For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 11, 2011 USDL-11-0014 

Technical Information: (202) 691-6567 • QCEWInfo@bls.gov • www.bls.gov/cew 

Media Contact: (202) 691-5902 • PressOffice@bls.gov 

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Second Quarter 2010 

From June 2009 to June 2010, employment declined in 192 of the 326 largest U.S. counties according 

to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Yolo, Calif., and Marion, Fla., 

posted the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 3.7 percent each over the year, compared with a 

national job decrease of 0.2 percent. Within Yolo, the largest employment decline occurred in trade, 

transportation, and utilities, which lost 843 jobs over the year (-4.4 percent). In Marion, financial 

activities had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment, shedding 1,495 jobs (-27.1 percent). 

Elkhart, Ind., experienced the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the 

largest counties in the U.S. with a gain of 9.3 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 3.0 percent to $865 in the second quarter of 

2010. Among the large counties in the U.S., Santa Clara, Calif., had the largest over-the-year increase in 

average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2010, with a gain of 10.6 percent. Within Santa Clara, 

manufacturing had the largest impact on the county’s over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. 

Fort Bend, Texas, experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 1.7 percent 

over the year. County employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of 

Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

employment, June 2009-10 

(U.S. average = -0.2 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, second quarter 2009-10 

(U.S. average = 3.0 percent) 

-3.7 -3.7 -2.9 -2.9 -2.7

-15.0

-13.0

-11.0

-9.0

-7.0

-5.0

-3.0

-1.0

Yolo,

Calif.

Marion,

Fla.

Kane,

Ill.

McHenry,

Ill.

San Joaquin, 

Calif.

10.6

9.0

7.6 6.9 6.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Santa Clara,

Calif.

New York,

N.Y.

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Lake, 

Ind.

Rockingham, 

N.H.
- 2 - 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by June 2010 employment, June 2009-10 employment 

decrease, and June 2009-10 percent decrease in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

June 2010 employment Decrease in employment, Percent decrease in employment, 

(thousands) June 2009-10 June 2009-10 

 (thousands) 

 

United States 129,371.6 United States -276.5 United States -0.2

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,890.5 Los Angeles, Calif. -62.3 Yolo, Calif. -3.7

Cook, Ill. 2,371.7 Maricopa, Ariz. -24.3 Marion, Fla. -3.7

New York, N.Y. 2,291.3 Cook, Ill. -22.7 Kane, Ill. -2.9

Harris, Texas 1,996.5 Clark, Nev. -17.5 McHenry, Ill. -2.9

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,565.2 Sacramento, Calif. -15.7 San Joaquin, Calif. -2.7

Dallas, Texas 1,415.2 Orange, Calif. -15.1 Sacramento, Calif. -2.6

Orange, Calif. 1,369.7 San Bernardino, Calif. -14.0 Durham, N.C. -2.6

San Diego, Calif. 1,253.3 Riverside, Calif. -12.8 Sedgwick, Kan. -2.5

King, Wash. 1,125.9 St. Louis, Mo. -12.3 St. Louis City, Mo. -2.5

Miami-Dade, Fla. 932.4 Alameda, Calif. -10.6 Gloucester, N.J. -2.4

 Spokane, Wash. -2.4

Large County Employment 

In June 2010, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129.4 million, down by 

0.2 percent from June 2009. The 326 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.7 

percent of total U.S. employment and 71.5 percent of total wages. These 326 counties had a net job 

decline of 350,897 over the year, accounting for 126.9 percent of the overall U.S. employment decrease. 

(See chart 3.) 

Yolo, Calif., and Marion, Fla., both had the largest percentage decline in employment among the largest 

U.S. counties. The top five counties with the greatest employment level declines (Los Angeles, Calif.; 

Maricopa, Ariz.; Cook, Ill.; Clark, Nev.; and Sacramento, Calif.) had a combined over-the-year loss of 

142,500, or 51.1 percent of the employment decline for the U.S. (See table A.) 

Employment rose in 120 of the large counties from June 2009 to June 2010. Elkhart, Ind., had the largest 

over-the-year percentage increase in employment (9.3 percent) in the nation. Manufacturing was the 

largest contributor to the increase in employment. In Elkhart, employment declines exceeded 10 percent 

from third quarter of 2008 through third quarter of 2009. Employment rebounded in December 2009, 

and strong job growth continued through this quarter. Kings, N.Y., experienced the second largest 

employment increase, followed by Allen, Ind.; Ottawa, Mich.; Macomb, Mich.; Arlington, Va.; and 

Benton, Wash. 

 
- 3 - 

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by second quarter 2010 average weekly wages, second quarter 2009-10 

increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2009-10 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 

Average weekly wage, Increase in average weekly Percent increase in average 

second quarter 2010 wage, second quarter 2009-10 weekly wage, second 

 quarter 2009-10 

 

United States $865 United States $25 United States 3.0

 

New York, N.Y. $1,659 Santa Clara, Calif. $153 Santa Clara, Calif. 10.6

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,603 New York, N.Y. 137 New York, N.Y. 9.0

Washington, D.C. 1,506 Washington, D.C. 81 Elkhart, Ind. 7.6

Arlington, Va. 1,481 Fairfield, Conn. 79 Lake, Ind. 6.9

Fairfield, Conn. 1,395 Alexandria City, Va. 73 Rockingham, N.H. 6.4

Fairfax, Va. 1,392 Middlesex, Mass. 62 Alexandria City, Va. 6.3

San Francisco, Calif. 1,346 Durham, N.C. 61 Douglas, Colo. 6.2

Suffolk, Mass. 1,334 Arlington, Va. 59 Fairfield, Conn. 6.0

San Mateo, Calif. 1,329 Washington, Ore. 54 Champaign, Ill. 5.9

Somerset, N.J. 1,277 Douglas, Colo. 53 Butler, Pa. 5.8

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 3.0 percent over the year in the second quarter of 

2010. Among the 326 largest counties, 301 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Santa 

Clara, Calif., had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties. (See table B.) Of the 326 largest 

counties, 16 experienced declines in average weekly wages. (See chart 4.) 

