Technical information: (202) 691-6567

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

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 03-654

For release: 10:00 A.M. EST

Friday, October 31, 2003

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2003

In March 2003, Placer County in California had the biggest 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. Placer County experienced an over-the-year

employment gain of 4.9 percent, compared with a national decline of 0.3 percent. Marin County, Calif., had

the biggest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2003, with an increase of 10.7

percent. U.S. average weekly wages increased by 1.5 percent.

Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 167 had rates of over-the-year employment growth

above the national average in March 2003, and 145 experienced declines in employment greater than the

national average. Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 208 of the largest U.S.

counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 99 counties.

The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled from 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. More than 8.2 million

employer reports cover 126.9 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain

data for the nation and for the 315 U.S. counties with employment levels of 75,000 or more. In addition,

data for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but are not used in calculating U.S. averages. (See Technical

Note.) Data for all counties regardless of size through the fourth quarter of 2002 are available on the BLS

Web site http://www.bls.gov/cew/; data for all U.S. counties for the first quarter of 2003 will be available in

November.

Large County Employment

The national employment total in March 2003 was 126.9 million, which was 0.3 percent lower than in

March 2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.6 percent of total

U.S. employment covered under UI laws, 77.1 percent of total covered wages, and 77.9 percent of the

over-the-year employment decline since March 2002. (San Juan, P.R., is not included in the grouping of

U.S. counties.) The biggest gains in employment from March 2002 to March 2003 were recorded in the

counties of Clark, Nev. (27,500), San Diego, Calif. (20,900), Riverside, Calif. (20,400), and Maricopa,

Ariz., and Pinellas, Fla. (18,500 each). (See table A.)

Placer County, Calif., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (4.9 percent),

followed by the counties of Lee, Fla., and St. Charles, Mo. (4.6 percent each), Rutherford, Tenn. (4.5

percent), and Pinellas, Fla. (4.3 percent). (See table 1 and chart 1.)
2

Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by March 2003 employment, March 2002-03 employment change,

and March 2002-03 percent change in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,050.1 Clark, Nev. 27.5 Placer, Calif. 4.9

Cook, Ill. 2,496.5 San Diego, Calif. 20.9 Lee, Fla. 4.6

New York, N.Y. 2,210.3 Riverside, Calif. 20.4 St. Charles, Mo. 4.6

Harris, Texas 1,830.8 Maricopa, Ariz. 18.5 Rutherford, Tenn. 4.5

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,569.5 Pinellas, Fla. 18.5 Pinellas, Fla. 4.3

Dallas, Texas 1,436.5 Orange, Calif. 14.1 Thurston, Wash. 4.1

Orange, Calif. 1,421.1 Orange, Fla. 11.8 Riverside, Calif. 4.0

San Diego, Calif. 1,250.5 Honolulu, Hawaii 9.1 Clark, Nev. 3.8

King, Wash. 1,080.7 San Bernardino, Calif. 8.9 Yakima, Wash. 3.6

Miami-Dade, Fla. 984.0 Lee, Fla. 8.2 Gloucester, N.J. 3.4

Employment

March 2003 employment

 (thousands)

 Net change in employment,

 March 2002-03

 (thousands)

Percent change in emploment,

 March 2002-03

U.S. 126,860.3 U.S. -443.4 U.S. -0.3

Employment declined in 163 counties from March 2002 to March 2003. The largest percentage decline

in employment was in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-5.9 percent), followed by the counties of Sangamon, Ill.

(-5.4 percent), Catawba, N.C. (-4.2 percent), and Boulder, Colo., and Tulsa, Okla. (-4.1 percent each).

The largest numerical declines in employment occurred in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-53,400), followed by

the counties of Dallas, Texas (-43,900), New York, N.Y. (-41,200), Cook, Ill. (-39,200), and Middlesex,

Mass. (-32,000).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2003 was $729, which was 1.5 percent higher

than the first quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 111 of the

largest 315 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., comprised entirely of the borough of Manhattan, had

the highest pay among the large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,648. Fairfield County, Conn.,

followed with an average weekly wage of $1,376. Somerset County, N.J., was third with an average weekly wage of $1,299. Suffolk County, Mass., was fourth with $1,238, followed by Santa Clara County, Calif.,

at $1,235. (See table B.)

Marin County, Calif., led the nation in over-the-year growth in average weekly wages with an increase

of 10.7 percent. Galveston County, Texas, was second with 7.4 percent growth, followed by the counties

of Providence, R.I. (7.3 percent), Macomb, Mich. (6.7 percent), and Okaloosa, Fla., and Trumbull, Ohio

(6.5 percent each). (See chart 2.)

There were 201 counties with average weekly wages below the national average. The lowest average

weekly wage (excluding San Juan, P.R.) was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($438), followed by the

counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($445), Horry, S.C. ($487), Pasco, Fla. ($488), and Brazos, Texas ($503).

(See table 1.)

Thirty-one large counties showed over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Hudson County,

N.J., had the largest decrease, registering a 9.1 percent decline. Loudoun County, Va., was second with a
3

Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by first quarter 2003 average weekly wages, first quarter 2002-03

change in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2002-03 percent change in average weekly wages

New York, N.Y. $1,648 Marin, Calif. $90 Marin, Calif. 10.7

Fairfield, Conn. 1,376 Somerset, N.J. 68 Galveston, Texas 7.4

Somerset, N.J. 1,299 Macomb, Mich. 52 Providence, R.I. 7.3

Suffolk, Mass. 1,238 Providence, R.I. 51 Macomb, Mich. 6.7

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,235 Chester, Pa. 47 Okaloosa, Fla. 6.5

San Francisco, Calif 1,234 Clayton, Ga. 46 Trumbull, Ohio 6.5

Arlington, Va. 1,138 Johnson, Kan. 45 Clayton, Ga. 6.3

Washington, D.C. 1,135 Galveston, Texas 44 Sangamon, Ill. 6.3

Morris, N.J. 1,106 Sangamon, Ill. 44 Summit, Ohio 6.3

Fairfax, Va. 1,091 Williamson, Texas 43 Johnson, Kan. 6.0

U.S. $729 U.S. $11 U.S. 1.5

Average weekly wages

 Average weekly wages,

 first quarter 2003

Change in average weekly

wages, first quarter 2002-03

Percent change in average

 weekly wages, first quarter

 2002-03

7.9 percent decline, followed by the counties of New York, N.Y. (-5.9 percent), and Calcasieu, La., and

Richmond, N.Y. (-4.0 percent each).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 annual employment levels), 3 experienced increases in

employment, 1 had no change in employment, and 6 experienced declines in employment from March 2002

to March 2003. San Diego County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest

counties with a 1.7 percent increase. San Diego’s growth was spread across most industry supersectors,

with the largest exception in manufacturing, where employment declined by 6.3 percent. (See table 2.)

Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest increase, with employment rising by 1.2 percent, followed by

Orange County, Calif., which experienced a 1.0 percent increase in employment. The biggest decline in

employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, a decrease of 3.0 percent. This was

primarily attributable to an 8.0 percent decrease in manufacturing of 11,600 jobs. The next largest declines

in employment were recorded in New York County, N.Y., and Cook County, Ill., where employment fell

by 1.8 and 1.5 percent, respectively.

Seven of the 10 largest U.S. counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages, and 3

had declines. Orange County, Calif., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing

at a 3.6 percent rate. Orange County’s fastest growing industry for wages was financial activities, up by

8.9 percent. Miami-Dade County, Fla., experienced growth in wages of 2.7 percent, followed by San

Diego County, Calif., with a 2.6 percent increase. New York County, N.Y., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, falling by 5.9 percent. This was primarily

attributable to a 12.7 percent decrease in average weekly wages in financial activities. This was followed

by King County, Wash., with a decline in average weekly wages of 1.1 percent, and Harris County, Texas,

where average weekly wages declined by 0.5 percent.
4

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows employment and average weekly wages in the largest county for each state. This table

includes two counties that had employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont. and Laramie, Wyo.). The

employment levels in these counties in March 2003 ranged from over 4 million in Los Angeles County,

Calif., to about 38,000 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wages of these counties

were $1,648 in New York, N.Y., while the lowest average weekly wages were in Yellowstone, Mont.

($532).

 QCEW Employment Totals and the CES Benchmark

QCEW employment totals, adjusted for coverage differences, are used each year by the

CES program to adjust monthly nonfarm payroll employment estimates to the employment

census totals. This CES adjustment is commonly referred to as the annual benchmark. The

QCEW totals presented in this release will differ to some extent from the adjusted totals used

in the benchmark process. For details on how the latest QCEW data may affect the CES

benchmark and on how QCEW employment totals are adjusted as part of this process,

please see http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesbmkqa.htm.
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 Employment Security

Agencies (SESAs). The summaries are a byproduct 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. Data for

2003 are preliminary and subject to revision.

Differences between QCEW and CES employment

measures. The employment and wage universe totals from the

QCEW differ from the official Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

estimates of employment and earnings produced by the Current

Employment Statistics (CES) program due to differences in

scope and coverage. The preliminary universe totals released

by BLS are based on establishment reports including more than

95 percent of the employees within the scope of the QCEW

program. Estimates are used to impute employment and wages

for the remaining establishments. Please see http://

www.bls.gov/ces/ for more detailed technical information on

the CES program concepts, coverage, and methodology.

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.

Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI

laws and for federal civilian workers covered by the

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)

program are compiled from quarterly contribution reports

submitted to the SESAs by employers. 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 wages data included in

this release are derived from microdata summaries of more than

8 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 2002, UI and UCFE programs covered

workers in 128.2 million jobs. Covered workers received $4.713

trillion in pay, representing 94.3 percent of the wage and salary

component of personal income and 45.1 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.

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 from unrounded employment and wage

values so the average wage values that can be calculated from

data from this database may differ from the averages reported,

due to rounding. Included in the quarterly wage data are nonwage 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.

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

to part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in

high-paying and low-paying occupations. When comparing

average weekly wage levels between industries and/or states,

these factors should be taken into consideration.

Percent changes are calculated using the final 2002 quarterly

data as the base data. Final data for 2002 may differ from

preliminary data published earlier.

In order to insure the highest possible quality of data,

SESAs 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 the verification 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. For these reasons, some

data, especially at more detailed industry levels, may not be

strictly comparable with earlier years. The 2002 first quarter

data used to calculate the over-the-year changes presented in

this release were adjusted for changes in county classification

to make them comparable with data for the first quarter of 2003.

As a result, the adjusted 2002 first quarter data differ to some

extent from the data available on the BLS Web site.

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.

Change in industry classification systems

Beginning with the release of data for 2001 in 2002,

publications presenting data from the Quarterly Census of

Employment and Wages program use the 2002 version of the

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as the

basis for the assignment and tabulation of economic data by

industry. NAICS is the product of a cooperative effort on the

part of the statistical agencies of the United States, Canada,

and Mexico. The NAICS structure is significantly different

from that of the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

system, which had been used for industry classification

purposes until 2002. Due to the differences in NAICS and SIC

structures, industry data for 2001 are not comparable with the

SIC-based data for earlier years.

NAICS uses a production-oriented approach to categorize

economic units. Units with similar production processes are

classified in the same industry. NAICS focuses on how

products and services are created, as opposed to the SIC focus

on what is produced. This approach yields significantly

different industry groupings than those produced by the SIC

approach.

Data users will be able to work with new NAICS industrial

groupings that better reflect the workings of the U.S. economy.

For example, a new industry sector called Information brings

together units which turn information into a commodity with

units which distribute that commodity. Information’s major

components are publishing, broadcasting, telecommunications, information services, and data processing. Under the

SIC system, these units were spread across the manufacturing,

communications, business services, and amusement services

groups. Another new sector of interest is Professional and

technical services. This sector is comprised of establishments

engaged in activities where human capital is the major input.

Users interested in more information about NAICS

can access the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web page

(http://www.bls.gov/bls/naics.htm) and the U.S. Census

Bureau Web page (http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/

naics.html). The NAICS 2002 manual is available from the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Web page

(http://www.ntis.gov/).

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. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2001 is

available for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O.

