5.5 1,434 2.0

Education and health services ................... 7.2 138.5 2.7 968 4.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 117.1 3.0 444 2.8

Other services ............................................ 24.3 53.6 0.4 606 4.7

Government ................................................... 0.5 158.7 -0.3 1,143 1.2

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 88.9 974.6 2.3 876 -0.5

Private industry .............................................. 88.5 851.4 3.1 832 -0.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.5 2.1 533 1.9

Construction ............................................... 5.0 29.6 -3.1 808 -6.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 35.6 -2.1 795 -1.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 25.8 255.4 3.5 780 -0.3

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.1 0.3 1,365 -8.2

Financial activities ...................................... 9.1 67.3 5.4 1,241 -1.7

Professional and business services ........... 18.6 126.0 2.3 1,047 1.7

Education and health services ................... 9.9 157.6 2.1 856 0.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 118.4 5.9 505 4.8

Other services ............................................ 7.9 35.7 4.3 540 1.5

Government ................................................... 0.4 123.2 -3.1 1,156 -0.3

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2011 annual average employment. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

Technical Note. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 2012 2

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12

United States 4 ................... 9,224.5 132,896.0 1.8 $903 1.3

Alabama ............................. 116.1 1,841.7 0.9 783 2.0

Alaska ................................ 21.8 342.9 2.1 955 1.5

Arizona ............................... 147.3 2,393.9 2.6 862 2.1

Arkansas ............................ 85.4 1,157.4 1.1 717 2.1

California ............................ 1,434.5 15,045.8 2.4 1,034 1.8

Colorado ............................ 171.4 2,291.8 2.5 918 2.0

Connecticut ........................ 111.3 1,650.0 1.2 1,111 -0.4

Delaware ............................ 27.6 409.3 0.2 948 2.4

District of Columbia ............ 35.5 717.9 0.9 1,544 0.3

Florida ................................ 606.9 7,233.7 2.0 805 0.4

Georgia .............................. 269.5 3,854.7 1.4 848 1.9

Hawaii ................................ 38.4 603.7 2.1 812 1.8

Idaho .................................. 53.5 626.1 1.5 673 0.9

Illinois ................................. 391.4 5,698.0 1.1 953 1.6

Indiana ............................... 160.5 2,832.6 2.3 763 1.9

Iowa ................................... 95.2 1,502.7 1.5 743 2.5

Kansas ............................... 84.6 1,334.4 1.7 763 1.1

Kentucky ............................ 109.8 1,780.7 1.6 772 1.6

Louisiana ........................... 129.2 1,877.2 1.6 806 1.5

Maine ................................. 49.4 601.8 1.2 719 1.0

Maryland ............................ 166.9 2,550.2 1.5 992 0.7

Massachusetts ................... 219.0 3,301.5 1.9 1,109 -1.2

Michigan ............................ 239.4 3,984.0 2.1 859 1.7

Minnesota .......................... 168.7 2,695.1 1.5 907 1.1

Mississippi ......................... 68.6 1,087.4 0.6 681 2.9

Missouri ............................. 176.9 2,629.1 0.4 791 2.2

Montana ............................. 42.4 442.0 2.0 700 2.6

Nebraska ........................... 66.7 930.9 2.0 719 0.7

Nevada .............................. 72.6 1,141.7 1.6 815 -0.1

New Hampshire ................. 48.9 623.8 1.4 891 0.3

New Jersey ........................ 262.3 3,884.0 1.4 1,056 0.0

New Mexico ....................... 55.1 791.9 0.4 783 2.6

New York ........................... 603.3 8,701.2 1.5 1,096 0.4

North Carolina .................... 259.0 3,919.1 1.5 787 0.5

North Dakota ...................... 29.2 420.3 9.9 854 11.1

Ohio ................................... 287.4 5,104.0 1.9 817 2.8

Oklahoma .......................... 104.4 1,543.4 1.9 768 2.7

Oregon ............................... 133.1 1,663.9 1.6 837 2.3

Pennsylvania ..................... 352.3 5,645.9 0.7 893 2.1

Rhode Island ...................... 35.3 463.1 0.9 859 -0.3

South Carolina ................... 111.5 1,830.7 1.5 736 1.4

South Dakota ..................... 31.3 412.8 1.9 677 3.2

Tennessee ......................... 141.0 2,669.1 2.0 816 2.8

Texas ................................. 592.9 10,779.5 3.0 922 2.6

Utah ................................... 84.8 1,225.8 3.6 766 1.3

Vermont ............................. 24.7 300.2 1.0 792 2.6

Virginia ............................... 238.1 3,659.9 1.2 952 0.3

Washington ........................ 234.6 2,948.3 2.4 947 2.2

West Virginia ...................... 49.3 712.3 1.4 776 1.4

Wisconsin .......................... 160.0 2,749.7 1.4 778 1.4

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

second quarter 2012 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2011-12

Second

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

second quarter

2011-12

Wyoming ............................ 25.5 288.9 1.6 $842 2.7

Puerto Rico ........................ 49.2 933.3 1.8 499 0.6

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 40.2 -8.6 819 9.8

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

Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Largest Counties

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2013

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

June 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.8 percent)
Largest Counties

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2013

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

employees, second quarter 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.3 percent)