Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 

News United States 

Department 

of Labor 

Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 08-0455 

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

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT 

Media contact: 691-5902 Wednesday, April 9, 2008 

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: THIRD QUARTER 2007 

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

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

Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Orleans County, which includes the city of New Orleans, experienced 

an over-the-year employment gain of 8.6 percent, compared with national job growth of 0.9 percent. Clayton 

County, Ga., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2007, with an 

increase of 23.9 percent due to increases in wage disbursements in the trade, transportation, and utilities 

supersector during the quarter. The U.S. average weekly wage rose by 4.3 percent over the same time span. 

Of the 328 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2006 annual average employment, 130 had 

over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (0.9 percent) in September 2007; 179 

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

weekly wages was higher than the national average (4.3 percent) in 101 of the largest U.S. counties, but was 

below the national average in 207 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 number of employer reports 

surpassed the 9.0 million mark this quarter; the number of employer reports crossed the 8.0 million mark in third 

quarter 2001. The employer reports in third quarter 2007 cover 136.2 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. September 2007 employment and 2007 third-quarter average 

C hart 2 . Top ranking large count ies by percent growt h in

 average weekly wages, t hird quart er 2 0 0 7 

 ( U .S. average = 4 .3 percent )

0

10

20

30

Clayt on, Ga. Muscogee, Ga. Sant a Clara,

Calif .

Rock Island, Ill. Davidson, Tenn.

Percent

Chart 1. Top ranking large counties in percent growth in 

 employment, September 2007 

 (U.S. av erage = 0.9 percent)

0

5

10

15

20

Orleans, La. Fort Bend,

Texas

Williamson,

Tenn.

Wake, N.C. Utah, Utah

P ercent
2 

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

growth, and September 2006-07 percent growth in employment 

 

Employment in large counties 

 

September 2007 employment Growth in employment, Percent growth in employment, 

(thousands) September 2006-07 September 2006-07 

 (thousands) 

United States 136,246.9 United States 1,216.7 United States 0.9 

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,191.6 Harris, Texas 74.7 Orleans, La. 8.6 

Cook, Ill. 2,541.5 New York, N.Y. 46.8 Fort Bend, Texas 7.1 

New York, N.Y. 2,350.3 Dallas, Texas 32.7 Williamson, Tenn. 5.8 

Harris, Texas 2,028.0 King, Wash. 26.6 Wake, N.C. 5.2 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,825.1 Wake, N.C. 22.3 Utah, Utah 5.0 

Orange, Calif. 1,503.8 Mecklenburg, N.C. 21.8 Hidalgo, Texas 4.5 

Dallas, Texas 1,487.3 Tarrant, Texas 19.8 Snohomish, Wash. 4.4 

San Diego, Calif. 1,325.9 Salt Lake, Utah 19.5 Mecklenburg, N.C. 4.0 

King, Wash. 1,182.8 Bexar, Texas 18.1 Charleston, S.C. 3.8 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,012.4 San Francisco, Calif. 18.0 Harris, Texas 3.8 

 Arlington, Va. 3.8 

weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. Final data for all states, metropolitan statistical 

areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth quarter of 2006 are available on the BLS Web site at 

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

site. Updated data for first and second quarter 2007 and preliminary data for third quarter 2007 will be available 

later in April on the BLS Web site. 

Large County Employment

In September 2007, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 136.2 million, up by 0.9 

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

of total U.S. employment and 76.7 percent of total wages. These 328 counties had a net job gain of 742,807 over 

the year, accounting for 61.1 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 217 of the 

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

percentage increase in employment (8.6 percent). Fort Bend, Texas, had the next largest increase, 7.1 percent, 

followed by the counties of Williamson, Tenn. (5.8 percent), Wake, N.C. (5.2 percent), and Utah, Utah (5.0 

percent). The large employment gains in Orleans County reflected significant recovery from the substantial job 

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

Employment declined in 86 counties from September 2006 to September 2007. The largest percentage decline 

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

decline (-5.4 percent), followed by the counties of Sarasota, Fla. (-4.3 percent), Manatee, Fla. (-4.2 percent), and 

Atlantic, N.J. (-3.8 percent). 

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

counties of Harris, Texas (74,700), New York, N.Y. (46,800), Dallas, Texas (32,700), King, Wash. (26,600), and 

Wake, N.C. (22,300). (See table A.) The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Orange, Calif. 

(-19,100), followed by the counties of Wayne, Mich. (-18,000), Oakland, Mich. (-9,600), Pinellas, Fla. (-9,500), 

and Macomb, Mich. (-9,400). 
3 

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

growth in average weekly wages, and third 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 

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

 quarter 2006-07 

United States $818 United States $34 United States 4.3 

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,585 Clayton, Ga. $177 Clayton, Ga. 23.9 

New York, N.Y. 1,544 Santa Clara, Calif. 167 Muscogee, Ga. 12.1 

Washington, D.C. 1,376 New York, N.Y. 123 Santa Clara, Calif. 11.8 

Arlington, Va. 1,364 Fairfield, Conn. 100 Rock Island, Ill. 11.5 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,322 Suffolk, Mass. 93 Davidson, Tenn. 9.1 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,299 Rock Island, Ill. 87 Weld, Colo. 8.7 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,298 King, Wash. 84 New York, N.Y. 8.7 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,286 Muscogee, Ga. 75 Fairfield, Conn. 8.3 

Fairfax, Va. 1,243 Davidson, Tenn. 72 Kitsap, Wash. 8.3 

Somerset, N.J. 1,210 Washington, D.C. 69 Butler, Ohio 8.1 

 

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2007 was $818. Average weekly wages were higher 

than the national average in 112 of the largest 328 U.S. counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among 

the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,585. New York County, N.Y., was second 

with an average weekly wage of $1,544, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,376), Arlington, Va. ($1,364), and 

San Mateo, Calif. ($1,322). (See table B.) 