Box 2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The

2002 annual bulletin will be published in November 2003.

News releases on 2002 quarterly employment and pay data

are available upon request from the Division of Administrative

Statistics and Labor Turnover, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20212; telephone

202-691-6567; (http://www.bls.gov/cew/); (e-mail:

CEWInfo@bls.gov).

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows are

also 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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

first quarter 20032

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

first quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,250.6 126,860.3 -0.3 - $729 1.5 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.2 368.0 -1.7 260 742 4.7 28

Madison, AL ....................... 7.6 158.0 2.6 17 760 4.8 27

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.5 162.6 -0.9 203 581 1.9 185

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.5 128.2 -0.5 180 602 4.7 28

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.0 77.2 1.2 72 584 3.5 64

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.4 136.7 2.6 17 740 0.4 265

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 79.0 1,569.5 1.2 72 699 1.2 231

Pima, AZ ............................ 17.3 327.9 0.1 138 616 2.7 130

Benton, AR ........................ 3.9 80.5 2.7 16 751 1.5 210

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.1 237.0 0.4 114 636 2.3 161

Washington, AR ................. 4.8 82.5 -0.2 159 544 3.4 69

Alameda, CA ...................... 48.1 685.1 -1.3 234 922 1.3 225

Contra Costa, CA ............... 27.9 337.6 0.0 143 913 0.7 257

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.2 312.7 2.1 33 579 3.0 101

Kern, CA ............................ 15.8 235.2 2.8 15 655 2.7 130

Los Angeles, CA ................ 347.1 4,050.1 0.0 143 817 1.2 231

Marin, CA ........................... 11.9 108.8 -1.5 247 931 10.7 1

Monterey, CA ..................... 11.9 157.3 2.2 27 670 2.9 112

Orange, CA ........................ 87.6 1,421.1 1.0 83 832 3.6 58

Placer, CA .......................... 9.1 123.5 4.9 1 701 2.6 139

Riverside, CA ..................... 35.8 534.2 4.0 7 617 2.8 115

Sacramento, CA ................ 45.0 592.7 0.7 100 819 3.5 64

San Bernardino, CA ........... 39.0 565.8 1.6 48 627 3.8 51

San Diego, CA ................... 83.8 1,250.5 1.7 45 777 2.6 139

San Francisco, CA ............. 44.0 533.0 -2.7 296 1,234 -2.2 305

San Joaquin, CA ................ 15.2 210.4 3.0 12 623 3.1 95

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 8.6 98.8 -0.5 180 596 4.4 34

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.3 333.3 -3.3 307 1,089 -1.2 301

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.0 178.3 1.9 40 686 3.3 78

Santa Clara, CA ................. 51.2 858.0 -5.9 315 1,235 -1.8 304

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.3 92.2 -1.8 266 704 3.5 64

Solano, CA ......................... 9.1 125.6 2.2 27 667 1.1 236

Sonoma, CA ...................... 16.9 187.2 -2.4 290 702 2.0 179

Stanislaus, CA ................... 12.9 162.3 1.7 45 617 4.0 42

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.0 129.4 1.5 54 506 3.7 57

Ventura, CA ....................... 20.3 303.1 0.5 109 773 5.2 17

Yolo, CA ............................. 4.9 88.2 2.3 24 700 3.2 88

Adams, CO ........................ 8.5 138.1 -3.3 307 671 1.5 210

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.7 267.4 -2.7 296 918 0.1 280

Boulder, CO ....................... 11.6 149.8 -4.1 311 869 2.6 139

Denver, CO ........................ 24.0 424.9 -1.9 273 882 1.0 243

El Paso, CO ....................... 15.4 229.4 -1.7 260 674 1.7 202

Jefferson, CO ..................... 17.6 200.2 -1.4 241 754 1.1 236

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.0 116.5 -1.5 247 643 0.2 276

Fairfield, CT ....................... 31.6 406.5 -1.8 266 1,376 2.1 170

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.0 475.1 -2.7 296 938 3.9 46

New Haven, CT ................. 21.7 357.7 -0.7 194 777 1.6 206

New London, CT ................ 6.5 127.0 -0.2 159 750 2.6 139

New Castle, DE ................. 17.3 271.4 -0.5 180 932 0.4 265

Washington, DC ................. 29.3 651.8 1.1 79 1,135 2.8 115

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

first quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

first quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Alachua, FL ........................ 5.6 121.2 1.5 54 $527 3.9 46

Brevard, FL ........................ 11.9 184.3 0.6 107 662 2.5 148

Broward, FL ....................... 55.0 682.8 0.9 88 671 2.8 115

Collier, FL .......................... 10.0 122.4 2.1 33 605 2.0 179

Duval, FL ........................... 21.3 428.6 0.3 122 713 4.7 28

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.1 122.8 1.7 45 558 1.5 210

Hillsborough, FL ................. 29.6 614.3 1.1 79 677 3.0 101

Lee, FL ............................... 14.2 187.8 4.6 2 584 1.9 185

Leon, FL ............................. 8.1 142.3 1.8 42 592 3.0 101

Manatee, FL ....................... 6.4 (7) (7) - 553 2.6 139

Marion, FL .......................... 5.9 85.1 1.2 72 514 3.4 69

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 78.0 984.0 -0.2 159 692 2.7 130

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 4.8 78.5 3.0 12 541 6.5 5

Orange, FL ......................... 28.0 601.7 2.0 37 652 2.0 179

Palm Beach, FL ................. 41.2 518.6 1.5 54 712 1.9 185

Pasco, FL ........................... 7.1 81.2 2.5 20 488 5.4 14

Pinellas, FL ........................ 27.3 444.0 4.3 5 616 -0.5 292

Polk, FL .............................. 10.1 187.2 -0.6 187 562 3.3 78

Sarasota, FL ...................... 12.5 142.8 -0.2 159 586 2.6 139

Seminole, FL ...................... 11.3 149.3 1.3 64 632 -0.3 288

Volusia, FL ......................... 11.2 150.0 1.8 42 517 4.4 34

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.8 84.0 -0.9 203 606 -3.3 310

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.1 123.1 0.7 100 609 2.9 112

