Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 

News United States 

Department 

of Labor 

Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 08-0064 

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

For release: 10:00 A.M. EST 

Media contact: 691-5902 Thursday, January 17, 2008 

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2007 

In June 2007, Orleans County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among 

the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of 

the U.S. Department of Labor. Orleans County, which includes the city of New Orleans, experienced an over-theyear employment gain of 10.8 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.2 percent. Harrison County, 

Miss., followed closely behind Orleans with an over-the-year gain of 10.3 percent. Employment gains in Orleans 

and Harrison counties reflected significant recovery following substantial job losses that occurred in 2005 and 

2006 due to Hurricane Katrina. Clayton County, Ga., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages 

in the second quarter of 2007, with an increase of 87.3 percent due to increases in wage disbursements in the 

trade, transportation, and utilities supersector during the quarter. The U.S. average weekly wage rose by 4.6 

percent over the same time span. 

Of the 328 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2006 annual average employment, 126 had 

over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (1.2 percent) in June 2007; 184 large 

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

wages was higher than the national average (4.6 percent) in 109 of the largest U.S. counties, but was below the 

national average in 199 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 8.9 million employer 

reports cover 137.0 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation 

and for the 328 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2006. June 2007 

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

 average weekly wages, seco nd quarter 2007 

 (U.S. average = 4.6 percent)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Clayton, Ga. Queens, N.Y. Rockingham,

N.H.

Ventura, Calif. Lake, Ill.

P ercent

C hart 1. T o p ranking large co unties in emplo yment gro wth, 

 June 2007 

 (U.S. average = 1.2 percent)

0

5

10

15

20

Orleans, La. Harrison, Miss. Utah, Utah Williamson,

Tenn.

Wake, N.C.

Percent
2 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by June 2007 employment, June 2006-07 employment growth, and 

June 2006-07 percent growth in employment 

 

Employment in large counties

 

June 2007 employment Growth in employment, Percent growth in employment, 

(thousands) June 2006-07 June 2006-07 

 (thousands) 

United States 137,018.2 United States 1,599.0 United States 1.2 

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,229.3 Harris, Texas 85.5 Orleans, La. 10.8 

Cook, Ill. 2,559.5 Dallas, Texas 46.0 Harrison, Miss. 10.3 

New York, N.Y. 2,363.8 New York, N.Y. 43.8 Utah, Utah 6.7 

Harris, Texas 2,023.3 King, Wash. 33.4 Williamson, Tenn. 6.4 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,798.0 Los Angeles, Calif. 28.5 Wake, N.C. 5.9 

Orange, Calif. 1,519.5 Wake, N.C. 25.2 Brazoria, Texas 5.3 

Dallas, Texas 1,492.6 Mecklenburg, N.C. 25.0 Montgomery, Texas 5.3 

San Diego, Calif. 1,334.7 Salt Lake, Utah 23.8 Charleston, S.C. 5.0 

King, Wash. 1,182.2 Travis, Texas 22.7 Lafayette, La. 4.8 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,002.1 Bexar, Texas 20.2 Snohomish, Wash. 4.7 

 

employment and 2007 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. 

Final data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth quarter of 2006 

are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for first quarter 2007 also are 

available on the BLS Web site. Updated data for first quarter 2007 and preliminary data for second quarter 2007 

will be available later in January on the BLS Web site. 

Large County Employment

In June 2007, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 137.0 million, up by 1.2 

percent from June 2006. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.9 percent of 

total U.S. employment and 76.7 percent of total wages. These 328 counties had a net job gain of 1,051,335 over 

the year, accounting for 65.7 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 235 of the 

large counties from June 2006 to June 2007. Orleans County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage 

increase in employment (10.8 percent). Harrison, Miss., had the next largest increase, 10.3 percent, followed by 

the counties of Utah, Utah (6.7 percent), Williamson, Tenn. (6.4 percent), and Wake, N.C. (5.9 percent). The 

large employment gains in Orleans and Harrison counties reflected significant recovery from the substantial job 

losses that occurred in 2005 and 2006, which were related to Hurricane Katrina. (See table 1.) 

Employment declined in 77 counties from June 2006 to June 2007. The largest percentage decline in 

employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-6.3 percent). Macomb, Mich., had the next largest employment 

decline (-3.6 percent), followed by the counties of Manatee, Fla., and Genesee, Mich. (-3.1 percent each), and 

Wayne, Mich., and Montgomery, Ohio (-2.9 percent each). 

The largest gains in the level of employment from June 2006 to June 2007 were recorded in the counties of 

Harris, Texas (85,500), Dallas, Texas (46,000), New York, N.Y. (43,800), King, Wash. (33,400), and Los 

Angeles, Calif. (28,500). (See table A.) The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Wayne, Mich. 

(-22,500), followed by the counties of Orange, Calif. (-16,000), Macomb, Mich. (-12,000), Oakland, Mich. 

(-8,200), and Montgomery, Ohio (-8,000). 
3 

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by second quarter 2007 average weekly wages, second quarter 2006-07 growth 

in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2006-07 percent growth in average weekly wages 

 

Average weekly wage in large counties

 

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

second quarter 2007 wage, second quarter 2006-07 weekly wage, second 

 quarter 2006-07 

United States $820 United States $36 United States 4.6 

 

New York, N.Y. $1,540 Clayton, Ga. $633 Clayton, Ga. 87.3 

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,504 Santa Clara, Calif. 115 Queens, N.Y. 12.7 

Clayton, Ga. 1,358 Queens, N.Y. 100 Rockingham, N.H. 10.1 

Washington, D.C. 1,357 Somerset, N.J. 98 Ventura, Calif. 9.2 

Arlington, Va. 1,352 San Francisco, Calif. 97 Lake, Ill. 9.1 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,323 New York, N.Y. 92 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 8.7 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,311 Fairfield, Conn. 87 Santa Clara, Calif. 8.3 

Somerset, N.J. 1,286 Lake, Ill. 87 Douglas, Colo. 8.2 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,284 Hennepin, Minn. 79 Somerset, N.J. 8.2 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,277 Rockingham, N.H. 78 Hennepin, Minn. 8.1 

 Fort Bend, Texas 8.1 

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2007 was $820. Average weekly wages were 

higher than the national average in 110 of the largest 328 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the top 

position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,540. Santa Clara, Calif., was 

second with an average weekly wage of $1,504, followed by Clayton County, Ga. ($1,358), Washington, D.C. 