There were 215 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the third quarter of 

2007. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($518), followed by the counties 

of Hidalgo, Texas ($529), Horry, S.C. ($536), Webb, Texas ($548), and Yakima, Wash. ($568). (See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.3 percent. Among the largest counties, Clayton 

County, Ga., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 23.9 percent from the third 

quarter of 2006. Muscogee, Ga., was second with growth of 12.1 percent, followed by the counties of Santa Clara, 

Calif. (11.8 percent), Rock Island, Ill. (11.5 percent), and Davidson, Tenn. (9.1 percent). 

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

decreases in wages, Trumbull, Ohio, had the greatest decline (-10.6 percent), followed by the counties of 

Vanderburgh, Ind. (-6.1 percent), Genesee, Mich. (-4.0 percent), Saginaw, Mich. (-3.1 percent), and Montgomery, 

Ohio (-3.0 percent). 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Seven of the 10 largest counties (based on 2006 annual average employment levels) experienced over-theyear percent increases in employment in September 2007. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in 

employment among the 10 largest counties with a 3.8 percent increase. Within Harris County, the largest gains in 

employment were in construction (5.5 percent) and education and health services (5.4 percent). King, Wash., had 

the next largest increase in employment, 2.3 percent, followed by Dallas, Texas (2.2 percent). September 

employment levels remained stable over the year in both San Diego, Calif., and Cook, Ill. (0.0 percent each). 
4 

Orange, Calif., experienced a 1.3 percent decrease in employment over the year. Within Orange County, five 

industry groups experienced employment declines, with financial activities experiencing the largest decline, -9.8 

percent. (See table 2.) 

Each of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. New York, N.Y., 

had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 8.7 percent. Within New York 

County, average weekly wages increased the most in the financial activities industry (16.3 percent), followed by 

the natural resources and mining industry (11.8 percent). Because natural resources and mining is a small industry 

in New York County, its over-the-year average weekly wage growth had little impact on the county’s overall 

average weekly wage growth. King, Wash., was second in wage growth with a gain of 8.0 percent, followed by 

Harris, Texas (6.7 percent). The smallest wage gain among the 10 largest counties occurred in Orange, Calif. (2.6 

percent), followed by Cook, Ill. (3.3 percent), and Los Angeles, Calif. (3.4 percent). 

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows September 2007 employment and the 2007 third 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 September 2007 ranged from approximately 4.19 million in Los 

Angeles County, Calif., to 43,900 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties 

was in New York, N.Y. ($1,544), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($672). 

For More Information

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

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

obtained by calling (202) 691-6567. 

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

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

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

July 24, 2008. 
Technical Note 

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

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

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

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

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

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

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

revision. 

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

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

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

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

large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual 

average of employment for the previous year. The 329 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2006 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2007 data, four counties have 

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

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

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

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

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.0 million establishments 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.9 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the 

county, MSA, state, and national 

levels by detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for 

benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/ 
this and future 2007 releases because its 2006 average annual employment level was less than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are 

selected and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from the preceding year. 

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures 

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

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

somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and 

publication product. 

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown 

in the table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) 

program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly 

reports 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 9.0 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 will contain selected data produced by Business 

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

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

a CD for enhanced access and usability with the printed booklet 

containing selected graphic representations of QCEW data; the data 

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

be available for sale in early 2008 from the United States Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 

371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone (866) 512-1800, outside 

Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number 

is (202) 512-1800. The fax number is (202) 512-2104. Also, the 

2006 bulletin is available in a portable document format (PDF) on 

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

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

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

BDMInfo@bls.gov). 

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

TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339. 
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

third quarter 2007 2

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,012.8 136,246.9 0.9 – $818 4.3 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.9 363.6 ( 7) – 837 ( 7) – 

Madison, AL ....................... 8.7 178.8 3.4 14 896 3.7 149

Mobile, AL .......................... 10.0 173.6 1.5 84 697 0.6 298

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.7 138.6 0.0 218 692 3.3 193

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.4 86.8 1.8 73 701 3.7 149

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 149.2 0.2 200 894 5.5 48

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 99.3 1,825.1 0.2 200 822 3.8 140

Pima, AZ ............................ 21.0 373.9 ( 7) – 731 ( 7) – 

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 96.0 1.1 112 713 3.6 168

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.7 250.9 0.6 157 751 4.3 102

Washington, AR ................. 5.7 93.0 -0.2 234 663 3.3 193

Alameda, CA ...................... 49.8 690.8 -0.5 257 1,080 2.1 261

Butte, CA ........................... 7.7 77.2 -1.1 282 641 6.3 27

Contra Costa, CA ............... 28.2 345.5 -1.0 278 1,003 2.8 223

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.3 373.9 1.1 112 643 3.7 149

Kern, CA ............................ 17.5 291.6 0.2 200 720 7.0 15

Los Angeles, CA ................ 401.9 4,191.6 0.4 181 925 3.4 188

Marin, CA ........................... 11.5 109.1 0.6 157 1,021 4.5 92

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.3 182.0 0.5 168 738 6.2 32

Orange, CA ........................ 95.3 1,503.8 -1.3 289 924 2.6 236

Placer, CA .......................... 10.6 138.9 -0.2 234 810 4.1 117

Riverside, CA ..................... 43.8 629.5 -1.4 291 702 3.7 149

Sacramento, CA ................ 51.8 640.7 -0.3 239 905 3.5 177

San Bernardino, CA ........... 46.6 661.5 0.0 218 724 3.3 193

San Diego, CA ................... 92.7 1,325.9 0.0 218 887 4.4 98

San Francisco, CA ............. 44.8 563.4 3.3 17 1,286 3.4 188

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.4 231.2 0.7 146 715 4.1 117

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.2 107.0 1.4 93 689 3.0 211

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.0 343.1 1.2 106 1,322 3.6 168

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.7 189.2 2.0 57 780 ( 7) – 

Santa Clara, CA ................. 56.9 902.3 1.7 76 1,585 11.8 3

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.7 103.6 1.0 122 750 -1.3 310

