Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 

News United States 

Department 

of Labor 

Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 08-1014 

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

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT 

Media contact: 691-5902 Thursday, July 24, 2008 

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FOURTH QUARTER 2007 

In December 2007, Fort Bend County, Texas, 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. Fort Bend County, which contains a portion of southwest 

Houston, experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 7.4 percent, compared with national job growth of 0.8 

percent. Pulaski County, Ark., which includes Little Rock, had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly 

wages in the fourth quarter of 2007, with an increase of 26.2 percent due to gains in the information supersector. 

The U.S. average weekly wage rose by 4.2 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 (0.8 percent) in December 2007; 182 

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

weekly wages was higher than the national average (4.2 percent) in 128 of the largest U.S. counties, but was 

below the national average in 186 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 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. December 2007 

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

Chart 2. Top ranking large counties by percent growth in

 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2007 

 (U.S. average = 4.2 percent)

0

10

20

30

Pulaski, Ark. Williamson,

Texas

Lake, Ill. Douglas, Colo. Westmoreland,

Pa.

Percent

Chart 1. Top ranking large counties by percent growth in 

 employment, December 2007 

 (U.S. average = 0.8 percent)

0

5

10

15

Fort Bend, Texas Monterey, Calif. Williamson,

Tenn.

Madison, Ala. San Francisco,

Calif.

Percent
2 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by December 2007 employment, December 2006-07 employment 

growth, and December 2006-07 percent growth in employment 

 

Employment in large counties 

 

December 2007 employment Growth in employment, Percent growth in employment, 

(thousands) December 2006-07 December 2006-07 

 (thousands) 

United States 137,027.3 United States 1,089.1 United States 0.8 

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,293.4 Harris, Texas 73.2 Fort Bend, Texas 7.4 

Cook, Ill. 2,556.2 New York, N.Y. 52.0 Monterey, Calif. 5.2 

New York, N.Y. 2,419.9 King, Wash. 35.2 Williamson, Tenn. 4.5 

Harris, Texas 2,061.4 Los Angeles, Calif. 32.9 Madison, Ala. 4.0 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,848.2 Dallas, Texas 31.3 San Francisco, Calif. 4.0 

Orange, Calif. 1,517.7 San Francisco, Calif. 21.8 Wake, N.C. 3.9 

Dallas, Texas 1,504.8 Bexar, Texas 18.8 Hidalgo, Texas 3.9 

San Diego, Calif. 1,340.3 Tarrant, Texas 17.3 Harris, Texas 3.7 

King, Wash. 1,194.1 Wake, N.C. 17.1 Tulare, Calif. 3.6 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,032.1 Travis, Texas 16.4 Denton, Texas 3.6 

 Arlington, Va. 3.6 

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, second, and third quarter 

2007 also are available on the BLS Web site. Updated data for first, second, and third quarter 2007 and 

preliminary data for fourth quarter 2007 will be available later in July on the BLS Web site. 

Large County Employment

In December 2007, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 137.0 million, up by 0.8 

percent from December 2006. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.2 percent 

of total U.S. employment and 77.2 percent of total wages. These 328 counties had a net job gain of 666,400 over 

the year, accounting for 61.2 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 201 of the 

large counties from December 2006 to December 2007. Fort Bend County, Texas, had the largest over-the-year 

percentage increase in employment (7.4 percent). Monterey, Calif., had the next largest increase, 5.2 percent, 

followed by the counties of Williamson, Tenn. (4.5 percent), and Madison, Ala., and San Francisco, Calif. (4.0 

percent each). 

Employment declined in 98 counties from December 2006 to December 2007. The largest percentage decline 

in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-5.7 percent). Lee, Fla., had the next largest employment decline 

(-5.5 percent), followed by the counties of Collier, Fla. (-5.1 percent), Sarasota, Fla. (-4.1 percent), and Manatee, 

Fla., and Saginaw, Mich. (-3.7 percent each). 

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

counties of Harris, Texas (73,200), New York, N.Y. (52,000), King, Wash. (35,200), Los Angeles, Calif. 

(32,900), and Dallas, Texas (31,300). (See table A.) The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Orange, 

Calif. (-25,300), followed by the counties of Wayne, Mich. (-19,900), Lee, Fla. (-12,700), Pinellas, Fla. (-11,500), 

and Oakland, Mich. (-9,100). 
3 

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

growth in average weekly wages, and fourth 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 

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

 quarter 2006-07 

United States $898 United States $36 United States 4.2 

New York, N.Y. $1,862 Pulaski, Ark. $205 Pulaski, Ark. 26.2 

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,700 Lake, Ill. 171 Williamson, Texas 16.5 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,575 Williamson, Texas 134 Lake, Ill. 15.6 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,546 Santa Clara, Calif. 126 Douglas, Colo. 12.6 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,529 Somerset, N.J. 123 Westmoreland, Pa. 9.8 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,513 San Mateo, Calif. 112 Olmsted, Minn. 9.4 

Washington, D.C. 1,506 Douglas, Colo. 110 Somerset, N.J. 9.2 

Somerset, N.J. 1,461 Middlesex, Mass. 94 Williamson, Tenn. 8.2 

Arlington, Va. 1,458 Washington, D.C. 82 San Mateo, Calif. 8.0 

Fairfax, Va. 1,358 Olmsted, Minn. 79 Santa Clara, Calif. 8.0 

 

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2007 was $898. Average weekly wages were 

higher than the national average in 106 of the largest 328 U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., held the top position 

among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,862. Santa Clara, Calif., was second 

with an average weekly wage of $1,700, followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,575), Suffolk, Mass. ($1,546), and San 

Francisco, Calif. ($1,529). (See table B.) 