($1,357), and Arlington, Va. ($1,352). (See table B.) 

There were 218 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter of 

2007. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($515), followed by the counties 

of Hidalgo, Texas ($518), Horry, S.C., and Webb, Texas ($545 each), and Yakima, Wash. ($555). (See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.6 percent. Among the largest counties, Clayton 

County, Ga., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 87.3 percent from the second 

quarter of 2006. Queens, N.Y., was second with growth of 12.7 percent, followed by the counties of 

Rockingham, N.H. (10.1 percent), Ventura, Calif. (9.2 percent), and Lake, Ill. (9.1 percent). 

Six large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Among the five largest 

decreases in wages, Saginaw, Mich., had the greatest decline (-5.2 percent), followed by the counties of Orleans, 

La. (-2.9 percent), Lake, Fla. (-1.1 percent), Genesee, Mich. (-1.0 percent), and Lorain, Ohio (-0.9 percent). 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Nine of the 10 largest counties (based on 2006 annual average employment levels) reported increases in 

employment from June 2006 to June 2007. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in employment 

among the 10 largest counties with a 4.4 percent increase. Within Harris County, employment rose in every 

industry group. The largest gains were in natural resources and mining (10.4 percent) and construction (7.6 

percent). Dallas, Texas, had the next largest increase in employment, 3.2 percent, followed by King, Wash. (2.9 

percent). The smallest percent increase in employment occurred in San Diego, Calif., and Cook, Ill. (0.2 percent 

each). Orange, Calif., experienced the only decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 1.0 
4 

percent decrease. Within Orange County, five industry groups experienced employment declines with financial 

activities experiencing the largest decline, -7.7 percent. (See table 2.) 

Each of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. Harris, Texas, 

had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 6.9 percent. Within Harris County, 

average weekly wages increased the most in the information industry (10.0 percent), followed by the other 

services industry (8.0 percent). New York, N.Y., was second in wage growth with a gain of 6.4 percent, followed 

by Dallas, Texas (5.4 percent). The smallest wage gain among the 10 largest counties occurred in Orange, Calif. 

(3.4 percent), followed by Miami-Dade, Fla., and King, Wash. (3.8 percent each). 

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows June 2007 employment and the 2007 second quarter average weekly wage in the largest county 

in each state, which is based on 2006 annual average employment levels. (This table includes two counties—

Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that had employment levels below 75,000 in 2006.) The employment 

levels in the counties in table 3 in June 2007 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los Angeles County, 

Calif., to 43,400 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, 

N.Y. ($1,540), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Cass, N.D. ($672). 

For More Information

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

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

obtained by calling (202) 691-6567. 

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2007 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, 

April 9, 2008. 
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 2007 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 2006 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2007 data, four counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Butte, Calif., Tippecanoe, Ind., 

Saratoga, N.Y., and Williamson, Tenn. These counties will be 

included in all 2007 quarterly releases. One county, Boone, Ky., 

which was published in the 2006 releases, will be excluded from

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 8.9 million establishments 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.9 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/ 
this and future 2007 releases because its 2006 average annual 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. 

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 that are sent to the appropriate SWA by the specific federal 

agency. In addition to the quarterly contribution reports, employers 

who operate multiple establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the "Multiple Worksite Report," which provides 

detailed information on the location and industry of each of their 

establishments. The employment and wage data included in this 

release are derived from microdata summaries of nearly 9 million 

employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to 

the BLS. These reports are based on place of employment rather 

than place of residence. 

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable from 

state to state. In 2006, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 

133.8 million jobs. The estimated 128.9 million workers in these 

jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.4 

percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers 

received $5.693 trillion in pay, representing 94.3 percent of the 

wage and salary component of personal income and 43.1 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 3-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 2006 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. The adjusted data do not account for 

administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start 

reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single 

entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

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

data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

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

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

as counties include those designated as independent cities in some 

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

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

the New England states for comparative purposes even though 

townships are the more common designation used in New England 

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

Additional statistics and other information 

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2006 edition 

of this bulletin will contain selected data produced by Business 

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

selected data from the first quarter 2007 version of this news release. As with the 2005 edition, this edition will include the data on 

a CD for enhanced access and usability with the printed booklet 

containing selected graphic representations of QCEW data; the data 

tables themselves will be published exclusively in electronic formats as PDFs. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2006 will 

be available for sale in early 2008 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. Also, the 

2006 bulletin will be available in a portable document format (PDF) 

on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn06.htm. 

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 2007 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 8,945.9 137,018.2 1.2 – $820 4.6 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.9 365.4 ( 7) – 823 5.2 78

Madison, AL ....................... 8.7 178.3 3.8 22 864 4.3 136

Mobile, AL .......................... 10.0 174.1 1.6 101 682 1.8 291

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.7 140.0 0.6 187 698 0.3 312

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.4 86.1 1.8 92 697 2.3 274

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 148.9 -1.3 300 887 5.7 54

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 97.7 1,798.0 0.9 158 827 3.9 163

Pima, AZ ............................ 20.8 369.7 2.1 75 733 4.9 91

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 96.2 1.6 101 745 2.8 247

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.6 251.8 0.6 187 740 4.2 144

Washington, AR ................. 5.7 93.8 -0.8 286 687 6.0 46

Alameda, CA ...................... 49.1 690.4 -0.3 256 1,088 3.8 170

Butte, CA ........................... 7.5 76.8 0.0 236 621 4.9 91

Contra Costa, CA ............... 27.8 348.6 -1.1 295 1,027 ( 7) – 

Fresno, CA ......................... 28.8 364.6 0.5 198 669 6.0 46

Kern, CA ............................ 17.2 285.1 0.2 220 726 6.9 18

Los Angeles, CA ................ 394.6 4,229.3 0.7 176 924 4.9 91

Marin, CA ........................... 11.4 109.4 0.1 226 1,056 0.3 312

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.1 181.3 -0.8 286 744 6.1 43