Solano, CA ......................... 9.8 129.3 0.1 211 788 3.4 188

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.0 196.4 0.8 137 814 3.8 140

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.3 179.2 -1.1 282 696 3.1 204

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.0 153.6 0.6 157 585 3.7 149

Ventura, CA ....................... 21.9 317.2 -0.5 257 840 2.4 248

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.6 104.2 ( 7) – 759 0.1 305

Adams, CO ........................ 9.5 155.7 0.5 168 768 3.4 188

Arapahoe, CO .................... 20.1 284.0 2.7 35 960 0.4 303

Boulder, CO ....................... 13.0 161.1 2.3 47 989 4.0 125

Denver, CO ........................ 26.0 448.4 2.7 35 995 0.9 293

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.6 91.7 2.9 32 832 5.9 36

El Paso, CO ....................... 18.0 249.4 1.5 84 762 4.0 125

Jefferson, CO ..................... 19.2 212.5 1.3 100 841 3.7 149

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.4 133.6 3.0 23 753 3.9 134

Weld, CO ........................... 6.1 84.6 3.1 20 727 8.7 6

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.8 423.7 1.4 93 1,298 8.3 8

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.4 504.9 0.8 137 1,002 6.3 27

New Haven, CT ................. 22.6 367.7 0.2 200 883 5.5 48

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New London, CT ................ 6.9 131.0 0.8 137 $855 5.6 45

New Castle, DE ................. 18.8 282.3 -0.4 248 955 0.0 306

Washington, DC ................. 32.1 679.0 0.6 157 1,376 5.3 60

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 128.8 1.7 76 689 1.6 279

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.8 201.6 -2.5 303 771 4.8 79

Broward, FL ....................... 65.0 747.5 -0.4 248 774 2.8 223

Collier, FL .......................... 12.5 124.0 -5.4 314 748 3.5 177

Duval, FL ........................... 26.2 465.1 0.4 181 833 6.7 18

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.0 130.8 -0.1 230 649 3.5 177

Hillsborough, FL ................. 36.9 639.0 0.0 218 778 2.5 240

Lake, FL ............................. 7.2 82.9 0.3 194 595 1.0 292

Lee, FL ............................... 19.6 215.4 -3.7 310 703 2.0 267

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 146.3 -0.2 234 724 4.3 102

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.0 121.7 -4.2 312 653 2.7 228

Marion, FL .......................... 8.4 101.5 -2.3 301 594 1.7 274

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 86.4 1,012.4 0.4 181 826 4.3 102

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.2 81.9 -2.8 306 675 5.0 67

Orange, FL ......................... 36.3 686.4 1.0 122 756 3.8 140

Palm Beach, FL ................. 50.2 547.0 0.1 211 807 6.3 27

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.9 99.2 -0.9 275 584 -0.5 308

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.5 434.4 -2.1 299 709 4.3 102

Polk, FL .............................. 12.6 202.2 -1.3 289 655 1.2 288

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.1 151.6 -4.3 313 701 3.7 149

Seminole, FL ...................... 15.1 177.8 -0.6 263 708 1.7 274

Volusia, FL ......................... 14.0 165.1 -1.4 291 594 2.4 248

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 83.3 0.5 168 658 2.5 240

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.5 137.6 2.7 35 705 4.1 117

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 114.9 1.3 100 919 23.9 1

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.5 319.3 0.8 137 874 0.5 302

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.3 296.6 -0.4 248 875 2.6 236

Fulton, GA .......................... 40.0 762.2 1.2 106 1,058 2.9 216

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.6 327.2 1.9 67 869 6.8 17

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 97.1 -1.1 282 696 12.1 2

Richmond, GA ................... 4.9 101.9 -0.4 248 709 4.1 117

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.6 451.0 -0.4 248 786 5.8 40

Ada, ID ............................... 15.2 213.9 1.1 112 749 2.9 216

Champaign, IL ................... 4.1 92.4 0.7 146 705 4.8 79

Cook, IL ............................. 138.0 2,541.5 0.0 218 961 3.3 193

Du Page, IL ........................ 35.6 600.0 0.0 218 980 5.8 40

Kane, IL ............................. 12.6 212.7 -0.5 257 742 2.8 223

Lake, IL .............................. 20.8 338.7 1.1 112 972 2.9 216

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.4 104.8 1.1 112 713 2.3 254

McLean, IL ......................... 3.6 86.2 0.8 137 782 1.8 272

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 96.3 0.4 181 663 1.5 283

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 104.7 1.0 122 774 3.3 193

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 79.1 1.5 84 844 11.5 4

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.4 96.8 0.7 146 673 4.8 79

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 130.3 0.0 218 818 4.3 102

Will, IL ................................ 13.3 194.4 3.0 23 728 1.4 284

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 138.3 1.6 81 712 2.3 254

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 184.4 -0.5 257 $692 1.6 279

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 126.0 -0.9 275 681 2.1 261

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.5 111.5 ( 7) – 802 ( 7) – 

Lake, IN ............................. 10.2 195.1 -0.3 239 734 4.9 71

Marion, IN .......................... 24.1 584.8 1.2 106 830 2.1 261

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 125.5 0.0 218 684 2.7 228

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.2 77.0 0.4 181 707 1.7 274

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 107.3 -1.5 296 678 -6.1 315

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 123.7 2.1 56 791 6.5 23

Polk, IA .............................. 14.7 274.6 2.0 57 804 2.9 216

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 89.4 0.4 181 680 4.5 92

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.2 319.2 2.4 44 830 2.0 267

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.1 258.5 2.4 44 737 1.2 288

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 95.1 1.6 81 690 2.2 259

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 81.8 1.8 73 779 0.9 293

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.1 174.9 0.7 146 734 2.8 223

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.2 437.5 1.2 106 791 2.1 261

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 126.6 1.1 112 678 1.3 287

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.8 86.0 0.4 181 696 5.0 67

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.9 264.4 1.9 67 742 5.4 55

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.8 197.0 1.2 106 754 3.7 149