There were 222 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the fourth quarter of 

2007. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($555), followed by the counties 

of Hidalgo, Texas ($562), Horry, S.C. ($582), Webb, Texas ($590), and Yakima, Wash. ($596). (See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.2 percent. Among the largest counties, Pulaski 

County, Ark., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 26.2 percent from the fourth 

quarter of 2006. Williamson, Texas, was second with growth of 16.5 percent, followed by the counties of Lake, 

Ill. (15.6 percent), Douglas, Colo. (12.6 percent), and Westmoreland, Pa. (9.8 percent). 

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

decreases in wages, Rockingham, N.H., had the greatest decline (-12.4 percent), followed by the counties of 

Trumbull, Ohio (-7.2 percent), Sedgwick, Kan. (-4.1 percent), Lake, Fla. (-3.9 percent), and Montgomery, Ohio 

(-2.4 percent). 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Six of the 10 largest counties (based on 2006 annual average employment levels) experienced over-the-year 

percent increases in employment in December 2007. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in 

employment among the 10 largest counties with a 3.7 percent increase. Within Harris County, the largest gains in 

employment were in construction (6.9 percent) and other services (4.7 percent). King, Wash., had the next largest 

increase in employment, 3.0 percent, followed by New York, N.Y. (2.2 percent). Orange, Calif., experienced the 

largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 1.6 percent decrease. Within Orange County, 

four industry groups experienced employment declines, with financial activities experiencing the largest drop, 
4 

-12.4 percent. Maricopa, Ariz., and Cook, Ill., had the next largest decline in employment (-0.1 percent each). 

(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 5.9 percent. Within Harris County, 

average weekly wages increased the most in the natural resources and mining industry (14.2 percent), followed by 

the manufacturing industry (12.5 percent). Cook, Ill., was second in wage growth with a gain of 4.8 percent, 

followed by San Diego, Calif. (4.4 percent). The smallest wage gain among the 10 largest counties occurred in 

Miami-Dade, Fla. (0.6 percent), followed by Maricopa, Ariz. (2.0 percent), and Orange, Calif. (2.8 percent). 

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows December 2007 employment and the 2007 fourth 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 December 2007 ranged from approximately 4.29 million in Los 

Angeles County, Calif., to 43,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties 

was in New York, N.Y. ($1,862), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($729). 

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 first quarter 2008 is scheduled to be released on Friday, 

October 17, 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 have been 

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

which was published in the 2006 releases, has been excluded from

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.1 million establishments 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

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/ 
all 2007 releases because its 2006 annual average employment level 

was less than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted 

each year based on the annual average employment from the preceding year. 

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures 

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

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

somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and 

publication product. 

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown 

in the table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) 

program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly 

reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers 

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

the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple 

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information 

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

employment and wage data included in this release are derived from 

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

based on place of employment rather than place of residence. 

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable from 

state to state. In 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 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 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 contains 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 includes 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 have been published exclusively in electronic formats as 

PDFs. The 2006 bulletin is available in a 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,

fourth quarter 2007 2

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,064.5 137,027.3 0.8 – $898 4.2 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 19.0 367.5 ( 7) – 901 3.4 186

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 182.1 4.0 4 925 3.6 164

Mobile, AL .......................... 10.1 177.3 2.7 28 767 1.5 289

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.8 140.5 1.4 87 782 1.8 278

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.4 87.0 0.1 189 768 1.1 297

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 146.2 0.8 127 924 5.0 76

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 100.3 1,848.2 -0.1 215 875 2.0 271

Pima, AZ ............................ 21.0 377.1 -0.6 250 770 3.5 172

Benton, AR ........................ 5.6 96.3 0.1 189 791 4.8 86

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.8 253.6 1.2 97 986 26.2 1

Washington, AR ................. 5.7 93.2 -0.6 250 735 2.5 245

Alameda, CA ...................... 51.2 692.7 0.3 173 1,165 5.1 68

Butte, CA ........................... 7.9 76.5 0.0 202 669 5.9 35

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.2 348.0 -0.8 263 1,117 5.9 35

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.2 352.7 -0.3 233 724 4.9 80

Kern, CA ............................ 18.2 288.5 1.2 97 761 5.4 53

Los Angeles, CA ................ 418.1 4,293.4 0.8 127 1,054 3.7 152

Marin, CA ........................... 11.9 110.9 0.9 119 1,170 2.5 245

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.6 156.9 5.2 2 773 1.0 299

Orange, CA ........................ 99.1 1,517.7 -1.6 290 1,027 2.8 226

Placer, CA .......................... 10.9 136.8 -0.1 215 875 0.8 300

Riverside, CA ..................... 45.5 634.1 -0.9 265 730 2.7 236

Sacramento, CA ................ 53.5 633.6 0.3 173 974 4.6 101

San Bernardino, CA ........... 48.3 672.9 -0.1 215 766 2.8 226

San Diego, CA ................... 96.4 1,340.3 0.1 189 963 4.4 116

San Francisco, CA ............. 46.3 573.2 4.0 4 1,529 4.7 94

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.8 223.6 0.0 202 771 3.6 164

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.4 105.1 1.2 97 750 4.6 101

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.8 347.6 0.7 131 1,513 8.0 9

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.2 183.1 0.7 131 852 4.9 80

Santa Clara, CA ................. 59.1 913.9 1.5 81 1,700 8.0 9

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.9 94.4 2.0 56 851 5.2 62

Solano, CA ......................... 10.1 127.7 0.1 189 870 6.9 20

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.5 194.1 0.2 181 873 3.7 152

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.7 173.1 -0.6 250 733 3.2 198

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.3 152.4 3.6 9 629 5.4 53

Ventura, CA ....................... 22.7 319.0 -1.0 269 979 3.5 172

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.8 101.9 1.8 61 860 ( 7) – 

Adams, CO ........................ 9.2 158.2 3.4 14 827 5.6 46

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.6 285.5 2.1 50 1,087 6.5 26

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.7 162.5 1.7 68 1,064 4.1 131

