Technical information: (202) 691-6567

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

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 04-599

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT

Tuesday, April 6, 2004

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: THIRD QUARTER 2003

In September 2003, Manatee County, Fla., 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. Manatee County, Fla., experienced an over-the-year

employment gain of 5.7 percent, compared with a national decline of 0.4 percent. Arapahoe County, Colo.,

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

13.0 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.1 percent over the same time span.

Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 175 had over-the-year percentage changes in employment above the national average in September 2003, and 129 experienced declines in employment greater

than the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in

149 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national

average in 159 counties. (See chart 2.)

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. These 8.3 million employer reports cover 128.5 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 not used in calculating U.S averages, or in the analysis in the text.

(See Technical Note.) September 2003 employment and 2003 third-quarter average weekly wages for all

states are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, MSAs, counties, and the nation through the

second quarter of 2003 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for

the third quarter of 2003 and revised data for the first and second quarters of 2003 will be available later in

April on the BLS Web site.

Large County Employment

The national employment total in September 2003 was 128.5 million, which was 0.4 percent lower

than in September 2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.3

percent of total U.S. covered employment, 76.3 percent of total wages, and 87.4 percent of the net overthe-year employment decline from September 2002. The biggest gains in employment from September

2002 to September 2003 were recorded in the counties of Clark, Nev. (33,913), Orange, Calif. (23,920),

Riverside, Calif. (20,393), San Bernardino, Calif. (17,111), and Maricopa, Ariz. (17,005). (See table A.)
2

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

change, and September 2002-03 percent change in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,007.2 Clark, Nev. 33.9 Manatee, Fla. 5.7

Cook, Ill. 2,529.5 Orange, Calif. 23.9 Lee, Fla. 5.4

New York, N.Y. 2,184.9 Riverside, Calif. 20.4 Loudoun, Va. 5.4

Harris, Texas 1,823.7 San Bernardino, Calif. 17.1 Gloucester, N.J. 4.6

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,571.3 Maricopa, Ariz. 17.0 Clark, Nev. 4.4

Dallas, Texas 1,438.9 San Diego, Calif. 15.1 Okaloosa, Fla. 4.4

Orange, Calif. 1,426.5 Fairfax, Va. 10.6 Placer, Calif. 4.3

San Diego, Calif. 1,256.7 Lee, Fla. 10.0 Hidalgo, Texas 4.0

King, Wash. 1,095.4 Collin, Texas 7.6 Rutherford, Tenn. 3.9

Miami-Dade, Fla. 965.2 Hidalgo, Texas 7.3 Pasco, Fla. 3.8

Employment

September 2003 employ-

 ment (thousands)

 Net change in employment,

 September 2002-03

 (thousands)

Percent change in employment,

 September 2002-03

U.S. 128,546.3 U.S. -494.3 U.S. -0.4

Manatee County, Fla., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (5.7 percent),

followed by the counties of Lee, Fla., and Loudoun, Va. (5.4 percent each), Gloucester, N.J. (4.6 percent),

and Clark, Nev., and Okaloosa, Fla. (4.4 percent each). (See table 1.)

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

decline in employment was in Sangamon County, Ill. (-4.9 percent), followed by the counties of San Mateo,

Calif. (-4.8 percent), Santa Clara, Calif., and Somerset, N.J. (-4.7 percent each), and Tulsa, Okla. (-4.1

percent). The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-48,520),

followed by the counties of Dallas, Texas (-45,675), Los Angeles, Calif. (-45,503), Cook, Ill. (-38,500),

and New York, N.Y. (-36,415).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2003 was $704, which was 3.1 percent higher

than in the third quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 120 of the

largest 315 U.S. counties. Santa Clara County, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large

counties with an average weekly wage of $1,269. New York County, N.Y., was second with an average

weekly wage of $1,239, followed by Somerset, N.J. ($1,152), San Mateo, Calif. ($1,127), and Washington,

D.C. ($1,123). (See table B.)

Arapahoe County, Colo., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 13.0 percent. Somerset County, N.J., was second with 11.6 percent growth, followed by the counties of Kalamazoo, Mich. (11.5 percent), Olmsted, Minn. (10.6 percent), and Ventura, Calif. (9.2 percent).

There were 194 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average. The lowest average

weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($448), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas

($455), Horry, S.C. ($476), Yakima, Wash. ($478), and Pasco, Fla. ($501). (See table 1.)
3

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,269 Somerset, N.J. $120 Arapahoe, Colo. 13.0

New York, N.Y. 1,239 Arapahoe, Colo. 108 Somerset, N.J. 11.6

Somerset, N.J. 1,152 Santa Clara, Calif. 91 Kalamazoo, Mich. 11.5

San Mateo, Calif. 1,127 San Mateo, Calif. 79 Olmsted, Minn. 10.6

Washington, D.C. 1,123 Kalamazoo, Mich. 76 Ventura, Calif. 9.2

Arlington, Va. 1,109 Olmsted, Minn. 76 Rock Island, Ill. 7.7

Suffolk, Mass. 1,081 Ventura, Calif. 65 Santa Clara, Calif. 7.7

Fairfield, Conn. 1,066 Hudson, N.J. 60 San Mateo, Calif. 7.5

San Francisco, Calif. 1,065 Washington, D.C. 60 Okaloosa, Fla. 7.3

Fairfax, Va. 1,038 Fairfax, Va. 57 Hudson, N.J. 6.9

U.S. $704 U.S. $21 U.S. 3.1

Average weekly wage

 Average weekly wage,

 third quarter 2003

 Percent change in average

 weekly wage, third

 quarter 2002-03

 Change in average weekly

 wage, third quarter 2002-03

Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by third quarter 2003 average weekly wages, third quarter

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

weekly wages

Three counties experienced declines in average weekly wages. Hamilton County, Ind., had the largest

decrease, -3.3 percent, followed by the counties of Broome, N.Y. (-1.2 percent), and Vanderburgh, Ind.

(-0.5 percent). Additionally, the average weekly wage in Brazoria County, Texas, was unchanged, while

the average weekly wage in Onondaga County, N.Y., grew by 0.1 percent.

