For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, July 7, 2010 USDL-10-0932 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Fourth Quarter 2009 

From December 2008 to December 2009, employment declined in 325 of the 334 largest U.S. counties 

according to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Trumbull, Ohio, 

posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 8.6 percent over the year, compared with a national 

job decrease of 4.1 percent. Almost 54 percent of the employment decline in Trumbull occurred in 

manufacturing, which lost 3,504 jobs over the year (-22.7 percent). Arlington, Va., experienced the 

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

gain of 0.5 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 2.5 percent over the year. Among the large counties in the 

U.S., Douglas, Colo., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages in the fourth 

quarter of 2009, with a gain of 26.1 percent. Within Douglas, professional and business services had the 

largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 99.8 percent. A fourth-quarter 

acquisition in this industry resulted in large payouts, which may include bonuses, severance pay, and 

stock options. St. Louis City, Mo., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss 

of 33.9 percent over the year. This decline reflects a return from very high levels in 2008 caused by an 

acquisition in professional and business services and manufacturing. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

employment, December 2008-09 

(U.S. average = -4.1 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2008-09 

(U.S. average = 2.5 percent) 

-8.6 -8.1 -8.0 -7.9 -7.7

-15.0

-13.0

-11.0

-9.0

-7.0

-5.0

-3.0

-1.0

Trumbull, 

Ohio

Oakland, 

Mich.

Peoria, 

Ill.

Seminole,

Fla.

Sedgwick, 

Kan.

26.1

10.1 9.5 8.6 8.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Douglas,

Colo.

Alachua,

Fla.

Durham,

N.C.

Elkhart,

Ind.

Santa Clara,

Calif.

A redesign of the County Employment and Wages news release will be implemented with the first 

quarter 2010 release. Table 3, along with the associated text on the largest county by state, will be 

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

decrease, and December 2008-09 percent decrease in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

December 2009 employment Decrease in employment, Percent decrease in employment, 

(thousands) December 2008-09 December 2008-09 

 (thousands) 

 

United States 128,334.9 United States -5,521.5 United States -4.1 

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,926.0 Los Angeles, Calif. -217.9 Trumbull, Ohio -8.6 

Cook, Ill. 2,369.9 Maricopa, Ariz. -113.0 Oakland, Mich. -8.1 

New York, N.Y. 2,294.4 Cook, Ill. -111.1 Peoria, Ill. -8.0 

Harris, Texas 1,990.2 New York, N.Y. -93.6 Seminole, Fla. -7.9 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,626.8 Harris, Texas -90.0 Sedgwick, Kan. -7.7 

Dallas, Texas 1,409.9 Orange, Calif. -89.7 Tulare, Calif. -7.6 

Orange, Calif. 1,361.4 San Diego, Calif. -64.6 Winnebago, Ill. -7.6 

San Diego, Calif. 1,245.3 Dallas, Texas -63.6 Catawba, N.C. -7.5 

King, Wash. 1,119.1 Clark, Nev. -60.7 Kern, Calif. -7.4 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 959.7 Santa Clara, Calif. -56.8 Macomb, Mich. -7.3 

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

159 had over-the-year percentage declines in employment greater than or equal to the national average 

(-4.1 percent) in December 2009, 166 large counties experienced smaller declines than the national 

average, and 3 counties experienced employment gains. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average 

weekly wages was equal to or greater than the national average (2.5 percent) in 196 of the largest U.S. 

counties and was below the national average in 133 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 128.3 million full- and part-time workers. 

Large County Employment 

In December 2009, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 128.3 million, 

down by 4.1 percent from December 2008. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees 

accounted for 71.4 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.1 percent of total wages. These 334 

counties had a net job decline of 4,119,900 over the year, accounting for 74.6 percent of the overall U.S. 

employment decrease. 

Employment declined in 325 counties from December 2008 to December 2009. The largest percentage 

decline in employment was in Trumbull, Ohio (-8.6 percent). Oakland, Mich., had the next largest 

percentage decline (-8.1 percent), followed by the counties of Peoria, Ill. (-8.0 percent), Seminole, Fla. 

(-7.9 percent), and Sedgwick, Kan. (-7.7 percent). The largest decline in employment levels occurred in 

Los Angeles, Calif. (-217,900), followed by the counties of Maricopa, Ariz. (-113,000), Cook, Ill. 

(-111,100), New York, N.Y. (-93,600), and Harris, Texas (-90,000). (See table A.) Combined 

employment losses in these five counties over the year totaled 625,600, or 11.3 percent of the 

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

- 2 - 
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2009 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2008-09 

increase in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2008-09 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 

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

fourth quarter 2009 wage, fourth quarter 2008-09 weekly wage, fourth 

 quarter 2008-09 

 

United States $942 United States $23 United States 2.5 

 

New York, N.Y. $1,878 Douglas, Colo. $244 Douglas, Colo. 26.1 

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,699 Santa Clara, Calif. 129 Alachua, Fla. 10.1 

Washington, D.C. 1,614 Durham, N.C. 108 Durham, N.C. 9.5 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,607 Arlington, Va. 87 Elkhart, Ind. 8.6 

Arlington, Va. 1,594 Montgomery, Md. 76 Santa Clara, Calif. 8.2 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,565 Alachua, Fla. 74 Montgomery, Ala. 8.0 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,539 Fairfax, Va. 73 McLean, Ill. 7.9 

Fairfax, Va. 1,489 Montgomery, Ala. 66 Okaloosa, Fla. 7.5 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,477 McLean, Ill. 66 McLennan, Texas 7.4 

Morris, N.J. 1,429 Morris, N.J. 64 Lucas, Ohio 7.0 

Montgomery, Pa. 64

Employment rose in three of the large counties from December 2008 to December 2009. Arlington, Va., 

had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (0.5 percent), followed by Bronx, N.Y., 

and Kings, N.Y. (0.2 percent each). 

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 2.5 percent over the year ending in the fourth 

quarter of 2009. Among the 334 largest counties, 305 had over-the-year increases in average weekly 

wages in the fourth quarter. The largest wage gain occurred in Douglas, Colo., with an increase of 26.1 

percent from the fourth quarter of 2008. Alachua, Fla., had the second largest gain (10.1 percent), 

followed by the counties of Durham, N.C. (9.5 percent), Elkhart, Ind. (8.6 percent), and Santa Clara, 

Calif. (8.2 percent). (See table B.) 