Fort Bend, Texas, led the nation in average weekly wage decline with a loss of 1.7 percent over the year. 

Large declines in employment (-10.0 percent) and wages (-14.0 percent) within construction had 

contributed significantly to the county’s overall average weekly wage loss. Baltimore City, Md., had the 

second largest overall decline among the counties, followed by St. Charles, Mo.; Anoka, Minn.; and 

Calcasieu, La. 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

Eight of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent declines in employment in June 

2010. Los Angeles, Calif., experienced the largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties 

with a 1.6 percent decrease. Within Los Angeles, other services had the largest over-the-year decline 

among all private industry groups with a loss of 20,933 workers (-8.0 percent). (See table 2.) New York, 

N.Y., experienced the largest increase in employment among the 10 largest counties. 

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

N.Y., experienced the largest increase in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties and the 

nation with a gain of 9.0 percent. Orange, Calif., had the smallest wage increase among the 10 largest 

counties.
- 4 - 

For More Information 

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 326 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2009. June 2010 employment and 2010 

second quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 3 of this release. 

The employment and wage data by county are compiled under the QCEW program, also known as the 

ES-202 program. The data are derived from reports submitted by every employer subject to 

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.0 million employer reports cover 129.4 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the second quarter of 2010 will be available later at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling 

(202) 691-6567. 

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2010 is scheduled to be released on 

Tuesday, March 29, 2011. 

 
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 2010 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 327 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2009 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2010 data, two counties have 

been added to the publication tables: St. Tammany Parish, La., and 

Benton, Wash. These counties will be included in all 2010 quarterly 

releases. Ten counties, Shelby, Ala.; Butte, Calif.; Tippecanoe, Ind.; 

Johnson, Iowa; Saratoga, N.Y.; Trumbull, Ohio; Warren, Ohio; 

Kent, R.I.; Gregg, Texas; and Racine, Wis., which were published 

in the 2009 releases, will be excluded from this and

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 in first quarter of 2010 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.7 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/ 
future 2010 releases because their 2009 annual average employment 

levels were 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. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.0 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 2009. These reports are based on place 

of employment rather than place of residence. 

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and has been basically comparable from state to state since 1978, when the 1976 amendments to 

the Federal Unemployment Tax Act became effective, expanding 

coverage to include most State and local government employees. In 

2009, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 128.6 million 

jobs. The estimated 123.6 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 95.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received 

$5.859 trillion in pay, representing 93.4 percent of the wage and 

salary component of personal income and 41.5 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 2009 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. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, 

adjusted data account for administrative changes caused by multiunit 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 2008 edition 

of this bulletin contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2009 version of this news release. 

Tables and additional content from the 2008 Employment and 

Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn08.htm. These tables present final 

2008 annual averages. The tables are included on the CD which 

accompanies the hardcopy version of the Annual Bulletin. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2008 is available for sale as 

a chartbook 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. 

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 327 largest counties,

second quarter 2010 2

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,009.6 129,371.6 -0.2 – $865 3.0 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.9 332.8 -1.5 262 864 2.4 160

Madison, AL ....................... 8.7 180.7 0.5 82 966 3.0 110

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.9 168.5 1.9 17 747 1.4 250

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 132.1 -1.7 275 759 3.7 63

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 81.2 2.8 10 742 2.6 147

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 150.1 0.7 72 971 2.1 195

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 94.6 1,565.2 -1.5 262 860 1.7 226

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.4 338.9 ( 7) – 765 1.9 204

Benton, AR ........................ 5.4 92.8 0.6 76 839 4.5 27

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.1 245.6 0.3 95 779 -0.1 302

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 91.1 ( 7) – 725 ( 7) – 

Alameda, CA ...................... 54.3 635.1 -1.6 267 1,148 4.4 29

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.3 319.3 -2.0 285 1,061 -0.8 308

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.8 343.7 -0.6 167 697 1.3 252

Kern, CA ............................ 17.6 277.7 1.9 17 773 1.2 261

Los Angeles, CA ................ 422.4 3,890.5 -1.6 267 968 3.1 103

Marin, CA ........................... 11.7 102.9 0.1 112 1,059 2.9 115

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.7 187.1 2.3 12 741 -0.8 308

Orange, CA ........................ 101.7 1,369.7 -1.1 225 965 1.5 242

Placer, CA .......................... 10.6 126.0 -1.4 252 841 2.1 195

Riverside, CA ..................... 47.5 563.0 -2.2 296 729 1.7 226

Sacramento, CA ................ 53.0 589.6 -2.6 310 980 3.6 70

San Bernardino, CA ........... 49.2 597.3 -2.3 301 762 2.6 147

San Diego, CA ................... 97.5 1,253.3 -0.5 158 934 2.3 172

San Francisco, CA ............. 53.1 545.9 -0.9 202 1,346 3.2 95

San Joaquin, CA ................ 16.9 216.5 -2.7 312 752 1.8 214

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.5 102.0 0.6 76 731 0.8 279

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.7 320.1 -0.3 144 1,329 1.5 242

