For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Thursday, December 17, 2015 USDL-15-2392 

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 2015 

From June 2014 to June 2015, employment increased in 319 of the 342 largest U.S. counties (counties 

with 75,000 or more jobs in 2014), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Utah, Utah, had

the largest percentage increase, with a gain of 7.5 percent over the year, compared with national job 

growth of 2.0 percent. Within Utah, the largest employment increase occurred in trade, transportation, 

and utilities, which gained 3,540 jobs over the year (10.3 percent). Ector, Texas, had the largest overthe-year percentage decrease in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 4.2 

percent. County employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment 

and Wages (QCEW) program, which produces detailed information on county employment and wages 

within 6 months after the end of each quarter. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased 3.0 percent over the year, growing to $968 in the second

quarter of 2015. Ventura, Calif., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average weekly 

wages with a gain of 15.2 percent. Within Ventura, an average weekly wage gain of $934, or 53.8 

percent, in manufacturing made the largest contribution to the county’s increase in average weekly 

wages. Olmsted, Minn., experienced the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages with a 

loss of 5.2 percent over the year.

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, June 2014-15 

(U.S. average = 2.0 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, second quarter 2014-15 

(U.S. average = 3.0 percent)

0

2

4

6

8

Utah,

Utah

Lee,

Fla.

Williamson,

Tenn.

Hall,

Ga.

Brazoria,

Texas

Percent

0

4

8

12

16

Ventura,

Calif.

Santa Clara,

Calif.

Forsyth,

N.C.

Riverside,

Calif.

San

Francisco,

Calif.

Percent
- 2 - 

 

Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2015 employment, June 2014-15 employment increase, and 

June 2014-15 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

June 2015 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) June 2014-15 June 2014-15

(thousands)

United States 140,594.9 United States 2,820.2 United States 2.0

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,232.7 Los Angeles, Calif. 82.8 Utah, Utah 7.5

Cook, Ill. 2,548.6 Dallas, Texas 64.1 Lee, Fla. 6.4

New York, N.Y. 2,378.9 Maricopa, Ariz. 54.8 Williamson, Tenn. 6.3

Harris, Texas 2,295.1 New York, N.Y. 54.5 Hall, Ga. 5.8

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,774.4 King, Wash. 46.7 Brazoria, Texas 5.6

Dallas, Texas 1,607.2 Orange, Calif. 39.8 Denton, Texas 5.1

Orange, Calif. 1,519.8 Santa Clara, Calif. 39.2 Calcasieu, La. 5.0

San Diego, Calif. 1,374.7 Harris, Texas 38.7 Davis, Utah 5.0

King, Wash. 1,285.2 Cook, Ill. 38.4 Benton, Ark. 4.9

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,061.4 San Diego, Calif. 36.7 Manatee, Fla. 4.9

Large County Employment 

In June 2015, national employment was 140.6 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the 

year, employment increased 2.0 percent, or 2.8 million. In June 2015, the 342 U.S. counties with 75,000 

or more jobs accounted for 72.1 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.2 percent of total wages. These 

342 counties had a net job growth of 2.2 million over the year, accounting for 78.3 percent of the overall 

U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.)

Utah, Utah, had the largest percentage increase in employment (7.5 percent) among the largest U.S. 

counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment levels were Los Angeles, Calif.; 

Dallas, Texas; Maricopa, Ariz.; New York, N.Y.; and King, Wash. These counties had a combined overthe-year employment gain of 302,900 jobs, which was 10.7 percent of the overall job increase for the 

U.S. (See table A.)

Employment declined in 20 of the largest counties from June 2014 to June 2015. Ector, Texas, had the 

largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.2 percent). Within Ector, natural resources 

and mining had the largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 2,352 jobs (-19.0 percent). Atlantic, 

N.J., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by Gregg, Texas; Midland, 