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.5 110.2 -1.3 234 775 6.3 7

Cobb, GA ........................... 19.8 299.1 1.6 48 805 1.0 243

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.1 299.9 0.2 131 808 4.4 34

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.7 728.8 -0.9 203 1,010 2.1 170

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 20.9 290.0 -0.1 152 776 0.5 261

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 97.0 0.8 95 589 2.8 115

Richmond, GA ................... 4.9 102.9 -0.3 167 602 4.9 23

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.0 416.7 2.2 27 660 2.0 179

Ada, ID ............................... 12.8 179.3 0.4 114 648 0.3 271

Champaign, IL ................... 3.9 89.4 0.9 88 605 1.0 243

Cook, IL ............................. 125.5 2,496.5 -1.5 247 905 1.3 225

Du Page, IL ........................ 31.9 556.1 -0.8 200 863 2.4 153

Kane, IL ............................. 10.5 190.3 -0.6 187 655 2.7 130

Lake, IL .............................. 18.5 311.2 0.9 88 906 -2.5 307

McHenry, IL ....................... 7.1 89.4 -0.1 152 633 2.3 161

McLean, IL ......................... 3.3 84.4 -0.3 167 708 2.8 115

Madison, IL ........................ 5.5 93.6 -1.6 256 587 2.1 170

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.5 95.5 -2.8 301 667 2.3 161

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.3 76.8 -1.1 224 658 -0.2 285

St. Clair, IL ......................... 4.9 90.8 0.7 100 566 1.3 225

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.0 135.1 -5.4 314 746 6.3 7

Will, IL ................................ 10.0 146.4 1.2 72 668 0.1 280

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.6 133.9 -1.9 273 638 1.8 193

Allen, IN ............................. 8.6 176.1 -1.3 234 659 1.4 218

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 113.7 2.6 17 617 3.4 69

Hamilton, IN ....................... 5.9 81.9 2.3 24 780 1.6 206

Lake, IN ............................. 9.8 189.8 1.5 54 635 5.0 21

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

first quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

first quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Marion, IN .......................... 23.6 565.5 -1.0 216 $769 0.4 265

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 121.5 0.6 107 624 3.3 78

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 108.0 0.1 138 615 1.2 231

Linn, IA ............................... 5.9 114.4 -1.3 234 678 2.4 153

Polk, IA .............................. 13.6 254.2 -0.8 200 752 4.3 37

Scott, IA ............................. 4.9 82.4 -0.1 152 576 0.9 249

Johnson, KS ...................... 18.3 284.1 0.0 143 791 6.0 10

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 11.5 239.8 -2.1 280 666 0.5 261

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.7 95.8 -2.3 286 609 -0.8 296

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.1 74.4 -3.5 309 716 1.0 243

Fayette, KY ........................ 8.7 163.3 0.1 138 670 4.9 23

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.6 412.9 -0.9 203 708 3.4 69

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.1 117.5 -1.4 241 588 4.3 37

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.6 81.9 -2.9 302 575 -4.0 311

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.1 239.8 1.0 83 624 3.8 51

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.9 210.8 -0.6 187 591 2.4 153

Lafayette, LA ...................... 7.5 118.7 1.3 64 622 -0.3 288

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.7 248.6 -0.9 203 674 1.2 231

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.2 162.8 -0.1 152 663 3.0 101

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 12.9 201.8 0.0 143 729 0.3 271

Baltimore, MD .................... 19.9 351.9 -1.3 234 745 3.5 64

Frederick, MD .................... 5.2 84.7 0.7 100 695 3.9 46

Howard, MD ....................... 7.6 133.3 0.0 143 818 2.6 139

Montgomery, MD ............... 30.6 445.9 0.0 143 940 2.7 130

Prince Georges, MD .......... 14.5 307.0 -0.2 159 767 1.3 225

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.0 364.0 -1.5 247 826 1.8 193

Barnstable, MA .................. 8.9 82.2 1.3 64 632 1.8 193

Bristol, MA ......................... 14.5 213.9 -0.9 203 640 2.4 153

Essex, MA .......................... 19.9 291.2 -2.3 286 773 2.7 130

Hampden, MA .................... 13.1 196.0 -2.1 280 694 3.0 101

Middlesex, MA ................... 46.6 782.5 -3.9 310 1,003 1.5 210

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.3 313.5 -1.9 273 892 3.1 95

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.0 164.8 -0.7 194 690 3.4 69

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.7 565.5 -3.0 304 1,238 0.4 265

Worcester, MA ................... 19.6 311.7 -0.9 203 730 2.2 166

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.6 153.7 -2.6 295 722 4.0 42

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.1 168.6 -2.2 283 725 1.1 236

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.6 115.1 -1.2 228 714 3.8 51

Kent, MI ............................. 14.4 325.7 -1.6 256 682 2.6 139

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.1 316.8 -0.3 167 832 6.7 4

Oakland, MI ....................... 41.8 724.0 -1.2 228 919 4.7 28

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 108.2 -1.2 228 638 3.4 69

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.7 89.5 -1.0 216 695 5.3 15

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.2 194.2 -0.6 187 827 3.4 69

Wayne, MI .......................... 35.5 804.8 -1.8 266 857 4.9 23

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.1 107.3 -0.6 187 690 3.3 78

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.4 160.7 2.2 27 735 2.8 115

Hennepin, MN .................... 40.8 812.8 -1.5 247 923 1.1 236

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.2 85.2 1.3 64 757 2.3 161

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.5 322.1 -1.2 228 831 3.6 58

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

first quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

first quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.6 91.8 0.5 109 $615 3.2 88

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.1 74.9 -1.5 247 562 3.5 64

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.4 88.1 2.0 37 537 3.3 78

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.6 129.6 -1.8 266 621 5.3 15

Boone, MO ......................... 4.2 75.9 -0.7 194 545 -0.2 285

Clay, MO ............................ 4.9 85.3 1.3 64 664 2.6 139

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 144.0 2.4 21 545 1.9 185

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.9 364.4 -2.5 293 752 -0.8 296

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.0 105.9 4.6 2 626 3.1 95

St. Louis, MO ..................... 34.1 618.7 -0.6 187 785 2.2 166

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.4 230.5 -2.7 296 861 1.1 236