Of the 334 largest counties, 23 experienced declines in average weekly wages. St. Louis City, Mo., led 

the nation in average weekly wage decline with a loss of 33.9 percent over the year. Within St. Louis 

City, large payouts related to an acquisition were distributed within professional and business services 

and manufacturing industries in the fourth quarter of 2008. Manufacturing had the largest over-the-year 

decline in average weekly wages (-57.9 percent) followed by professional and business services (-56.2 

percent). Somerset, N.J., had the second largest overall decline (-6.2 percent), followed by the counties 

of Clayton, Ga. (-5.3 percent), Calcasieu, La. (-5.1 percent), and Lake, Ind. (-3.4 percent). 

The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2009 was $942. Average weekly wages were 

higher than the national average in 105 of the 334 largest U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., held the top 

position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,878. Santa Clara, 

Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,699, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,614), 

Fairfield, Conn. ($1,607), and Arlington, Va. ($1,594). There were 226 counties with an average weekly 

wage below the national average in the fourth quarter of 2009. The lowest average weekly wage was 

- 3 - 
reported in Horry, S.C. ($584), followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas, Hidalgo, Texas ($598 

each), Webb, Texas ($619), and Yakima, Wash. ($640). (See table 1.) 

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

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

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

industries such as trade, transportation, and utilities. (See table 2.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

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

decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 6.5 percent decrease. Within Maricopa, 

every private industry group except education and health services experienced an employment decline, 

with construction experiencing the largest decline (-28.5 percent). (See table 2.) Orange, Calif., had the 

next largest decline in employment (6.2 percent), followed by Los Angeles, Calif. (-5.3 percent). New 

York, N.Y., experienced the smallest decline in employment (-3.9 percent) among the 10 largest 

counties. Dallas, Texas, and Harris, Texas, had the second smallest employment losses (-4.3 percent 

each). 

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

Calif., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties with a 

gain of 3.7 percent. This average weekly wage growth was a result of a large employment loss in the 

professional and business services supersector. Employment dropped by 7.2 percent while total wages 

only dropped by 2.7 percent, thus average weekly wages for this supersector increased by 4.8 percent. 

San Diego’s average weekly wage growth was followed by King, Wash. (3.6 percent), and Maricopa, 

Ariz. (3.4 percent). 

Largest County by State 

Table 3 shows December 2009 employment and the 2009 fourth quarter average weekly wage in the 

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

employment levels in the counties ranged from 3.9 million in Los Angeles, Calif., to 42,600 in Laramie, 

Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,878), while the 

lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($768). 

- 4 - 
For More Information 

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

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

2009 fourth quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. 

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

Note. Data for the fourth quarter of 2009 will be available 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 first quarter 2010 is scheduled to be released on 

Tuesday, October 19, 2010. 

The QCEW State and County Map application was released on June 30, 2010 

(http://beta.bls.gov/maps). This new feature of the BLS website provides users with supersector 

industry employment and wages at the national, state, and county levels. Data are presented in map, 

tabular, and downloadable formats. 

- 5 - 
Technical Note 

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

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

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

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

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

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

in this release are based on the 2007 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2009 are preliminary and subject to 

revision. 

For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as having 

employment levels of 75,000 or greater. In addition, data for San 

Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. 

averages, rankings, or in the analysis in the text. Each year, these 

large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual 

average of employment for the previous year. The 335 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2008 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2009 data, two counties have 

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

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

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

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments in first quarter of 2009 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.8 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

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

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

and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from 

the preceding year. 

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures 

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

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

somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and 

publication product. 

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown 

in the table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) 

program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly 

reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers 

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

the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple 

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information 

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

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2008. These reports are based on place 

of employment rather than place of residence. 

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and has been basically comparable from state to state since 1978, when the 1976 amendments to 

the Federal Unemployment Tax Act became effective, expanding 

coverage to include most State and local government employees. In 

2008, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 134.8 million 

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

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

salary component of personal income and 42.5 percent of the gross 

domestic product. 

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

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

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

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes 

may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by 

employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may 

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

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

unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values 

that can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database 

may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly 

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

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

and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred 

compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options. Overthe-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages 

between the current quarter and prior year levels. 

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

part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in highpaying and low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay periods within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the 

work force could increase significantly when there is a large decline 

in the number of employees that had been receiving below-average 

wages. Wages may include payments to workers not present in the 

employment counts because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month. When comparing average 

weekly wage levels between industries, states, or quarters, these 

factors should be taken into consideration. 

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that consists of some 

quarters having more pay periods than others. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result of this 

schedule, in some quarters, federal wages contain payments for six 

pay periods, while in other quarters their wages include payments 
for seven pay periods. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average 

weekly wages may be attributed, in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year, which include seven pay periods, with 

year-ago wages that reflect only six pay periods. An opposite effect 

will occur when wages in the current period, which contain six pay 

periods, are compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay 

periods. The effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal 

payroll processing. This pattern may exist in private sector pay; 

however, because there are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect is most 

visible in counties with large concentrations of federal employment. 

In order to ensure the highest possible quality of data, states verify with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, 

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

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

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

the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also 

are introduced in the first quarter. 

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a 

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

industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic 

events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change would come from a firm relocating into the county; 

administrative change would come from a company correcting its 

county designation. 

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

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

This is done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the 

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

adjusted version of the final 2008 quarterly data as the base data. 

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

percent change in employment and wages are not published. These 

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

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

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

changes presented in this news release. 

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

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

The most common adjustments for administrative change are the 

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

changes involving the classification of establishments that were 

previously reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, 

adjusted data account for administrative changes caused by multiunit employers who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted 

data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the 

Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown 

as counties include those designated as independent cities in some 

jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where 

counties have not been created. County data also are presented for 

the New England states for comparative purposes even though 

townships are the more common designation used in New England 

(and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined 

as census regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2008 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 2009 version of this news release. 

Tables and additional content from the 2008 Employment and 

Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn08.htm. These tables present final 

2008 annual averages. The tables are included on the CD which 

accompanies the hardcopy version of the Annual Bulletin. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2008 is available for sale as 

a chartbook from the United States Government Printing Office, 

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 

15250, telephone (866) 512-1800, outside Washington, D.C. Within 

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

fax number is (202) 512-2104. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone (202) 691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/); (e-mail: 

BDMInfo@bls.gov). 

Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; 

TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2009 2

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,085.0 128,334.9 -4.1 – $942 2.5 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.1 336.1 -5.6 263 946 2.5 193

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 179.8 -1.6 20 1,047 4.9 41

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 165.8 -5.1 241 828 2.5 193

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 130.0 -3.7 140 891 8.0 6

Shelby, AL ......................... 4.8 70.7 -6.5 302 849 1.6 247

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.4 82.2 -4.6 209 798 1.9 230

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.2 147.6 -0.3 6 1,005 3.5 114

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 98.7 1,626.8 -6.5 302 923 3.4 119

Pima, AZ ............................ 20.2 350.9 -4.8 221 829 3.4 119

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 90.9 -3.6 134 854 0.9 280

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.1 244.2 -2.7 64 863 1.6 247

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 89.0 -2.4 50 774 3.9 87

Alameda, CA ...................... 54.3 628.3 -6.6 305 1,195 2.8 167

Butte, CA ........................... 8.0 71.4 -3.7 140 720 3.4 119

Contra Costa, CA ............... 30.0 318.4 -5.6 263 1,132 0.3 301

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.9 323.7 -6.5 302 759 2.8 167

Kern, CA ............................ 18.3 260.4 -7.4 320 820 2.0 227

Los Angeles, CA ................ 434.0 3,926.0 -5.3 248 1,099 2.0 227

Marin, CA ........................... 11.8 102.4 -5.6 263 1,163 1.0 276

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.9 141.4 -7.0 312 821 2.4 197

Orange, CA ........................ 102.8 1,361.4 -6.2 295 1,065 2.0 227

Placer, CA .......................... 10.9 122.0 -7.0 312 920 3.0 141

Riverside, CA ..................... 48.4 559.7 -6.4 300 757 1.7 244

Sacramento, CA ................ 54.5 587.0 -4.1 170 1,019 1.3 262

San Bernardino, CA ........... 50.6 606.0 -5.8 276 806 2.3 208

San Diego, CA ................... 99.4 1,245.3 -4.9 225 1,019 3.7 103

San Francisco, CA ............. 52.9 548.0 -4.5 201 1,539 3.1 136

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.8 202.3 -6.0 287 816 2.4 197

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.7 95.7 -6.1 289 798 4.2 74

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.1 324.1 -5.2 245 1,477 2.6 180

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.5 169.5 -6.2 295 895 3.2 129

Santa Clara, CA ................. 61.6 846.5 -6.3 297 1,699 8.2 5

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.2 86.4 -4.0 162 819 -0.2 308

Solano, CA ......................... 10.2 120.5 -3.8 147 921 1.9 230

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.9 174.2 -6.3 297 886 -1.1 313

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.2 155.5 -6.8 310 790 4.4 61

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.6 140.9 -7.6 322 666 4.4 61

Ventura, CA ....................... 24.0 295.5 -5.7 272 959 2.6 180

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.0 93.7 -6.0 287 882 -0.1 307

Adams, CO ........................ 9.0 147.7 -5.3 248 849 1.4 257

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.8 269.9 -3.8 147 1,094 3.8 96

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.8 152.8 -3.8 147 1,069 3.2 129

Denver, CO ........................ 25.0 420.2 -4.7 215 1,154 3.4 119

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.3 89.9 -4.8 221 1,179 26.1 1

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.8 232.7 -3.7 140 863 3.6 110

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.0 202.9 -4.0 162 969 4.4 61

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.1 124.6 -4.2 178 841 0.5 293

Weld, CO ........................... 5.8 77.1 -6.6 305 772 1.3 262

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.9 401.6 -4.5 201 1,607 0.7 288

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.4 486.0 -3.8 147 1,153 3.6 110

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT ................. 22.4 353.3 -3.6 134 $1,013 3.7 103

New London, CT ................ 7.0 125.7 -3.8 147 942 3.5 114

New Castle, DE ................. 17.8 264.6 -5.9 282 1,070 1.9 230

Washington, DC ................. 34.8 686.7 -0.1 4 1,614 2.7 173

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.7 116.7 -4.1 170 810 10.1 2

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.7 189.1 -4.0 162 897 4.3 67

Broward, FL ....................... 63.3 689.2 -5.6 263 900 2.4 197

Collier, FL .......................... 11.9 117.5 -6.6 305 832 2.7 173

Duval, FL ........................... 26.9 436.8 -4.5 201 911 3.9 87

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 118.9 -3.3 107 760 5.6 22

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.2 574.9 -6.1 289 927 5.8 17

Lake, FL ............................. 7.3 80.4 -5.3 248 674 2.6 180

Lee, FL ............................... 18.8 194.9 -5.6 263 781 2.9 153

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 139.1 -2.4 50 815 4.2 74

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.2 111.8 -4.0 162 708 2.2 214

Marion, FL .......................... 8.2 90.6 ( 7) – 677 ( 7) – 

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 85.0 959.7 -4.5 201 949 2.9 153

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 75.6 -2.2 41 791 7.5 8

Orange, FL ......................... 35.4 648.2 -4.8 221 850 2.4 197

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.5 500.2 -5.4 253 967 5.2 33

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.8 96.6 -4.4 196 680 1.8 241

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.0 389.2 -5.5 257 852 5.7 21

Polk, FL .............................. 12.5 192.8 -4.4 196 734 4.0 83

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.8 134.6 -5.9 282 804 2.6 180

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.2 156.2 -7.9 325 791 0.8 285

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.6 151.0 -4.9 225 680 2.7 173

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 79.4 -5.8 276 752 5.0 39

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.7 127.9 -5.0 231 807 1.6 247

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 107.3 -3.9 156 810 -5.3 327

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.7 296.4 -5.7 272 974 0.9 280

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.6 278.8 -4.2 178 971 4.7 46

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.3 697.4 -5.0 231 1,207 1.9 230

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.6 294.5 -5.7 272 907 1.3 262

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 91.5 -3.9 156 757 5.1 35

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 99.3 -2.4 50 793 3.4 119

Honolulu, HI ....................... 25.0 435.3 -3.2 100 875 2.9 153

Ada, ID ............................... 14.5 193.7 -4.9 225 824 1.5 252

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 89.3 -2.9 76 794 2.1 222

Cook, IL ............................. 142.6 2,369.9 -4.5 201 1,142 2.1 222

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.4 548.0 -5.9 282 1,082 2.2 214

Kane, IL ............................. 12.9 190.3 -7.2 318 848 1.8 241

Lake, IL .............................. 21.4 311.4 -5.1 241 1,197 4.9 41

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 93.5 -7.0 312 789 0.9 280

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 83.7 -3.1 88 901 7.9 7

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 91.3 -4.5 201 801 4.2 74

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 97.9 -8.0 326 895 2.8 167

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 74.4 -6.1 289 1,115 2.9 153