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 employment levels), 4 reported increases in employment, while declines occurred in 6 from September 2002 to September 2003. Maricopa County, Ariz.,

and Orange County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a

1.1 percent increase each. Orange County showed employment gains in every private industry supersector

except in manufacturing, information, and natural resources and mining. Maricopa County had a similar experience except that it also reported a decline in the other services supersector. Government employment in

Maricopa County increased by 0.3 percent, whereas government employment in Orange County declined by

5.3 percent. (See table 2.) San Diego County, Calif., had the next largest increase, 0.9 percent. The

largest decline in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, -2.4 percent. The

next largest declines in employment were recorded in New York County, N.Y., and Harris County, Texas,

-1.6 percent each.

Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. King

County, Wash., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 5.4 percent rate.

King County’s fastest growing supersectors were natural resources and mining, where the average weekly

wage rose by 25.2 percent, and information with a 16.8 percent increase. Orange County, Calif., was second in wage growth, increasing by 5.3 percent, followed by San Diego County, Calif., where the average

wage increased by 4.2 percent. Two Texas counties, Dallas and Harris, experienced the smallest increases

in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, rising by only 2.4 percent each. This was followed

by Cook County, Ill., with an increase in its average weekly wage of 2.7 percent.
4

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows the September 2003 employment and the 2003 third-quarter average weekly wage in the

largest county in each state. This table includes two counties that have employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in September 2003 ranged from

approximately 4 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,400 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest

average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,239), while the lowest average weekly

wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($551).
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 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. Data for

2003 are preliminary and subject to revision.

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 over-the-quarter

employment change. It is important to understand program

differences and the intended uses of the program products.

(See table below.) Additional information on each program can

be obtained from the program web sites shown in the table

below.

Source Count of UI administrative records Count of longitudinally-linked UI Sample survey: 400,000 employers

submitted by 8.3 million employers administrative rocords submited by

6.4 million private sector employers

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including UI coverage, excluding govern- Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

all employers subject to state and ment, private households, and estab- UI coverage, excluding agriculture,

federal UI Laws lishments with zero employment private households, and self-employed

Other employment, including railroads, religious organizations, and

other non-UI-covered jobs

Publication Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

frequency - 7 months after the end of each - 8 months after the end of each - Usually first Friday of following

quarter quarter month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and pub- Links each new UI quarter to Uses UI file as a sampling frame

 lishes each new quarter of UI longitudinal database and directly

 data summarizes gross job gains

 and losses

Principal Provides a quarterly and annual Provides quarterly employer dyna- Provides current monthly estimates

products universe count of estab- mics data on establishment open- of employment, hours, and earnings

lishments, employment, and ings, closings, expansions, and at the MSA, state, and national levwages at the county, MSA, contractions at the national level el by industry

state, and national levels by Future expansions will include

detailed industry data at the county, MSA, and

state level by industry and size

of establishment

Principal uses Major uses include: Major uses include: Major uses include:

- Detailed locality data - Business cycle analysis - Principal national economic

- Periodic universe counts for - Analysis of employer dynamics indicator

benchmarking sample survey underlying economic expansions - Official time series for

estimates and contractions employment change measures

- Sample frame for BLS - Future: employment expansion - Input into other major economic

establishment surveys and contraction by size of estab- indicators

lishment

Program www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/

Web sites

•

•

•

•

 •

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

 QCEW BED CES

•

and annually realigns (benchmarks)

sample estimates to first quarter

UI levels
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. The estimated 123.4 million

workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)

represented 99.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. 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 third 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 third quarter of

2003. As a result, the adjusted 2002 third 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, 2002 is

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

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

bulletin is now available in a portable document format (PDF)

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

cewbultn02.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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,

third quarter 20032

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,291.0 128,546.3 -0.4 - $704 3.1 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.2 368.9 -0.4 176 712 2.3 220

Madison, AL ....................... 7.6 160.8 3.6 13 753 3.4 125

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.5 161.8 -0.4 176 585 2.3 220

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 129.6 0.2 136 606 3.6 109

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.0 76.0 -0.4 176 599 2.2 228

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.6 143.4 1.9 48 775 3.2 145

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 80.4 1,571.3 1.1 77 699 3.4 125

Pima, AZ ............................ 17.5 329.0 0.8 100 615 3.9 84

Benton, AR ........................ 4.0 82.5 2.1 40 651 3.3 140

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.1 240.5 1.0 82 635 3.1 151

Washington, AR ................. 4.8 85.3 0.9 91 562 4.3 62

Alameda, CA ...................... 47.9 679.0 -2.7 302 934 4.5 57

Contra Costa, CA ............... 27.5 334.8 -1.7 267 874 3.6 109

Fresno, CA ......................... 28.7 349.4 -2.2 283 570 4.0 79

Kern, CA ............................ 15.6 257.6 0.5 116 602 4.7 47

Los Angeles, CA ................ 349.2 4,007.2 -0.6 190 792 3.7 100

Marin, CA ........................... 11.8 110.3 -0.8 210 870 3.6 109

Monterey, CA ..................... 11.7 176.0 -0.7 198 616 2.3 220

Orange, CA ........................ 88.1 1,426.5 1.1 77 812 5.3 23

Placer, CA .......................... 9.1 125.6 4.3 7 708 2.9 170

Riverside, CA ..................... 36.2 534.4 2.9 21 602 3.6 109

Sacramento, CA ................ 45.5 599.6 0.3 131 799 3.8 90

San Bernardino, CA ........... 39.9 573.0 2.6 27 627 3.3 140

San Diego, CA ................... 84.4 1,256.7 0.9 91 761 4.2 66

San Francisco, CA ............. 43.5 534.6 -1.6 257 1,065 0.5 309

San Joaquin, CA ................ 15.3 218.6 0.9 91 628 3.8 90

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 8.6 100.6 0.6 110 585 3.2 145

San Mateo, CA .................. 22.9 325.4 -4.8 314 1,127 7.5 8

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.0 178.6 -0.3 170 679 5.8 15

Santa Clara, CA ................. 51.4 848.7 -4.7 312 1,269 7.7 6

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.3 101.1 -0.8 210 682 5.2 25