Texas; and Lafayette, La. (See table 1.)
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2015 average weekly wages, second quarter 2014-15

increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2014-15 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 2015 wage, second quarter 2014-15 weekly wage, second

quarter 2014-15

United States $968 United States $28 United States 3.0

Santa Clara, Calif. $2,109 Santa Clara, Calif. $214 Ventura, Calif. 15.2

San Mateo, Calif. 1,863 Ventura, Calif. 143 Santa Clara, Calif. 11.3

New York, N.Y. 1,842 San Francisco, Calif. 137 Forsyth, N.C. 10.9

San Francisco, Calif. 1,730 San Mateo, Calif. 114 Riverside, Calif. 8.7

Washington, D.C. 1,599 Middlesex, Mass. 104 San Francisco, Calif. 8.6

Arlington, Va. 1,546 Forsyth, N.C. 91 Davidson, Tenn. 8.1

Fairfax, Va. 1,517 Davidson, Tenn. 78 Santa Barbara, Calif. 7.8

Suffolk, Mass. 1,512 Marin, Calif. 77 Middlesex, Mass. 7.5

Fairfield, Conn. 1,497 Santa Barbara, Calif. 69 Marin, Calif. 6.6

Middlesex, Mass. 1,491 Riverside, Calif. 66 San Mateo, Calif. 6.5

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $968, a 3.0 percent increase, during the year ending in 

the second quarter of 2015. Among the 342 largest counties, 323 had over-the-year increases in average 

weekly wages. (See chart 4.) Ventura, Calif., had the largest percentage wage increase among the largest 

U.S. counties (15.2 percent). 

Of the 342 largest counties, 16 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Olmsted, 

Minn., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, with a loss of 5.2 percent. Within 

Olmsted, education and health services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage 

decrease. Within this industry, average weekly wages declined by $150 (-10.5 percent) over the year. 

Ector, Texas, had the second largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages, followed by

Midland, Texas; Hillsborough, N.H.; and Lorain, Ohio. (See table 1.) 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June 2015. 

Dallas, Texas, had the largest gain (4.2 percent). Within Dallas, trade, transportation, and utilities had 

the largest over-the-year employment level increase, with a gain of 17,164 jobs, or 5.6 percent. Cook, 

Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.5 percent) among the 10 largest counties. 

(See table 2.)

Average weekly wages increased over the year in 9 of the 10 largest U.S. counties. Orange, Calif., 

experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (4.9 percent). Within Orange, 

professional and business services had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. 

Within this industry, average weekly wages increased by $87, or 7.0 percent, over the year. Harris, 

Texas, was the only county with unchanged average weekly wages 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 342 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2014. June 2015 employment and 2015 

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 9.6 million employer reports cover 140.6 million full- and parttime workers. The QCEW program provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by detailed industry. Data for the 

second quarter of 2015 will be available electronically later at www.bls.gov/cew/. For additional 

information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note. 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 www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2015 is scheduled to be released on

Wednesday, March 9, 2016. 

County Name Change Effective with the BLS Release of Data for the Third Quarter of 2015

On May 1st, 2015, Shannon, S.D., was officially renamed Oglala Lakota, S.D. This county is not part 

of this release because it has fewer than 75,000 jobs. However, BLS does publish data for this 

county. The name change will be implemented with the BLS release of data for the third quarter of 

2015. Data prior to third quarter 2015 will still be available under Shannon, S.D.
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 2012 North American Industry Classification 

System. Data for 2015 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 343 counties presented in 

this release were derived using 2014 preliminary annual averages of 

employment. For 2015 data, three counties have been added to the 

publication tables: Butte, Calif.; Hall, Ga.; and Ector, Texas. These 

counties will be included in all 2015 quarterly releases. The counties 

in table 2 are selected and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from the preceding year.

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

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.5 million establishments in first quarter of 2015 

Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by 

7.6 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 588,000 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

— 6 months after the end of each 

quarter

Quarterly

— 7 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 lossesUses UI file as a sampling frame and to 

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking)

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/
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 9.4 million employer 

reports of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS in 

2014. 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 2014, UI and 

UCFE programs covered workers in 136.6 million jobs. The estimated 

131.8 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.3 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $7.017 trillion in pay, representing 

93.8 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income 

and 40.5 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 overthe-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. Over-the-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 parttime workers as well as the number of individuals in high-paying and 

low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay periods within a 

quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the workforce 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.

Wages measured by QCEW may be subject to periodic and sometimes large fluctuations. This variability may be due to calendar effects resulting from some quarters having more pay dates than others. 

The effect is most visible in counties with a dominant employer. In 

particular, this effect has been observed in counties where government 

employers represent a large fraction of overall employment. Similar 

calendar effects can result from private sector pay practices. However, 

these effects are typically less pronounced for two reasons: employment is less concentrated in a single private employer, and private employers use a variety of pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly). 