Denver, CO ........................ 25.5 448.2 2.0 56 1,129 5.6 46

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.4 93.5 3.3 16 983 12.6 4

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.6 248.3 0.5 150 803 3.9 141

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.7 214.1 1.7 68 907 6.3 28

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.3 130.5 1.7 68 812 3.6 164

Weld, CO ........................... 6.0 83.3 1.3 91 744 4.8 86

Fairfield, CT ....................... 33.0 432.8 1.3 91 1,575 4.3 123

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.5 511.1 0.7 131 1,100 5.2 62

New Haven, CT ................. 22.7 374.5 0.0 202 946 3.7 152

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New London, CT ................ 6.9 131.2 0.7 131 $914 5.4 53

New Castle, DE ................. 18.3 289.1 -0.2 224 1,031 3.0 219

Washington, DC ................. 32.4 681.6 0.7 131 1,506 5.8 40

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.7 122.9 ( 7) – 743 ( 7) – 

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.8 203.1 -2.3 300 830 3.1 207

Broward, FL ....................... 66.0 759.9 -1.0 269 864 0.5 302

Collier, FL .......................... 12.6 133.7 -5.1 310 839 1.9 275

Duval, FL ........................... 26.4 467.8 -0.5 243 870 2.7 236

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.1 130.3 -1.2 277 705 2.5 245

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.2 655.8 0.0 202 846 3.7 152

Lake, FL ............................. 7.2 84.2 0.4 157 649 -3.9 313

Lee, FL ............................... 19.8 218.3 -5.5 311 765 2.0 271

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 146.6 -1.7 293 780 6.8 22

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.1 127.6 -3.7 307 693 2.5 245

Marion, FL .......................... 8.5 102.2 -3.1 305 637 0.3 306

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 87.8 1,032.1 0.0 202 902 0.6 301

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.2 80.0 ( 7) – 715 3.2 198

Orange, FL ......................... 36.8 700.9 1.5 81 821 4.5 108

Palm Beach, FL ................. 51.0 567.0 -0.6 250 900 2.5 245

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.9 101.2 -0.7 259 652 3.5 172

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.9 436.3 -2.6 302 790 3.5 172

Polk, FL .............................. 12.8 208.8 -1.5 287 694 2.4 254

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.2 154.8 -4.1 309 766 0.0 307

Seminole, FL ...................... 15.3 179.0 -1.1 275 794 1.5 289

Volusia, FL ......................... 14.1 164.7 -1.5 287 654 1.2 296

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 84.2 -0.3 233 703 1.7 283

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 137.3 0.0 202 766 3.7 152

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 115.2 0.6 143 779 2.5 245

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.6 323.0 0.9 119 927 1.4 292

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.3 300.0 -0.9 265 916 2.1 268

Fulton, GA .......................... 40.3 771.5 1.1 106 1,173 2.8 226

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.7 326.6 -0.2 224 902 2.3 261

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 97.0 -0.8 263 716 6.5 26

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 103.5 0.1 189 728 2.4 254

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.7 461.0 0.1 189 819 4.1 131

Ada, ID ............................... 15.2 213.1 0.4 157 823 0.5 302

Champaign, IL ................... 4.1 92.5 0.6 143 734 4.1 131

Cook, IL ............................. 138.5 2,556.2 -0.1 215 1,101 4.8 86

Du Page, IL ........................ 35.8 604.8 0.0 202 1,056 3.5 172

Kane, IL ............................. 12.6 212.2 0.1 189 820 2.4 254

Lake, IL .............................. 21.0 335.3 1.3 91 1,266 15.6 3

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.4 103.8 0.8 127 784 1.4 292

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 86.0 0.3 173 814 2.0 271

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 96.7 1.2 97 731 2.5 245

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.8 105.2 0.4 157 841 2.9 223

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 79.8 1.1 106 1,063 6.8 22

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.4 98.0 1.6 75 724 4.9 80

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 130.4 0.0 202 862 4.6 101

Will, IL ................................ 13.4 195.9 3.5 12 797 1.1 297

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 138.6 0.7 131 750 2.6 240

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 184.5 -1.2 277 $759 4.8 86

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 123.4 -0.5 243 714 3.2 198

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.5 111.7 ( 7) – 859 ( 7) – 

Lake, IN ............................. 10.2 197.7 0.4 157 768 3.9 141

Marion, IN .......................... 23.9 588.6 0.6 143 888 2.5 245

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 126.0 -0.5 243 736 4.2 129

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.2 76.7 -0.7 259 735 4.0 137

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 107.9 -0.2 224 729 3.3 191

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 125.8 2.2 46 876 5.7 44

Polk, IA .............................. 14.8 276.7 1.8 61 883 3.6 164

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 89.3 -0.5 243 740 4.4 116

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.4 318.7 1.4 87 926 4.8 86

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.2 260.5 1.2 97 811 -4.1 314

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 95.8 2.4 37 749 4.8 86

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 81.1 0.4 157 840 2.7 236

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.3 179.3 0.3 173 812 4.4 116

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.5 439.6 0.4 157 859 3.4 186

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 128.0 2.0 56 750 4.3 123

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.8 86.7 -0.6 250 765 5.1 68

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.1 268.3 1.8 61 812 5.3 59

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.8 202.9 1.8 61 845 3.7 152

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.5 136.6 3.4 14 869 5.8 40

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.2 172.0 ( 7) – 957 ( 7) – 

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.4 177.4 1.0 114 798 3.6 164

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.5 235.6 0.5 150 924 3.1 207

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.8 383.6 0.2 181 959 4.9 80

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 96.4 -0.6 250 857 6.2 29

Harford, MD ....................... 5.7 84.7 0.1 189 803 3.6 164

Howard, MD ....................... 8.6 147.9 -0.3 233 1,031 3.1 207

Montgomery, MD ............... 33.0 466.4 -0.1 215 1,195 4.9 80

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.7 322.3 1.9 59 968 3.5 172

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.2 348.4 -0.2 224 1,092 7.4 14