Solano, CA ......................... 9.2 127.3 -0.6 190 675 5.3 23

Sonoma, CA ...................... 17.0 189.3 -3.8 308 713 2.7 186

Stanislaus, CA ................... 12.9 174.1 -1.1 235 610 4.5 57

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.8 140.2 0.2 136 505 5.0 31

Ventura, CA ....................... 20.3 299.5 0.5 116 769 9.2 5

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.0 97.8 (7) - 696 3.3 140

Adams, CO ........................ 8.6 141.2 -3.0 305 686 1.5 272

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.9 270.5 -1.9 274 941 13.0 1

Boulder, CO ....................... 11.8 151.2 -2.5 290 863 4.6 53

Denver, CO ........................ 24.3 424.6 -3.1 306 863 4.1 72

El Paso, CO ....................... 15.6 234.5 -0.6 190 678 2.9 170

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.0 203.2 -1.8 270 741 3.6 109

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.1 121.9 -1.3 244 668 3.2 145

Fairfield, CT ....................... 31.8 411.5 -0.3 170 1,066 4.3 62

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.2 479.5 -1.5 252 857 2.0 242

New Haven, CT ................. 21.9 354.3 -2.4 288 782 3.7 100

New London, CT ................ 6.6 129.7 1.0 82 730 1.5 272

New Castle, DE ................. 17.8 278.7 0.7 106 839 4.1 72

Washington, DC ................. 29.7 650.1 -0.4 176 1,123 5.6 19

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

third quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Alachua, FL ........................ 5.7 122.4 2.2 36 $537 4.1 72

Brevard, FL ........................ 12.1 187.1 2.5 29 669 4.2 66

Broward, FL ....................... 56.1 679.8 0.9 91 669 5.2 25

Collier, FL .......................... 10.1 111.9 2.8 23 621 4.9 38

Duval, FL ........................... 21.6 426.5 1.2 73 691 5.7 18

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.1 121.8 3.0 17 566 3.7 100

Hillsborough, FL ................. 30.3 594.4 1.3 71 670 5.0 31

Lee, FL ............................... 14.4 183.7 5.4 2 598 4.7 47

Leon, FL ............................. 7.1 141.4 1.5 62 607 3.4 125

Manatee, FL ....................... 6.6 113.3 5.7 1 545 2.3 220

Marion, FL .......................... 6.1 86.3 3.7 11 522 3.4 125

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 79.9 965.2 0.1 151 682 (7) - 

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 4.9 81.0 4.4 5 556 7.3 9

Orange, FL ......................... 28.7 602.4 1.3 71 647 3.0 156

Palm Beach, FL ................. 42.1 500.1 0.4 123 696 1.6 267

Pasco, FL ........................... 7.2 81.3 3.8 10 501 4.8 41

Pinellas, FL ........................ 27.8 427.2 2.7 25 618 2.7 186

Polk, FL .............................. 10.0 178.5 -0.2 164 577 4.2 66

Sarasota, FL ...................... 12.5 147.5 -0.9 216 584 6.6 11

Seminole, FL ...................... 11.6 147.2 1.0 82 625 1.6 267

Volusia, FL ......................... 11.4 150.4 2.4 32 521 3.4 125

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.8 85.8 1.1 77 595 1.0 293

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.0 125.2 2.0 43 604 2.2 228

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 109.2 -3.1 306 766 4.6 53

Cobb, GA ........................... 19.8 299.1 0.7 106 778 3.7 100

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.1 294.4 -0.4 176 773 4.3 62

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.7 725.3 -0.9 216 913 1.8 257

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 21.3 294.6 1.5 62 766 3.5 121

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 96.3 1.8 52 571 2.3 220

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 105.2 2.2 36 602 4.5 57

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.3 414.3 0.8 100 673 3.4 125

Ada, ID ............................... 12.9 183.7 0.5 116 646 1.9 252

Champaign, IL ................... 4.0 90.2 -1.0 226 624 1.1 290

Cook, IL ............................. 126.0 2,529.5 -1.2 240 835 2.7 186

Du Page, IL ........................ 32.2 564.6 -0.9 216 836 2.6 197

Kane, IL ............................. 10.7 198.9 0.9 91 664 2.0 242

Lake, IL .............................. 18.6 324.0 0.4 123 839 1.8 257

McHenry, IL ....................... 7.2 93.8 0.1 151 648 3.5 121

McLean, IL ......................... 3.3 85.4 -1.0 226 691 2.7 186

Madison, IL ........................ 5.6 95.4 -1.0 226 583 2.5 201

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.5 96.6 -2.5 290 659 2.5 201

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.4 78.5 -2.0 277 701 7.7 6

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.0 93.0 1.9 48 576 2.1 238

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.1 135.6 -4.9 315 729 1.5 272

Will, IL ................................ 10.3 156.2 2.5 29 679 3.0 156

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.6 137.2 -0.9 216 625 2.5 201

Allen, IN ............................. 8.6 178.2 -2.1 278 642 2.6 197

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 118.0 1.0 82 623 1.5 272

Hamilton, IN ....................... 5.9 86.0 3.2 15 722 -3.3 314

Lake, IN ............................. 9.8 193.6 0.2 136 642 3.9 84

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

third quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Marion, IN .......................... 23.6 572.0 -0.7 198 $738 2.8 176

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 123.0 -1.0 226 613 2.0 242

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 109.0 0.3 131 595 -0.5 312

Linn, IA ............................... 5.9 115.1 -1.2 240 684 4.1 72

Polk, IA .............................. 13.7 261.5 0.2 136 709 3.5 121

Scott, IA ............................. 5.0 84.5 -0.2 164 588 2.4 211

Johnson, KS ...................... 18.7 290.6 0.0 153 736 3.4 125

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 11.7 238.5 -1.6 257 648 0.6 307

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 96.7 -1.7 267 600 2.0 242

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 75.5 -3.9 310 715 3.0 156

Fayette, KY ........................ 8.7 165.3 -0.4 176 657 2.5 201

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.3 416.9 -0.9 216 685 3.6 109

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.2 119.7 0.2 136 580 2.5 201

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.6 80.2 -2.5 290 578 2.5 201

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.3 244.0 1.9 48 608 2.4 211

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.2 211.0 0.2 136 585 2.3 220

Lafayette, LA ...................... 7.5 118.8 0.2 136 628 2.8 176

Orleans, LA ........................ 13.0 248.7 0.2 136 673 5.5 21

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.1 169.1 0.5 116 636 2.7 186