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 93.9 -3.1 88 782 3.7 103

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 126.3 -2.3 47 928 3.5 114

Will, IL ................................ 14.2 188.4 -4.3 184 837 1.2 268

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 123.8 -7.6 322 $797 2.7 173

Allen, IN ............................. 9.1 170.7 -4.7 215 774 3.3 126

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 96.4 -4.8 221 744 8.6 4

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.9 107.1 -5.1 241 873 2.2 214

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 183.6 -5.3 248 798 -3.4 325

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 547.0 -3.8 147 942 3.1 136

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 114.9 -5.5 257 799 5.1 35

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 72.1 -6.8 310 800 3.8 96

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 104.7 -3.2 100 791 3.3 126

Johnson, IA ........................ 3.5 74.5 -2.1 36 807 2.7 173

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 123.6 -3.0 85 885 -1.1 313

Polk, IA .............................. 14.8 265.7 -3.1 88 933 3.1 136

Scott, IA ............................. 5.3 84.9 -4.6 209 763 1.6 247

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.9 298.8 -5.0 231 982 3.4 119

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.5 241.3 -7.7 324 872 3.3 126

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 92.9 -2.9 76 798 5.4 30

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 79.0 -1.5 17 890 4.3 67

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.4 172.9 -2.9 76 846 1.7 244

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.0 409.9 -3.2 100 908 4.2 74

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.5 121.9 -2.7 64 790 1.4 257

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 5.0 83.1 -5.4 253 783 -5.1 326

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.7 259.1 -3.1 88 897 2.6 180

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.2 194.5 -3.0 85 896 2.6 180

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.1 129.6 -5.5 257 887 -2.6 324

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.9 169.4 -1.5 17 1,007 0.5 293

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.3 168.0 -3.2 100 863 4.7 46

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.3 226.4 -3.1 88 1,019 5.6 22

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.2 364.8 -3.4 117 1,004 4.0 83

Frederick, MD .................... 5.9 91.4 -2.9 76 933 4.7 46

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 81.6 -1.1 11 896 6.2 12

Howard, MD ....................... 8.7 143.0 -2.9 76 1,131 4.0 83

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.5 447.4 -2.1 36 1,294 6.2 12

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.5 304.2 -3.4 117 1,032 3.8 96

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.7 326.1 -3.4 117 1,113 1.2 268

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.0 82.7 -1.9 27 834 2.7 173

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.6 207.4 -4.1 170 866 2.2 214

Essex, MA .......................... 21.0 293.0 -2.0 32 1,013 3.6 110

Hampden, MA .................... 14.8 192.3 -3.6 134 893 2.8 167

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.9 803.0 -2.8 70 1,344 3.5 114

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.6 312.9 -3.4 117 1,151 0.5 293

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.6 171.3 -2.5 56 902 1.0 276

Suffolk, MA ........................ 22.2 574.8 -3.5 128 1,565 -0.3 309

Worcester, MA ................... 20.8 309.8 -3.0 85 947 1.6 247

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.6 127.0 -5.5 257 826 3.0 141

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.6 151.1 -4.3 184 913 3.0 141

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 108.0 -4.6 209 842 -1.3 317

Kent, MI ............................. 14.0 305.9 -5.0 231 855 2.4 197

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.2 270.8 -7.3 319 976 1.0 276

Oakland, MI ....................... 37.9 607.1 -8.1 327 1,093 -0.5 311

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.6 98.0 -5.9 282 787 -0.4 310

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.2 79.1 ( 7) – $782 ( 7) – 

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 184.2 -1.8 24 981 1.0 276

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.1 662.6 -7.1 317 1,036 0.5 293

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.4 105.8 -6.6 305 858 2.3 208

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.0 168.8 -2.6 62 920 2.6 180

Hennepin, MN .................... 40.7 802.6 -4.3 184 1,152 0.7 288

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 87.3 -2.8 70 994 1.9 230

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.5 316.0 -4.3 184 1,040 6.0 15

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.7 92.2 -4.2 178 755 -0.7 312

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.3 78.1 -3.3 107 747 5.8 17

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 83.4 -2.1 36 718 2.3 208

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.3 125.0 -2.4 50 832 3.4 119

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 81.2 -1.7 22 719 4.2 74

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 84.8 -5.2 245 856 4.3 67

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 149.2 -4.2 178 711 3.9 87

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.5 351.2 -4.3 184 958 3.2 129

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 117.8 -4.1 170 739 0.8 285

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.1 571.0 -4.7 215 1,006 1.5 252

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.6 215.2 ( 7) – 996 -33.9 329

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.9 75.7 -3.4 117 768 3.9 87

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.9 312.1 -3.1 88 874 3.9 87

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.2 153.2 -3.9 156 750 3.2 129

Clark, NV ........................... 49.4 809.7 -7.0 312 872 1.9 230

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.3 187.4 -7.0 312 868 0.1 304

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.1 188.3 -3.9 156 1,065 0.2 303

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.8 131.9 -3.2 100 930 2.6 180

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.0 133.3 -4.5 201 832 1.2 268

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.5 432.8 -3.8 147 1,205 1.7 244

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.4 194.6 -2.7 64 1,011 3.8 96

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.0 198.8 -2.9 76 1,010 0.9 280

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.5 348.2 -2.7 64 1,211 2.7 173

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.4 100.4 -4.3 184 865 1.3 262

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 232.4 -2.8 70 1,241 2.4 197

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.2 226.1 -2.2 41 1,224 -2.2 322

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.1 385.0 -3.4 117 1,160 1.4 257

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.8 246.3 -3.3 107 1,032 1.3 262

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.1 274.3 -3.5 128 1,429 4.7 46

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.4 144.3 -1.3 13 816 2.6 180

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.5 171.3 -3.1 88 997 2.3 208

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.3 168.8 -3.3 107 1,413 -6.2 328

Union, NJ ........................... 14.9 221.3 -3.3 107 1,226 ( 7) – 

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.5 317.3 -3.7 140 850 4.4 61

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 223.3 -2.6 62 963 1.9 230

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.4 232.7 0.2 2 919 3.5 114

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 92.7 -3.3 107 753 3.7 103

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 113.1 -2.8 70 942 4.7 46

Erie, NY ............................. 23.5 453.4 -2.5 56 817 3.0 141

Kings, NY ........................... 48.3 488.8 0.2 2 830 1.2 268

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.9 371.8 -2.9 76 887 3.0 141