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 86.8 -1.2 277 790 3.9 141

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.6 221.7 -1.3 283 796 3.4 186

Essex, MA .......................... 20.8 302.1 0.5 150 945 3.2 198

Hampden, MA .................... 14.3 201.7 -0.4 238 815 3.3 191

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.6 827.5 1.2 97 1,307 7.7 11

Norfolk, MA ........................ 22.6 330.3 0.9 119 1,117 4.7 94

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.9 178.8 -1.0 269 864 3.8 149

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.8 594.7 1.9 59 1,546 3.8 149

Worcester, MA ................... 20.8 324.6 0.0 202 915 6.8 22

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.9 143.9 -3.2 306 802 2.8 226

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.8 163.1 0.2 181 859 4.4 116

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 116.5 -1.0 269 799 3.9 141

Kent, MI ............................. 14.1 341.0 -1.1 275 804 1.6 285

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.7 313.3 -2.5 301 922 3.7 152

Oakland, MI ....................... 39.0 696.6 -1.3 283 1,049 1.8 278

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 108.1 -2.2 299 761 0.0 307

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.3 86.3 -3.7 307 756 0.5 302

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 194.1 -1.2 277 957 3.5 172

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Wayne, MI .......................... 32.1 751.0 -2.6 302 $991 2.2 264

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.8 117.5 0.9 119 831 2.3 261

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.6 176.8 0.4 157 883 5.7 44

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.4 858.4 0.7 131 1,116 6.2 29

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.6 91.3 0.9 119 916 9.4 6

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.4 334.3 0.0 202 953 5.4 53

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.9 98.1 1.6 75 726 4.3 123

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.5 83.2 2.5 34 676 1.3 295

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 87.0 1.6 75 680 1.9 275

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.4 130.6 1.0 114 785 3.4 186

Boone, MO ......................... 4.6 82.8 -0.3 233 671 3.7 152

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 91.2 0.7 131 823 5.5 50

Greene, MO ....................... 8.3 159.2 2.5 34 663 4.9 80

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.9 372.1 0.6 143 893 3.7 152

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.3 125.8 1.2 97 737 3.2 198

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.2 618.4 0.1 189 977 7.5 12

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 234.0 -0.1 215 962 2.6 240

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.9 323.0 1.2 97 860 5.5 50

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.1 159.0 ( 7) – 700 3.2 198

Clark, NV ........................... 49.8 929.0 0.8 127 875 7.2 16

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.6 219.1 -1.3 283 865 5.4 53

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.5 201.1 0.0 202 1,039 4.5 108

Rockingham, NH ................ 11.1 138.8 -1.2 277 892 -12.4 316

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.1 145.7 -1.6 290 800 2.6 240

Bergen, NJ ......................... 35.0 464.3 0.3 173 1,185 5.6 46

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.6 205.6 -0.7 259 939 3.3 191

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.3 212.3 -0.4 238 953 2.3 261

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.6 368.7 0.4 157 1,135 2.4 254

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 106.3 -0.4 238 832 5.6 46

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 241.4 1.1 106 1,170 4.5 108

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.4 229.9 ( 7) – 1,151 5.2 62

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.2 415.2 -0.3 233 1,130 1.6 285

Monmouth, NJ ................... 21.1 260.0 -0.1 215 1,003 4.7 94

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.4 292.0 -2.0 296 1,316 1.9 275

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.6 148.9 -0.5 243 772 1.4 292

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.7 182.4 -0.2 224 937 1.5 289

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.3 176.3 -0.6 250 1,461 9.2 7

Union, NJ ........................... 15.3 238.8 ( 7) – 1,138 ( 7) – 

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.8 337.2 0.5 150 785 3.3 191

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 231.0 0.1 189 894 -0.8 310

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.7 225.8 0.7 131 863 4.0 137

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 96.6 0.4 157 696 3.9 141

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 118.6 -1.4 286 872 2.2 264

Erie, NY ............................. 23.5 465.9 0.7 131 772 1.8 278

Kings, NY ........................... 45.2 484.2 2.2 46 789 3.1 207

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.0 385.8 0.1 189 849 4.6 101

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.5 623.6 0.5 150 1,030 4.4 116

New York, NY .................... 118.0 2,419.9 2.2 46 1,862 4.1 131

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 112.7 0.4 157 683 1.8 278

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 256.7 1.1 106 844 5.2 62

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 133.6 1.1 106 $744 2.6 240

Queens, NY ....................... 42.8 509.4 2.1 50 894 5.1 68

Richmond, NY .................... 8.6 95.5 0.2 181 804 5.1 68

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.8 119.1 1.7 68 953 5.1 68

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 77.9 1.0 114 735 3.4 186

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.1 639.1 1.2 97 997 4.8 86

Westchester, NY ................ 36.4 432.7 1.5 81 1,248 3.3 191

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.1 118.8 2.3 41 712 3.5 172

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.7 88.4 -1.5 287 687 2.4 254

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 120.6 1.8 61 675 6.0 33

Durham, NC ....................... 7.0 186.8 1.6 75 1,151 7.2 16

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.3 189.8 1.1 106 803 2.2 264

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.9 286.3 0.7 131 781 1.8 278

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.6 578.6 2.7 28 1,000 3.1 207

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.6 106.3 2.1 50 736 4.7 94

Wake, NC .......................... 28.5 459.8 3.9 6 893 3.0 219

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 99.1 3.2 17 762 5.2 62

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 150.2 2.1 50 776 4.3 123

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 37.7 750.9 -0.5 243 909 3.9 141

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.7 698.8 1.1 106 847 1.6 285

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.0 525.8 0.2 181 960 4.7 94

Lake, OH ............................ 6.7 101.7 -0.1 215 739 2.8 226

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.2 98.8 -2.1 298 723 2.8 226