Orange, CA ........................ 94.7 1,519.5 -1.0 292 952 3.4 213

Placer, CA .......................... 10.4 141.1 1.0 146 822 6.2 39

Riverside, CA ..................... 43.1 645.8 -0.5 270 707 2.5 265

Sacramento, CA ................ 51.0 645.7 0.1 226 913 5.7 54

San Bernardino, CA ........... 45.6 666.1 -0.1 243 728 4.1 148

San Diego, CA ................... 91.7 1,334.7 0.2 220 890 4.8 98

San Francisco, CA ............. 44.1 555.6 ( 7) – 1,323 7.9 12

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.1 232.1 -0.5 270 724 5.4 66

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.1 109.6 1.4 114 703 8.7 6

San Mateo, CA .................. 22.8 342.1 1.2 127 1,277 6.2 39

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.6 192.9 0.7 176 784 ( 7) – 

Santa Clara, CA ................. 55.9 905.1 2.0 81 1,504 8.3 7

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.6 105.0 1.2 127 758 3.0 236

Solano, CA ......................... 9.7 129.8 -0.6 275 815 7.7 13

Sonoma, CA ...................... 17.7 196.7 -0.4 260 807 3.3 217

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.0 179.7 1.1 136 705 5.2 78

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.8 153.9 0.0 236 583 4.3 136

Ventura, CA ....................... 21.7 322.2 -1.0 292 913 9.2 4

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.4 104.7 0.8 168 775 6.7 23

Adams, CO ........................ 9.4 156.5 0.3 210 750 2.7 254

Arapahoe, CO .................... 20.0 285.9 2.2 67 959 2.3 274

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.9 161.9 2.9 36 972 2.3 274

Denver, CO ........................ 25.8 446.5 2.6 44 989 5.3 73

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.4 93.6 3.1 31 848 8.2 8

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.9 251.3 0.2 220 752 3.9 163

Jefferson, CO ..................... 19.1 215.3 1.6 101 826 5.2 78

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.3 134.0 2.4 57 720 5.0 85

Weld, CO ........................... 6.1 84.0 2.5 54 692 6.8 20

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.8 428.3 1.3 122 1,311 7.1 17

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.3 512.0 1.5 108 1,035 6.7 23

New Haven, CT ................. 22.5 372.9 -0.4 260 878 4.6 110

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New London, CT ................ 6.9 131.3 0.7 176 $851 6.4 33

New Castle, DE ................. 18.8 284.4 -0.3 256 981 1.6 295

Washington, DC ................. 31.9 683.2 0.8 168 1,357 4.3 136

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 124.4 2.1 75 659 3.1 228

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.8 205.4 -1.9 306 780 2.2 279

Broward, FL ....................... 64.7 760.2 1.1 136 778 2.0 288

Collier, FL .......................... 12.4 125.6 -2.5 311 822 7.7 13

Duval, FL ........................... 26.2 468.1 2.0 81 793 2.7 254

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.0 129.5 0.6 187 654 2.7 254

Hillsborough, FL ................. 36.8 642.3 1.1 136 781 4.4 130

Lake, FL ............................. 7.2 79.8 1.2 127 603 -1.1 318

Lee, FL ............................... 19.5 218.5 -0.9 290 719 2.1 284

Leon, FL ............................. 8.1 144.1 0.9 158 694 3.9 163

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.0 122.4 -3.1 316 678 3.8 170

Marion, FL .......................... 8.3 103.6 0.5 198 605 1.3 301

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 85.9 1,002.1 1.0 146 814 3.8 170

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.2 82.0 -2.5 311 680 3.2 221

Orange, FL ......................... 36.0 685.1 2.6 44 746 -0.1 315

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.9 549.5 0.1 226 819 3.3 217

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.7 94.8 0.7 176 627 3.5 204

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.4 439.2 -1.2 297 708 2.9 244

Polk, FL .............................. 12.6 201.1 -0.9 290 647 2.1 284

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.1 152.7 -2.5 311 719 3.0 236

Seminole, FL ...................... 15.0 176.9 -0.4 260 736 2.8 247

Volusia, FL ......................... 14.0 163.4 -0.4 260 615 3.7 183

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 84.1 -0.7 282 638 0.5 309

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.5 138.6 3.9 19 695 2.8 247

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 115.6 2.2 67 1,358 87.3 1

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.4 319.8 1.2 127 858 0.8 307

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.2 297.0 -1.0 292 896 5.4 66

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.6 759.6 1.6 101 1,082 6.2 39

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.4 327.3 2.6 44 831 5.2 78

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.9 97.6 -2.1 307 641 6.0 46

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 102.4 -0.4 260 684 3.6 194

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.7 454.8 0.5 198 758 4.0 154

Ada, ID ............................... 15.3 215.7 2.0 81 748 0.5 309

Champaign, IL ................... 4.1 92.9 1.9 86 679 4.6 110

Cook, IL ............................. 137.6 2,559.5 0.2 220 981 4.1 148

Du Page, IL ........................ 35.5 605.9 0.0 236 956 4.8 98

Kane, IL ............................. 12.5 215.5 0.4 207 741 2.5 265

Lake, IL .............................. 20.7 342.8 0.9 158 1,040 9.1 5

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.3 105.7 0.7 176 717 1.7 292