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.4 595.3 -2.2 41 1,101 4.3 67

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New York, NY .................... 118.1 2,294.4 -3.9 156 $1,878 1.1 273

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 109.3 -2.3 47 745 3.2 129

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.7 246.1 -3.1 88 881 3.8 96

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 131.4 -1.3 13 799 2.8 167

Queens, NY ....................... 44.2 499.4 -2.1 36 935 1.3 262

Richmond, NY .................... 8.8 94.6 -1.1 11 850 2.9 153

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.8 114.3 -2.8 70 982 -2.1 321

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 74.6 -2.5 56 792 3.9 87

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.0 608.5 -3.1 88 1,044 0.3 301

Westchester, NY ................ 36.0 406.5 -4.0 162 1,288 4.4 61

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.8 110.7 -4.0 162 747 2.9 153

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 77.3 -7.5 321 725 4.2 74

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 119.6 -1.4 15 749 5.5 27

Durham, NC ....................... 7.1 177.3 -4.3 184 1,239 9.5 3

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 176.2 -4.6 209 849 2.9 153

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.3 260.1 -5.4 253 823 3.0 141

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.3 534.2 -5.7 272 1,042 2.5 193

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.3 95.3 -5.8 276 798 5.6 22

Wake, NC .......................... 28.5 430.7 -4.1 170 929 1.5 252

Cass, ND ........................... 5.9 99.3 -1.4 15 795 2.1 222

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 138.2 -5.0 231 819 4.6 55

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 36.7 689.8 -4.7 215 939 1.2 268

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.4 651.3 -3.7 140 918 4.3 67

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.5 488.6 -4.6 209 1,007 2.4 197

Lake, OH ............................ 6.6 92.1 -6.7 309 777 2.8 167

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.2 91.8 -4.1 170 742 0.0 306

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.5 198.5 -5.5 257 830 7.0 10

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.2 97.7 -2.7 64 683 1.9 230

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.5 242.1 -5.5 257 846 2.9 153

Stark, OH ........................... 8.9 149.2 -5.8 276 713 1.4 257

Summit, OH ....................... 14.7 254.2 -6.3 297 842 2.1 222

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.6 68.9 -8.6 328 739 -1.3 317

Warren, OH ........................ 4.2 71.7 -3.5 128 802 5.4 30

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.1 408.0 -4.4 196 870 1.9 230

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.8 331.0 -5.6 263 845 0.8 285

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.6 138.5 -5.3 248 842 2.4 197

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 76.2 -5.8 276 688 3.1 136

Lane, OR ........................... 10.9 135.4 -5.9 282 729 2.5 193

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 130.4 -3.4 117 727 2.3 208

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.1 421.9 -4.9 225 953 1.9 230

Washington, OR ................ 16.0 230.9 -5.0 231 1,031 4.5 58

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.1 668.8 -2.4 50 1,003 2.9 153

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 161.5 -3.8 147 849 3.8 96

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.7 249.3 -4.2 178 930 2.9 153

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 79.5 -1.6 20 831 3.0 141

Chester, PA ....................... 15.0 236.1 -3.3 107 1,233 5.4 30

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 120.8 -3.4 117 869 6.0 15

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 177.8 -2.1 36 924 4.3 67

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.5 205.2 -3.2 100 994 4.3 67

Erie, PA .............................. 7.6 120.9 -4.3 184 735 0.7 288

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 98.7 -2.9 76 $736 3.1 136

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.5 217.7 -4.2 178 789 2.2 214

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 170.4 -3.7 140 921 1.5 252

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 137.5 -3.4 117 735 5.6 22

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.4 469.0 -3.5 128 1,219 5.5 27

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 97.7 -1.5 17 823 2.1 222

Philadelphia, PA ................ 31.4 624.5 -2.4 50 1,145 4.7 46

Washington, PA ................. 5.4 77.5 -3.7 140 847 4.2 74

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.4 130.2 -3.9 156 751 3.0 141

York, PA ............................. 9.0 168.8 -4.7 215 810 2.9 153

Kent, RI .............................. 5.5 73.7 -5.1 241 828 5.6 22

Providence, RI ................... 17.7 267.0 -4.0 162 951 1.9 230

Charleston, SC .................. 11.6 198.1 -5.6 263 821 5.1 35

Greenville, SC .................... 12.4 224.0 -4.5 201 820 2.9 153

Horry, SC ........................... 7.9 100.1 -5.6 263 584 1.4 257

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 93.0 -5.0 231 710 4.1 82

Richland, SC ...................... 9.2 205.1 -4.3 184 826 4.7 46

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.0 111.9 -5.4 253 803 3.7 103

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 113.2 -2.5 56 777 5.0 39

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.3 418.3 -4.0 162 996 2.2 214

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 177.4 -6.1 289 821 0.6 292

Knox, TN ............................ 10.9 217.2 -4.4 196 835 4.5 58

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 93.5 -4.6 209 846 0.4 299

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.4 471.5 -5.0 231 971 3.9 87

Williamson, TN ................... 6.0 85.7 -2.9 76 1,012 3.0 141

Bell, TX .............................. 4.6 103.5 -0.7 7 741 5.1 35

Bexar, TX ........................... 33.0 719.1 -1.9 27 843 4.7 46

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.7 84.0 -5.0 231 845 -2.3 323

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.9 87.2 ( 7) – 695 ( 7) – 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 123.7 -0.8 8 598 2.2 214

Collin, TX ........................... 17.5 282.4 ( 7) – 1,108 5.5 27

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.8 1,409.9 -4.3 184 1,129 0.5 293

Denton, TX ......................... 10.7 167.9 -1.8 24 827 2.2 214

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.5 269.5 -1.7 22 684 6.4 11

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.8 128.9 -3.4 117 954 -2.0 320

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 93.1 -0.2 5 877 5.8 17

Gregg, TX .......................... 4.1 71.5 -5.6 263 821 -1.2 316

Harris, TX ........................... 98.7 1,990.2 -4.3 184 1,195 0.7 288

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.7 220.4 -1.0 10 598 4.2 74

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 119.8 -6.1 289 924 -1.5 319

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.9 123.9 -2.2 41 718 2.6 180

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 101.4 -2.0 32 772 7.4 9

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.4 127.1 -2.0 32 879 0.5 293

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 151.2 ( 7) – 794 ( 7) – 

Potter, TX ........................... 3.9 74.9 -2.0 32 798 2.3 208

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 92.2 -3.6 134 811 0.4 299

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.3 748.1 -3.1 88 947 3.2 129