For example, the effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be 

pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal 

payroll processing. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly 

pay schedule. As a result, in some quarters federal wages include six 

pay dates, while in other quarters there are seven pay dates. Over-theyear comparisons of average weekly wages may also reflect this calendar effect. Growth in average weekly wages may be attributed, in 

part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year, which 

include seven pay dates, with year-ago wages that reflect only six pay 

dates. An opposite effect will occur when wages in the current quarter 

reflecting six pay dates are compared with year-ago wages for a quarter including seven pay dates. 

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 3-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-theyear changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2014 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. Adjusted data account for improvements in reporting employment and wages for individual and multi-unit establishments. To accomplish this, adjustments were implemented to account for: administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start reporting 

for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity (first 

quarter of 2008); selected large administrative changes in employment 

and wages (second quarter of 2011); and state verified improvements 

in reporting of employment and wages (third quarter of 2014). These 

adjustments allow QCEW to include county employment and wage 

growth rates in this news release that would otherwise not meet publication standards.

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

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2014 edition of this 

publication, which was published in September 2015, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on 

job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 

2015 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from

the 2014 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online 

are now available at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn14.htm. The 

2015 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will 

be available in September 2016. 

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 establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

second quarter 2015

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

United States4.............................. 9,575.3 140,594.9 2.0 - $968 3.0 -

Jefferson, AL................................ 17.7 339.4 0.4 303 945 1.7 252

Madison, AL................................. 9.1 186.1 1.7 183 1,051 0.3 319

Mobile, AL.................................... 9.6 167.6 0.1 315 827 1.7 252

Montgomery, AL........................... 6.3 129.7 0.5 298 821 2.5 160

Shelby, AL.................................... 5.4 83.8 2.4 130 901 1.8 240

Tuscaloosa, AL............................. 4.3 91.2 3.3 71 811 1.4 276

Anchorage Borough, AK............... 8.4 155.8 0.4 303 1,070 2.1 207

Maricopa, AZ................................ 95.3 1,774.4 3.2 76 948 1.7 252

Pima, AZ....................................... 19.0 347.4 0.1 315 828 1.2 289

Benton, AR................................... 5.9 111.2 4.9 9 931 3.8 51

Pulaski, AR................................... 14.5 244.7 0.8 275 877 2.5 160

Washington, AR........................... 5.8 100.6 3.8 42 783 3.4 79

Alameda, CA................................ 59.0 730.8 3.1 82 1,257 5.0 19

Butte, CA..................................... 7.9 78.5 2.2 147 728 4.1 37

Contra Costa, CA......................... 30.6 348.2 1.9 166 1,163 3.0 114

Fresno, CA................................... 32.0 372.9 2.4 130 746 3.9 45

Kern, CA....................................... 17.5 309.0 -1.0 333 814 -1.0 333

Los Angeles, CA........................... 452.5 4,232.7 2.0 160 1,058 3.6 69

Marin, CA..................................... 12.2 113.4 2.7 102 1,243 6.6 9

Monterey, CA............................... 13.0 198.7 0.4 303 809 2.7 143

Orange, CA.................................. 111.2 1,519.8 2.7 102 1,086 4.9 21

Placer, CA.................................... 11.8 148.9 3.4 67 965 4.8 24

Riverside, CA............................... 55.7 656.4 4.1 26 828 8.7 4

Sacramento, CA........................... 53.8 628.0 2.8 96 1,057 3.0 114

San Bernardino, CA..................... 53.3 682.8 3.8 42 823 2.9 120

San Diego, CA.............................. 103.6 1,374.7 2.7 102 1,073 3.1 105

San Francisco, CA....................... 58.7 668.9 4.5 15 1,730 8.6 5

San Joaquin, CA.......................... 17.0 233.7 4.1 26 796 3.6 69

San Luis Obispo, CA.................... 10.0 116.2 2.9 93 794 3.7 65

San Mateo, CA............................. 26.8 383.4 4.8 11 1,863 6.5 10

Santa Barbara, CA....................... 14.8 197.4 1.5 207 957 7.8 7

Santa Clara, CA........................... 67.7 1,018.7 4.0 32 2,109 11.3 2

Santa Cruz, CA............................ 9.3 105.6 2.0 160 860 3.2 96

Solano, CA................................... 10.5 132.2 3.3 71 998 3.4 79

Sonoma, CA................................. 19.2 197.4 2.3 138 893 4.3 35

Stanislaus, CA.............................. 14.6 179.7 2.2 147 808 5.2 17

Tulare, CA.................................... 9.4 160.4 1.3 226 667 3.7 65

Ventura, CA.................................. 25.3 316.8 0.8 275 1,085 15.2 1

Yolo, CA....................................... 6.3 99.2 2.6 113 990 2.7 143

Adams, CO................................... 9.9 194.2 4.5 15 930 1.6 264

Arapahoe, CO.............................. 20.6 319.5 3.3 71 1,090 1.7 252

Boulder, CO.................................. 14.2 174.0 2.7 102 1,137 3.3 87

Denver, CO.................................. 29.3 481.5 4.6 14 1,180 4.8 24

Douglas, CO................................. 10.9 115.0 3.7 47 1,108 -0.4 328

El Paso, CO.................................. 17.9 259.2 2.8 96 864 1.8 240

Jefferson, CO............................... 18.8 230.6 2.5 120 981 2.5 160

Larimer, CO.................................. 11.1 149.8 3.4 67 845 2.1 207

Weld, CO...................................... 6.6 101.4 1.1 243 862 3.1 105

Fairfield, CT................................. 34.4 431.1 1.6 202 1,497 3.0 114

Hartford, CT.................................. 26.8 513.5 1.0 256 1,162 0.3 319

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT............................ 23.3 364.4 0.6 291 $1,007 2.0 220