Douglas, NE ....................... 14.7 304.9 -1.7 260 695 3.3 78

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.3 146.7 0.8 95 592 2.8 115

Clark, NV ........................... 33.9 744.2 3.8 8 655 2.5 148

Washoe, NV ....................... 11.5 192.3 2.2 27 673 2.4 153

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.0 187.4 -0.1 152 783 3.8 51

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.4 126.6 -0.4 171 725 3.6 58

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.4 138.8 0.7 100 662 3.3 78

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.0 446.2 0.0 143 936 1.5 210

Burlington, NJ .................... 10.9 193.3 1.6 48 775 1.8 193

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.9 201.8 1.0 83 750 3.6 58

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.0 360.0 -0.2 159 982 2.1 170

Gloucester, NJ ................... 5.8 94.5 3.4 10 648 0.6 260

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.6 235.7 -1.3 234 1,034 -9.1 315

Mercer, NJ ......................... 10.3 217.2 0.0 143 984 2.4 153

Middlesex, NJ .................... 20.3 386.2 -2.9 302 980 1.0 243

Monmouth, NJ ................... 19.3 239.8 -0.4 171 805 0.8 254

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.3 274.3 -1.5 247 1,106 0.1 280

Ocean, NJ .......................... 11.2 135.5 1.4 59 629 2.8 115

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.3 174.5 -1.2 228 782 3.2 88

Somerset, NJ ..................... 9.7 168.1 -2.3 286 1,299 5.5 12

Union, NJ ........................... 14.8 232.9 -0.8 200 948 0.5 261

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.8 308.3 1.2 72 628 2.1 170

Albany, NY ......................... 9.4 224.7 -1.0 216 762 2.3 161

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.1 214.1 0.3 122 674 1.4 218

Broome, NY ....................... 4.4 97.2 -0.4 171 589 -2.2 305

Dutchess, NY ..................... 7.5 114.0 0.3 122 756 0.3 271

Erie, NY ............................. 23.3 447.7 -0.4 171 656 1.9 185

Kings, NY ........................... 41.2 438.7 0.8 95 631 1.4 218

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.6 378.5 -0.9 203 729 0.3 271

Nassau, NY ........................ 49.9 588.8 0.4 114 800 1.0 243

New York, NY .................... 112.6 2,210.3 -1.8 266 1,648 -5.9 313

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 106.7 0.2 131 566 0.2 276

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.5 243.4 0.3 122 683 0.1 280

Orange, NY ........................ 8.9 122.3 1.4 59 607 3.2 88

Queens, NY ....................... 39.3 469.8 0.0 143 723 1.4 218

Richmond, NY .................... 7.7 86.1 0.3 122 632 -4.0 311

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.1 108.5 0.3 122 768 1.2 231

Suffolk, NY ......................... 46.4 579.2 0.1 138 761 2.7 130

Westchester, NY ................ 34.9 399.6 0.2 131 989 -2.5 307

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

first quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

first quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Buncombe, NC .................. 6.9 102.9 0.1 138 $551 1.1 236

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.5 87.5 -4.2 313 551 1.8 193

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.8 109.0 1.6 48 540 1.3 225

Durham, NC ....................... 6.4 161.7 -2.4 290 985 1.3 225

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.6 173.5 -2.7 296 715 4.2 40

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.4 265.0 -1.0 216 669 3.1 95

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 28.5 499.9 -2.0 278 936 3.3 78

New Hanover, NC .............. 6.4 86.3 -0.7 194 567 0.7 257

Wake, NC .......................... 23.6 373.9 -1.0 216 742 1.8 193

Cass, ND ........................... 5.0 82.6 2.1 33 583 2.8 115

Butler, OH .......................... 6.8 126.5 -0.2 159 647 2.2 166

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.7 753.4 -0.9 203 768 2.9 112

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.7 674.9 -2.5 293 743 3.1 95

Hamilton, OH ..................... 25.2 540.1 -0.1 152 800 2.8 115

Lake, OH ............................ 6.7 95.5 -0.7 194 634 3.8 51

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.2 98.9 -0.4 171 619 3.0 101

Lucas, OH .......................... 11.0 223.5 -1.4 241 681 3.0 101

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.5 102.9 -1.0 216 551 3.6 58

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.3 284.9 -1.7 260 697 2.8 115

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 165.7 -2.2 283 586 3.9 46

Summit, OH ....................... 14.8 257.0 -0.6 187 704 6.3 7

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.9 85.8 -1.5 247 672 6.5 5

Oklahoma, OK ................... 21.5 396.4 -2.3 286 620 5.1 20

Tulsa, OK ........................... 18.2 319.3 -4.1 311 649 -1.7 303

Clackamas, OR .................. 11.0 129.7 -1.5 247 661 1.7 202

Lane, OR ........................... 10.2 136.3 0.2 131 558 3.0 101

Marion, OR ........................ 8.3 123.9 1.3 64 573 2.5 148

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.3 418.1 -1.9 273 748 1.8 193

Washington, OR ................ 13.9 218.1 -0.9 203 810 -2.6 309

Allegheny, PA .................... 36.0 687.5 -1.1 224 769 1.1 236

Berks, PA ........................... 8.7 157.9 -2.2 283 652 0.9 249

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.5 247.0 1.6 48 688 1.5 210

Chester, PA ....................... 14.3 213.5 -0.4 171 945 5.2 17

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.5 123.2 0.5 109 691 1.6 206

Dauphin, PA ....................... 6.8 171.6 -0.9 203 724 0.3 271

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.7 210.1 -0.5 180 805 4.3 37

Erie, PA .............................. 7.2 123.2 -1.1 224 563 -0.2 285

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.6 96.5 -0.4 171 561 0.9 249

Lancaster, PA .................... 11.4 217.2 -0.1 152 631 2.8 115

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.1 165.0 -1.6 256 727 1.5 210

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 137.2 -0.9 203 580 2.1 170

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.2 472.3 -1.3 234 936 2.5 148

Northampton, PA ............... 5.9 90.0 0.2 131 623 -0.3 288

Philadelphia, PA ................ 27.1 654.0 0.2 131 834 1.7 202

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.3 129.5 -1.0 216 569 2.0 179