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.7 222.4 -1.8 294 765 2.4 254

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.3 105.2 -0.1 215 655 3.5 172

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.8 269.0 -1.8 294 807 -2.4 312

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 163.3 0.4 157 686 3.5 172

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 276.9 0.4 157 809 2.8 226

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 78.5 -5.7 312 752 -7.2 315

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.7 426.2 1.0 114 806 6.1 32

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.6 348.9 0.9 119 818 5.1 68

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.7 152.5 1.4 87 816 2.9 223

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.8 86.0 -0.6 250 651 4.0 137

Lane, OR ........................... 11.1 152.6 0.3 173 693 3.1 207

Marion, OR ........................ 9.5 139.1 1.8 61 694 3.6 164

Multnomah, OR .................. 27.6 458.1 2.4 37 915 5.3 59

Washington, OR ................ 16.2 253.2 -0.2 224 1,007 6.6 25

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.4 692.7 0.6 143 942 2.8 226

Berks, PA ........................... 9.3 171.4 -0.4 238 813 5.2 62

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.3 267.9 0.0 202 880 3.5 172

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 80.4 1.3 91 766 ( 7) – 

Chester, PA ....................... 15.1 245.3 2.4 37 1,154 3.7 152

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 126.7 -0.9 265 799 3.2 198

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 182.8 0.2 181 846 2.2 264

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 214.0 0.9 119 940 2.4 254

Erie, PA .............................. 7.3 128.6 0.3 173 701 4.5 108

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 102.9 -0.4 238 680 2.6 240

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.3 232.1 0.4 157 742 1.6 285

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 180.3 0.4 157 915 5.8 40

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 143.1 -0.2 224 686 5.1 68

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.5 495.3 0.3 173 $1,152 5.3 59

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 101.4 2.3 41 781 2.8 226

Philadelphia, PA ................ 30.2 639.7 0.1 189 1,068 5.8 40

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 79.3 0.7 131 783 7.4 14

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 136.4 -1.2 277 728 9.8 5

York, PA ............................. 9.2 180.5 1.4 87 763 1.7 283

Kent, RI .............................. 5.8 81.4 -2.8 304 775 4.4 116

Providence, RI ................... 18.3 288.4 -2.0 296 868 2.0 271

Charleston, SC .................. 12.2 213.4 2.7 28 785 7.5 12

Greenville, SC .................... 12.6 241.6 1.7 68 769 3.1 207

Horry, SC ........................... 8.4 111.4 -1.0 269 582 0.5 302

Lexington, SC .................... 5.7 97.8 2.4 37 673 3.9 141

Richland, SC ...................... 9.3 217.1 -0.5 243 759 2.8 226

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.1 120.9 1.3 91 746 3.2 198

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.3 116.0 1.8 61 734 4.4 116

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.5 452.0 ( 7) – 953 4.3 123

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.7 196.7 0.4 157 788 3.0 219

Knox, TN ............................ 11.1 232.2 1.5 81 787 3.0 219

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 101.2 2.5 34 837 4.5 108

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.1 516.0 -0.2 224 935 5.5 50

Williamson, TN ................... 5.9 87.8 4.5 3 1,020 8.2 8

Bell, TX .............................. 4.5 99.7 1.7 68 671 4.8 86

Bexar, TX ........................... 32.1 730.9 2.6 32 793 4.5 108

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.6 87.3 2.7 28 840 4.6 101

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.8 85.6 ( 7) – 658 ( 7) – 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.5 124.8 1.0 114 555 5.1 68

Collin, TX ........................... 16.5 290.0 ( 7) – 1,015 ( 7) – 

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.9 1,504.8 2.1 50 1,112 3.8 149

Denton, TX ......................... 10.3 170.0 3.6 9 792 2.7 236

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.3 275.3 2.9 21 625 3.6 164

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.1 129.0 7.4 1 967 5.9 35

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 98.5 ( 7) – 828 6.2 29

Harris, TX ........................... 96.1 2,061.4 3.7 8 1,152 5.9 35

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.5 219.9 3.9 6 562 3.3 191

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 124.4 0.0 202 867 4.2 129

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.7 124.0 1.1 106 683 4.6 101

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 105.0 1.7 68 702 3.5 172

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.9 125.4 ( 7) – 847 ( 7) – 

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.2 154.9 2.1 50 764 4.1 131

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 94.9 2.8 25 760 3.1 207

Tarrant, TX ......................... 36.7 777.0 2.3 41 897 2.9 223

Travis, TX .......................... 28.3 579.2 2.9 21 1,012 ( 7) – 

Webb, TX ........................... 4.9 90.0 2.9 21 590 3.1 207

Williamson, TX ................... 6.9 121.8 ( 7) – 947 16.5 2

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 103.3 1.5 81 729 2.1 268

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 39.0 599.7 2.8 25 843 5.0 76

Utah, UT ............................ 13.1 177.5 2.9 21 714 5.0 76

Weber, UT ......................... 5.8 95.6 2.8 25 673 3.5 172

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 96.5 0.1 189 875 5.9 35

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.6 157.0 3.6 9 1,458 4.7 94

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.5 123.3 0.6 143 $800 3.1 207

Fairfax, VA ......................... 33.1 593.2 0.6 143 1,358 4.5 108

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.2 182.8 1.6 75 903 -0.1 309

Loudoun, VA ...................... 8.4 132.2 2.6 32 1,084 2.1 268

Prince William, VA ............. 6.9 104.9 -0.9 265 817 7.2 16

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.0 101.8 -1.0 269 1,240 3.9 141

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 101.6 -0.7 259 701 3.1 207

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 100.7 0.5 150 794 3.5 172

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.8 144.0 -0.6 250 866 3.7 152

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.4 160.2 ( 7) – 1,013 ( 7) – 

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.6 178.4 0.4 157 709 3.2 198