New London, CT.......................... 7.2 124.2 0.3 308 960 -0.1 326

New Castle, DE............................ 18.8 285.0 2.5 120 1,110 1.0 298

Washington, DC........................... 37.2 745.1 1.8 172 1,599 1.8 240

Alachua, FL.................................. 6.9 120.6 1.6 202 831 1.8 240

Brevard, FL................................... 15.2 193.5 2.5 120 865 3.3 87

Broward, FL.................................. 67.9 752.0 2.6 113 907 3.9 45

Collier, FL..................................... 13.1 125.4 4.0 32 846 -0.6 331

Duval, FL..................................... 28.4 469.8 3.2 76 911 1.8 240

Escambia, FL............................... 8.2 125.4 1.9 166 763 2.8 132

Hillsborough, FL........................... 40.4 632.1 3.7 47 922 2.4 180

Lake, FL....................................... 7.9 85.7 3.9 36 665 3.1 105

Lee, FL......................................... 20.7 231.9 6.4 2 775 3.3 87

Leon, FL....................................... 8.4 141.2 1.1 243 798 1.4 276

Manatee, FL................................. 10.3 111.5 4.9 9 750 1.8 240

Marion, FL.................................... 8.3 95.3 1.7 183 679 1.8 240

Miami-Dade, FL............................ 96.7 1,061.4 3.5 59 931 2.1 207

Okaloosa, FL................................ 6.3 79.4 0.8 275 798 3.1 105

Orange, FL................................... 39.7 754.6 3.8 42 849 2.5 160

Osceola, FL.................................. 6.4 82.5 4.4 17 685 3.2 96

Palm Beach, FL............................ 53.9 556.3 3.6 51 937 3.1 105

Pasco, FL..................................... 10.6 101.9 3.5 59 718 2.9 120

Pinellas, FL................................... 32.1 406.7 2.8 96 850 0.6 311

Polk, FL........................................ 12.9 197.9 3.2 76 735 1.4 276

Sarasota, FL................................ 15.5 155.7 4.4 17 812 3.2 96

Seminole, FL................................ 14.5 173.3 4.1 26 828 4.0 41

Volusia, FL................................... 13.9 156.7 3.4 67 713 2.7 143

Bibb, GA....................................... 4.5 83.1 1.4 220 753 2.9 120

Chatham, GA................................ 8.4 146.2 3.9 36 822 2.2 198

Clayton, GA.................................. 4.4 117.4 2.8 96 909 1.7 252

Cobb, GA...................................... 23.1 333.9 2.6 113 1,016 2.6 154

DeKalb, GA................................. 19.2 289.7 2.3 138 991 2.0 220

Fulton, GA.................................... 45.5 792.7 3.9 36 1,247 2.0 220

Gwinnett, GA................................ 26.1 338.9 3.1 82 936 2.4 180

Hall, GA....................................... 4.6 80.0 5.8 4 789 3.1 105

Muscogee, GA.............................. 4.8 94.0 -0.4 325 758 1.9 235

Richmond, GA.............................. 4.7 103.7 2.2 147 805 1.6 264

Honolulu, HI.................................. 25.1 463.3 1.3 226 910 3.8 51

Ada, ID......................................... 14.0 218.1 2.9 93 828 1.6 264

Champaign, IL.............................. 4.6 90.5 0.7 284 839 2.9 120

Cook, IL........................................ 164.0 2,548.6 1.5 207 1,116 2.5 160

DuPage, IL................................. 39.9 615.5 1.5 207 1,104 2.5 160

Kane, IL........................................ 14.4 212.0 1.5 207 831 2.8 132

Lake, IL........................................ 23.6 340.1 0.0 320 1,261 5.2 17

McHenry, IL.................................. 9.2 98.6 0.9 265 792 2.5 160

McLean, IL.................................... 4.0 85.2 0.8 275 957 0.9 305

Madison, IL................................... 6.3 97.8 -0.4 325 785 3.0 114

Peoria, IL...................................... 4.9 102.6 1.0 256 908 2.5 160

St. Clair, IL.................................... 5.8 92.4 0.5 298 764 2.4 180

Sangamon, IL............................... 5.5 129.7 -0.7 331 985 2.2 198

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Will, IL.......................................... 16.9 224.9 2.3 138 $858 2.5 160

Winnebago, IL.............................. 7.1 129.5 0.9 265 818 2.8 132

Allen, IN........................................ 8.7 184.2 2.3 138 765 2.3 194

Elkhart, IN..................................... 4.7 126.1 2.6 113 816 2.1 207

Hamilton, IN.................................. 8.9 134.0 3.5 59 908 3.8 51

Lake, IN........................................ 10.3 187.7 -0.5 328 830 -0.1 326