York, PA ............................. 8.4 162.2 -1.1 224 657 3.8 51

Kent, RI .............................. 5.4 76.9 2.0 37 638 2.7 130

Providence, RI ................... 17.2 282.9 -0.5 180 747 7.3 3

Charleston, SC .................. 12.8 184.9 3.1 11 586 3.2 88

Greenville, SC .................... 13.2 221.4 1.3 64 655 3.0 101

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

first quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

first quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Horry, SC ........................... 8.5 96.7 2.2 27 $487 5.0 21

Lexington, SC .................... 6.0 82.4 0.5 109 534 0.9 249

Richland, SC ...................... 10.4 204.9 1.1 79 617 2.8 115

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.9 115.6 -0.4 171 650 1.4 218

Minnehaha, SD .................. 5.8 105.7 1.4 59 594 4.9 23

Davidson, TN ..................... 17.9 423.2 0.9 88 721 3.0 101

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.3 186.5 0.3 122 611 2.5 148

Knox, TN ............................ 10.3 207.8 2.3 24 611 3.0 101

Rutherford, TN ................... 3.5 81.8 4.5 4 637 1.4 218

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.0 494.3 1.5 54 730 2.4 153

Bell, TX .............................. 4.0 88.8 0.3 122 538 1.5 210

Bexar, TX ........................... 29.0 652.7 0.4 114 637 2.2 166

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.0 75.6 -2.4 290 712 1.9 185

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.4 77.3 0.7 100 503 0.8 254

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.0 115.0 1.4 59 438 2.1 170

Collin, TX ........................... 11.4 191.2 0.8 95 812 -1.3 302

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.4 1,436.5 -3.0 304 890 0.2 276

Denton, TX ......................... 7.8 126.1 -0.3 167 600 0.0 284

El Paso, TX ........................ 12.3 250.8 0.4 114 510 2.8 115

Fort Bend, TX .................... 5.9 96.5 1.0 83 740 -0.4 291

Galveston, TX .................... 4.7 88.2 0.9 88 641 7.4 2

Harris, TX ........................... 87.7 1,830.8 -0.9 203 860 -0.5 292

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 8.9 179.9 1.9 40 445 4.0 42

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 115.2 -3.0 304 634 -0.5 292

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.4 115.4 -1.4 241 531 3.3 78

McLennan, TX ................... 4.6 96.8 -0.4 171 559 2.0 179

Montgomery, TX ................ 6.0 84.2 1.8 42 626 -0.9 298

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 143.6 0.4 114 586 1.9 185

Smith, TX ........................... 4.8 84.4 0.3 122 591 4.2 40

Tarrant, TX ......................... 33.1 687.5 -1.7 260 739 1.7 202

Travis, TX .......................... 24.0 507.3 -2.0 278 815 1.4 218

Williamson, TX ................... 4.6 80.5 0.8 95 808 5.6 11

Davis, UT ........................... 5.7 86.9 1.1 79 595 3.1 95

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 32.3 508.2 -1.7 260 647 -1.1 299

Utah, UT ............................ 9.9 139.0 0.5 109 536 0.4 265

Weber, UT ......................... 5.0 85.4 1.2 72 525 2.1 170

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.6 91.6 -1.4 241 718 0.8 254

Arlington, VA ...................... 6.8 148.6 -1.9 273 1,138 3.2 88

Chesterfield, VA ................. 6.5 108.3 -0.7 194 647 0.5 261

Fairfax, VA ......................... 29.6 525.1 0.4 114 1,091 4.0 42

Henrico, VA ........................ 7.9 165.1 -0.5 180 806 3.6 58

Loudoun, VA ...................... 5.8 101.1 2.9 14 872 -7.9 314

Prince William, VA ............. 5.5 85.4 1.2 72 621 3.3 78

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.6 89.7 0.7 100 903 1.8 193

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 4.6 88.7 2.4 21 543 3.4 69

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.6 94.7 0.9 88 639 2.7 130

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.5 144.2 -0.2 159 695 5.5 12

Richmond City, VA ............. 6.9 159.1 -1.6 256 870 3.4 69

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 10.3 161.5 -0.5 180 551 4.6 33

Clark, WA ........................... 10.9 113.9 1.6 48 645 0.2 276

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

first quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

first quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

King, WA ............................ 85.3 1,080.7 -1.0 216 $919 -1.1 299

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.5 75.9 2.1 33 664 1.8 193

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.1 240.5 2.4 21 638 3.2 88

Snohomish, WA ................. 16.9 206.0 1.0 83 749 1.9 185

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.4 187.7 1.4 59 584 0.7 257

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.7 88.7 4.1 6 651 -0.5 292

Yakima, WA ....................... 9.4 87.9 3.6 9 (7) (7) - 

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 107.8 -1.2 228 636 1.6 206

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 139.5 0.4 114 649 0.9 249

Dane, WI ............................ 13.3 279.2 0.9 88 697 3.9 46

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.3 496.4 -1.4 241 739 2.1 170

Outagamie, WI ................... 4.9 95.1 1.3 64 635 2.4 153

Racine, WI ......................... 4.3 74.2 -2.1 280 653 5.2 17

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.1 219.0 0.2 131 736 0.4 265

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.9 85.6 -1.8 266 703 2.8 115

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.6 313.4 -1.8 266 464 4.7 28

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

These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.6 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 Percent changes were computed from annual employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

first quarter 20032

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages4

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-033

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

March

2002-033

United States5 .................................................... 8,250.6 126,860.3 -0.3 $729 1.5

Private industry .............................................. 7,984.4 105,662.0 -0.6 727 1.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 125.0 1,528.5 -0.5 674 0.1

Construction ............................................... 800.9 6,292.4 -1.4 723 -0.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 383.0 14,618.6 -4.6 882 3.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,861.1 24,709.0 -0.8 634 1.9

Information ................................................. 148.1 3,204.6 -6.7 1,155 1.1

Financial activities ...................................... 755.5 7,758.4 1.5 1,255 -1.3