Travis, TX .......................... 29.5 558.5 -3.3 107 1,036 2.6 180

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 86.0 -3.5 128 619 3.0 141

Williamson, TX ................... 7.4 120.2 -1.9 27 906 1.1 273

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 99.2 -2.8 70 $764 3.0 141

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.5 562.1 -4.1 170 888 4.7 46

Utah, UT ............................ 13.0 164.6 -4.4 196 741 1.8 241

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 88.5 -5.0 231 705 3.7 103

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.0 93.2 -2.3 47 937 4.6 55

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.0 160.9 0.5 1 1,594 5.8 17

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 115.0 -4.3 184 852 3.0 141

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.3 574.6 -1.9 27 1,489 5.2 33

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 169.8 -5.8 276 945 2.9 153

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.2 131.1 -1.9 27 1,141 4.8 43

Prince William, VA ............. 7.4 103.5 -0.8 8 848 3.9 87

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.1 98.6 -2.7 64 1,376 4.8 43

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 94.9 -3.8 147 761 6.1 14

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 96.4 -3.5 128 873 2.6 180

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.8 138.1 -3.1 88 946 4.5 58

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.3 150.2 -3.2 100 1,021 0.9 280

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.5 164.4 -3.3 107 756 4.0 83

Clark, WA ........................... 13.3 126.8 -2.2 41 842 3.2 129

King, WA ............................ 82.1 1,119.1 -4.7 215 1,172 3.6 110

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.8 81.6 -1.8 24 858 4.6 55

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.9 261.4 -3.4 117 846 3.9 87

Snohomish, WA ................. 18.9 238.1 -5.2 245 969 4.4 61

Spokane, WA ..................... 16.2 198.2 -4.1 170 771 4.8 43

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.4 97.3 -2.2 41 830 2.6 180

Whatcom, WA .................... 7.1 77.5 -3.6 134 734 3.7 103

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.9 90.9 -2.5 56 640 2.4 197

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 105.7 -3.3 107 819 2.4 197

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 143.6 -3.6 134 851 3.8 96

Dane, WI ............................ 13.9 295.6 -3.1 88 897 2.4 197

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.2 470.3 -4.9 225 948 2.9 153

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 100.3 -4.9 225 792 1.1 273

Racine, WI ......................... 4.1 70.5 -6.1 289 867 -1.1 313

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.9 218.1 -6.4 300 919 0.1 304

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 87.9 -2.5 56 870 1.5 252

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.8 276.8 -4.6 ( 8) 653 4.8 ( 8) 

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

These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.4 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

fourth quarter 2009 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,085.0 128,334.9 -4.1 $942 2.5

Private industry .............................................. 8,790.5 106,313.0 -4.9 942 2.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 126.9 1,649.6 -8.5 985 -1.1

Construction ............................................... 827.3 5,558.7 -16.2 1,053 0.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 349.9 11,484.8 -10.9 1,148 4.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,886.7 25,057.0 -4.8 783 2.2

Information ................................................. 145.7 2,766.2 -6.3 1,448 6.4

Financial activities ...................................... 834.7 7,498.6 -4.6 1,422 2.3

Professional and business services ........... 1,534.3 16,512.5 -4.9 1,237 2.9

Education and health services ................... 876.0 18,597.7 1.6 911 4.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 742.6 12,621.7 -2.6 399 2.3

Other services ............................................ 1,261.9 4,343.0 -2.4 589 1.4

Government ................................................... 294.5 22,022.0 -0.4 942 3.1

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 434.0 3,926.0 -5.3 1,099 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 430.1 3,342.6 -5.7 1,093 2.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.3 -10.6 1,473 16.6

Construction ............................................... 13.6 107.1 -21.2 1,154 1.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 13.9 375.8 -10.5 1,169 6.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 52.4 752.7 -6.1 858 3.5

Information ................................................. 8.8 199.0 -4.4 2,045 7.2

Financial activities ...................................... 23.2 217.3 -6.1 1,487 1.5

Professional and business services ........... 42.5 526.0 -8.1 1,339 1.7

Education and health services ................... 28.5 504.6 0.6 1,034 5.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.4 380.2 -4.5 908 -3.4

Other services ............................................ 204.6 253.7 -1.4 449 -1.3

Government ................................................... 3.9 583.4 -2.4 1,136 -0.4

Cook, IL .............................................................. 142.6 2,369.9 -4.5 1,142 2.1

Private industry .............................................. 141.2 2,062.3 -5.0 1,141 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.9 -11.2 1,071 -0.6

Construction ............................................... 12.2 69.1 -16.0 1,407 -4.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.8 196.5 -10.1 1,158 3.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.5 444.4 -5.7 843 0.8

Information ................................................. 2.6 52.1 -5.9 1,622 9.1

Financial activities ...................................... 15.4 190.9 -6.6 2,063 2.0

Professional and business services ........... 29.5 396.2 -6.7 1,542 0.7

Education and health services ................... 14.5 392.6 1.6 976 5.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.2 220.9 -2.4 454 2.0

Other services ............................................ 15.1 93.9 -2.9 792 1.4

Government ................................................... 1.4 307.6 -1.0 1,148 8.4

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.1 2,294.4 -3.9 1,878 1.1

Private industry .............................................. 117.9 1,845.7 -4.7 2,072 1.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -8.9 1,795 12.0

Construction ............................................... 2.2 31.0 -15.3 2,062 6.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.7 27.3 -17.4 1,582 5.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.0 241.2 -5.5 1,316 1.6

Information ................................................. 4.4 124.9 -7.4 2,144 4.1

Financial activities ...................................... 18.7 345.1 -7.2 4,264 4.6

Professional and business services ........... 24.6 459.7 -6.3 2,148 -1.1

Education and health services ................... 8.8 298.9 1.3 1,180 4.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.9 223.7 -1.2 927 3.8

Other services ............................................ 18.1 88.2 -2.0 1,112 1.0

Government ................................................... 0.3 448.7 -0.8 1,087 2.3

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 98.7 1,990.2 -4.3 $1,195 0.7

Private industry .............................................. 98.2 1,726.5 -5.3 1,225 0.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 80.3 -5.9 3,130 9.4

Construction ............................................... 6.6 134.7 -14.5 1,229 1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 166.9 -12.3 1,494 1.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.4 421.5 -4.7 1,027 -0.5