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.5 135.5 3.1 20 778 5.7 44

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.2 166.2 8.6 1 887 1.1 290

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.3 174.7 0.9 131 738 3.8 140

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.4 233.5 0.5 168 875 3.7 149

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.7 377.0 0.6 157 836 4.0 125

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 95.6 0.7 146 796 5.6 45

Harford, MD ....................... 5.7 84.3 0.3 194 811 6.7 18

Howard, MD ....................... 8.5 147.7 0.9 131 945 3.7 149

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.7 460.9 -0.3 239 1,090 5.1 64

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 317.6 1.2 106 901 3.9 134

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.1 346.3 0.5 168 937 3.1 204

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 98.0 0.3 194 690 3.4 188

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.6 221.2 -0.6 263 724 4.5 92

Essex, MA .......................... 20.8 301.5 0.2 200 881 4.3 102

Hampden, MA .................... 14.2 200.5 -0.6 263 760 3.5 177

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.5 818.3 1.4 93 1,176 5.9 36

Norfolk, MA ........................ 22.2 326.0 1.1 112 960 1.6 279

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.8 179.1 -0.3 239 760 2.6 236

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.8 587.0 2.0 57 1,299 7.7 13

Worcester, MA ................... 20.8 322.3 0.2 200 833 5.3 60

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.9 142.5 -3.2 309 736 -4.0 314

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.8 161.6 -0.7 271 781 -1.1 309

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 115.7 -1.1 282 737 3.5 177

Kent, MI ............................. 14.2 340.9 -0.8 273 735 1.1 290

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.8 315.2 -2.9 307 877 4.8 79

Oakland, MI ....................... 39.1 692.0 -1.4 291 958 3.1 204

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 112.3 -2.6 304 711 1.9 271

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.3 86.5 -2.9 307 697 -3.1 313

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 191.6 -1.9 298 954 4.5 92

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Wayne, MI .......................... 32.2 747.7 -2.4 302 $930 3.1 204

Anoka, MN ......................... 8.2 116.7 0.6 157 769 2.9 216

Dakota, MN ........................ 11.1 177.2 1.9 67 772 2.1 261

Hennepin, MN .................... 44.3 849.5 0.8 137 1,043 5.4 55

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.7 91.7 1.4 93 904 3.2 199

Ramsey, MN ...................... 16.1 337.0 0.9 131 896 5.5 48

St. Louis, MN ..................... 6.2 98.4 2.0 57 667 4.2 110

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.7 82.8 3.0 23 657 4.0 125

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 87.4 2.0 57 643 2.7 228

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.4 127.8 -0.3 239 717 3.0 211

Boone, MO ......................... 4.6 83.3 0.7 146 633 2.4 248

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 91.2 3.0 23 779 3.5 177

Greene, MO ....................... 8.2 158.8 3.0 23 637 3.6 168

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.8 371.0 1.3 100 826 3.6 168

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 124.7 0.9 131 694 2.4 248

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.3 611.9 0.5 168 873 6.3 27

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 234.2 -1.0 278 887 1.4 284

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.7 318.8 1.0 122 782 6.5 23

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.0 158.0 ( 7) – 666 2.5 240

Clark, NV ........................... 48.8 920.2 -0.3 239 796 5.9 36

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.4 220.6 -0.4 248 776 3.7 149

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.5 197.9 0.4 181 899 4.4 98

Rockingham, NH ................ 11.1 140.7 0.0 218 783 2.5 240

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.1 148.5 -3.8 311 719 4.1 117

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.9 454.2 0.3 194 1,009 3.9 134

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.5 203.9 -0.2 234 871 3.1 204

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.3 210.1 -1.0 278 833 4.0 125

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.5 357.4 -0.9 275 1,022 3.2 199

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 104.2 0.1 211 746 5.1 64

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.0 237.7 0.6 157 1,110 4.2 110

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.3 223.9 0.7 146 1,027 5.5 48

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.1 411.0 1.1 112 996 -0.1 307

Monmouth, NJ ................... 21.1 257.5 -0.7 271 874 4.9 71

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.3 286.1 -1.1 282 1,142 0.4 303

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.6 153.6 0.2 200 679 2.0 267

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.7 176.6 -1.1 282 853 2.4 248

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.3 174.1 -0.6 263 1,210 5.8 40

Union, NJ ........................... 15.3 234.8 ( 7) – 1,056 ( 7) – 

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 335.2 0.5 168 732 3.1 204

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 227.4 0.2 200 830 4.3 102

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.8 221.9 0.7 146 813 2.5 240

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 95.8 1.6 81 662 2.5 240

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.4 116.8 -1.4 291 841 2.9 216

Erie, NY ............................. 23.5 457.5 0.5 168 715 3.0 211

Kings, NY ........................... 45.2 469.0 1.5 84 718 4.1 117

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.0 379.3 -0.3 239 805 3.1 204

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.5 603.4 0.1 211 914 5.2 63

New York, NY .................... 118.0 2,350.3 2.0 57 1,544 8.7 6

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 109.9 -0.2 234 652 4.0 125

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 254.6 1.4 93 756 2.7 228

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 131.3 0.7 146 $686 1.6 279

Queens, NY ....................... 42.9 503.3 2.6 39 814 4.1 117

Richmond, NY .................... 8.7 92.9 0.8 137 748 4.8 79

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.8 115.9 2.0 57 870 3.8 140

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 76.6 0.6 157 694 4.0 125

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.3 626.9 0.9 131 891 4.7 86

Westchester, NY ................ 36.5 420.5 1.4 93 1,068 3.8 140

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.0 117.6 2.9 32 648 3.7 149

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.6 89.1 0.7 146 633 3.6 168

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 118.1 1.1 112 650 7.4 14

Durham, NC ....................... 6.9 185.5 3.7 12 1,105 6.5 23

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.2 185.6 0.5 168 756 0.9 293