Professional and business services ........... 1,315.8 15,653.9 -0.7 865 1.2

Education and health services ................... 721.9 15,678.7 2.9 637 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 660.2 11,734.6 1.4 303 2.0

Other services ............................................ 1,060.7 4,243.4 0.6 459 2.0

Government ................................................... 266.2 21,198.4 0.7 739 3.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 347.1 4,050.1 0.0 817 1.2

Private industry .............................................. 343.3 3,448.7 0.1 797 0.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 11.8 -0.9 945 -7.5

Construction ............................................... 12.9 133.1 0.6 789 0.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 18.3 512.3 -5.9 839 4.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 53.7 766.9 0.4 691 2.7

Information ................................................. 9.5 206.3 -5.6 1,473 4.8

Financial activities ...................................... 22.7 235.5 1.4 1,290 -3.9

Professional and business services ........... 39.7 563.6 1.0 895 0.9

Education and health services ................... 25.9 448.1 3.3 697 0.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 24.9 355.6 2.2 456 0.4

Other services ............................................ 134.5 214.3 6.6 405 1.5

Government ................................................... 3.8 601.4 -0.7 928 2.8

Cook, IL .............................................................. 125.5 2,496.5 -1.5 905 1.3

Private industry .............................................. 124.3 2,168.2 -2.0 911 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.3 -2.3 899 2.3

Construction ............................................... 10.2 88.1 -2.7 1,045 -1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 8.0 271.4 -5.7 897 4.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 26.6 477.6 -1.1 714 1.7

Information ................................................. 2.5 66.5 -7.0 1,294 3.9

Financial activities ...................................... 13.5 216.9 -0.7 1,806 -1.7

Professional and business services ........... 25.8 396.8 -4.3 1,126 2.2

Education and health services ................... 12.1 344.8 0.0 688 3.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.4 204.7 1.9 356 0.0

Other services ............................................ 12.7 95.2 -0.7 616 2.7

Government ................................................... 1.1 328.3 1.5 869 2.8

New York, NY ..................................................... 112.6 2,210.3 -1.8 1,648 -5.9

Private industry .............................................. 112.4 1,762.0 -1.7 1,817 -7.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 1.6 1,484 1.2

Construction ............................................... 2.2 29.8 -5.7 1,336 3.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.7 48.9 -8.8 1,068 4.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.7 233.9 0.3 1,009 1.4

Information ................................................. 4.5 130.7 -6.7 1,966 8.3

Financial activities ...................................... 17.1 350.8 -3.3 4,219 -12.7

Professional and business services ........... 22.9 428.1 -3.2 1,669 -6.7

Education and health services ................... 7.8 270.7 1.0 840 5.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.1 178.2 2.7 635 1.9

Other services ............................................ 15.9 82.1 0.6 758 2.0

Government ................................................... 0.2 448.3 -2.2 987 8.6

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

first quarter 20032 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages4

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-033

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

March

2002-033

Harris, TX ........................................................... 87.7 1,830.8 -0.9 $860 -0.5

Private industry .............................................. 87.3 1,587.0 -1.5 877 -0.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.2 60.5 3.4 2,229 3.9

Construction ............................................... 6.4 142.6 -2.8 802 -1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.7 169.1 -5.5 1,093 4.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 390.5 -3.6 818 -4.9

Information ................................................. 1.4 34.7 -6.7 1,096 -1.2

Financial activities ...................................... 9.1 110.6 -0.4 1,192 -1.9

Professional and business services ........... 16.8 279.5 -2.0 913 -2.0

Education and health services ................... 8.5 183.8 2.1 719 3.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 155.2 4.5 313 1.0

Other services ............................................ 10.3 57.6 -3.4 506 -0.4

Government ................................................... 0.4 243.8 3.5 749 3.7

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 79.0 1,569.5 1.2 699 1.2

Private industry .............................................. 78.5 1,352.8 1.0 700 0.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.0 4.3 534 17.4

Construction ............................................... 8.4 123.1 1.3 700 -0.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 127.8 -6.4 1,019 0.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 18.7 316.7 1.1 687 0.9

Information ................................................. 1.6 38.0 -3.6 847 1.0

Financial activities ...................................... 9.2 131.5 2.4 935 4.5

Professional and business services ........... 17.7 251.0 1.1 683 1.0

Education and health services ................... 7.4 153.4 4.9 694 3.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.3 156.0 3.2 337 1.5

Other services ............................................ 5.6 45.0 0.5 470 0.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 216.7 2.7 694 2.7

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.4 1,436.5 -3.0 890 0.2

Private industry .............................................. 67.0 1,279.1 -3.5 904 0.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.4 -25.0 2,154 4.6

Construction ............................................... 4.5 72.5 -7.5 774 2.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 145.6 -8.0 1,010 0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.8 320.5 -3.5 866 1.8

Information ................................................. 1.8 65.1 -14.3 1,305 1.6

Financial activities ...................................... 8.3 137.7 -0.5 1,269 -0.3

Professional and business services ........... 13.9 232.0 -3.6 956 -0.1

Education and health services ................... 6.1 129.4 5.1 782 1.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.0 125.1 -0.3 431 5.1

Other services ............................................ 6.8 42.7 -2.5 545 -0.5

Government ................................................... 0.4 157.4 1.7 778 1.7

Orange, CA ........................................................ 87.6 1,421.1 1.0 832 3.6

Private industry .............................................. 86.2 1,267.6 1.3 813 3.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 8.6 -1.6 472 1.3

Construction ............................................... 6.4 81.8 3.8 863 0.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.2 184.4 -5.8 947 6.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.4 263.1 0.4 775 2.2

Information ................................................. 1.5 34.5 -7.8 1,208 0.7

Financial activities ...................................... 9.4 119.0 8.6 1,323 8.9

Professional and business services ........... 17.3 252.5 3.3 858 -0.8

Education and health services ................... 8.9 123.0 6.7 702 2.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 155.6 0.1 343 6.2

Other services ............................................ 12.0 44.8 3.9 481 0.4

Government ................................................... 1.4 153.5 -1.6 985 6.7

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,

first quarter 20032 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages4

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-033

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

March

2002-033

San Diego, CA ................................................... 83.8 1,250.5 1.7 $777 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 82.5 1,025.6 1.6 756 2.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.9 11.3 -1.6 438 0.9