Clark, WA ........................... 12.1 133.6 1.6 75 793 3.7 152

King, WA ............................ 77.0 1,194.1 3.0 20 1,088 4.1 131

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.7 84.7 0.5 150 787 3.3 191

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.8 278.4 2.3 41 780 5.0 76

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.8 256.1 3.2 17 905 6.0 33

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.4 211.0 1.5 81 706 4.3 123

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.9 100.6 3.1 19 785 4.7 94

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.9 83.3 3.5 12 689 7.0 19

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.0 92.8 2.2 46 596 4.0 137

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 109.5 0.2 181 764 5.4 53

Brown, WI .......................... 6.8 151.3 0.9 119 795 4.6 101

Dane, WI ............................ 14.1 308.3 ( 7) – 834 ( 7) – 

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.3 502.9 0.2 181 900 4.5 108

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.1 106.5 2.3 41 754 3.1 207

Racine, WI ......................... 4.2 76.4 -1.6 290 884 6.9 20

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.4 238.3 -0.2 224 892 -2.3 311

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.8 90.9 1.3 91 813 2.5 245

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.4 300.4 -3.9 ( 8) 607 4.5 ( 8) 

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

These 328 U.S. counties comprise 71.2 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 2007 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,064.5 137,027.3 0.8 $898 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 8,773.2 115,110.2 0.7 901 4.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 125.5 1,769.5 2.8 948 8.6

Construction ............................................... 893.7 7,383.8 -2.1 1,002 5.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 360.8 13,748.3 -2.0 1,075 3.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,919.0 27,258.0 0.8 758 3.4

Information ................................................. 145.2 3,048.3 -0.6 1,358 5.1

Financial activities ...................................... 872.2 8,105.2 -1.5 1,395 3.6

Professional and business services ........... 1,497.1 18,098.9 1.7 1,157 5.7

Education and health services ................... 830.4 17,781.1 3.1 841 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 728.7 13,174.3 1.8 383 4.1

Other services ............................................ 1,185.8 4,469.7 1.7 564 3.3

Government ................................................... 291.2 21,917.0 1.2 879 4.9

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 418.1 4,293.4 0.8 1,054 3.7

Private industry .............................................. 414.1 3,688.0 0.5 1,050 3.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.9 -1.3 1,202 19.5

Construction ............................................... 14.3 155.1 -2.1 1,087 5.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 15.1 441.5 ( 6) 1,066 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 55.1 849.5 0.4 847 2.2

Information ................................................. 8.9 215.6 5.6 1,794 -2.0

Financial activities ...................................... 25.0 241.9 -3.9 1,520 2.2

Professional and business services ........... 43.4 616.2 -0.7 1,311 10.2

Education and health services ................... 28.1 490.0 2.3 943 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.2 400.9 1.1 865 3.3

Other services ............................................ 187.1 254.5 5.2 451 2.0

Government ................................................... 4.0 605.4 2.6 1,081 ( 6) 

Cook, IL .............................................................. 138.5 2,556.2 -0.1 1,101 4.8

Private industry .............................................. 137.1 2,247.9 0.0 1,111 4.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.1 -11.5 1,054 -5.2

Construction ............................................... 12.2 92.4 -2.6 1,379 4.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.1 236.6 -2.3 1,089 2.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.6 492.4 -0.8 845 3.2

Information ................................................. 2.6 58.9 0.6 1,547 8.7

Financial activities ...................................... 15.9 215.0 -1.9 1,981 13.3

Professional and business services ........... 28.4 443.8 0.6 1,469 4.3

Education and health services ................... 13.6 374.7 2.3 918 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.6 232.5 ( 6) 441 5.0

Other services ............................................ 14.0 96.1 0.6 758 5.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 308.3 -0.9 1,028 4.0

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.0 2,419.9 2.2 1,862 4.1

Private industry .............................................. 117.7 1,967.9 2.6 2,050 4.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 7.0 1,511 10.2

Construction ............................................... 2.4 36.4 9.9 1,911 8.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 36.9 -4.3 1,560 8.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.0 265.1 2.0 1,309 2.7

Information ................................................. 4.4 136.0 1.2 2,059 0.1

Financial activities ...................................... 18.6 383.6 1.8 4,129 4.7

Professional and business services ........... 24.6 497.4 ( 6) 2,170 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 8.6 294.7 1.4 1,062 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.2 221.3 4.4 895 -4.2

Other services ............................................ 17.5 89.3 1.9 988 -0.8

Government ................................................... 0.3 452.0 0.3 1,045 2.0

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 96.1 2,061.4 3.7 $1,152 5.9

Private industry .............................................. 95.6 1,809.3 4.0 1,182 5.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 80.1 ( 6) 3,098 14.2

Construction ............................................... 6.7 155.5 6.9 1,130 3.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 183.4 2.7 1,518 12.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.0 441.2 3.7 997 4.4

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.6 0.4 1,289 6.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.7 120.8 1.5 1,443 4.2

Professional and business services ........... 19.2 342.5 4.4 1,373 2.8

Education and health services ................... 10.2 216.8 ( 6) 926 2.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.4 175.5 3.1 385 2.1

Other services ............................................ 11.3 59.2 4.7 654 6.9

Government ................................................... 0.5 252.2 1.5 940 5.3

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 100.3 1,848.2 -0.1 875 2.0

Private industry .............................................. 99.7 1,624.4 -0.6 874 1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.6 0.2 846 8.6

Construction ............................................... 10.8 153.4 -10.8 954 3.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 131.5 ( 6) 1,173 -4.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.0 392.4 1.5 794 0.9

Information ................................................. 1.6 30.6 -1.8 1,068 -1.0

Financial activities ...................................... 12.9 147.4 -4.4 1,071 -2.6

Professional and business services ........... 22.4 319.2 0.2 938 7.3

Education and health services ................... 9.8 203.8 4.8 971 4.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.3 184.8 2.6 424 4.7