Marion, IN..................................... 23.5 584.6 1.9 166 956 2.9 120

St. Joseph, IN............................... 5.7 121.9 3.1 82 769 1.3 285

Tippecanoe, IN............................. 3.3 81.2 1.8 172 815 2.1 207

Vanderburgh, IN........................... 4.7 106.9 1.1 243 789 4.1 37

Black Hawk, IA............................ 3.9 74.8 -1.5 336 794 1.7 252

Johnson, IA.................................. 4.0 81.9 0.6 291 898 2.6 154

Linn, IA......................................... 6.6 131.6 1.0 256 924 3.4 79

Polk, IA........................................ 16.6 293.1 1.1 243 944 2.5 160

Scott, IA........................................ 5.5 92.6 1.3 226 783 2.0 220

Johnson, KS................................. 22.0 338.4 2.3 138 1,021 4.6 27

Sedgwick, KS............................... 12.5 248.8 1.4 220 851 1.9 235

Shawnee, KS................................ 5.0 97.4 0.6 291 794 1.1 295

Wyandotte, KS............................. 3.3 90.2 2.2 147 896 2.5 160

Boone, KY................................... 4.2 82.3 4.1 26 865 2.1 207

Fayette, KY................................... 10.6 189.4 2.6 113 866 3.8 51

Jefferson, KY................................ 24.7 453.6 2.5 120 954 3.0 114

Caddo, LA.................................... 7.2 115.1 -0.1 322 787 1.5 270

Calcasieu, LA............................... 4.9 92.5 5.0 7 827 0.0 324

East Baton Rouge, LA.................. 14.6 264.1 0.9 265 909 1.8 240

Jefferson, LA................................ 13.5 194.8 -0.5 328 862 2.5 160

Lafayette, LA................................ 9.2 136.5 -2.8 337 913 -1.8 336

Orleans, LA.................................. 11.9 191.4 3.7 47 908 0.6 311

St. Tammany, LA.......................... 7.7 85.6 3.9 36 808 2.0 220

Cumberland, ME.......................... 13.1 179.9 1.0 256 870 3.4 79

Anne Arundel, MD........................ 14.9 263.1 1.4 220 1,021 2.8 132

Baltimore, MD............................... 21.2 374.1 1.3 226 952 1.2 289

Frederick, MD............................... 6.3 100.1 2.4 130 911 1.2 289

Harford, MD.................................. 5.8 91.3 0.9 265 959 1.7 252

Howard, MD................................. 9.8 167.2 1.8 172 1,175 3.5 75

Montgomery, MD.......................... 32.7 466.6 1.0 256 1,287 3.2 96

Prince George's, MD.................... 15.6 311.1 0.8 275 1,002 0.8 307

Baltimore City, MD....................... 13.6 335.0 0.8 275 1,094 2.4 180

Barnstable, MA............................. 9.3 105.0 0.9 265 805 2.0 220

Bristol, MA.................................... 16.9 224.9 1.3 226 900 5.4 13

Essex, MA.................................... 23.5 326.2 1.5 207 1,025 1.6 264

Hampden, MA.............................. 17.1 206.2 1.4 220 883 3.3 87

Middlesex, MA.............................. 52.9 883.0 2.4 130 1,491 7.5 8

Norfolk, MA................................... 24.5 349.5 1.6 202 1,132 4.6 27

Plymouth, MA............................... 15.0 191.8 1.9 166 929 2.5 160

Suffolk, MA................................... 27.0 640.8 3.0 88 1,512 3.1 105

Worcester, MA.............................. 23.5 339.2 1.7 183 960 2.5 160

Genesee, MI................................. 6.9 134.4 0.3 308 796 4.6 27

Ingham, MI................................... 6.0 146.2 0.3 308 882 -0.5 329

Kalamazoo, MI............................. 5.0 116.1 1.0 256 873 2.6 154

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Kent, MI....................................... 14.0 365.2 1.2 235 $857 3.4 79