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.7 282.9 2.2 51 722 2.1 261

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.2 572.6 4.0 8 923 0.8 296

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.5 107.0 3.5 13 675 5.5 48

Wake, NC .......................... 28.0 453.5 5.2 4 808 3.5 177

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 98.5 2.4 44 688 6.2 32

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 148.7 1.8 73 751 8.1 10

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 37.6 747.6 -0.8 273 832 3.6 168

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.5 690.2 1.3 100 831 3.2 199

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.0 522.0 0.4 181 890 2.2 259

Lake, OH ............................ 6.7 100.9 0.2 200 669 3.7 149

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 99.6 -2.7 305 701 4.5 92

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.6 223.4 -1.0 278 732 1.7 274

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.3 105.6 0.5 168 600 2.7 228

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.8 268.7 -2.1 299 754 -3.0 312

Stark, OH ........................... 9.0 162.8 -0.3 239 643 1.7 274

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 274.2 -0.1 230 740 3.5 177

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 78.8 -5.7 315 690 -10.6 316

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.5 424.8 1.0 122 748 5.6 45

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.4 348.2 2.3 47 743 5.4 55

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.7 151.0 1.7 76 763 3.2 199

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.7 86.2 0.3 194 627 4.7 86

Lane, OR ........................... 11.1 151.8 0.8 137 660 3.9 134

Marion, OR ........................ 9.4 143.9 1.3 100 661 3.3 193

Multnomah, OR .................. 27.4 451.1 2.5 42 840 4.5 92

Washington, OR ................ 16.1 251.8 0.4 181 967 4.7 86

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.4 686.2 0.6 157 864 4.9 71

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 168.6 -0.5 257 764 6.7 18

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.2 265.3 0.2 200 787 2.7 228

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 80.3 2.2 51 806 ( 7) – 

Chester, PA ....................... 15.0 241.5 2.3 47 1,015 ( 7) – 

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 126.8 0.1 211 762 3.7 149

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.3 182.1 -0.4 248 804 5.0 67

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 211.1 1.1 112 844 2.6 236

Erie, PA .............................. 7.3 128.8 0.1 211 657 4.0 125

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 101.8 -0.4 248 629 2.4 248

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.3 230.2 0.4 181 702 2.0 267

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.6 178.5 0.0 218 837 7.0 15

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 142.8 0.1 211 653 4.8 79

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.3 486.8 0.5 168 $995 3.5 177

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 100.5 1.0 122 717 2.3 254

Philadelphia, PA ................ 30.3 630.8 -0.3 239 976 5.1 64

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 79.5 0.4 181 722 0.7 297

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 137.7 -0.6 263 656 0.6 298

York, PA ............................. 9.1 178.4 1.4 93 728 4.7 86

Kent, RI .............................. 5.7 82.0 -0.6 263 725 4.2 110

Providence, RI ................... 18.2 288.3 -1.5 296 779 -2.4 311

Charleston, SC .................. 12.0 212.7 3.8 9 703 4.8 79

Greenville, SC .................... 12.4 238.2 1.9 67 707 3.5 177

Horry, SC ........................... 8.3 119.3 1.0 122 536 3.7 149

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 96.5 2.2 51 640 4.6 91

Richland, SC ...................... 9.2 216.7 1.5 84 724 2.7 228

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.0 119.9 2.0 57 710 2.3 254

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.3 115.5 2.7 35 695 4.4 98

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.5 449.0 ( 7) – 860 9.1 5

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.7 194.8 -0.1 230 711 3.8 140

Knox, TN ............................ 11.1 229.7 1.0 122 695 3.7 149

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.2 100.1 0.5 168 719 1.4 284

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.1 511.0 0.2 200 850 4.4 98

Williamson, TN ................... 5.8 86.8 5.8 3 858 0.6 298

Bell, TX .............................. 4.5 98.6 3.0 23 644 4.9 71

Bexar, TX ........................... 31.9 721.4 2.6 39 715 3.5 177

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.5 85.8 3.2 18 793 6.3 27

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.7 85.3 ( 7) – 629 ( 7) – 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.5 122.6 0.6 157 518 5.5 48

Collin, TX ........................... 16.2 283.8 3.2 18 981 5.5 48

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.7 1,487.3 2.2 51 1,002 4.2 110

Denton, TX ......................... 10.2 166.1 3.0 23 716 2.9 216

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.2 269.8 2.0 57 593 4.0 125

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.9 124.6 7.1 2 854 4.3 102

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 96.2 ( 7) – 776 ( 7) – 

Harris, TX ........................... 95.1 2,028.0 3.8 9 1,015 6.7 18

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.4 211.8 4.5 6 529 2.5 240

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 124.5 1.9 67 787 0.6 298

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.7 122.8 1.0 122 616 3.0 211

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 105.0 1.7 76 656 3.8 140

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.8 122.1 ( 7) – 740 3.6 168

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.1 151.6 1.5 84 709 6.0 34

Smith, TX ........................... 5.2 92.6 0.9 131 715 3.6 168

Tarrant, TX ......................... 36.4 769.0 2.6 39 830 2.3 254

Travis, TX .......................... 28.0 572.6 3.1 20 911 2.7 228

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 88.3 2.8 34 548 4.2 110

Williamson, TX ................... 6.7 119.1 ( 7) – 781 ( 7) – 

Davis, UT ........................... 7.1 104.2 2.5 42 666 4.9 71

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 38.6 591.0 3.4 14 771 5.8 40

Utah, UT ............................ 12.9 177.6 5.0 5 646 4.9 71

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 95.0 3.4 14 615 3.7 149

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 95.8 -0.4 248 812 4.2 110

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.5 154.5 3.8 9 1,364 3.6 168

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.5 121.3 1.3 100 $748 3.7 149

Fairfax, VA ......................... 32.9 584.9 0.7 146 1,243 5.3 60

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.2 180.3 3.0 23 833 2.5 240

Loudoun, VA ...................... 8.3 129.0 1.5 84 1,011 4.7 86

Prince William, VA ............. 6.9 103.9 -0.6 263 755 6.0 34

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.1 99.8 -1.4 291 1,130 6.4 26