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.3 184.2 -1.0 216 818 1.1 265

Santa Clara, CA ................. 60.6 849.5 -0.5 158 1,603 10.6 1

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.0 98.5 -2.0 285 761 1.2 261

Solano, CA ......................... 9.9 123.8 0.4 91 860 0.2 298

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.5 176.9 -1.6 267 817 0.6 287

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.7 166.2 -0.9 202 744 2.1 195

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.3 151.8 -1.0 216 606 1.3 252

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.6 302.7 -1.4 252 897 1.7 226

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.9 96.1 -3.7 315 816 -0.9 310

Adams, CO ........................ 9.0 151.2 -1.2 234 785 2.7 138

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.9 273.6 -0.9 202 980 1.0 269

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.9 153.6 0.3 95 1,007 4.0 46

Denver, CO ........................ 25.3 421.7 -0.2 132 1,033 2.4 160

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.4 92.1 -0.7 182 906 6.2 7

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.8 235.2 -0.8 196 800 1.7 226

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.0 205.9 -0.6 167 882 2.9 115

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.1 129.5 0.4 91 742 2.5 154

Weld, CO ........................... 5.8 79.0 -0.9 202 712 3.8 53

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.7 403.7 -0.2 132 1,395 6.0 8

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.2 487.9 -1.0 216 1,058 4.2 40

New Haven, CT ................. 22.3 350.2 -0.8 196 926 2.4 160

New London, CT ................ 6.9 126.3 -1.4 252 895 1.6 235

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.6 262.9 -1.9 283 $985 2.6 147

Washington, DC ................. 34.2 701.4 2.3 12 1,506 5.7 11

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.7 115.4 -0.6 167 738 3.7 63

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.7 189.9 -0.7 182 833 1.6 235

Broward, FL ....................... 63.3 678.6 -1.2 234 816 1.5 242

Collier, FL .......................... 11.9 104.7 -0.3 144 789 2.7 138

Duval, FL ........................... 26.8 430.4 -0.7 182 834 2.2 182

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 119.1 1.1 46 695 1.2 261

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.1 558.1 -1.2 234 840 2.3 172

Lake, FL ............................. 7.3 74.7 -2.3 301 616 1.0 269

Lee, FL ............................... 18.9 186.9 -1.2 234 727 1.0 269

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 136.1 -1.1 225 732 1.1 265

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.1 105.5 -1.5 262 679 1.8 214

Marion, FL .......................... 8.1 88.9 -3.7 315 648 3.8 53

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 85.9 932.4 -0.2 132 850 1.9 204

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.1 75.1 -1.7 275 741 1.8 214

Orange, FL ......................... 35.4 642.2 0.5 82 776 1.3 252

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.2 485.8 -0.8 196 858 2.5 154

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.9 89.1 -0.6 167 666 ( 7) – 

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.7 382.5 -1.6 267 766 3.4 85

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 184.5 -1.8 278 674 1.5 242

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.6 130.2 -0.9 202 728 0.1 299

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.1 155.7 -2.2 296 739 0.8 279

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.5 145.1 -2.2 296 651 2.4 160

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 79.4 -1.3 243 679 2.1 195

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 128.1 -1.1 225 747 2.8 126

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 102.2 ( 7) – 773 ( 7) – 

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.5 287.0 -0.7 182 894 2.4 160

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.5 275.7 -1.3 243 899 0.7 284

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.4 700.8 -0.7 182 1,122 2.6 147

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.4 295.7 -0.9 202 853 3.5 78

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 93.1 ( 7) – 690 2.4 160

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 97.1 -1.0 216 736 1.8 214

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.8 428.2 -1.7 275 809 1.0 269

Ada, ID ............................... 14.2 193.6 -0.9 202 755 2.7 138

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 88.9 0.3 95 785 5.9 9

Cook, IL ............................. 142.8 2,371.7 -0.9 202 1,012 2.4 160

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.3 552.9 -0.1 125 988 2.7 138

Kane, IL ............................. 13.0 193.9 -2.9 313 776 2.9 115

Lake, IL .............................. 21.4 317.8 -1.4 252 1,081 3.6 70

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.5 95.7 -2.9 313 733 3.8 53

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 86.0 0.8 67 855 2.9 115

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 93.5 1.8 22 724 4.2 40

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 99.9 0.5 82 804 2.7 138

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 74.2 -2.3 301 845 2.8 126

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 93.2 -1.8 278 728 1.5 242

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 128.1 -0.1 125 886 2.8 126

Will, IL ................................ 14.4 197.4 0.1 112 781 4.3 34

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 124.5 -1.3 243 732 3.7 63

Allen, IN ............................. 8.9 172.2 3.5 3 732 4.3 34

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 102.3 9.3 1 $737 7.6 3

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.9 109.1 -0.5 158 816 3.2 95

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 184.3 -0.7 182 771 6.9 4

Marion, IN .......................... 23.6 547.7 0.5 82 870 2.2 182

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 114.0 -0.3 144 721 1.3 252

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 104.7 1.0 53 731 3.8 53

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 124.8 -0.6 167 829 4.5 27

Polk, IA .............................. 14.7 268.5 -1.6 267 850 3.2 95

Scott, IA ............................. 5.3 86.0 0.6 76 688 3.0 110

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.9 297.8 -2.0 285 889 2.2 182