Macomb, MI.................................. 17.3 321.1 2.3 138 954 1.4 276

Oakland, MI.................................. 38.2 717.0 1.7 183 1,067 1.7 252

Ottawa, MI.................................... 5.5 120.9 2.4 130 805 2.5 160

Saginaw, MI.................................. 4.0 84.5 0.7 284 754 1.5 270

Washtenaw, MI............................. 8.1 200.5 1.8 172 1,030 4.0 41

Wayne, MI.................................... 30.3 707.2 1.2 235 1,059 2.7 143

Anoka, MN.................................... 6.8 120.2 1.8 172 924 2.1 207

Dakota, MN.................................. 9.6 186.0 1.1 243 948 2.8 132

Hennepin, MN.............................. 38.2 894.4 2.2 147 1,196 3.8 51

Olmsted, MN................................ 3.3 94.8 1.1 243 1,007 -5.2 341

Ramsey, MN................................. 13.1 329.6 1.5 207 1,079 1.2 289

St. Louis, MN................................ 5.2 99.6 1.5 207 781 2.8 132

Stearns, MN................................. 4.2 85.7 0.9 265 800 3.9 45

Washington, MN........................... 5.3 80.7 2.1 155 809 3.2 96

Harrison, MS................................ 4.4 83.9 -0.2 323 688 0.9 305

Hinds, MS..................................... 5.9 120.6 2.0 160 831 0.8 307

Boone, MO................................... 4.8 91.4 1.7 183 750 2.2 198

Clay, MO...................................... 5.4 98.7 4.8 11 875 5.0 19

Greene, MO.................................. 8.4 161.9 1.7 183 739 3.2 96

Jackson, MO................................ 20.7 360.7 1.5 207 975 5.3 15

St. Charles, MO............................ 8.9 141.2 3.5 59 788 1.0 298

St. Louis, MO................................ 35.3 595.5 1.2 235 1,015 2.0 220

St. Louis City, MO........................ 12.3 226.8 2.3 138 1,016 2.7 143

Yellowstone, MT........................... 6.4 81.7 2.5 120 839 4.4 32

Douglas, NE................................. 18.6 333.4 1.7 183 889 4.5 31

Lancaster, NE............................... 10.0 166.4 1.7 183 777 2.8 132

Clark, NV..................................... 53.6 908.9 3.6 51 845 2.4 180

Washoe, NV................................. 14.3 202.1 3.4 67 857 3.5 75

Hillsborough, NH.......................... 12.2 198.3 1.9 166 1,030 -2.6 338

Rockingham, NH.......................... 10.8 148.0 1.8 172 956 1.5 270

Atlantic, NJ................................... 6.5 133.5 -3.7 340 814 2.4 180

Bergen, NJ................................... 32.9 452.4 1.1 243 1,158 1.4 276

Burlington, NJ............................... 11.0 201.5 0.7 284 1,014 2.7 143

Camden, NJ................................. 11.9 199.4 1.1 243 940 1.8 240

Essex, NJ.................................... 20.3 337.6 0.2 313 1,148 2.1 207

Gloucester, NJ.............................. 6.2 104.3 3.1 82 837 0.8 307

Hudson, NJ................................... 14.3 244.7 3.6 51 1,318 4.8 24

Mercer, NJ.................................... 11.1 241.1 3.7 47 1,200 1.1 295

Middlesex, NJ.............................. 22.1 405.9 1.3 226 1,141 2.7 143

Monmouth, NJ.............................. 20.0 264.2 2.5 120 954 1.5 270

Morris, NJ..................................... 17.0 290.1 1.5 207 1,392 2.7 143

Ocean, NJ.................................... 12.8 169.2 1.3 226 783 2.4 180

Passaic, NJ.................................. 12.3 167.5 0.0 320 980 4.4 32

Somerset, NJ............................... 10.0 187.7 1.1 243 1,432 2.9 120

Union, NJ..................................... 14.3 218.9 (5) - 1,282 (5) -

Bernalillo, NM............................... 17.7 317.4 1.2 235 828 1.6 264

Albany, NY................................... 10.4 231.1 1.1 243 1,013 2.9 120

Bronx, NY..................................... 18.6 299.9 2.1 155 928 2.3 194

Broome, NY.................................. 4.6 87.7 -1.2 335 774 2.4 180

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Dutchess, NY............................... 8.5 111.7 1.1 243 $977 1.0 298