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 13.0 207.4 0.9 91 738 3.7 100

Baltimore, MD .................... 19.8 357.0 -0.2 164 739 5.9 13

Frederick, MD .................... 5.2 87.1 3.0 17 668 3.7 100

Howard, MD ....................... 7.5 136.5 2.4 32 802 1.9 252

Montgomery, MD ............... 30.5 450.6 0.2 136 897 5.0 31

Prince Georges, MD .......... 14.5 313.4 0.9 91 774 2.2 228

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.9 366.2 -0.9 216 813 3.8 90

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.1 99.5 1.6 58 607 4.5 57

Bristol, MA ......................... 14.8 219.5 0.0 153 632 2.3 220

Essex, MA .......................... 20.3 295.8 -2.1 278 777 5.1 29

Hampden, MA .................... 13.5 200.1 -2.5 290 663 3.4 125

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.2 787.0 -2.7 302 996 4.1 72

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.5 317.9 -1.6 257 872 4.7 47

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.2 172.0 0.2 136 688 3.6 109

Suffolk, MA ........................ 22.1 560.7 -2.9 304 1,081 3.9 84

Worcester, MA ................... 19.9 317.3 -0.6 190 738 3.5 121

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.6 153.9 -2.6 297 697 0.9 296

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.1 171.4 -1.6 257 (7) (7) - 

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 116.3 -1.2 240 738 11.5 3

Kent, MI ............................. 14.4 329.6 -2.6 297 689 4.1 72

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.0 322.5 -1.0 226 783 1.3 286

Oakland, MI ....................... 41.5 723.7 -2.2 283 861 1.4 278

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 111.7 -2.6 297 646 3.0 156

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.6 91.6 -1.8 270 674 2.0 242

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 192.8 -1.4 249 826 3.8 90

Wayne, MI .......................... 35.3 805.9 -1.5 252 825 2.0 242

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.4 111.9 0.8 100 700 1.9 252

Dakota, MN ........................ 9.6 165.4 1.4 65 719 3.8 90

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.3 820.5 -1.3 244 911 5.6 19

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.3 86.9 1.5 62 791 10.6 4

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.1 328.1 -0.6 190 795 2.7 186

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

third quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.7 93.0 -2.3 285 $620 2.8 176

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.1 76.5 -1.3 244 575 1.2 289

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 90.4 2.6 27 521 2.2 228

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.6 131.4 0.0 153 626 3.8 90

Boone, MO ......................... 4.2 76.3 -0.9 216 569 2.5 201

Clay, MO ............................ 4.8 86.2 -0.6 190 666 3.7 100

Greene, MO ....................... 7.9 145.1 1.2 73 567 2.0 242

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.7 365.5 -2.6 297 724 1.7 264

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.0 107.6 1.9 48 614 3.4 125

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.8 620.7 -1.8 270 768 4.1 72

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.4 230.2 -2.6 297 782 2.8 176

Douglas, NE ....................... 14.9 310.4 -0.9 216 679 3.8 90

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.4 149.6 0.0 153 597 1.5 272

Clark, NV ........................... 35.5 766.1 4.4 5 670 4.9 38

Washoe, NV ....................... 11.9 199.6 2.9 21 694 4.0 79

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.1 192.4 2.0 43 779 4.0 79

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.5 132.5 -0.4 176 682 1.0 293

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.4 147.3 2.0 43 648 3.7 100

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.0 448.6 0.4 123 884 4.0 79

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.0 195.7 2.4 32 760 2.0 242

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.2 205.1 1.8 52 720 3.6 109

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.2 356.7 -0.7 198 908 3.8 90

Gloucester, NJ ................... 5.9 97.3 4.6 4 643 1.1 290

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.7 233.6 -1.4 249 931 6.9 10

Mercer, NJ ......................... 10.4 219.5 2.5 29 921 1.0 293

Middlesex, NJ .................... 20.4 391.1 -1.0 226 911 4.2 66

Monmouth, NJ ................... 19.6 248.4 2.0 43 756 0.9 296

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.5 279.4 0.6 110 1,007 3.8 90

Ocean, NJ .......................... 11.4 144.8 1.7 55 602 3.3 140

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.4 174.7 -0.4 176 757 1.7 264

Somerset, NJ ..................... 9.8 164.4 -4.7 312 1,152 11.6 2

Union, NJ ........................... 14.9 240.5 2.7 25 890 2.1 238

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.6 312.2 0.2 136 646 2.5 201

Albany, NY ......................... 9.4 227.3 -0.5 186 754 4.0 79

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.2 212.4 -1.6 257 707 2.9 170

Broome, NY ....................... 4.4 94.6 -2.5 290 579 -1.2 313

Dutchess, NY ..................... 7.5 113.9 -0.3 170 733 5.0 31

Erie, NY ............................. 23.2 453.7 -0.2 164 631 3.4 125

Kings, NY ........................... 41.3 437.1 -0.2 164 643 3.2 145

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.6 383.0 -0.4 176 713 0.6 307

Nassau, NY ........................ 49.9 594.5 0.8 100 785 3.6 109

New York, NY .................... 111.7 2,184.9 -1.6 257 1,239 3.2 145

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 107.7 -0.5 186 560 3.3 140

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.5 246.0 -1.1 235 669 0.1 310

Orange, NY ........................ 9.0 124.9 0.3 131 606 4.7 47

Queens, NY ....................... 39.6 471.7 -1.0 226 735 2.9 170

Richmond, NY .................... 7.8 86.6 0.0 153 666 1.4 278

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.1 110.0 -0.1 160 744 1.4 278

Suffolk, NY ......................... 46.6 591.7 0.6 110 763 3.0 156

Westchester, NY ................ 34.7 402.1 -0.2 164 897 4.7 47

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

third quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Buncombe, NC .................. 6.7 105.8 2.1 40 $562 2.0 242

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.3 85.7 -3.8 308 548 1.3 286

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.6 109.0 1.6 58 554 1.8 257

Durham, NC ....................... 6.1 162.0 -0.3 170 928 3.7 100

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.3 175.3 -0.7 198 708 5.0 31

Guilford, NC ....................... 13.6 264.7 -0.7 198 656 2.8 176

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 27.1 502.6 -1.3 244 824 5.0 31