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.5 241.4 -2.5 308 791 0.1 299

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 94.7 -0.6 167 757 3.1 103

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 81.2 2.6 11 831 2.2 182

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.5 172.3 1.0 53 798 1.8 214

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.4 413.0 -0.2 132 852 3.4 85

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.6 123.6 1.6 30 743 3.2 95

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 5.1 83.8 -2.0 285 715 -1.0 313

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 15.0 252.3 -1.4 252 803 -0.4 305

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.4 194.6 -0.4 151 803 2.8 126

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.3 131.6 0.3 95 819 3.7 63

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.0 170.8 0.9 61 920 0.9 275

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.6 75.8 ( 7) – 731 ( 7) – 

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.2 169.0 -1.1 225 779 3.2 95

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.3 230.8 0.3 95 946 ( 7) – 

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.1 368.0 -0.4 151 894 2.4 160

Frederick, MD .................... 5.9 93.3 -0.4 151 851 2.9 115

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 82.3 1.2 42 816 3.2 95

Howard, MD ....................... 8.7 149.7 1.4 34 1,027 1.7 226

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.3 448.3 -0.1 125 1,173 3.8 53

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.5 303.3 -1.6 267 959 2.9 115

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.5 328.7 -0.5 158 999 -1.6 316

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 96.7 -1.2 234 738 1.5 242

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.9 210.7 -0.2 132 796 2.4 160

Essex, MA .......................... 21.2 300.2 1.2 42 923 3.6 70

Hampden, MA .................... 14.8 196.2 0.5 82 779 0.3 292

Middlesex, MA ................... 48.4 812.4 0.5 82 1,252 5.2 17

Norfolk, MA ........................ 24.0 317.0 0.5 82 1,022 3.0 110

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.0 174.0 -0.7 182 850 1.0 269

Suffolk, MA ........................ 22.6 574.4 0.6 76 1,334 1.8 214

Worcester, MA ................... 21.0 313.5 0.4 91 886 3.1 103

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.5 127.8 0.7 72 728 1.1 265

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.5 154.4 0.9 61 854 3.5 78

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.4 108.1 -2.0 285 785 2.7 138

Kent, MI ............................. 14.0 309.9 1.0 53 773 0.8 279

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.2 280.6 3.0 5 866 2.2 182

Oakland, MI ....................... 37.8 618.1 -0.8 196 953 -0.2 304

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.6 102.2 3.5 3 712 3.8 53

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.2 79.9 1.8 22 725 0.3 292

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 184.1 1.7 25 910 1.6 235

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.3 665.0 0.9 61 944 2.2 182

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.4 106.9 -2.3 301 $827 -1.1 314

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.0 171.0 0.2 107 860 1.3 252

Hennepin, MN .................... 44.3 812.2 0.3 95 1,073 4.4 29

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 88.3 -1.4 252 988 3.6 70

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.4 318.0 -0.7 182 957 2.9 115

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.7 94.4 0.0 121 725 4.9 22

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.4 77.8 -0.5 158 683 4.1 44

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 83.3 -0.2 132 663 -0.6 306

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.2 123.0 -1.8 278 762 2.6 147

Boone, MO ......................... 4.4 82.5 1.3 38 682 0.6 287

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 91.2 -1.9 283 828 2.3 172

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 147.0 -1.3 243 672 0.7 284

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.0 342.8 -2.3 301 872 0.7 284

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.1 122.5 0.0 121 708 -1.5 315

St. Louis, MO ..................... 31.6 569.1 -2.1 294 911 1.9 204

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.7 213.2 -2.5 308 921 ( 7) – 

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.8 76.4 -1.1 225 714 3.6 70

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.7 313.6 0.1 112 796 1.8 214

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.1 153.5 -0.7 182 702 3.5 78

Clark, NV ........................... 48.0 804.1 -2.1 294 786 -0.9 310

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.9 184.5 -2.0 285 800 0.4 290

Hillsborough, NH ................ 11.9 185.4 -1.5 262 961 5.4 15

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.6 136.3 1.0 53 861 6.4 5

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.9 143.3 1.2 42 769 1.9 204

Bergen, NJ ......................... 33.9 431.3 -0.9 202 1,050 1.9 204

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.2 197.0 -1.8 278 925 3.4 85

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.8 198.6 -0.5 158 880 2.1 195

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.1 342.0 -0.7 182 1,083 2.2 182

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 99.9 -2.4 306 806 3.7 63

Hudson, NJ ........................ 13.9 229.7 -1.0 216 1,198 3.6 70

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.1 229.7 0.5 82 1,134 3.0 110

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.9 380.8 -0.7 182 1,065 2.2 182

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.4 254.4 -0.9 202 902 1.6 235

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.7 274.8 -1.4 252 1,230 3.4 85

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.3 155.9 0.7 72 720 0.8 279

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.3 172.4 1.9 17 917 1.9 204

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.1 170.2 0.1 112 1,277 2.8 126

Union, NJ ........................... 14.8 222.9 1.0 53 1,101 4.0 46

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.5 313.7 -1.1 225 780 1.8 214

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 220.5 -1.1 225 912 0.6 287

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.8 237.1 1.9 17 842 1.4 250

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 92.7 -1.8 278 709 2.6 147

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.1 112.4 -0.6 167 916 2.0 202

Erie, NY ............................. 23.6 453.3 0.3 95 765 2.3 172

Kings, NY ........................... 49.4 499.6 3.6 2 739 0.4 290

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.0 373.9 0.2 107 850 2.3 172