Other services ............................................ 7.2 50.5 1.1 601 6.6

Government ................................................... 0.7 223.7 3.0 880 4.3

Orange, CA ........................................................ 99.1 1,517.7 -1.6 1,027 2.8

Private industry .............................................. 97.7 1,366.6 -1.9 1,029 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 4.6 1.0 666 3.7

Construction ............................................... 7.1 98.2 -8.0 1,180 4.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.3 175.1 ( 6) 1,236 5.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.7 293.1 ( 6) 938 4.2

Information ................................................. 1.4 30.4 -0.5 1,368 -1.7

Financial activities ...................................... 11.3 119.7 -12.4 1,620 -0.6

Professional and business services ........... 19.3 272.2 -3.9 1,168 4.5

Education and health services ................... 9.9 145.3 4.7 941 2.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 174.9 2.4 401 4.4

Other services ............................................ 15.1 48.6 1.9 602 3.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 151.1 0.4 1,011 10.0

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.9 1,504.8 2.1 1,112 3.8

Private industry .............................................. 67.4 1,338.5 2.1 1,131 3.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 7.4 ( 6) 3,412 ( 6) 

Construction ............................................... 4.4 83.7 2.7 1,058 3.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 141.4 -1.3 1,231 7.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.1 316.1 1.6 1,037 6.8

Information ................................................. 1.7 48.4 ( 6) 1,503 ( 6) 

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 145.1 0.7 1,457 -2.1

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 278.1 3.7 1,338 3.4

Education and health services ................... 6.6 148.7 4.9 1,021 2.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.4 129.2 4.0 497 2.7

Other services ............................................ 6.5 39.5 2.6 658 3.1

Government ................................................... 0.5 166.2 2.3 960 5.5

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 96.4 1,340.3 0.1 $963 4.4

Private industry .............................................. 95.1 1,112.9 -0.1 945 3.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 10.7 2.7 576 -2.2

Construction ............................................... 7.3 81.7 -10.3 1,080 5.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 103.6 ( 6) 1,302 7.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.5 231.0 -0.7 750 3.3

Information ................................................. 1.3 38.9 2.6 1,913 12.5

Financial activities ...................................... 9.9 78.6 -5.3 1,172 0.4

Professional and business services ........... 16.5 217.4 0.8 1,216 2.5

Education and health services ................... 8.1 130.7 3.4 927 3.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 160.3 1.9 410 3.8

Other services ............................................ 23.8 56.2 0.4 489 -0.8

Government ................................................... 1.3 227.4 1.5 1,050 7.4

King, WA ............................................................ 77.0 1,194.1 3.0 1,088 4.1

Private industry .............................................. 76.5 1,040.0 3.3 1,098 3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.7 4.5 1,407 6.1

Construction ............................................... 6.8 72.5 9.9 1,119 8.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 112.4 1.4 1,353 -1.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 227.9 2.3 944 4.8

Information ................................................. 1.8 76.8 3.7 1,920 2.2

Financial activities ...................................... 7.0 76.0 -0.7 1,378 2.3

Professional and business services ........... 13.3 192.6 5.1 1,320 5.8

Education and health services ................... 6.4 123.4 4.0 863 5.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.1 111.4 3.0 443 3.7

Other services ............................................ 17.6 44.2 2.1 607 8.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 154.1 1.0 1,026 5.9

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 87.8 1,032.1 0.0 902 0.6

Private industry .............................................. 87.4 877.9 -0.2 888 0.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.4 -1.3 516 6.2

Construction ............................................... 6.4 50.6 ( 6) 935 ( 6) 

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 45.7 -5.2 817 2.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.5 260.2 0.3 808 -0.7

Information ................................................. 1.5 20.7 1.0 1,205 0.8

Financial activities ...................................... 10.6 71.6 -1.8 1,397 4.6

Professional and business services ........... 17.8 135.8 ( 6) 1,147 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 9.2 139.4 3.6 883 3.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.9 104.2 1.6 509 5.8

Other services ............................................ 7.7 36.5 2.9 543 3.8

Government ................................................... 0.4 154.2 1.2 981 2.4

 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 2007 2

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,064.5 137,027.3 0.8 $898 4.2

Jefferson, AL ............................ 19.0 367.5 ( 7) 901 3.4

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 146.2 0.8 924 5.0

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 100.3 1,848.2 -0.1 875 2.0

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.8 253.6 1.2 986 26.2

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 418.1 4,293.4 0.8 1,054 3.7