New Hanover, NC .............. 6.2 89.0 0.8 100 570 2.7 186

Wake, NC .......................... 22.8 383.7 1.4 65 712 0.8 300

Cass, ND ........................... 5.1 86.6 1.6 58 587 4.6 53

Butler, OH .......................... 6.9 129.5 0.2 136 640 2.2 228

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 39.0 764.8 -1.1 235 739 3.4 125

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.9 687.1 -1.1 235 714 1.4 278

Hamilton, OH ..................... 25.4 547.5 0.3 131 764 0.7 305

Lake, OH ............................ 6.8 98.0 0.2 136 611 0.7 305

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 101.6 0.7 106 616 1.1 290

Lucas, OH .......................... 11.0 225.3 -1.9 274 662 2.0 242

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.6 105.7 -0.7 198 553 1.8 257

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.4 286.9 -1.6 257 681 2.4 211

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 167.2 -2.5 290 576 1.4 278

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 263.2 -0.7 198 680 3.8 90

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.9 86.7 -1.9 274 643 2.6 197

Oklahoma, OK ................... 21.5 400.4 -1.8 270 625 5.0 31

Tulsa, OK ........................... 18.0 315.6 -4.1 311 634 2.8 176

Clackamas, OR .................. 11.0 132.9 -0.9 216 671 4.2 66

Lane, OR ........................... 10.2 137.7 -2.1 278 579 3.0 156

Marion, OR ........................ 8.3 133.1 0.4 123 572 3.6 109

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.4 418.9 -2.3 285 733 2.4 211

Washington, OR ................ 14.0 220.2 -1.0 226 830 4.8 41

Allegheny, PA .................... 36.0 692.1 -1.6 257 746 2.9 170

Berks, PA ........................... 8.8 161.3 -1.4 249 646 2.4 211

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.6 249.8 0.6 110 679 2.1 238

Chester, PA ....................... 14.2 217.6 2.0 43 856 3.1 151

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.5 124.1 -0.6 190 685 3.9 84

Dauphin, PA ....................... 6.9 174.5 -0.7 198 700 2.2 228

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.9 206.8 -2.1 278 769 5.9 13

Erie, PA .............................. 7.1 125.7 -1.7 267 570 1.8 257

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.6 97.6 1.4 65 562 1.6 267

Lancaster, PA .................... 11.5 221.6 0.3 131 628 3.1 151

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.1 170.5 0.6 110 706 3.1 151

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.8 141.2 0.4 123 576 0.9 296

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.3 475.5 -0.7 198 863 5.2 25

Northampton, PA ............... 5.9 91.9 0.9 91 631 2.3 220

Philadelphia, PA ................ 27.5 649.2 -1.0 226 825 4.3 62

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.3 132.3 -1.5 252 576 2.7 186

York, PA ............................. 8.4 164.1 -0.5 186 641 3.4 125

Kent, RI .............................. 5.4 80.5 2.8 23 656 5.8 15

Providence, RI ................... 17.3 289.2 0.4 123 695 3.0 156

Charleston, SC .................. 13.1 186.9 1.4 65 600 3.4 125

Greenville, SC .................... 13.4 221.0 -0.1 160 641 1.4 278

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

third quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Horry, SC ........................... 8.7 104.0 3.0 17 $476 1.9 252

Lexington, SC .................... 6.1 83.0 0.9 91 551 3.0 156

Richland, SC ...................... 10.5 205.1 0.0 153 617 3.2 145

Spartanburg, SC ................ 7.0 116.7 1.0 82 625 1.3 286

Minnehaha, SD .................. 5.9 108.1 0.5 116 591 2.8 176

Davidson, TN ..................... 17.9 428.6 1.4 65 707 3.4 125

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.3 187.9 0.5 116 624 5.1 29

Knox, TN ............................ 10.2 210.4 1.1 77 616 4.8 41

Rutherford, TN ................... 3.5 84.1 3.9 9 639 6.0 12

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.9 494.8 1.0 82 737 4.8 41

Bell, TX .............................. 4.1 88.6 -0.8 210 549 2.8 176

Bexar, TX ........................... 29.1 655.1 -0.7 198 619 4.9 38

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.0 75.9 -0.6 190 680 0.0 311

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.4 77.6 0.5 116 521 4.2 66

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.0 114.3 -0.9 216 448 3.0 156

Collin, TX ........................... 11.6 194.6 2.2 36 784 2.2 228

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.4 1,438.9 -2.4 288 861 2.4 211

Denton, TX ......................... 7.9 127.8 1.2 73 615 2.5 201

El Paso, TX ........................ 12.4 253.4 -1.2 240 510 0.8 300

Fort Bend, TX .................... 6.0 97.0 -0.3 170 713 0.8 300

Galveston, TX .................... 4.7 88.7 1.0 82 619 4.4 61

Harris, TX ........................... 88.3 1,823.7 -1.6 257 824 2.4 211

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 9.0 177.8 4.0 8 455 1.8 257

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 118.0 1.1 77 649 4.7 47

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.4 114.9 -0.8 210 552 2.6 197

McLennan, TX ................... 4.6 97.3 -0.8 210 572 4.8 41

Montgomery, TX ................ 6.0 85.9 3.7 11 636 1.8 257

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 142.4 -0.7 198 582 3.0 156

Smith, TX ........................... 4.8 84.7 0.2 136 610 2.2 228

Tarrant, TX ......................... 33.2 689.9 -1.5 252 722 1.4 278

Travis, TX .......................... 24.2 507.0 -1.6 257 802 3.0 156

Williamson, TX ................... 4.7 83.6 3.0 17 744 2.5 201

Davis, UT ........................... 5.9 90.4 0.8 100 597 3.6 109

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 33.3 514.4 -0.3 170 647 2.7 186