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.3 596.9 -0.2 132 1,010 2.5 154

New York, NY .................... 120.6 2,291.3 0.3 95 1,659 9.0 2

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 110.3 0.2 107 695 1.8 214

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 244.1 -1.0 216 817 3.3 90

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 132.2 1.1 46 $784 1.3 252

Queens, NY ....................... 44.8 498.8 1.1 46 837 1.9 204

Richmond, NY .................... 8.9 95.0 1.6 30 759 1.6 235

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 115.4 0.1 112 946 2.2 182

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.3 625.9 0.5 82 966 4.4 29

Westchester, NY ................ 36.1 408.8 -0.6 167 1,161 3.8 53

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.8 110.6 1.7 25 678 2.9 115

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 77.7 1.0 53 669 4.4 29

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 118.6 -0.4 151 720 3.7 63

Durham, NC ....................... 7.1 177.0 -2.6 310 1,155 5.6 14

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 173.2 -1.3 243 797 3.6 70

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.2 255.8 -0.8 196 769 3.1 103

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.1 531.5 -0.2 132 984 4.7 23

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.2 95.3 -2.2 296 718 2.9 115

Wake, NC .......................... 28.4 436.1 0.8 67 873 5.1 19

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 100.4 0.9 61 737 3.8 53

Butler, OH .......................... 7.2 137.9 0.8 67 767 4.6 25

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 35.7 690.9 -0.6 167 882 3.8 53

Franklin, OH ....................... 28.9 649.5 -0.4 151 848 3.7 63

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.1 488.3 -1.2 234 923 2.8 126

Lake, OH ............................ 6.4 94.4 -0.8 196 721 2.6 147

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.1 93.4 -1.1 225 698 3.9 50

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.3 199.2 1.3 38 743 2.2 182

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.0 96.7 -0.3 144 631 2.4 160

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.2 241.4 -0.5 158 772 1.8 214

Stark, OH ........................... 8.7 149.3 -1.6 267 664 2.2 182

Summit, OH ....................... 14.3 254.4 -0.5 158 773 1.0 269

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.2 412.1 0.2 107 789 2.3 172

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.1 329.1 -2.0 285 783 2.5 154

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.4 138.9 -1.3 243 799 2.8 126

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 76.1 -1.6 267 670 1.8 214

Lane, OR ........................... 10.7 137.3 0.1 112 685 1.3 252

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 136.0 -0.6 167 698 0.3 292

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.4 422.8 -0.1 125 885 1.7 226

Washington, OR ................ 16.0 236.6 0.3 95 994 5.7 11

Allegheny, PA .................... 34.9 679.9 0.3 95 919 3.5 78

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 163.0 1.3 38 786 0.3 292

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.6 255.0 0.4 91 839 0.1 299

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 81.5 2.9 8 767 5.8 10

Chester, PA ....................... 14.9 237.6 -0.4 151 1,131 1.8 214

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 120.6 -0.7 182 807 1.3 252

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 180.0 -1.2 234 853 3.3 90

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.5 205.8 0.7 72 917 2.9 115

Erie, PA .............................. 7.5 123.4 1.1 46 671 0.3 292

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 98.0 -0.9 202 672 2.1 195

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.4 220.7 -0.2 132 725 2.8 126

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.6 173.1 0.6 76 823 -0.1 302

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 137.9 -0.7 182 680 2.4 160

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.1 466.5 -1.0 216 1,068 2.8 126

Northampton, PA ............... 6.4 98.7 0.8 67 758 1.7 226

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Philadelphia, PA ................ 32.5 628.6 1.2 42 $1,007 0.8 279

Washington, PA ................. 5.5 81.1 1.4 34 777 5.0 21

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.3 134.3 0.0 121 694 3.0 110

York, PA ............................. 9.0 169.3 0.0 121 773 3.8 53

Providence, RI ................... 17.4 269.2 -0.4 151 853 2.2 182

Charleston, SC .................. 11.6 206.5 -0.2 132 768 4.6 25

Greenville, SC .................... 12.0 226.4 1.7 25 758 2.8 126

Horry, SC ........................... 7.7 114.4 -1.3 243 546 5.2 17

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 94.0 -1.3 243 647 3.5 78

Richland, SC ...................... 9.0 202.8 -0.6 167 763 1.1 265

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.0 109.4 -1.1 225 764 4.2 40

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.5 114.1 -0.5 158 704 2.3 172

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.1 419.4 ( 7) – 873 3.6 70

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 179.2 0.3 95 761 5.1 19

Knox, TN ............................ 10.8 216.4 -0.3 144 735 2.7 138

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 94.2 ( 7) – 806 ( 7) – 

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.1 466.3 -1.4 252 895 4.3 34

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 89.1 ( 7) – 942 3.9 50

Bell, TX .............................. 4.7 107.1 ( 7) – 714 ( 7) – 

Bexar, TX ........................... 33.3 727.4 1.0 53 772 3.2 95

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.8 86.7 1.8 22 831 4.3 34

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.8 86.0 0.8 67 652 1.6 235

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.3 125.0 1.4 34 562 3.3 90

Collin, TX ........................... 17.8 287.7 1.7 25 997 2.0 202

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.5 1,415.2 0.2 107 1,030 2.3 172