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.6 100.2 0.5 168 662 3.8 140

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 99.2 1.5 84 753 5.9 36

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.8 143.0 0.8 137 822 7.9 12

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.4 158.2 ( 7) – 945 ( 7) – 

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.6 177.8 0.6 157 650 4.2 110

Clark, WA ........................... 11.9 134.0 1.5 84 749 3.7 149

King, WA ............................ 76.3 1,182.8 2.3 47 1,129 8.0 11

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.6 83.9 -0.1 230 770 8.3 8

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.4 278.0 2.0 57 755 5.4 55

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.7 255.0 4.4 7 842 5.0 67

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.1 210.6 1.9 67 681 4.9 71

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.8 99.8 3.0 23 782 6.7 18

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.9 82.7 2.2 51 659 3.9 134

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.9 108.1 -0.5 257 568 5.4 55

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 108.8 0.3 194 704 4.1 117

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 150.4 0.0 218 719 1.8 272

Dane, WI ............................ 14.1 306.2 ( 7) – 783 ( 7) – 

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.2 497.8 0.0 218 802 2.8 223

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 104.8 1.7 76 712 4.9 71

Racine, WI ......................... 4.2 76.4 -1.1 282 738 3.2 199

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.3 236.4 -0.6 263 814 3.0 211

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.8 90.4 0.4 181 765 3.9 134

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.6 289.0 -2.7 ( 8) 538 3.5 ( 8) 

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

These 328 U.S. counties comprise 70.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

third quarter 2007 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,012.8 136,246.9 0.9 $818 4.3

Private industry .............................................. 8,721.6 114,790.8 0.9 810 4.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 124.7 1,931.5 1.7 820 7.8

Construction ............................................... 895.5 7,774.4 -1.0 876 5.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 361.4 13,845.4 -2.2 987 4.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,916.9 26,299.2 1.2 707 3.2

Information ................................................. 144.3 3,033.1 0.0 1,274 4.6

Financial activities ...................................... 871.8 8,123.2 -0.7 1,200 5.9

Professional and business services ........... 1,484.6 18,017.6 1.7 998 6.4

Education and health services ................... 825.8 17,506.6 2.9 775 3.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 726.7 13,562.6 1.9 348 4.2

Other services ............................................ 1,162.9 4,433.8 1.2 531 4.1

Government ................................................... 291.2 21,456.1 1.0 859 3.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 401.9 4,191.6 0.4 925 3.4

Private industry .............................................. 397.9 3,626.2 0.1 901 3.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 12.7 5.0 1,095 -8.3

Construction ............................................... 14.3 160.4 -0.9 945 5.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 15.2 444.7 ( 6) 961 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 55.3 811.9 -0.1 765 2.0

Information ................................................. 8.8 216.3 8.5 1,520 -0.3

Financial activities ...................................... 25.2 243.7 -2.6 1,483 ( 6) 

Professional and business services ........... 43.4 608.9 -0.3 1,051 6.3

Education and health services ................... 28.2 480.4 1.8 851 ( 6) 

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.1 401.1 1.8 518 2.8

Other services ............................................ 179.8 246.0 0.0 439 5.8

Government ................................................... 4.0 565.4 2.3 1,080 ( 6) 

Cook, IL .............................................................. 138.0 2,541.5 0.0 961 3.3

Private industry .............................................. 136.6 2,232.8 0.2 958 3.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.3 -7.7 1,063 3.5

Construction ............................................... 12.1 98.2 -1.6 1,207 5.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.1 237.2 -1.9 981 3.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.6 472.2 -0.9 776 -0.5

Information ................................................. 2.5 58.4 0.6 1,402 9.1

Financial activities ...................................... 15.8 215.4 -1.5 1,547 7.8

Professional and business services ........... 28.2 441.6 0.9 1,179 3.1

Education and health services ................... 13.6 369.2 1.6 843 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.6 240.0 2.2 430 4.6

Other services ............................................ 13.8 95.0 0.7 691 3.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 308.7 -0.9 985 2.3

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.0 2,350.3 2.0 1,544 8.7

Private industry .............................................. 117.7 1,906.7 2.3 1,667 9.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -1.9 1,749 11.8

Construction ............................................... 2.3 35.8 6.9 1,461 5.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 37.5 -4.7 1,158 3.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.1 248.2 1.7 1,124 4.3

Information ................................................. 4.4 135.6 1.0 1,916 4.5

Financial activities ...................................... 18.7 380.0 2.0 3,047 16.3

Professional and business services ........... 24.6 482.2 2.3 1,769 8.6

Education and health services ................... 8.6 283.3 2.0 1,011 4.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.2 208.5 3.3 728 6.1

Other services ............................................ 17.4 87.2 1.5 889 3.7

Government ................................................... 0.3 443.5 0.7 1,014 1.5

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 95.1 2,028.0 3.8 $1,015 6.7

Private industry .............................................. 94.5 1,783.4 4.3 1,027 7.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 78.4 ( 6) 2,580 ( 6) 

Construction ............................................... 6.6 151.5 5.5 968 6.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 182.2 3.5 1,290 7.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.7 424.7 3.9 901 6.0

Information ................................................. 1.3 32.8 2.6 1,258 9.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 120.7 2.0 1,256 7.3

Professional and business services ........... 18.9 341.2 4.9 1,156 7.5

Education and health services ................... 10.0 214.7 5.4 824 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.3 176.2 3.2 366 2.2

Other services ............................................ 11.0 58.4 3.9 595 7.6

Government ................................................... 0.5 244.6 0.6 922 3.1

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 99.3 1,825.1 0.2 822 3.8

Private industry .............................................. 98.6 1,605.3 -0.1 811 4.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.5 2.9 723 6.0

Construction ............................................... 10.6 165.8 -7.6 834 3.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 132.2 -3.7 1,116 3.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.6 374.9 2.0 777 3.5