Erie, NY........................................ 24.7 468.0 0.8 275 843 2.2 198

Kings, NY..................................... 60.0 663.0 4.4 17 813 2.9 120

Monroe, NY.................................. 18.8 384.5 0.9 265 913 2.0 220

Nassau, NY.................................. 53.9 626.7 1.2 235 1,094 2.3 194

New York, NY............................... 129.7 2,378.9 2.3 138 1,842 3.3 87

Oneida, NY................................... 5.4 105.3 0.7 284 776 2.1 207

Onondaga, NY.............................. 13.1 244.2 0.1 315 884 2.2 198

Orange, NY.................................. 10.3 141.5 1.2 235 850 2.9 120

Queens, NY.................................. 51.3 636.5 3.8 42 905 1.0 298

Richmond, NY.............................. 9.7 113.4 1.8 172 853 3.0 114

Rockland, NY............................... 10.5 120.6 2.2 147 979 0.2 323

Saratoga, NY................................ 5.9 86.0 3.0 88 918 5.4 13

Suffolk, NY................................... 52.5 665.3 1.1 243 1,025 1.4 276

Westchester, NY.......................... 36.7 429.6 2.1 155 1,274 4.1 37

Buncombe, NC............................. 8.5 123.9 3.6 51 724 2.7 143

Catawba, NC................................ 4.3 82.9 2.2 147 739 2.5 160

Cumberland, NC........................... 6.2 118.0 -0.3 324 760 2.0 220

Durham, NC................................. 7.8 191.4 2.4 130 1,202 1.3 285

Forsyth, NC.................................. 9.3 179.8 0.9 265 928 10.9 3

Guilford, NC.................................. 14.2 275.2 3.1 82 834 3.1 105

Mecklenburg, NC.......................... 35.1 637.3 4.7 13 1,082 3.8 51

New Hanover, NC........................ 7.6 106.6 3.9 36 774 3.2 96

Wake, NC..................................... 31.6 515.1 3.5 59 984 4.9 21

Cass, ND...................................... 6.9 117.3 2.1 155 865 4.0 41

Butler, OH..................................... 7.5 144.5 1.7 183 855 3.4 79

Cuyahoga, OH.............................. 35.4 721.6 0.7 284 971 1.9 235

Delaware, OH............................... 4.8 85.9 1.1 243 943 3.3 87

Franklin, OH................................. 30.4 723.1 2.8 96 977 3.2 96

Hamilton, OH................................ 23.3 510.8 1.7 183 1,019 2.4 180

Lake, OH...................................... 6.3 96.8 0.6 291 805 3.6 69

Lorain, OH.................................... 6.1 99.0 0.6 291 755 -2.1 337

Lucas, OH.................................... 10.0 209.4 1.7 183 832 1.2 289

Mahoning, OH.............................. 5.8 97.9 -0.7 331 679 2.4 180

Montgomery, OH.......................... 11.9 250.1 1.7 183 836 2.7 143

Stark, OH..................................... 8.6 159.9 0.4 303 720 1.3 285

Summit, OH................................. 14.1 265.6 0.7 284 848 2.8 132

Warren, OH................................. 4.6 90.7 3.0 88 856 5.3 15

Cleveland, OK.............................. 5.4 80.8 2.7 102 724 1.1 295

Oklahoma, OK.............................. 27.0 450.8 1.3 226 900 1.4 276

Tulsa, OK..................................... 21.8 349.5 1.8 172 892 0.3 319