Utah, UT ............................ 10.2 143.7 0.7 106 550 1.5 272

Weber, UT ......................... 5.1 85.5 -0.4 176 548 2.4 211

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.6 95.1 0.0 153 688 2.2 228

Arlington, VA ...................... 6.8 150.9 -0.1 160 1,109 2.8 176

Chesterfield, VA ................. 6.5 110.4 1.6 58 638 0.9 296

Fairfax, VA ......................... 29.6 534.7 1.7 55 1,038 5.8 15

Henrico, VA ........................ 8.0 166.7 -0.1 160 731 1.4 278

Loudoun, VA ...................... 5.8 105.5 5.4 2 888 0.8 300

Prince William, VA ............. 5.6 89.5 3.6 13 636 4.6 53

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.5 91.3 1.2 73 910 1.7 264

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 4.6 90.8 3.2 15 553 2.2 228

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.6 95.6 0.6 110 640 2.1 238

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.5 145.0 -0.8 210 695 3.6 109

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 157.1 -2.3 285 799 3.0 156

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 10.3 167.0 1.0 82 551 4.8 41

Clark, WA ........................... 11.4 117.8 2.2 36 663 3.1 151

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

third quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

Ranking by

percent

change

King, WA ............................ 88.3 1,095.4 -0.7 198 $962 5.4 22

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.7 77.7 1.4 65 683 1.6 267

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.8 248.4 2.1 40 638 2.9 170

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.5 206.3 -0.5 186 744 3.0 156

Spokane, WA ..................... 16.0 191.8 0.4 123 589 2.4 211

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.9 88.6 2.3 35 664 2.8 176

Yakima, WA ....................... 9.7 104.0 0.2 136 478 3.0 156

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 108.4 -1.3 244 600 1.9 252

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 145.4 1.7 55 635 1.6 267

Dane, WI ............................ 13.5 285.1 1.0 82 686 3.9 84

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.5 498.3 -1.1 235 712 3.9 84

Outagamie, WI ................... 4.9 98.0 1.8 52 618 0.8 300

Racine, WI ......................... 4.3 75.0 -2.1 278 669 3.4 125

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.2 224.9 0.4 123 722 2.7 186

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.9 87.8 -2.5 290 674 2.7 186

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.4 306.1 -1.5 252 466 5.2 25

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

These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.3 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 quarterly 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,

third quarter 20032

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-033

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-033

United States5 .................................................... 8,291.0 128,546.3 -0.4 $704 3.1

Private industry .............................................. 8,025.1 107,849.8 -0.5 696 3.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 124.5 1,764.8 -0.9 607 2.4

Construction ............................................... 808.3 6,925.2 0.2 744 1.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 379.4 14,401.2 -5.1 854 3.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,860.9 25,023.5 -0.7 623 2.5

Information ................................................. 146.3 3,137.8 -4.7 1,100 6.0

Financial activities ...................................... 762.7 7,865.6 1.9 999 6.7

Professional and business services ........... 1,325.5 16,008.4 -0.4 823 3.0

Education and health services ................... 729.3 15,777.6 2.3 674 3.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 668.9 12,436.1 1.2 305 2.3

Other services ............................................ 1,070.2 4,264.2 -0.2 462 2.2

Government ................................................... 265.9 20,696.5 0.1 750 3.3

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 349.2 4,007.2 -0.6 792 3.7

Private industry .............................................. 345.3 3,445.6 -0.5 773 3.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 12.2 1.2 809 10.1

Construction ............................................... 12.9 135.2 -0.1 795 1.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 17.9 489.9 -7.8 810 4.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 53.9 769.8 -0.7 682 2.7

Information ................................................. 9.2 190.6 -5.3 1,337 3.1

Financial activities ...................................... 22.9 235.7 1.0 1,190 7.0

Professional and business services ........... 39.9 568.7 1.0 873 3.3

Education and health services ................... 26.4 449.5 2.0 729 2.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 25.2 373.2 3.9 463 5.9

Other services ............................................ 136.3 220.1 4.7 394 2.6

Government ................................................... 3.9 561.6 -1.2 915 6.1

Cook, IL .............................................................. 126.0 2,529.5 -1.2 835 2.7

Private industry .............................................. 124.9 2,209.1 -1.4 826 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.5 0.7 916 3.4

Construction ............................................... 10.4 102.8 1.3 1,032 -0.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.9 266.1 -5.9 850 1.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 26.7 479.7 -1.3 695 0.0

Information ................................................. 2.5 65.3 -5.9 1,175 5.6

Financial activities ...................................... 13.7 220.1 0.3 1,252 5.1

Professional and business services ........... 25.9 404.2 -3.1 1,010 1.9

Education and health services ................... 12.2 347.3 1.1 736 4.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.5 222.5 2.7 362 1.7

Other services ............................................ 12.6 95.2 -2.1 615 1.3

Government ................................................... 1.2 320.4 -0.2 (6) (6) 

New York, NY ..................................................... 111.7 2,184.9 -1.6 1,239 3.2

Private industry .............................................. 111.5 1,747.2 -1.3 1,305 2.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 15.0 971 -11.4

Construction ............................................... 2.2 31.5 -2.1 1,300 4.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 47.1 -8.9 956 1.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.3 234.2 0.0 960 2.6

Information ................................................. 4.4 128.8 -5.5 1,588 5.5

Financial activities ...................................... 16.8 348.8 -2.7 2,099 2.7

Professional and business services ........... 22.7 426.3 -1.5 1,438 1.8

Education and health services ................... 7.8 263.8 1.3 897 7.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.0 177.5 1.0 624 4.9

Other services ............................................ 15.9 80.2 0.2 751 4.0

Government ................................................... 0.2 437.7 -2.7 975 4.8

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

third quarter 20032 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-033

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-033

Harris, TX ........................................................... 88.3 1,823.7 -1.6 $824 2.4

Private industry .............................................. 87.9 1,584.2 -1.9 828 1.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.2 61.2 (6) 1,811 (6) 

Construction ............................................... 6.4 140.6 -3.5 791 0.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.7 165.2 -6.0 1,011 3.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.9 389.5 -3.1 761 0.8

Information ................................................. 1.4 34.0 -4.3 1,022 2.1

Financial activities ...................................... 9.3 112.1 1.5 1,038 6.7

Professional and business services ........... 16.9 277.3 -3.4 913 2.4

Education and health services ................... 8.7 187.1 1.1 758 2.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 156.6 0.6 318 -1.2

Other services ............................................ 10.4 56.8 -3.7 503 1.0

Government ................................................... 0.4 239.5 0.9 794 6.1