Denton, TX ......................... 10.9 173.1 1.9 17 756 1.6 235

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.6 271.9 2.2 14 633 4.3 34

Fort Bend, TX .................... 9.0 133.2 1.0 53 855 -1.7 317

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 95.9 2.9 8 791 -0.9 310

Harris, TX ........................... 99.7 1,996.5 -0.3 144 1,065 2.3 172

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.8 220.5 2.0 15 563 3.3 90

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 119.5 1.1 46 838 1.3 252

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.9 122.7 0.3 95 672 4.0 46

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 101.7 ( 7) – 704 ( 7) – 

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.5 128.7 1.6 30 782 2.4 160

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 152.9 1.7 25 732 2.7 138

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 73.9 -1.2 234 752 4.3 34

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 92.3 0.9 61 742 3.5 78

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.2 747.5 0.1 112 873 4.4 29

Travis, TX .......................... 29.7 569.7 1.4 34 954 3.9 50

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 85.2 0.9 61 590 5.7 11

Williamson, TX ................... 7.4 122.6 1.1 46 824 4.2 40

Davis, UT ........................... 7.0 102.9 1.1 46 714 1.9 204

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 36.4 558.0 -0.2 132 810 1.5 242

Utah, UT ............................ 12.6 164.9 -0.1 125 679 -0.6 306

Weber, UT ......................... 5.5 89.6 -0.7 182 662 2.3 172

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 91.9 -1.0 216 875 4.7 23

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.0 164.2 3.0 5 1,481 4.1 44

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 115.4 -0.9 202 798 4.0 46

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.0 580.3 0.6 76 1,392 3.2 95

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.6 172.4 -0.1 125 $873 1.7 226

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.2 134.9 2.0 15 1,054 3.3 90

Prince William, VA ............. 7.4 106.2 1.5 33 796 3.1 103

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.1 97.1 -0.9 202 1,237 6.3 6

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 95.7 -0.1 125 705 3.4 85

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 96.3 0.1 112 811 1.9 204

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 136.6 -2.2 296 873 3.1 103

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.2 149.0 -0.6 167 962 0.3 292

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.3 169.2 -0.6 167 696 2.8 126

Benton, WA ........................ 5.5 84.0 3.0 5 909 2.5 154

Clark, WA ........................... 13.0 128.2 -0.2 132 785 0.9 275

King, WA ............................ 80.6 1,125.9 -0.9 202 1,101 2.1 195

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.6 81.8 -0.6 167 842 2.9 115

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.4 263.3 -1.2 234 809 2.7 138

Snohomish, WA ................. 18.7 240.0 -2.0 285 923 2.8 126

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.9 199.2 -2.4 306 732 1.9 204

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.3 97.5 -1.3 243 807 1.5 242

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.9 78.8 -1.4 252 706 0.9 275

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.8 106.5 -1.0 216 597 1.2 261

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 106.5 -0.6 167 773 0.9 275

Brown, WI .......................... 6.5 145.9 0.1 112 742 2.5 154

Dane, WI ............................ 13.7 297.5 -0.3 144 833 1.7 226

Milwaukee, WI ................... 20.9 467.5 -1.4 252 866 2.2 182

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 100.9 -1.5 262 725 3.1 103

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.6 220.8 -2.0 285 852 3.5 78

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 90.0 1.3 38 798 5.4 15

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.7 261.8 -3.8 ( 8) 592 1.5 ( 8) 

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

These 326 U.S. counties comprise 70.7 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

second quarter 2010 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,009.6 129,371.6 -0.2 $865 3.0

Private industry .............................................. 8,711.9 107,283.2 -0.5 849 3.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 126.3 1,940.2 1.5 882 4.1

Construction ............................................... 801.1 5,657.4 -7.5 910 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 344.4 11,549.2 -1.6 1,063 5.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,876.4 24,488.7 -0.7 733 3.2

Information ................................................. 144.2 2,723.8 -3.7 1,324 4.1

Financial activities ...................................... 821.2 7,440.9 -2.6 1,259 6.2

Professional and business services ........... 1,538.5 16,801.1 2.0 1,088 2.7

Education and health services ................... 887.5 18,589.5 1.7 817 1.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 745.0 13,518.8 -0.2 359 3.2

Other services ............................................ 1,246.0 4,404.9 -0.7 553 1.8

Government ................................................... 297.7 22,088.4 1.1 941 2.0

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 422.4 3,890.5 -1.6 968 3.1

Private industry .............................................. 416.8 3,298.4 -1.5 935 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.8 3.3 1,107 8.2

Construction ............................................... 13.0 105.6 -11.7 989 -1.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 13.5 376.7 -3.9 1,063 3.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 52.0 730.8 -0.4 781 3.4

Information ................................................. 8.4 189.5 -1.0 1,667 2.3

Financial activities ...................................... 22.3 210.1 -2.5 1,417 2.7

Professional and business services ........... 41.6 528.2 -0.4 1,144 1.6

Education and health services ................... 28.7 505.0 2.0 897 2.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.8 390.8 -0.8 529 2.1

Other services ............................................ 194.9 240.4 -8.0 458 8.3

Government ................................................... 5.6 592.0 -1.9 1,154 ( 6) 

Cook, IL .............................................................. 142.8 2,371.7 -0.9 1,012 2.4

Private industry .............................................. 141.4 2,057.3 -1.1 996 2.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.9 -11.7 952 7.1

Construction ............................................... 12.2 67.1 -11.1 1,200 -0.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.7 193.4 -2.9 1,048 7.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.7 429.8 -0.9 783 2.4

Information ................................................. 2.6 51.5 -3.7 1,418 1.4