Information ................................................. 1.6 30.4 -0.7 1,030 0.4

Financial activities ...................................... 12.7 148.6 -2.4 1,024 0.0

Professional and business services ........... 21.8 316.8 0.3 825 9.1

Education and health services ................... 9.7 198.9 4.4 879 5.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 177.6 1.4 387 5.7

Other services ............................................ 7.2 50.1 2.2 570 5.2

Government ................................................... 0.7 219.9 2.8 908 1.2

Orange, CA ........................................................ 95.3 1,503.8 -1.3 924 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 93.9 1,359.9 -1.7 922 2.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 5.2 5.9 623 0.2

Construction ............................................... 7.1 105.0 -5.5 1,025 4.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.4 175.8 ( 6) 1,101 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.8 281.0 1.2 868 3.8

Information ................................................. 1.4 30.0 -1.8 1,262 3.8

Financial activities ...................................... 11.4 123.7 -9.8 1,377 -0.1

Professional and business services ........... 19.3 273.7 -3.1 1,003 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 9.9 142.7 3.2 870 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 175.1 2.3 410 5.9

Other services ............................................ 14.4 47.7 -1.2 569 4.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 143.8 3.4 941 0.2

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.7 1,487.3 2.2 1,002 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 67.2 1,323.2 2.2 1,012 4.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 7.3 ( 6) 2,962 ( 6) 

Construction ............................................... 4.4 84.6 4.3 901 3.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 142.2 -1.9 1,174 7.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.0 306.9 2.0 960 6.0

Information ................................................. 1.7 48.1 ( 6) 1,385 ( 6) 

Financial activities ...................................... 8.8 144.5 1.6 1,366 6.4

Professional and business services ........... 14.6 274.8 4.3 1,109 4.6

Education and health services ................... 6.6 146.2 5.0 895 2.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.2 127.6 1.7 434 -1.8

Other services ............................................ 6.5 39.3 3.0 609 3.7

Government ................................................... 0.5 164.1 2.7 919 2.9

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 92.7 1,325.9 0.0 $887 4.4

Private industry .............................................. 91.4 1,108.6 -0.2 869 4.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.9 -1.4 556 6.7

Construction ............................................... 7.3 87.1 -8.2 947 6.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 102.3 ( 6) 1,175 5.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.6 221.4 0.3 736 5.9

Information ................................................. 1.3 38.0 2.1 1,707 9.8

Financial activities ...................................... 9.9 79.7 -4.6 1,106 5.3

Professional and business services ........... 16.5 218.0 0.1 1,082 3.3

Education and health services ................... 8.1 129.0 ( 6) 834 2.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 164.8 2.5 408 2.5

Other services ............................................ 22.9 56.4 1.1 485 1.0

Government ................................................... 1.3 217.2 0.9 987 4.4

King, WA ............................................................ 76.3 1,182.8 2.3 1,129 8.0

Private industry .............................................. 75.7 1,032.4 2.8 1,145 8.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.2 8.6 1,153 -6.9

Construction ............................................... 6.8 74.7 9.4 1,032 8.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 112.8 2.0 1,252 4.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 219.9 1.9 891 2.8

Information ................................................. 1.8 76.3 4.1 3,114 10.5

Financial activities ...................................... 7.0 75.5 -1.6 1,287 3.3

Professional and business services ........... 13.0 190.4 3.9 1,326 19.6

Education and health services ................... 6.3 120.3 2.1 840 5.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.1 113.7 2.9 443 4.7

Other services ............................................ 17.2 45.5 1.1 572 7.5

Government ................................................... 0.5 150.5 -1.0 1,019 3.6

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 86.4 1,012.4 0.4 826 4.3

Private industry .............................................. 86.0 860.4 0.2 796 4.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.2 -3.7 489 -0.8

Construction ............................................... 6.4 53.2 -1.3 825 3.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 46.4 -4.7 741 5.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.4 251.7 0.5 752 6.7

Information ................................................. 1.5 20.4 -0.7 1,205 6.6

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 71.7 -0.1 1,155 6.0

Professional and business services ........... 17.6 133.0 -3.4 974 3.4

Education and health services ................... 9.0 138.0 3.8 811 6.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.8 100.8 2.2 448 -0.4

Other services ............................................ 7.6 35.4 1.8 514 5.3

Government ................................................... 0.3 152.0 1.2 1,005 1.7

 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, third quarter 2007 2

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,012.8 136,246.9 0.9 $818 4.3

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.9 363.6 ( 7) 837 ( 7) 