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 80.4 1,571.3 1.1 699 3.4

Private industry .............................................. 79.9 1,357.4 1.3 696 3.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.6 -3.3 499 0.6

Construction ............................................... 8.4 131.1 3.4 692 1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 125.2 -6.5 999 4.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 18.6 316.0 0.0 683 2.7

Information ................................................. 1.6 36.3 -3.1 826 -0.6

Financial activities ...................................... 9.3 132.3 3.8 878 7.9

Professional and business services ........... 17.9 254.6 2.1 677 3.2

Education and health services ................... 7.5 157.6 6.6 742 4.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 149.4 1.4 341 3.0

Other services ............................................ 5.7 44.2 -2.7 480 1.7

Government ................................................... 0.5 213.9 0.3 716 4.5

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.4 1,438.9 -2.4 861 2.4

Private industry .............................................. 66.9 1,281.6 -2.8 868 2.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 6.5 (6) 2,365 (6) 

Construction ............................................... 4.5 76.1 -1.8 776 2.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 145.2 -6.0 964 2.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.5 316.8 -4.1 851 4.2

Information ................................................. 1.8 63.8 -6.8 1,185 0.9

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 139.6 0.8 1,099 6.5

Professional and business services ........... 13.8 232.6 -4.3 937 1.4

Education and health services ................... 6.1 131.2 3.2 817 2.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.0 126.7 -0.9 399 3.6

Other services ............................................ 6.7 40.6 -3.3 553 -2.6

Government ................................................... 0.4 157.3 1.5 (6) (6) 

Orange, CA ........................................................ 88.1 1,426.5 1.1 812 5.3

Private industry .............................................. 86.7 1,289.3 1.9 807 5.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.3 6.0 -20.1 563 15.8

Construction ............................................... 6.4 85.0 2.7 872 4.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.1 180.0 -4.9 940 8.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.4 266.4 1.1 755 3.3

Information ................................................. 1.5 34.1 -3.6 1,089 2.6

Financial activities ...................................... 9.6 127.0 12.3 1,354 11.4

Professional and business services ........... 17.4 258.7 2.7 821 0.4

Education and health services ................... 9.1 125.9 7.6 736 1.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.6 160.7 0.4 356 5.3

Other services ............................................ 12.3 45.4 2.2 491 1.9

Government ................................................... 1.4 137.2 -5.3 859 7.5

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

third quarter 20032 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-033

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-033

San Diego, CA ................................................... 84.4 1,256.7 0.9 $761 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 83.0 1,045.4 1.6 739 4.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.9 11.8 -2.7 462 1.1

Construction ............................................... 6.4 82.1 5.5 778 1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 105.3 -5.9 986 5.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.2 208.2 1.5 639 2.9

Information ................................................. 1.4 36.8 1.0 1,500 29.5

Financial activities ...................................... 8.8 81.5 6.7 993 6.4

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 203.0 0.4 864 1.5

Education and health services ................... 7.5 121.1 2.8 687 3.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 143.0 2.9 348 3.9

Other services ............................................ 18.9 52.3 5.4 431 0.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 211.3 -2.4 870 4.1

King, WA ............................................................ 88.3 1,095.4 -0.7 962 5.4

Private industry .............................................. 87.7 943.7 -0.8 977 5.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 3.5 -5.4 1,047 25.2

Construction ............................................... 7.1 56.9 -1.9 864 -0.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 103.7 -8.3 1,115 -4.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.1 217.1 -0.9 780 4.3

Information ................................................. 1.7 68.6 0.0 2,979 16.8

Financial activities ...................................... 6.4 77.8 3.7 1,097 10.4

Professional and business services ........... 13.0 158.5 -0.4 996 5.7

Education and health services ................... 6.1 107.3 1.8 704 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.8 102.1 1.7 396 2.1

Other services ............................................ 28.2 48.3 -0.6 450 1.1

Government ................................................... 0.6 151.8 -0.3 869 4.4

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 79.9 965.2 0.1 682 (6) 

Private industry .............................................. 79.6 814.6 0.1 670 3.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.8 2.2 430 2.6

Construction ............................................... 4.9 41.5 5.4 694 2.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 51.2 -6.3 613 2.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.5 240.1 -2.0 637 2.9

Information ................................................. 1.7 27.6 -7.5 923 1.7

Financial activities ...................................... 8.2 65.2 1.4 972 8.6

Professional and business services ........... 15.9 131.6 1.6 776 1.2

Education and health services ................... 7.9 122.9 2.2 716 6.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.3 89.6 2.7 387 5.4

Other services ............................................ 7.5 34.2 -2.0 428 2.4

Government ................................................... 0.3 150.7 0.4 748 (6) 

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 quarterly 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. 6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county

by state, third quarter 20032

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

United States6 .................... 8,291.0 128,546.3 -0.4 $704 3.1

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.2 368.9 -0.4 712 2.3

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.6 143.4 1.9 775 3.2

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 80.4 1,571.3 1.1 699 3.4

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.1 240.5 1.0 635 3.1

Los Angeles, CA ................ 349.2 4,007.2 -0.6 792 3.7

Denver, CO ........................ 24.3 424.6 -3.1 863 4.1

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.2 479.5 -1.5 857 2.0

New Castle, DE ................. 17.8 278.7 0.7 839 4.1

Washington, DC ................. 29.7 650.1 -0.4 1,123 5.6

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 79.9 965.2 0.1 682 (7) 