McLean, IL ......................... 3.6 86.2 1.3 122 781 2.8 247

Madison, IL ........................ 5.9 97.1 0.8 168 662 1.2 302

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 106.4 2.1 75 765 3.1 228

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 79.9 -0.6 275 779 0.1 314

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.4 96.4 1.4 114 662 3.1 228

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 131.7 -0.6 275 797 3.8 170

Will, IL ................................ 13.2 195.4 3.4 26 739 1.7 292

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 139.8 1.7 95 691 3.6 194

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 182.9 0.3 210 $696 1.6 295

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 128.3 -2.2 309 714 2.3 274

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.4 112.4 ( 7) – 802 ( 7) – 

Lake, IN ............................. 10.2 197.0 0.9 158 708 2.8 247

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 582.2 0.7 176 826 1.0 305

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 125.2 0.6 187 697 3.0 236

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.2 76.6 1.7 95 700 3.1 228

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 107.5 -0.8 286 679 3.5 204

Linn, IA ............................... 6.2 126.2 2.9 36 771 4.6 110

Polk, IA .............................. 14.5 277.4 2.0 81 811 4.2 144

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 90.4 -0.8 286 656 4.0 154

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.1 318.1 3.1 31 867 4.8 98

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.1 259.9 3.9 19 779 6.4 33

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 96.7 2.3 62 723 4.2 144

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 80.7 2.2 67 798 1.4 299

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.1 178.4 3.5 25 754 4.6 110

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.9 443.4 2.2 67 810 4.1 148

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 126.1 -0.2 251 687 3.2 221

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.8 88.3 3.3 28 688 3.9 163

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.8 257.5 0.4 207 736 4.5 122

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.7 199.3 2.6 44 755 3.3 217

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.4 136.0 4.8 9 778 6.6 27

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.0 168.3 10.8 1 872 -2.9 319

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.3 176.1 0.1 226 741 4.5 122

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.4 236.0 1.0 146 865 3.8 170

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.8 380.6 0.1 226 847 4.8 98

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 96.6 0.0 236 783 4.0 154

Harford, MD ....................... 5.7 86.0 0.0 236 753 5.9 50

Howard, MD ....................... 8.5 149.6 0.9 158 950 5.0 85

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.8 466.7 0.3 210 1,108 6.7 23

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 317.4 1.1 136 893 4.4 130

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.0 346.5 0.5 198 973 6.3 37

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 102.4 1.4 114 708 3.7 183

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.6 224.3 -0.1 243 758 3.8 170

Essex, MA .......................... 20.7 304.7 0.6 187 879 4.5 122

Hampden, MA .................... 14.0 202.8 -0.1 243 748 3.7 183

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.2 826.7 1.5 108 1,179 6.0 46

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.9 330.5 1.0 146 986 1.2 302

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.8 182.2 -0.7 282 803 3.6 194

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.7 589.1 2.5 54 1,284 4.7 107

Worcester, MA ................... 20.7 327.9 0.8 168 843 3.7 183

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.9 144.1 -3.1 316 725 -1.0 317

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.8 162.6 -0.6 275 800 4.4 130

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 117.5 0.0 236 744 4.6 110

Kent, MI ............................. 14.2 342.3 -0.5 270 746 2.8 247

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.8 320.6 -3.6 318 862 4.6 110

Oakland, MI ....................... 39.1 704.7 -1.2 297 949 2.7 254

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 111.8 -2.2 309 696 2.5 265

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.4 87.9 -1.4 303 678 -5.2 320

Washtenaw, MI .................. 7.9 189.9 -1.3 300 925 5.1 83

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Wayne, MI .......................... 32.4 755.2 -2.9 314 $933 2.6 260

Anoka, MN ......................... 8.1 117.0 -0.4 260 835 3.1 228

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.7 180.1 0.9 158 819 3.5 204

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.4 856.2 0.4 207 1,059 8.1 10

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.6 92.1 0.7 176 837 3.6 194

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.8 334.3 -0.4 260 908 3.4 213

St. Louis, MN ..................... 6.0 98.1 1.0 146 710 6.4 33

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.6 82.5 3.0 34 634 2.6 260

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 86.4 10.3 2 653 0.9 306

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 128.1 -0.6 275 714 3.6 194

Boone, MO ......................... 4.6 83.3 1.1 136 643 3.2 221

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 92.5 0.7 176 799 6.8 20

Greene, MO ....................... 8.2 157.4 2.6 44 629 3.5 204

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.8 373.1 1.4 114 832 4.0 154

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 127.0 2.8 42 700 1.2 302

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.1 618.2 0.6 187 883 2.4 270

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 233.1 -1.5 304 897 5.0 85

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.6 320.7 1.1 136 767 2.5 265

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.0 159.0 ( 7) – 653 2.4 270

Clark, NV ........................... 48.4 930.0 1.1 136 773 3.1 228

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.3 219.9 -0.2 251 770 4.6 110

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.4 198.7 0.3 210 922 ( 7) – 

Rockingham, NH ................ 11.0 143.2 0.9 158 847 10.1 3

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.1 153.2 -2.1 307 738 3.8 170

Bergen, NJ ......................... 35.4 462.0 0.9 158 1,022 3.5 204

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.7 208.1 -0.7 282 873 2.7 254

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.4 214.0 -0.4 260 874 5.9 50

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.9 364.6 0.2 220 1,062 5.5 65

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.4 107.0 0.1 226 758 4.0 154

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.2 237.3 0.6 187 1,099 3.7 183

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.4 226.7 -0.1 243 1,048 5.2 78

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.5 416.8 1.1 136 1,020 1.4 299

Monmouth, NJ ................... 21.2 268.1 0.0 236 875 3.6 194

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.6 296.0 0.5 198 1,191 6.1 43

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.8 159.5 -0.1 243 700 2.6 260

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.9 179.9 -1.3 300 875 3.7 183

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.4 178.0 -0.3 256 1,286 8.2 8

Union, NJ ........................... 15.5 238.7 1.3 122 1,055 ( 7) – 

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 337.7 1.5 108 724 3.0 236

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 229.0 0.1 226 855 4.1 148

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.8 224.4 0.6 187 805 5.6 59

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 97.5 1.6 101 664 4.6 110

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 119.4 -0.2 251 842 4.5 122

Erie, NY ............................. 23.4 458.9 -0.2 251 724 4.3 136

Kings, NY ........................... 44.8 472.4 1.8 92 714 3.8 170

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.9 385.8 -0.1 243 804 1.9 290

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.3 616.6 0.8 168 953 5.9 50

New York, NY .................... 117.1 2,363.8 1.9 86 1,540 6.4 33

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 112.8 0.3 210 668 6.2 39

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 256.0 1.0 146 762 3.4 213

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 132.9 0.6 187 $729 3.6 194

Queens, NY ....................... 42.5 501.2 2.3 62 886 12.7 2

Richmond, NY .................... 8.6 93.8 1.7 95 734 3.7 183

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.7 117.8 1.7 95 900 6.5 30

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.3 78.8 2.3 62 703 5.7 54

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.1 640.0 0.8 168 891 4.1 148