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 149.2 0.2 894 5.5

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 99.3 1,825.1 0.2 822 3.8

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.7 250.9 0.6 751 4.3

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 401.9 4,191.6 0.4 925 3.4

Denver, CO .............................. 26.0 448.4 2.7 995 0.9

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.4 504.9 0.8 1,002 6.3

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.8 282.3 -0.4 955 0.0

Washington, DC ....................... 32.1 679.0 0.6 1,376 5.3

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 86.4 1,012.4 0.4 826 4.3

Fulton, GA ................................ 40.0 762.2 1.2 1,058 2.9

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.6 451.0 -0.4 786 5.8

Ada, ID ..................................... 15.2 213.9 1.1 749 2.9

Cook, IL .................................... 138.0 2,541.5 0.0 961 3.3

Marion, IN ................................. 24.1 584.8 1.2 830 2.1

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.7 274.6 2.0 804 2.9

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.2 319.2 2.4 830 2.0

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.2 437.5 1.2 791 2.1

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 13.9 264.4 1.9 742 5.4

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.3 174.7 0.9 738 3.8

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.7 460.9 -0.3 1,090 5.1

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.5 818.3 1.4 1,176 5.9

Wayne, MI ................................ 32.2 747.7 -2.4 930 3.1

Hennepin, MN .......................... 44.3 849.5 0.8 1,043 5.4

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.4 127.8 -0.3 717 3.0

St. Louis, MO ............................ 33.3 611.9 0.5 873 6.3

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.7 77.6 3.3 672 5.5

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.7 318.8 1.0 782 6.5

Clark, NV .................................. 48.8 920.2 -0.3 796 5.9

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.5 197.9 0.4 899 4.4

Bergen, NJ ............................... 34.9 454.2 0.3 1,009 3.9

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.6 335.2 0.5 732 3.1

New York, NY ........................... 118.0 2,350.3 2.0 1,544 8.7

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 32.2 572.6 4.0 923 0.8

Cass, ND .................................. 5.8 98.5 2.4 688 6.2

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 37.6 747.6 -0.8 832 3.6

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.5 424.8 1.0 748 5.6

Multnomah, OR ........................ 27.4 451.1 2.5 840 4.5

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.4 686.2 0.6 864 4.9

Providence, RI .......................... 18.2 288.3 -1.5 779 -2.4

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.4 238.2 1.9 707 3.5

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.3 115.5 2.7 695 4.4

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.1 511.0 0.2 850 4.4

Harris, TX ................................. 95.1 2,028.0 3.8 1,015 6.7

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 38.6 591.0 3.4 771 5.8

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.9 95.8 -0.4 812 4.2

Fairfax, VA ................................ 32.9 584.9 0.7 1,243 5.3

King, WA .................................. 76.3 1,182.8 2.3 1,129 8.0

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 108.8 0.3 704 4.1

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.2 497.8 0.0 802 2.8

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

state, third quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 43.9 3.4 $691 -9.1

San Juan, PR ........................... 13.6 289.0 -2.7 538 3.5

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.2 1.3 636 -0.3

 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, 

third quarter 2007 2

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07

United States 4 ................... 9,012.8 136,246.9 0.9 $818 4.3

Alabama ............................. 119.9 1,959.0 1.1 707 3.7

Alaska ................................ 21.2 327.3 0.7 840 5.4

Arizona ............................... 160.6 2,644.9 0.5 783 4.1

Arkansas ............................ 83.4 1,184.5 0.3 629 4.1

California ............................ 1,314.1 15,755.0 0.7 932 4.5

Colorado ............................ 180.9 2,314.3 2.4 844 3.2

Connecticut ........................ 112.9 1,696.9 1.0 1,021 6.6

Delaware ............................ 29.1 425.2 0.1 860 1.2

District of Columbia ............ 32.1 679.0 0.6 1,376 5.3

Florida ................................ 606.8 7,879.9 -0.9 741 4.1

Georgia .............................. 272.4 4,089.4 1.2 782 4.1

Hawaii ................................ 38.7 624.4 0.3 760 5.4

Idaho .................................. 57.0 675.5 2.2 634 3.4

Illinois ................................. 361.6 5,917.6 0.6 866 4.0

Indiana ............................... 159.2 2,937.4 0.5 702 2.2

Iowa ................................... 93.9 1,494.5 0.9 668 4.2

Kansas ............................... 85.8 1,368.7 1.7 680 2.7

Kentucky ............................ 110.5 1,814.3 1.0 676 3.0

Louisiana ........................... 120.9 1,880.8 2.7 716 4.5

Maine ................................. 50.4 615.3 0.7 660 3.9

Maryland ............................ 164.0 2,563.7 0.7 892 4.1

Massachusetts ................... 211.6 3,261.0 1.0 1,002 5.5

Michigan ............................ 257.6 4,218.2 -1.4 808 2.4

Minnesota .......................... 177.6 2,713.3 0.9 822 4.6

Mississippi ......................... 70.2 1,142.2 0.6 607 3.8

Missouri ............................. 175.7 2,746.7 0.8 719 4.2

Montana ............................. 42.8 446.1 2.7 608 4.6

Nebraska ........................... 59.0 922.7 1.7 666 5.4

Nevada .............................. 75.2 1,286.4 -0.1 792 5.5

New Hampshire ................. 49.5 637.2 0.3 799 3.2

New Jersey ........................ 275.1 3,985.2 0.1 965 3.7

New Mexico ....................... 53.9 830.4 0.8 682 4.1

New York ........................... 580.3 8,585.3 1.3 1,009 6.1

North Carolina .................... 254.3 4,104.1 2.4 719 3.5

North Dakota ...................... 25.2 347.4 1.5 621 5.8

Ohio ................................... 290.8 5,331.9 -0.2 745 2.8

Oklahoma .......................... 99.6 1,548.2 1.8 666 5.5

Oregon ............................... 131.2 1,751.7 1.2 750 4.2

Pennsylvania ..................... 339.7 5,673.4 0.5 802 4.4

Rhode Island ...................... 36.2 486.1 -1.0 759 -0.1

South Carolina ................... 116.6 1,904.7 1.7 664 3.6

South Dakota ..................... 30.3 397.5 2.0 598 4.7

Tennessee ......................... 141.3 2,774.4 0.5 728 4.3

Texas ................................. 551.3 10,304.9 2.9 825 5.0

Utah ................................... 87.1 1,231.6 3.6 696 5.5

Vermont ............................. 25.0 305.2 -0.2 699 4.0

Virginia ............................... 229.3 3,686.6 1.0 857 5.0

Washington ........................ 218.7 2,976.5 2.1 878 6.7

West Virginia ...................... 48.9 713.8 0.3 623 4.0

Wisconsin .......................... 159.0 2,802.3 -0.1 705 2.6

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

third quarter 2007 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

September

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2006-07

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2006-07

Wyoming ............................ 24.6 284.3 3.6 $734 4.1

Puerto Rico ........................ 57.1 1,008.0 -1.1 453 2.5

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 45.0 0.7 682 -0.3

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

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

1.0% to 8.6%

-5.7% to 0.9%

 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 

 April 2008

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

September 2006-07 (U.S. average = 0.9 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties

4.4% to 23.9%

-10.6% to 4.3%

 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 

 April 2008

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

or more employees, third quarter 2006-07 (U.S. average = 4.3 percent)