Financial activities ...................................... 15.5 190.0 -3.3 1,714 4.8

Professional and business services ........... 30.0 404.1 0.9 1,277 1.5

Education and health services ................... 14.8 390.5 1.3 861 1.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.3 232.3 -1.1 449 4.7

Other services ............................................ 15.3 94.4 -2.8 739 1.4

Government ................................................... 1.4 314.3 0.0 1,118 2.6

New York, NY ..................................................... 120.6 2,291.3 0.3 1,659 9.0

Private industry .............................................. 120.3 1,840.6 0.3 1,799 10.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -11.3 1,926 -24.3

Construction ............................................... 2.3 30.0 -12.7 1,523 1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 26.7 -5.0 1,227 0.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.1 234.4 1.9 1,173 4.5

Information ................................................. 4.4 129.5 -2.7 2,011 3.3

Financial activities ...................................... 19.0 347.3 -0.2 3,611 25.8

Professional and business services ........... 25.6 461.2 -0.3 1,887 4.5

Education and health services ................... 9.1 294.0 1.3 1,097 2.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.3 223.4 2.7 755 4.0

Other services ............................................ 18.5 87.6 -0.4 957 0.0

Government ................................................... 0.3 450.6 0.2 1,090 1.3

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

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 99.7 1,996.5 -0.3 $1,065 2.3

Private industry .............................................. 99.1 1,729.1 -0.9 1,084 2.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.6 74.7 3.1 2,732 2.2

Construction ............................................... 6.5 132.1 -7.8 1,056 -0.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 168.0 -3.0 1,323 5.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.5 414.3 -1.0 957 1.7

Information ................................................. 1.3 28.8 -4.7 1,214 1.0

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 112.2 -3.1 1,295 7.1

Professional and business services ........... 19.8 319.5 0.4 1,301 4.2

Education and health services ................... 10.9 236.7 3.7 883 0.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.0 181.3 -1.6 390 2.6

Other services ............................................ 13.1 60.3 0.8 614 -0.5

Government ................................................... 0.5 267.4 3.8 943 -0.6

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 94.6 1,565.2 -1.5 860 1.7

Private industry .............................................. 93.9 1,385.9 -1.7 842 1.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.6 -11.8 739 9.8

Construction ............................................... 9.0 81.2 -15.7 877 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 107.2 -4.2 1,264 8.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.9 331.8 -1.1 794 2.5

Information ................................................. 1.5 27.5 0.3 1,061 1.8

Financial activities ...................................... 11.4 132.0 -3.1 1,038 2.4

Professional and business services ........... 21.8 260.7 -0.1 881 -0.1

Education and health services ................... 10.3 223.5 3.6 901 -0.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 167.1 -1.8 406 2.3

Other services ............................................ 6.8 46.8 0.3 570 0.5

Government ................................................... 0.7 179.3 -0.1 981 0.2

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.5 1,415.2 0.2 1,030 2.3

Private industry .............................................. 67.0 1,243.0 -0.4 1,036 2.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.4 8.3 3,107 9.8

Construction ............................................... 4.1 67.5 -10.2 926 2.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 113.7 -4.8 1,211 4.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 279.4 -0.4 953 2.9

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.6 -2.0 1,500 3.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 136.5 -2.1 1,344 4.4

Professional and business services ........... 14.7 257.2 1.5 1,165 2.3

Education and health services ................... 6.9 164.0 4.7 978 -0.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.4 131.2 0.9 444 -5.1

Other services ............................................ 7.0 38.8 0.1 641 0.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 172.2 4.4 988 1.8

Orange, CA ........................................................ 101.7 1,369.7 -1.1 965 1.5

Private industry .............................................. 100.3 1,217.7 -1.0 949 1.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 4.8 7.6 570 -4.4

Construction ............................................... 6.4 68.2 -9.1 1,037 -3.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.0 152.8 -2.0 1,166 4.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.4 242.5 -1.4 914 2.6

Information ................................................. 1.3 25.4 -6.9 1,353 4.6

Financial activities ...................................... 9.7 103.1 -2.7 1,375 3.9

Professional and business services ........... 18.7 243.7 0.6 1,103 1.3

Education and health services ................... 10.3 154.0 1.9 878 1.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 170.9 0.0 419 2.9

Other services ............................................ 20.2 48.7 0.4 527 1.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 152.0 -2.2 1,100 -0.5

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

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 97.5 1,253.3 -0.5 $934 2.3

Private industry .............................................. 96.2 1,020.5 -0.8 903 2.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 10.6 1.2 573 2.1

Construction ............................................... 6.4 56.2 -9.2 995 0.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 93.2 -2.3 1,313 5.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.6 195.9 -1.0 746 3.5

Information ................................................. 1.2 25.4 -4.1 1,363 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 67.1 -3.1 1,101 3.3

Professional and business services ........... 16.0 208.4 -0.3 1,254 3.6

Education and health services ................... 8.4 144.4 2.5 875 2.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 157.6 0.4 398 2.6

Other services ............................................ 26.7 58.4 0.3 494 3.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 232.8 ( 6) 1,069 ( 6) 

King, WA ............................................................ 80.6 1,125.9 -0.9 1,101 2.1

Private industry .............................................. 80.1 963.6 -1.2 1,100 1.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.8 -3.2 1,214 5.6

Construction ............................................... 5.9 47.4 -15.0 1,098 -0.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.3 97.4 -3.9 1,418 2.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.5 203.8 -0.3 950 2.9