Westchester, NY ................ 36.4 430.4 2.1 75 1,119 5.7 54

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.9 116.7 4.0 18 644 3.9 163

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.6 89.5 1.4 114 646 4.0 154

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.1 119.3 1.2 127 639 5.6 59

Durham, NC ....................... 6.8 182.7 2.6 44 1,059 5.6 59

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.2 186.8 1.9 86 770 6.8 20

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.6 282.2 2.1 75 735 3.1 228

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 31.8 565.3 4.6 11 929 1.5 297

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.4 105.7 4.3 14 663 4.6 110

Wake, NC .......................... 27.5 451.8 5.9 5 813 4.5 122

Cass, ND ........................... 5.7 97.9 2.4 57 672 4.8 98

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 146.8 1.5 108 715 3.6 194

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 37.6 757.6 -0.3 256 842 2.1 284

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.3 694.7 1.5 108 805 3.7 183

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.0 526.7 0.1 226 867 3.3 217

Lake, OH ............................ 6.8 103.7 0.5 198 697 5.6 59

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 101.4 -1.2 297 685 -0.9 316

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.7 223.5 -1.5 304 713 2.9 244

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.3 106.3 1.2 127 601 3.8 170

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.8 271.6 -2.9 314 759 3.7 183

Stark, OH ........................... 9.0 163.5 -0.4 260 642 2.2 279

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 275.5 -0.2 251 756 5.0 85

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 80.5 -6.3 319 732 6.6 27

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.5 421.3 0.7 176 729 2.5 265

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.4 347.4 2.3 62 742 2.9 244

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.7 151.7 1.2 127 764 3.8 170

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.8 85.5 1.1 136 633 3.9 163

Lane, OR ........................... 11.0 153.3 1.7 95 646 3.2 221

Marion, OR ........................ 9.4 144.5 1.9 86 652 4.0 154

Multnomah, OR .................. 27.3 450.5 2.5 54 842 5.4 66

Washington, OR ................ 16.0 252.9 0.5 198 911 5.4 66

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.3 697.8 1.0 146 874 4.7 107

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 171.3 1.0 146 743 4.5 122

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.3 270.1 0.5 198 809 4.8 98

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 80.9 2.4 57 702 4.9 91

Chester, PA ....................... 15.0 243.7 2.1 75 1,078 4.6 110

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 127.5 0.9 158 777 5.6 59

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.3 186.0 0.6 187 808 5.3 73

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 212.9 2.2 67 858 3.5 204

Erie, PA .............................. 7.2 130.4 0.7 176 651 5.3 73

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 102.8 1.1 136 631 3.8 170

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.3 232.1 0.3 210 697 3.7 183

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.6 181.6 1.4 114 812 5.3 73

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 145.1 0.8 168 641 4.9 91

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.4 494.7 1.0 146 $1,011 4.6 110

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 100.7 1.5 108 723 3.6 194

Philadelphia, PA ................ 30.0 633.0 -0.1 243 948 4.9 91

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 81.0 1.4 114 716 5.9 50

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 139.9 -0.1 243 655 0.6 308

York, PA ............................. 9.1 177.9 1.9 86 730 3.0 236

Kent, RI .............................. 5.7 83.2 -0.4 260 717 3.9 163

Providence, RI ................... 18.2 291.2 0.1 226 801 2.0 288

Charleston, SC .................. 12.0 213.8 5.0 8 698 3.1 228

Greenville, SC .................... 12.3 238.6 2.8 42 716 2.3 274

Horry, SC ........................... 8.2 125.5 3.4 26 545 3.4 213

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 95.8 2.9 36 615 1.5 297

Richland, SC ...................... 9.2 217.2 3.1 31 711 2.4 270

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.0 119.7 2.6 44 708 2.8 247

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.3 116.3 2.4 57 677 5.3 73

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.5 446.5 0.1 226 818 0.4 311

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.6 194.9 0.7 176 715 3.8 170

Knox, TN ............................ 11.0 227.9 1.4 114 707 4.6 110

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.2 98.2 1.2 127 753 4.7 107

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.1 512.0 0.8 168 830 4.8 98

Williamson, TN ................... 5.7 87.5 6.4 4 895 6.7 23

Bell, TX .............................. 4.5 97.6 1.7 95 630 4.8 98

Bexar, TX ........................... 31.7 722.3 2.9 36 738 6.3 37

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.5 86.6 5.3 6 800 7.4 16

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.7 80.6 ( 7) – 613 ( 7) – 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 123.5 1.0 146 515 6.6 27

Collin, TX ........................... 16.0 280.9 3.9 19 946 4.2 144

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.6 1,492.6 3.2 30 1,011 5.4 66

Denton, TX ......................... 10.1 165.6 3.6 24 709 3.2 221

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.2 265.6 1.6 101 591 6.1 43

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.9 123.9 ( 7) – 878 8.1 10

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 97.9 ( 7) – 762 ( 7) – 

Harris, TX ........................... 94.7 2,023.3 4.4 12 1,026 6.9 18

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.4 213.5 4.4 12 518 4.0 154

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 125.0 2.4 57 774 5.7 54

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.7 121.4 1.3 122 620 2.1 284

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 104.6 2.0 81 639 2.6 260

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.7 121.3 5.3 6 738 2.6 260

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.1 153.1 2.3 62 701 6.5 30

Smith, TX ........................... 5.2 93.2 1.6 101 696 2.2 279

Tarrant, TX ......................... 36.2 763.5 2.6 44 847 4.3 136

Travis, TX .......................... 27.6 573.1 4.1 17 905 3.0 236

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 88.2 4.3 14 545 2.4 270

Williamson, TX ................... 6.7 118.5 ( 7) – 791 4.1 148

Davis, UT ........................... 7.1 105.7 2.2 67 670 3.2 221

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 38.3 590.3 4.2 16 776 7.6 15

Utah, UT ............................ 12.8 178.1 6.7 3 637 6.5 30

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 95.7 3.3 28 623 3.5 204

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.8 95.4 -0.5 270 804 4.4 130