Information ................................................. 1.4 30.2 -4.8 1,381 -0.4

Financial activities ...................................... 10.6 114.2 -4.0 1,456 -3.4

Professional and business services ........... 19.8 311.4 -7.3 1,494 2.5

Education and health services ................... 10.7 232.9 4.0 990 3.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.9 175.0 -0.8 414 2.7

Other services ............................................ 12.4 58.7 -2.6 660 -2.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 263.7 2.4 997 1.0

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 98.7 1,626.8 -6.5 923 3.4

Private industry .............................................. 98.0 1,407.7 -6.9 920 2.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.9 -6.4 857 -16.6

Construction ............................................... 9.8 82.8 -28.5 998 1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 106.7 -11.5 1,272 4.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.4 345.4 -5.5 824 3.3

Information ................................................. 1.5 27.5 -6.8 1,227 11.0

Financial activities ...................................... 12.1 134.3 -4.5 1,094 2.5

Professional and business services ........... 22.3 265.2 -7.9 1,007 1.6

Education and health services ................... 10.3 224.1 3.2 1,037 3.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 166.3 -5.9 440 4.3

Other services ............................................ 7.1 46.6 -4.6 655 6.0

Government ................................................... 0.7 219.1 -4.0 940 6.6

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.8 1,409.9 -4.3 1,129 0.5

Private industry .............................................. 67.3 1,240.9 -4.9 1,144 0.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.3 -0.5 3,746 -22.4

Construction ............................................... 4.2 67.6 -15.9 1,110 3.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 116.5 -11.2 1,279 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 288.7 -5.1 997 0.7

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.5 -5.0 1,564 3.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.6 137.0 ( 6) 1,427 ( 6) 

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 251.3 -7.4 1,377 0.0

Education and health services ................... 6.9 162.2 6.1 1,067 1.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.4 124.9 -3.0 514 4.5

Other services ............................................ 6.9 38.1 -2.2 672 -0.3

Government ................................................... 0.5 169.0 -0.1 1,018 3.2

Orange, CA ........................................................ 102.8 1,361.4 -6.2 1,065 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 101.5 1,215.9 -6.5 1,067 2.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 3.3 -16.9 637 -5.5

Construction ............................................... 6.7 67.8 -20.0 1,199 -2.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.1 149.4 -11.1 1,299 6.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.6 253.8 -6.7 971 3.3

Information ................................................. 1.3 26.0 -10.0 1,546 7.3

Financial activities ...................................... 10.2 104.8 ( 6) 1,643 3.4

Professional and business services ........... 19.0 238.5 ( 6) 1,279 0.6

Education and health services ................... 10.2 152.1 0.0 1,014 5.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 166.5 -3.1 417 3.5

Other services ............................................ 20.0 47.8 -2.7 556 -0.7

Government ................................................... 1.4 145.5 -3.1 1,048 0.4

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 99.4 1,245.3 -4.9 $1,019 3.7

Private industry .............................................. 98.1 1,021.4 -5.8 1,005 4.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 8.6 -7.6 613 4.8

Construction ............................................... 6.7 57.0 -19.2 1,182 3.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 92.0 -9.7 1,411 7.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.9 205.9 -5.6 785 ( 6) 

Information ................................................. 1.2 36.3 -6.1 2,156 9.8

Financial activities ...................................... 9.0 69.6 -5.1 1,185 0.5

Professional and business services ........... 16.3 197.0 -6.3 1,320 4.8

Education and health services ................... 8.3 144.6 2.5 990 4.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 149.2 -6.3 442 3.3

Other services ............................................ 27.7 56.8 -3.6 512 7.6

Government ................................................... 1.3 224.0 -0.9 1,082 0.0

King, WA ............................................................ 82.1 1,119.1 -4.7 1,172 3.6

Private industry .............................................. 81.6 962.2 -5.4 1,180 3.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.7 -7.9 1,321 -16.3

Construction ............................................... 6.6 48.8 -22.8 1,255 5.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 98.5 -9.4 1,504 3.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.2 209.1 -5.5 996 4.0

Information ................................................. 1.8 78.4 -4.3 2,016 2.1

Financial activities ...................................... 6.9 66.2 -7.9 1,515 6.4

Professional and business services ........... 14.5 171.9 -7.5 1,449 5.3

Education and health services ................... 6.9 131.6 1.8 968 8.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 105.8 -2.7 469 4.5

Other services ............................................ 20.5 49.2 12.6 598 -5.7

Government ................................................... 0.5 157.0 0.0 1,122 4.9

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 85.0 959.7 -4.5 949 2.9

Private industry .............................................. 84.6 811.8 -4.7 919 1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.5 -3.2 483 7.3

Construction ............................................... 5.6 32.9 -21.1 980 0.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 35.5 -14.1 914 10.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.3 242.0 -4.4 834 2.8

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.4 -8.6 1,340 6.3

Financial activities ...................................... 9.5 62.2 -6.2 1,397 0.1

Professional and business services ........... 17.7 123.4 -7.0 1,215 -1.0

Education and health services ................... 9.6 150.2 3.0 915 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.1 103.5 -1.9 538 6.5

Other services ............................................ 7.5 34.7 -4.9 576 -0.9

Government ................................................... 0.4 147.8 -3.2 1,112 9.3

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

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

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

state, fourth quarter 2009 2

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,085.0 128,334.9 -4.1 $942 2.5

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.1 336.1 -5.6 946 2.5

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.2 147.6 -0.3 1,005 3.5

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 98.7 1,626.8 -6.5 923 3.4

Pulaski, AR ............................... 15.1 244.2 -2.7 863 1.6

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 434.0 3,926.0 -5.3 1,099 2.0