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.7 725.3 -0.9 913 1.8

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.3 414.3 0.8 673 3.4

Ada, ID ............................... 12.9 183.7 0.5 646 1.9

Cook, IL ............................. 126.0 2,529.5 -1.2 835 2.7

Marion, IN .......................... 23.6 572.0 -0.7 738 2.8

Polk, IA .............................. 13.7 261.5 0.2 709 3.5

Johnson, KS ...................... 18.7 290.6 0.0 736 3.4

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.3 416.9 -0.9 685 3.6

Orleans, LA ........................ 13.0 248.7 0.2 673 5.5

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.1 169.1 0.5 636 2.7

Montgomery, MD ............... 30.5 450.6 0.2 897 5.0

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.2 787.0 -2.7 996 4.1

Wayne, MI .......................... 35.3 805.9 -1.5 825 2.0

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.3 820.5 -1.3 911 5.6

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.6 131.4 0.0 626 3.8

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.8 620.7 -1.8 768 4.1

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.7 69.7 1.3 551 3.4

Douglas, NE ....................... 14.9 310.4 -0.9 679 3.8

Clark, NV ........................... 35.5 766.1 4.4 670 4.9

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.1 192.4 2.0 779 4.0

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.0 448.6 0.4 884 4.0

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.6 312.2 0.2 646 2.5

New York, NY .................... 111.7 2,184.9 -1.6 1,239 3.2

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 27.1 502.6 -1.3 824 5.0

Cass, ND ........................... 5.1 86.6 1.6 587 4.6

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 39.0 764.8 -1.1 739 3.4

Oklahoma, OK ................... 21.5 400.4 -1.8 625 5.0

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.4 418.9 -2.3 733 2.4

Allegheny, PA .................... 36.0 692.1 -1.6 746 2.9

Providence, RI ................... 17.3 289.2 0.4 695 3.0

Greenville, SC .................... 13.4 221.0 -0.1 641 1.4

Minnehaha, SD .................. 5.9 108.1 0.5 591 2.8

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.9 494.8 1.0 737 4.8

Harris, TX ........................... 88.3 1,823.7 -1.6 824 2.4

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 33.3 514.4 -0.3 647 2.7

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.6 95.1 0.0 688 2.2

Fairfax, VA ......................... 29.6 534.7 1.7 1,038 5.8

King, WA ............................ 88.3 1,095.4 -0.7 962 5.4

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 108.4 -1.3 600 1.9

Milwaukee, WI ................... 22.5 498.3 -1.1 712 3.9

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

by state, third quarter 20032 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-034

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-034

Laramie, WY ...................... 2.8 39.4 1.8 $573 4.4

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.4 306.1 -1.5 466 5.2

St. Thomas, VI ................... 1.7 22.6 -1.4 539 1.7

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

Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly 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 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

third quarter 20032

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-03

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-03

United States4 .................... 8,291.0 128,546.3 -0.4 $704 3.1

Alabama ............................. 111.6 1,825.3 -0.6 607 3.1

Alaska ................................ 19.7 308.4 1.5 730 3.1

Arizona ............................... 125.9 2,269.0 1.3 659 3.5

Arkansas ............................ 75.0 1,130.5 -0.3 541 2.9

California ............................ 1,166.8 14,923.9 -0.3 797 3.9

Colorado ............................ 161.1 2,124.4 -1.6 744 4.5

Connecticut ........................ 108.9 1,627.4 -1.4 869 3.1

Delaware ............................ 26.8 406.1 -0.3 753 3.9

District of Columbia ............ 29.7 650.1 -0.4 1,123 5.6

Florida ................................ 499.3 7,234.3 1.5 627 3.6

Georgia .............................. 245.6 3,811.1 -0.2 684 2.5

Hawaii ................................ 37.2 567.3 1.3 648 3.5

Idaho .................................. 48.2 590.4 0.5 547 2.1

Illinois ................................. 324.8 5,738.7 -1.2 751 2.6

Indiana ............................... 151.5 2,848.1 -0.7 627 2.1

Iowa ................................... 90.1 1,414.4 -0.4 580 3.4

Kansas ............................... 82.6 1,287.9 -1.5 594 2.6

Kentucky ............................ 105.6 1,727.7 0.1 594 3.1

Louisiana ........................... 117.1 1,853.4 0.1 579 2.8

Maine ................................. 47.0 603.7 0.2 577 2.9

Maryland ............................ 149.2 2,448.6 0.4 763 4.1

Massachusetts ................... 205.2 3,163.9 -1.8 860 3.6

Michigan ............................ 251.6 4,349.2 -2.0 730 2.4

Minnesota .......................... 158.3 2,597.8 -0.7 730 4.3

Mississippi ......................... 65.5 1,102.5 -0.9 521 3.6

Missouri ............................. 165.9 2,633.8 -0.6 636 2.6

Montana ............................. 42.3 401.9 0.9 507 3.5

Nebraska ........................... 55.0 876.8 0.0 580 3.0

Nevada .............................. 58.7 1,096.9 3.7 675 4.5

New Hampshire ................. 46.6 612.1 0.3 689 2.8

New Jersey ........................ 262.9 3,883.2 0.3 852 3.5

New Mexico ....................... 50.2 754.6 0.9 565 2.7

New York ........................... 548.9 8,224.3 -0.7 846 2.9

North Carolina .................... 226.0 3,743.5 -0.8 629 2.6

North Dakota ...................... 23.8 320.6 1.1 527 4.8

Ohio ................................... 293.6 5,310.6 -1.1 658 1.7

Oklahoma .......................... 91.3 1,410.9 -2.3 560 3.9

Oregon ............................... 117.9 1,588.5 -0.9 653 3.2

Pennsylvania ..................... 326.5 5,495.6 -0.7 692 3.1

Rhode Island ...................... 34.6 481.9 1.2 677 3.7

South Carolina ................... 124.7 1,773.4 -0.2 580 2.5

South Dakota ..................... 27.9 368.1 0.2 512 2.2

Tennessee ......................... 128.1 2,617.6 -0.1 631 3.8

Texas ................................. 500.5 9,222.7 -0.7 693 2.2

Utah ................................... 72.5 1,048.6 0.2 588 2.3

Vermont ............................. 24.0 297.8 0.1 598 2.7

Virginia ............................... 201.0 3,429.9 0.3 724 3.6

Washington ........................ 238.2 2,705.8 0.4 753 3.7

West Virginia ...................... 47.0 683.3 -0.8 533 2.3

Wisconsin .......................... 156.4 2,710.0 -0.3 624 3.1

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

third quarter 20032 — Continued

State

Establishments,

third quarter

2003

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

September

2003

(thousands)

Percent

change,

September

2002-03

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

third quarter

2002-03

Wyoming ............................ 22.0 249.9 1.4 $562 3.5

Puerto Rico ........................ 43.5 971.0 -1.1 410 5.1

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.2 41.2 -1.6 563 -0.5

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.
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employe

September 2002-03 (U.S. Average = -0.4%)

Source

April 20

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 75,00

more, third quarter 2002-03 (U.S. Average = 3.1%)

Source

April 20

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.