Construction ............................................... 6.4 75.9 2.0 774 1.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.7 107.7 -6.3 1,004 0.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.2 204.0 2.1 656 4.5

Information ................................................. 1.4 37.0 -3.0 1,322 4.3

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 78.9 5.2 1,101 2.3

Professional and business services ........... 14.6 202.7 1.5 919 2.8

Education and health services ................... 7.5 120.2 3.0 661 5.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 136.9 4.8 332 4.4

Other services ............................................ 18.6 50.5 4.8 430 2.9

Government ................................................... 1.3 224.9 2.1 874 3.6

King, WA ............................................................ 85.3 1,080.7 -1.0 919 -1.1

Private industry .............................................. 84.7 926.5 -1.4 934 -1.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 3.3 -1.2 1,180 24.1

Construction ............................................... 6.9 51.4 -4.4 868 0.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 105.8 -10.3 1,174 -1.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.0 213.7 -1.4 788 1.4

Information ................................................. 1.7 66.6 -3.2 2,121 -9.5

Financial activities ...................................... 6.3 76.2 2.4 1,183 5.1

Professional and business services ........... 12.9 157.7 1.3 1,031 -0.8

Education and health services ................... 6.0 107.2 0.7 673 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 95.8 1.4 371 4.8

Other services ............................................ 26.1 48.6 1.1 440 -1.1

Government ................................................... 0.6 154.2 1.5 830 2.9

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 78.0 984.0 -0.2 692 2.7

Private industry .............................................. 77.8 831.9 -0.4 676 2.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 11.6 4.4 349 -2.8

Construction ............................................... 4.7 39.2 0.7 690 2.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 53.1 -5.4 630 5.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.8 242.9 -1.8 656 3.5

Information ................................................. 1.7 28.9 -7.7 1,026 0.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.0 65.6 1.6 1,074 -3.6

Professional and business services ........... 15.1 134.3 -3.0 773 6.2

Education and health services ................... 7.6 122.8 2.1 672 4.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.1 94.6 4.3 368 -1.6

Other services ............................................ 7.3 35.2 -1.8 427 2.2

Government ................................................... 0.3 152.1 0.7 779 4.8

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Percent changes were computed from annual employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county

by state, first quarter 20032

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

United States6 .................... 8,250.6 126,860.3 -0.3 $729 1.5

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.2 368.0 -1.7 742 4.7

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.4 136.7 2.6 740 0.4

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 79.0 1,569.5 1.2 699 1.2

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.1 237.0 0.4 636 2.3

Los Angeles, CA ................ 347.1 4,050.1 0.0 817 1.2

Denver, CO ........................ 24.0 424.9 -1.9 882 1.0

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.0 475.1 -2.7 938 3.9

New Castle, DE ................. 17.3 271.4 -0.5 932 0.4

Washington, DC ................. 29.3 651.8 1.1 1,135 2.8

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 78.0 984.0 -0.2 692 2.7

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.7 728.8 -0.9 1,010 2.1

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.0 416.7 2.2 660 2.0

Ada, ID ............................... 12.8 179.3 0.4 648 0.3

Cook, IL ............................. 125.5 2,496.5 -1.5 905 1.3

Marion, IN .......................... 23.6 565.5 -1.0 769 0.4

Polk, IA .............................. 13.6 254.2 -0.8 752 4.3

Johnson, KS ...................... 18.3 284.1 0.0 791 6.0

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.6 412.9 -0.9 708 3.4

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.7 248.6 -0.9 674 1.2

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.2 162.8 -0.1 663 3.0

Montgomery, MD ............... 30.6 445.9 0.0 940 2.7

Middlesex, MA ................... 46.6 782.5 -3.9 1,003 1.5

Wayne, MI .......................... 35.5 804.8 -1.8 857 4.9

Hennepin, MN .................... 40.8 812.8 -1.5 923 1.1

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.6 129.6 -1.8 621 5.3

St. Louis, MO ..................... 34.1 618.7 -0.6 785 2.2

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.6 66.7 0.9 532 0.6

Douglas, NE ....................... 14.7 304.9 -1.7 695 3.3

Clark, NV ........................... 33.9 744.2 3.8 655 2.5

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.0 187.4 -0.1 783 3.8

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.0 446.2 0.0 936 1.5

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.8 308.3 1.2 628 2.1

New York, NY .................... 112.6 2,210.3 -1.8 1,648 -5.9

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 28.5 499.9 -2.0 936 3.3

Cass, ND ........................... 5.0 82.6 2.1 583 2.8

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.7 753.4 -0.9 768 2.9

Oklahoma, OK ................... 21.5 396.4 -2.3 620 5.1

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.3 418.1 -1.9 748 1.8

Allegheny, PA .................... 36.0 687.5 -1.1 769 1.1

Providence, RI ................... 17.2 282.9 -0.5 747 7.3

Greenville, SC .................... 13.2 221.4 1.3 655 3.0

Minnehaha, SD .................. 5.8 105.7 1.4 594 4.9

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.0 494.3 1.5 730 2.4

Harris, TX ........................... 87.7 1,830.8 -0.9 860 -0.5

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 32.3 508.2 -1.7 647 -1.1

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.6 91.6 -1.4 718 0.8

Fairfax, VA ......................... 29.6 525.1 0.4 1,091 4.0

King, WA ............................ 85.3 1,080.7 -1.0 919 -1.1

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 107.8 -1.2 636 1.6

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.3 496.4 -1.4 739 2.1

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county

by state, first quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

first quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wages5

March

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Average

weekly

wages

Percent

change,

March

2002-034

Laramie, WY ...................... 2.8 38.1 3.5 $560 2.4

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.6 313.4 -1.8 464 4.7

St. Thomas, VI ................... 1.7 23.2 2.0 572 6.5

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 Percent changes were computed from annual employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employe

March 2002-03 (U.S. Average = -0.3%)

Source

Octobe

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

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

or territory. Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wages in counties with 75,000 

more, first quarter 2002-03 (U.S. Average = 1.5%)

Source

Octobe

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

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

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