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.5 154.5 1.8 92 1,352 2.7 254

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.4 123.2 0.5 198 $731 4.3 136

Fairfax, VA ......................... 32.6 592.2 1.0 146 1,269 4.9 91

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.1 183.4 3.8 22 876 4.5 122

Loudoun, VA ...................... 8.1 131.7 2.9 36 1,016 2.2 279

Prince William, VA ............. 6.9 106.5 -1.1 295 738 3.5 204

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.0 100.7 -0.5 270 1,160 5.6 59

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.6 100.5 -0.7 282 653 3.5 204

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 100.7 1.9 86 725 1.7 292

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.8 144.7 0.2 220 815 4.5 122

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.4 159.4 ( 7) – 936 ( 7) – 

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.5 182.4 0.3 210 650 4.0 154

Clark, WA ........................... 11.7 133.8 1.3 122 750 5.0 85

King, WA ............................ 75.9 1,182.2 2.9 36 1,028 3.8 170

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.5 84.7 -0.6 275 756 3.0 236

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.3 277.0 2.6 44 744 5.4 66

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.5 255.8 4.7 10 862 5.4 66

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.0 212.5 2.6 44 669 5.0 85

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.7 101.1 3.0 34 743 5.1 83

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.8 83.8 2.2 67 634 4.4 130

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.8 108.8 0.3 210 555 4.3 136

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 110.1 0.3 210 721 3.7 183

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 153.1 1.2 127 705 4.4 130

Dane, WI ............................ 14.0 305.4 1.0 146 785 4.8 98

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.1 503.5 0.9 158 818 4.3 136

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 107.2 2.2 67 699 3.6 194

Racine, WI ......................... 4.2 77.8 -0.6 275 750 3.2 221

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.2 241.2 0.3 210 813 3.0 236

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.8 91.9 0.6 187 748 2.2 279

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.6 293.5 -2.8 ( 8) 546 7.5 ( 8) 

 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 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. 8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 2007 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 4

United States 5 ................................................... 8,945.9 137,018.2 1.2 $820 4.6

Private industry .............................................. 8,655.0 115,502.9 1.2 810 4.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 124.1 1,955.3 2.3 838 6.2

Construction ............................................... 889.2 7,834.7 -0.6 863 5.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 361.0 13,954.1 -2.1 993 4.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,909.4 26,388.1 1.4 715 4.8

Information ................................................. 143.5 3,054.6 -0.3 1,255 5.5

Financial activities ...................................... 867.5 8,218.0 0.0 1,206 5.8

Professional and business services ........... 1,468.2 18,027.5 2.2 999 5.7

Education and health services ................... 817.5 17,375.3 2.9 760 3.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 721.6 13,888.6 2.3 342 4.0

Other services ............................................ 1,138.3 4,516.7 1.5 527 3.7

Government ................................................... 290.8 21,515.3 1.3 875 4.5

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 394.6 4,229.3 0.7 924 4.9

Private industry .............................................. 390.5 3,623.3 0.3 899 4.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 12.6 5.2 1,124 -15.2

Construction ............................................... 14.1 161.0 0.6 944 7.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 15.3 451.1 ( 6) 983 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 55.3 808.4 0.3 782 4.5

Information ................................................. 8.7 212.3 ( 6) 1,528 3.8

Financial activities ...................................... 25.0 246.2 -2.0 1,420 4.1

Professional and business services ........... 43.0 608.0 0.1 1,048 4.6

Education and health services ................... 27.9 469.5 0.8 838 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.0 403.1 2.0 504 2.4

Other services ............................................ 173.6 251.0 1.7 431 4.6

Government ................................................... 4.0 606.0 3.0 1,078 ( 6) 

Cook, IL .............................................................. 137.6 2,559.5 0.2 981 4.1

Private industry .............................................. 136.3 2,246.2 0.5 973 4.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.4 -2.3 997 1.2

Construction ............................................... 12.1 98.7 -1.5 1,174 2.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.1 239.5 -1.6 983 2.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.6 476.9 -0.4 788 2.9

Information ................................................. 2.5 58.7 0.1 1,418 7.9

Financial activities ...................................... 15.8 218.9 -0.5 1,620 9.6

Professional and business services ........... 28.1 442.6 1.9 1,229 3.1

Education and health services ................... 13.5 366.2 2.0 826 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.5 242.4 1.5 421 1.4

Other services ............................................ 13.8 96.9 -0.2 697 3.1

Government ................................................... 1.4 313.3 -1.8 1,037 5.1

New York, NY ..................................................... 117.1 2,363.8 1.9 1,540 6.4

Private industry .............................................. 116.8 1,913.3 2.3 1,659 6.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -3.1 2,638 106.3

Construction ............................................... 2.3 35.2 7.6 1,504 9.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 38.2 -4.5 1,265 18.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.9 249.1 1.7 1,141 4.8

Information ................................................. 4.3 135.5 0.4 1,897 4.3

Financial activities ...................................... 18.4 379.6 2.3 3,042 8.2

Professional and business services ........... 24.3 486.5 2.6 1,771 7.2

Education and health services ................... 8.5 284.7 1.1 993 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.1 209.0 3.1 732 4.0

Other services ............................................ 17.2 87.1 1.7 897 2.4

Government ................................................... 0.3 450.6 0.2 1,037 3.4

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 94.7 2,023.3 4.4 $1,026 6.9

Private industry .............................................. 94.2 1,779.4 4.9 1,044 7.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 78.7 10.4 2,857 6.6

Construction ............................................... 6.5 152.9 7.6 979 7.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 181.3 4.0 1,273 7.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.5 421.2 3.7 917 6.4

Information ................................................. 1.3 33.1 3.8 1,258 10.0

Financial activities ...................................... 10.4 120.6 2.5 1,242 5.6

Professional and business services ........... 18.7 339.8 5.3 1,156 7.5

Education and health services ................... 9.9 210.2 4.4 841 4.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 179.2 5.0 377 2.7

Other services ............................................ 10.9 58.7 2.0 597 8.0

Government ................................................... 0.5 243.9 1.2 894 4.6