Denver, CO .............................. 25.5 448.2 2.0 1,129 5.6

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.5 511.1 0.7 1,100 5.2

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.3 289.1 -0.2 1,031 3.0

Washington, DC ....................... 32.4 681.6 0.7 1,506 5.8

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 87.8 1,032.1 0.0 902 0.6

Fulton, GA ................................ 40.3 771.5 1.1 1,173 2.8

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.7 461.0 0.1 819 4.1

Ada, ID ..................................... 15.2 213.1 0.4 823 0.5

Cook, IL .................................... 138.5 2,556.2 -0.1 1,101 4.8

Marion, IN ................................. 23.9 588.6 0.6 888 2.5

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.8 276.7 1.8 883 3.6

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.4 318.7 1.4 926 4.8

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.5 439.6 0.4 859 3.4

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.1 268.3 1.8 812 5.3

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.4 177.4 1.0 798 3.6

Montgomery, MD ...................... 33.0 466.4 -0.1 1,195 4.9

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.6 827.5 1.2 1,307 7.7

Wayne, MI ................................ 32.1 751.0 -2.6 991 2.2

Hennepin, MN .......................... 42.4 858.4 0.7 1,116 6.2

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.4 130.6 1.0 785 3.4

St. Louis, MO ............................ 33.2 618.4 0.1 977 7.5

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.7 78.2 3.6 729 5.5

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.9 323.0 1.2 860 5.5

Clark, NV .................................. 49.8 929.0 0.8 875 7.2

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.5 201.1 0.0 1,039 4.5

Bergen, NJ ............................... 35.0 464.3 0.3 1,185 5.6

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.8 337.2 0.5 785 3.3

New York, NY ........................... 118.0 2,419.9 2.2 1,862 4.1

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 32.6 578.6 2.7 1,000 3.1

Cass, ND .................................. 5.8 99.1 3.2 762 5.2

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 37.7 750.9 -0.5 909 3.9

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.7 426.2 1.0 806 6.1

Multnomah, OR ........................ 27.6 458.1 2.4 915 5.3

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.4 692.7 0.6 942 2.8

Providence, RI .......................... 18.3 288.4 -2.0 868 2.0

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.6 241.6 1.7 769 3.1

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.3 116.0 1.8 734 4.4

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.1 516.0 -0.2 935 5.5

Harris, TX ................................. 96.1 2,061.4 3.7 1,152 5.9

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 39.0 599.7 2.8 843 5.0

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.9 96.5 0.1 875 5.9

Fairfax, VA ................................ 33.1 593.2 0.6 1,358 4.5

King, WA .................................. 77.0 1,194.1 3.0 1,088 4.1

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 109.5 0.2 764 5.4

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.3 502.9 0.2 900 4.5

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

state, fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 43.5 2.0 $738 7.1

San Juan, PR ........................... 13.4 300.4 -3.9 607 4.5

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 24.0 0.9 703 3.2

 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, 

fourth quarter 2007 2

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07

United States 4 ................... 9,064.5 137,027.3 0.8 $898 4.2

Alabama ............................. 121.1 1,971.0 1.2 762 3.3

Alaska ................................ 21.1 299.4 1.0 877 4.9

Arizona ............................... 160.9 2,693.3 -0.1 827 2.6

Arkansas ............................ 84.1 1,187.6 0.7 712 9.2

California ............................ 1,340.6 15,794.7 0.8 1,035 4.8

Colorado ............................ 177.7 2,329.9 2.0 927 5.7

Connecticut ........................ 113.2 1,717.8 0.7 1,149 4.5

Delaware ............................ 28.6 428.8 0.3 926 3.3

District of Columbia ............ 32.4 681.6 0.7 1,506 5.8

Florida ................................ 614.5 8,024.3 -1.3 810 2.8

Georgia .............................. 275.0 4,111.5 0.6 835 2.8

Hawaii ................................ 38.9 637.2 0.7 793 4.1

Idaho .................................. 57.2 660.2 1.7 686 2.1

Illinois ................................. 363.7 5,933.0 0.6 975 5.1

Indiana ............................... 158.2 2,929.1 0.1 745 3.0

Iowa ................................... 94.0 1,498.5 0.7 732 4.9

Kansas ............................... 86.3 1,372.7 1.2 745 2.6

Kentucky ............................ 111.7 1,830.5 0.8 732 3.4

Louisiana ........................... 121.1 1,903.1 2.3 783 4.7

Maine ................................. 50.6 608.8 0.8 707 4.1

Maryland ............................ 165.2 2,580.1 0.4 986 4.7

Massachusetts ................... 212.7 3,270.9 0.7 1,133 5.4

Michigan ............................ 256.9 4,194.9 -1.2 873 2.5

Minnesota .......................... 170.9 2,708.7 0.8 883 5.1

Mississippi ......................... 70.6 1,148.9 0.7 654 3.8

Missouri ............................. 176.1 2,746.2 0.3 780 5.3

Montana ............................. 42.9 440.4 2.1 659 5.4

Nebraska ........................... 59.6 925.2 1.3 723 5.2

Nevada .............................. 76.5 1,290.8 0.4 872 6.7

New Hampshire ................. 49.7 638.8 0.3 914 -0.3

New Jersey ........................ 275.8 4,027.4 0.2 1,092 3.5

New Mexico ....................... 54.5 831.7 1.1 738 4.8

New York ........................... 579.2 8,762.7 1.4 1,152 4.2

North Carolina .................... 257.3 4,127.7 1.5 777 3.5

North Dakota ...................... 25.4 347.7 2.0 690 7.3

Ohio ................................... 291.4 5,336.8 -0.2 795 2.8

Oklahoma .......................... 100.1 1,556.1 1.3 721 6.2

Oregon ............................... 131.4 1,740.5 0.9 798 4.6

Pennsylvania ..................... 340.5 5,712.8 0.5 873 4.2

Rhode Island ...................... 36.1 480.9 -1.5 838 2.6

South Carolina ................... 118.0 1,904.0 1.0 716 4.1

South Dakota ..................... 30.3 393.5 1.7 647 5.4

Tennessee ......................... 141.8 2,790.3 0.9 813 4.0

Texas ................................. 555.4 10,460.8 3.0 911 4.6

Utah ................................... 88.1 1,241.8 2.8 758 4.6

Vermont ............................. 24.9 309.1 -0.2 743 4.9

Virginia ............................... 227.6 3,709.0 0.7 921 3.8

Washington ........................ 221.4 2,936.0 2.6 885 4.6

West Virginia ...................... 48.8 716.8 0.4 683 4.1

Wisconsin .......................... 159.8 2,803.9 0.3 769 3.1

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

fourth quarter 2007 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2006-07

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2006-07

Wyoming ............................ 24.7 279.6 3.0 $815 7.1

Puerto Rico ........................ 56.5 1,055.2 -1.4 517 4.4

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 46.0 0.6 738 3.9

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

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

0.9% to 7.4%

-5.7% to 0.8%

 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 

 July 2008

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

December 2006-07 (U.S. average = 0.8 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties

4.3% to 26.2%

-12.4% to 4.2%

 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 

 July 2008

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

or more employees, fourth quarter 2006-07 (U.S. average = 4.2 percent)