Information ................................................. 1.7 79.5 -0.9 1,991 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 6.6 64.5 -7.0 1,283 -2.4

Professional and business services ........... 13.8 175.1 1.0 1,327 3.4

Education and health services ................... 6.9 131.2 0.1 913 3.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.3 110.4 0.1 432 1.2

Other services ............................................ 21.7 51.4 10.1 596 -2.3

Government ................................................... 0.5 162.3 1.1 1,107 4.8

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 85.9 932.4 -0.2 850 1.9

Private industry .............................................. 85.6 800.2 -0.2 814 1.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.0 -6.2 513 8.9

Construction ............................................... 5.5 31.2 -13.7 876 0.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 35.0 -6.7 777 4.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 24.1 236.9 1.2 764 0.5

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.3 ( 6) 1,328 ( 6) 

Financial activities ...................................... 9.3 60.7 -2.2 1,222 6.0

Professional and business services ........... 18.1 121.2 -1.6 993 1.6

Education and health services ................... 9.7 149.9 3.1 835 0.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.4 105.7 3.0 486 2.3

Other services ............................................ 7.7 35.1 -0.1 544 0.7

Government ................................................... 0.4 132.2 -0.2 1,051 4.1

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 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 by state, 

second quarter 2010 2

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10

United States 4 ................... 9,009.6 129,371.6 -0.2 $865 3.0

Alabama ............................. 116.6 1,831.3 -0.4 750 2.3

Alaska ................................ 21.3 330.6 1.2 916 2.7

Arizona ............................... 147.2 2,308.7 -1.1 821 1.7

Arkansas ............................ 85.8 1,153.7 1.2 684 2.5

California ............................ 1,327.9 14,651.5 -1.0 978 3.2

Colorado ............................ 172.2 2,202.5 -0.9 870 2.2

Connecticut ........................ 111.4 1,617.8 -1.1 1,075 4.0

Delaware ............................ 28.5 404.8 -0.9 876 2.1

District of Columbia ............ 34.2 701.4 2.3 1,506 5.7

Florida ................................ 600.0 7,043.4 -0.6 782 2.1

Georgia .............................. 267.9 3,767.6 -0.9 812 2.5

Hawaii ................................ 38.9 584.0 -1.9 782 0.9

Idaho .................................. 54.9 616.6 -1.4 651 3.0

Illinois ................................. 377.5 5,574.8 -0.6 910 3.1

Indiana ............................... 158.0 2,734.8 1.2 732 3.1

Iowa ................................... 94.6 1,459.3 -0.9 709 3.4

Kansas ............................... 87.6 1,315.2 -1.1 732 1.9

Kentucky ............................ 109.9 1,733.6 0.6 743 2.8

Louisiana ........................... 129.5 1,849.1 -0.1 769 2.1

Maine ................................. 48.9 591.6 -0.8 699 2.6

Maryland ............................ 162.3 2,501.7 0.0 957 2.5

Massachusetts ................... 218.7 3,199.1 0.4 1,060 3.1

Michigan ............................ 248.1 3,828.6 0.8 825 1.9

Minnesota .......................... 169.7 2,605.5 -0.3 869 3.3

Mississippi ......................... 69.3 1,083.7 0.0 652 2.0

Missouri ............................. 173.5 2,611.5 -1.1 762 1.7

Montana ............................. 42.4 432.0 -0.5 658 3.5

Nebraska ........................... 59.8 909.6 -0.3 696 3.3

Nevada .............................. 72.6 1,117.7 -2.1 796 -0.3

New Hampshire ................. 48.1 612.4 -0.5 867 4.6

New Jersey ........................ 266.9 3,853.2 -0.3 1,028 2.6

New Mexico ....................... 54.4 792.1 -0.8 743 2.6

New York ........................... 589.0 8,503.4 0.5 1,078 5.0

North Carolina .................... 251.8 3,813.0 -0.5 764 3.9

North Dakota ...................... 26.0 363.6 2.0 711 6.6

Ohio ................................... 283.0 4,959.0 -0.4 775 2.9

Oklahoma .......................... 102.5 1,499.0 -0.3 717 3.0

Oregon ............................... 130.2 1,626.2 -0.5 786 2.5

Pennsylvania ..................... 341.8 5,552.8 0.6 849 2.4

Rhode Island ...................... 35.0 456.5 -0.6 831 3.1

South Carolina ................... 111.5 1,782.5 0.0 710 3.6

South Dakota ..................... 30.8 401.5 0.2 631 2.8

Tennessee ......................... 139.5 2,583.3 0.7 776 3.3

Texas ................................. 570.0 10,245.8 0.7 864 3.0

Utah ................................... 83.0 1,159.2 -0.4 733 1.4

Vermont ............................. 24.3 291.2 -1.0 756 4.3

Virginia ............................... 231.5 3,590.7 0.1 929 3.3

Washington ........................ 230.7 2,858.7 -0.9 898 2.0

West Virginia ...................... 48.6 700.5 0.4 726 2.3

Wisconsin .......................... 156.4 2,684.4 -0.3 746 2.5

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 2010 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

June

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2009-10

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2009-10

Wyoming ............................ 25.1 280.9 -1.1 $789 2.7

Puerto Rico ........................ 49.6 930.6 -2.6 493 1.6

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.6 43.9 0.7 709 -1.4

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

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

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2011

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

June 2009-10 (U.S. average = -0.2 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 January 2011

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

or more employees, second quarter 2009-10 (U.S. average = 3.0 percent)