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 97.7 1,798.0 0.9 827 3.9

Private industry .............................................. 97.1 1,614.4 0.8 812 3.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.8 -2.8 703 9.3

Construction ............................................... 10.3 169.4 -7.6 842 4.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 133.5 -2.9 1,118 3.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.9 373.0 2.7 805 4.8

Information ................................................. 1.6 31.0 -0.8 1,014 7.0

Financial activities ...................................... 12.4 150.8 -0.6 1,052 3.4

Professional and business services ........... 21.0 316.7 1.9 803 4.3

Education and health services ................... 9.4 195.9 4.8 857 3.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 179.2 1.9 390 2.1

Other services ............................................ 7.0 51.0 3.4 564 2.0

Government ................................................... 0.7 183.6 1.6 946 5.2

Orange, CA ........................................................ 94.7 1,519.5 -1.0 952 3.4

Private industry .............................................. 93.3 1,363.2 -1.3 939 2.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 6.2 -6.8 588 10.7

Construction ............................................... 7.1 105.6 -3.5 1,016 7.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.4 177.1 ( 6) 1,150 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.8 278.2 0.4 892 ( 6) 

Information ................................................. 1.4 30.1 -2.2 1,340 7.5

Financial activities ...................................... 11.4 128.1 -7.7 1,445 ( 6) 

Professional and business services ........... 19.2 274.6 ( 6) 1,000 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 9.8 139.6 2.9 833 3.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 175.1 1.7 410 5.1

Other services ............................................ 14.0 48.4 -0.4 561 4.1

Government ................................................... 1.4 156.3 1.1 1,062 6.7

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.6 1,492.6 3.2 1,011 5.4

Private industry .............................................. 67.1 1,330.0 3.2 1,022 5.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 7.1 -4.7 2,879 -1.1

Construction ............................................... 4.4 84.1 4.4 935 1.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 144.2 -0.4 1,202 8.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.0 307.2 2.3 974 6.1

Information ................................................. 1.7 48.6 -4.6 1,371 7.3

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 145.7 2.8 1,331 5.2

Professional and business services ........... 14.4 274.3 5.9 1,108 5.8

Education and health services ................... 6.6 144.7 6.6 968 6.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.2 131.2 3.6 430 2.6

Other services ............................................ 6.4 40.6 1.2 602 2.9

Government ................................................... 0.5 162.5 2.9 920 5.0

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 91.7 1,334.7 0.2 $890 4.8

Private industry .............................................. 90.4 1,108.8 -0.1 868 4.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.6 -4.1 540 4.0

Construction ............................................... 7.2 90.9 -6.5 916 6.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 102.4 ( 6) 1,190 6.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.6 219.8 0.3 730 5.8

Information ................................................. 1.3 37.5 0.5 1,873 1.7

Financial activities ...................................... 9.9 81.5 -3.3 1,108 3.5

Professional and business services ........... 16.4 217.9 0.6 1,076 6.0

Education and health services ................... 8.0 127.1 ( 6) 812 4.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 163.6 2.8 389 3.5

Other services ............................................ 22.1 56.6 1.1 482 2.8

Government ................................................... 1.3 225.9 1.7 996 4.8

King, WA ............................................................ 75.9 1,182.2 2.9 1,028 3.8

Private industry .............................................. 75.4 1,027.6 3.3 1,033 3.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.3 3.4 1,224 1.4

Construction ............................................... 6.8 72.9 11.0 1,002 6.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 112.0 1.9 1,386 0.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 219.5 2.0 903 6.1

Information ................................................. 1.8 75.8 5.0 1,829 4.1

Financial activities ...................................... 7.0 76.4 -1.0 1,272 3.3

Professional and business services ........... 12.9 188.1 4.4 1,180 1.1

Education and health services ................... 6.3 120.6 2.7 812 4.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.0 113.7 3.9 427 2.4

Other services ............................................ 16.7 45.4 0.9 571 7.9

Government ................................................... 0.5 154.6 0.6 995 6.0

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 85.9 1,002.1 1.0 814 3.8

Private industry .............................................. 85.6 868.2 0.8 788 3.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.2 0.3 496 6.0

Construction ............................................... 6.2 53.5 1.5 841 -1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 48.0 -1.7 735 1.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.1 252.6 0.9 747 2.3

Information ................................................. 1.5 20.7 -0.7 1,163 4.6

Financial activities ...................................... 10.4 71.6 -0.9 1,161 5.6

Professional and business services ........... 17.3 136.4 -1.5 949 7.5

Education and health services ................... 8.9 135.4 3.1 796 4.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.7 101.8 1.3 458 2.5

Other services ............................................ 7.6 35.7 1.9 525 5.8

Government ................................................... 0.3 133.9 2.4 969 4.8

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

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

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

state, second quarter 2007 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

United States 6 ......................... 8,945.9 137,018.2 1.2 $820 4.6

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.9 365.4 ( 7) 823 5.2

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 148.9 -1.3 887 5.7

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 97.7 1,798.0 0.9 827 3.9

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.6 251.8 0.6 740 4.2

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 394.6 4,229.3 0.7 924 4.9

Denver, CO .............................. 25.8 446.5 2.6 989 5.3

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.3 512.0 1.5 1,035 6.7

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.8 284.4 -0.3 981 1.6

Washington, DC ....................... 31.9 683.2 0.8 1,357 4.3

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 85.9 1,002.1 1.0 814 3.8

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.6 759.6 1.6 1,082 6.2

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.7 454.8 0.5 758 4.0

Ada, ID ..................................... 15.3 215.7 2.0 748 0.5

Cook, IL .................................... 137.6 2,559.5 0.2 981 4.1

Marion, IN ................................. 24.0 582.2 0.7 826 1.0

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.5 277.4 2.0 811 4.2

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.1 318.1 3.1 867 4.8

Jefferson, KY ............................ 21.9 443.4 2.2 810 4.1

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 13.8 257.5 0.4 736 4.5

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.3 176.1 0.1 741 4.5

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.8 466.7 0.3 1,108 6.7

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.2 826.7 1.5 1,179 6.0

Wayne, MI ................................ 32.4 755.2 -2.9 933 2.6

Hennepin, MN .......................... 43.4 856.2 0.4 1,059 8.1

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.5 128.1 -0.6 714 3.6

St. Louis, MO ............................ 33.1 618.2 0.6 883 2.4

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.6 77.7 2.4 675 8.3

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.6 320.7 1.1 767 2.5

Clark, NV .................................. 48.4 930.0 1.1 773 3.1

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.4 198.7 0.3 922 ( 7) 