Denver, CO .............................. 25.0 420.2 -4.7 1,154 3.4

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.4 486.0 -3.8 1,153 3.6

New Castle, DE ........................ 17.8 264.6 -5.9 1,070 1.9

Washington, DC ....................... 34.8 686.7 -0.1 1,614 2.7

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 85.0 959.7 -4.5 949 2.9

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.3 697.4 -5.0 1,207 1.9

Honolulu, HI .............................. 25.0 435.3 -3.2 875 2.9

Ada, ID ..................................... 14.5 193.7 -4.9 824 1.5

Cook, IL .................................... 142.6 2,369.9 -4.5 1,142 2.1

Marion, IN ................................. 24.0 547.0 -3.8 942 3.1

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.8 265.7 -3.1 933 3.1

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.9 298.8 -5.0 982 3.4

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.0 409.9 -3.2 908 4.2

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.7 259.1 -3.1 897 2.6

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.3 168.0 -3.2 863 4.7

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.5 447.4 -2.1 1,294 6.2

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.9 803.0 -2.8 1,344 3.5

Wayne, MI ................................ 31.1 662.6 -7.1 1,036 0.5

Hennepin, MN .......................... 40.7 802.6 -4.3 1,152 0.7

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.3 125.0 -2.4 832 3.4

St. Louis, MO ............................ 32.1 571.0 -4.7 1,006 1.5

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.9 75.7 -3.4 768 3.9

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.9 312.1 -3.1 874 3.9

Clark, NV .................................. 49.4 809.7 -7.0 872 1.9

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.1 188.3 -3.9 1,065 0.2

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.5 432.8 -3.8 1,205 1.7

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.5 317.3 -3.7 850 4.4

New York, NY ........................... 118.1 2,294.4 -3.9 1,878 1.1

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 32.3 534.2 -5.7 1,042 2.5

Cass, ND .................................. 5.9 99.3 -1.4 795 2.1

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 36.7 689.8 -4.7 939 1.2

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 24.1 408.0 -4.4 870 1.9

Multnomah, OR ........................ 28.1 421.9 -4.9 953 1.9

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.1 668.8 -2.4 1,003 2.9

Providence, RI .......................... 17.7 267.0 -4.0 951 1.9

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.4 224.0 -4.5 820 2.9

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.5 113.2 -2.5 777 5.0

Shelby, TN ................................ 19.4 471.5 -5.0 971 3.9

Harris, TX ................................. 98.7 1,990.2 -4.3 1,195 0.7

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 37.5 562.1 -4.1 888 4.7

Chittenden, VT ......................... 6.0 93.2 -2.3 937 4.6

Fairfax, VA ................................ 34.3 574.6 -1.9 1,489 5.2

King, WA .................................. 82.1 1,119.1 -4.7 1,172 3.6

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.0 105.7 -3.3 819 2.4

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.2 470.3 -4.9 948 2.9

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

state, fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 42.6 -3.2 $778 3.5

San Juan, PR ........................... 11.8 276.8 -4.6 653 4.8

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.3 -2.7 696 3.7

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

(UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

fourth quarter 2009 2

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09

United States 4 ................... 9,085.0 128,334.9 -4.1 $942 2.5

Alabama ............................. 117.5 1,819.9 -4.7 818 3.4

Alaska ................................ 21.4 302.4 -0.5 959 3.5

Arizona ............................... 154.1 2,406.2 -6.0 876 3.3

Arkansas ............................ 86.1 1,136.2 -2.8 725 2.5

California ............................ 1,374.0 14,476.4 -5.3 1,074 3.1

Colorado ............................ 171.7 2,183.6 -4.9 965 3.5

Connecticut ........................ 112.0 1,620.1 -4.0 1,192 2.3

Delaware ............................ 28.6 398.3 -5.0 960 2.1

District of Columbia ............ 34.8 686.7 -0.1 1,614 2.7

Florida ................................ 599.3 7,208.9 -5.0 855 3.6

Georgia .............................. 271.6 3,773.5 -4.9 875 2.6

Hawaii ................................ 39.3 592.5 -3.7 843 2.7

Idaho .................................. 55.8 604.3 -4.7 708 2.2

Illinois ................................. 376.4 5,529.4 -4.6 1,008 2.3

Indiana ............................... 159.9 2,709.7 -4.3 781 2.2

Iowa ................................... 94.6 1,436.2 -3.3 771 2.1

Kansas ............................... 88.1 1,309.8 -4.4 792 2.9

Kentucky ............................ 108.2 1,726.2 -3.1 781 3.4

Louisiana ........................... 127.0 1,842.8 -3.5 833 0.4

Maine ................................. 50.2 579.0 -2.8 759 3.3

Maryland ............................ 162.4 2,462.9 -2.8 1,054 4.5

Massachusetts ................... 215.5 3,142.5 -3.0 1,176 1.8

Michigan ............................ 252.2 3,767.7 -5.6 913 1.1

Minnesota .......................... 166.0 2,559.4 -3.8 928 2.3

Mississippi ......................... 70.7 1,076.5 -3.7 697 2.7

Missouri ............................. 174.3 2,598.7 -3.8 816 -3.2

Montana ............................. 42.5 419.4 -3.3 695 2.5

Nebraska ........................... 60.5 896.6 -2.9 756 3.6

Nevada .............................. 74.9 1,123.2 -6.9 875 1.4

New Hampshire ................. 48.9 605.8 -3.2 958 2.4

New Jersey ........................ 270.8 3,806.6 -2.9 1,143 1.6

New Mexico ....................... 54.1 787.0 -4.2 794 3.3

New York ........................... 586.4 8,445.4 -2.6 1,190 1.7

North Carolina .................... 251.3 3,802.2 -5.0 818 3.2

North Dakota ...................... 26.0 353.6 -0.2 752 3.7

Ohio ................................... 288.1 4,911.8 -4.9 840 2.9

Oklahoma .......................... 101.9 1,486.4 -4.8 763 0.9

Oregon ............................... 130.6 1,593.3 -4.8 829 2.5

Pennsylvania ..................... 342.0 5,474.5 -3.1 931 3.8

Rhode Island ...................... 35.3 448.1 -3.5 912 2.9

South Carolina ................... 112.7 1,748.6 -4.9 763 4.4

South Dakota ..................... 31.0 386.0 -2.4 688 3.8

Tennessee ......................... 140.5 2,572.3 -4.5 849 2.9

Texas ................................. 567.1 10,146.9 -3.5 944 1.2

Utah ................................... 85.7 1,158.1 -4.5 796 3.2

Vermont ............................. 24.6 296.4 -2.7 804 3.7

Virginia ............................... 231.7 3,551.6 -2.8 994 4.3

Washington ........................ 235.0 2,776.6 -3.7 952 3.6

West Virginia ...................... 48.5 693.6 -2.9 752 2.5

Wisconsin .......................... 158.2 2,634.2 -4.4 810 2.1

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

fourth quarter 2009 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2009

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2009

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2008-09

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2008-09

Wyoming ............................ 25.1 266.9 -6.3 $831 -2.2

Puerto Rico ........................ 50.0 977.6 -5.2 552 4.5

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 43.9 -3.7 746 2.2

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

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

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

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

2008 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 July 2010

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

December 2008-09 (U.S. average = -4.1 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

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

2008 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 July 2010

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

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