Bergen, NJ ............................... 35.4 462.0 0.9 1,022 3.5

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.6 337.7 1.5 724 3.0

New York, NY ........................... 117.1 2,363.8 1.9 1,540 6.4

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 31.8 565.3 4.6 929 1.5

Cass, ND .................................. 5.7 97.9 2.4 672 4.8

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 37.6 757.6 -0.3 842 2.1

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.5 421.3 0.7 729 2.5

Multnomah, OR ........................ 27.3 450.5 2.5 842 5.4

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.3 697.8 1.0 874 4.7

Providence, RI .......................... 18.2 291.2 0.1 801 2.0

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.3 238.6 2.8 716 2.3

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.3 116.3 2.4 677 5.3

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.1 512.0 0.8 830 4.8

Harris, TX ................................. 94.7 2,023.3 4.4 1,026 6.9

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 38.3 590.3 4.2 776 7.6

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.8 95.4 -0.5 804 4.4

Fairfax, VA ................................ 32.6 592.2 1.0 1,269 4.9

King, WA .................................. 75.9 1,182.2 2.9 1,028 3.8

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 110.1 0.3 721 3.7

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.1 503.5 0.9 818 4.3

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

state, second quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.1 43.4 1.9 $685 6.7

San Juan, PR ........................... 13.6 293.5 -2.8 546 7.5

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.4 -0.1 643 -0.2

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

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

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 2007 2

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07

United States 4 ................... 8,945.9 137,018.2 1.2 $820 4.6

Alabama ............................. 120.1 1,965.4 1.1 697 3.6

Alaska ................................ 21.1 325.8 -0.5 832 5.6

Arizona ............................... 158.9 2,612.4 1.2 786 4.4

Arkansas ............................ 82.7 1,186.5 0.3 639 4.2

California ............................ 1,291.3 15,832.5 0.8 935 5.4

Colorado ............................ 179.4 2,326.9 2.2 832 4.8

Connecticut ........................ 112.5 1,714.2 0.9 1,033 6.4

Delaware ............................ 29.1 430.2 0.0 870 2.2

District of Columbia ............ 31.9 683.2 0.8 1,357 4.3

Florida ................................ 604.8 7,894.2 0.2 743 3.2

Georgia .............................. 270.4 4,091.5 1.4 792 6.5

Hawaii ................................ 38.6 631.2 1.4 736 4.2

Idaho .................................. 57.1 679.1 3.0 626 2.3

Illinois ................................. 358.6 5,956.3 0.8 874 4.4

Indiana ............................... 158.2 2,933.4 0.5 702 2.6

Iowa ................................... 93.4 1,518.6 0.9 664 3.9

Kansas ............................... 85.7 1,370.7 2.0 702 4.8

Kentucky ............................ 109.8 1,828.2 1.7 700 4.2

Louisiana ........................... 119.9 1,880.2 3.2 711 4.1

Maine ................................. 50.0 619.6 0.6 658 4.1

Maryland ............................ 164.0 2,584.9 0.7 899 5.3

Massachusetts ................... 210.1 3,300.7 1.2 1,008 4.8

Michigan ............................ 257.1 4,252.9 -1.4 807 2.9

Minnesota .......................... 170.7 2,730.9 0.0 834 5.6

Mississippi ......................... 69.7 1,137.4 0.9 609 3.6

Missouri ............................. 174.7 2,764.6 0.8 727 3.4

Montana ............................. 42.3 449.8 1.7 611 6.3

Nebraska ........................... 58.7 930.9 1.6 654 3.5

Nevada .............................. 74.7 1,297.9 1.0 776 3.7

New Hampshire ................. 49.0 643.7 0.7 823 6.3

New Jersey ........................ 278.1 4,066.7 0.4 989 4.3

New Mexico ....................... 53.7 833.3 1.1 686 5.2

New York ........................... 576.8 8,688.8 1.3 1,020 5.9

North Carolina .................... 251.0 4,090.5 3.0 718 4.1

North Dakota ...................... 25.1 347.7 1.5 619 4.7

Ohio ................................... 290.5 5,384.6 -0.1 740 3.4

Oklahoma .......................... 99.1 1,538.5 1.6 665 4.1

Oregon ............................... 130.8 1,761.6 1.7 742 4.5

Pennsylvania ..................... 338.7 5,740.3 1.1 802 4.6

Rhode Island ...................... 36.1 492.9 0.3 774 2.5

South Carolina ................... 115.8 1,917.4 3.0 665 2.9

South Dakota ..................... 30.1 404.3 2.1 590 4.8

Tennessee ......................... 140.7 2,768.7 0.7 729 3.6

Texas ................................. 548.7 10,296.1 3.4 827 5.9

Utah ................................... 86.3 1,233.7 4.4 698 6.6

Vermont ............................. 24.7 306.6 -0.5 698 5.0

Virginia ............................... 227.4 3,731.5 1.0 859 4.4

Washington ........................ 216.7 2,989.8 2.7 835 4.6

West Virginia ...................... 48.7 717.1 0.3 659 3.6

Wisconsin .......................... 158.2 2,845.8 0.4 709 3.7

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

second quarter 2007 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2006-07

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2006-07

Wyoming ............................ 24.4 288.3 3.3 $739 8.0

Puerto Rico ........................ 56.9 1,020.7 -1.6 460 6.0

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.4 46.9 3.4 707 4.1

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

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

1.3% to 10.8%

-6.3% to 1.2%

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

2006 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2008

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

June 2006-07 (U.S. average = 1.2 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties

4.7% to 87.3%

-5.2% to 4.6%

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

2006 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2008

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

or more employees, second quarter 2006-07 (U.S. average = 4.6 percent)