Clackamas, OR............................ 13.9 152.9 3.0 88 922 3.8 51

Jackson, OR................................ 7.0 82.7 3.1 82 723 2.7 143

Lane, OR...................................... 11.6 147.6 2.7 102 771 3.8 51

Marion, OR................................... 10.0 147.8 3.0 88 789 3.5 75

Multnomah, OR............................ 32.2 480.7 3.2 76 983 1.9 235

Washington, OR........................... 18.1 276.0 3.5 59 1,204 3.8 51

Allegheny, PA............................... 35.6 696.1 0.2 313 1,031 2.8 132

Berks, PA..................................... 8.9 170.6 1.3 226 892 2.4 180

Bucks, PA..................................... 19.9 261.5 1.2 235 925 2.4 180

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Butler, PA..................................... 5.0 86.5 0.5 298 $900 3.8 51

Chester, PA.................................. 15.4 246.4 0.6 291 1,295 4.9 21

Cumberland, PA........................... 6.3 131.4 2.0 160 908 -1.0 333

Dauphin, PA................................ 7.4 180.8 1.0 256 950 3.7 65

Delaware, PA............................... 14.0 219.6 0.5 298 1,028 3.8 51

Erie, PA........................................ 7.2 126.6 0.1 315 755 3.3 87

Lackawanna, PA.......................... 5.8 97.7 0.1 315 729 2.1 207

Lancaster, PA............................... 13.2 231.9 1.7 183 805 3.6 69

Lehigh, PA.................................... 8.6 185.7 0.9 265 950 0.6 311

Luzerne, PA.................................. 7.6 142.9 0.4 303 759 2.2 198

Montgomery, PA........................... 27.5 483.6 1.5 207 1,183 1.5 270

Northampton, PA.......................... 6.7 109.1 1.9 166 832 2.0 220

Philadelphia, PA........................... 35.1 652.7 2.1 155 1,137 2.9 120

Washington, PA............................ 5.5 88.5 -0.4 325 957 2.6 154

Westmoreland, PA....................... 9.3 135.4 0.5 298 779 1.7 252

York, PA....................................... 9.1 175.5 0.7 284 827 2.2 198

Providence, RI.............................. 17.5 284.3 1.7 183 959 3.3 87

Charleston, SC............................. 13.4 237.1 2.7 102 837 1.9 235

Greenville, SC.............................. 13.5 257.8 3.2 76 835 2.0 220

Horry, SC..................................... 8.4 126.5 1.8 172 568 3.5 75

Lexington, SC............................... 6.3 111.9 3.5 59 737 2.5 160

Richland, SC................................ 9.3 211.8 1.8 172 835 1.2 289

Spartanburg, SC........................... 5.9 127.0 2.4 130 849 1.7 252

York, SC....................................... 5.0 85.9 4.2 22 756 -0.5 329

Minnehaha, SD............................. 6.9 125.2 2.0 160 825 3.8 51

Davidson, TN................................ 20.4 457.0 4.4 17 1,038 8.1 6

Hamilton, TN................................ 9.1 192.5 2.6 113 870 2.8 132

Knox, TN...................................... 11.5 230.1 2.5 120 828 0.6 311

Rutherford, TN.............................. 5.0 115.8 3.6 51 879 4.6 27

Shelby, TN.................................... 19.8 485.0 1.7 183 956 0.6 311

Williamson, TN............................. 7.6 115.5 6.3 3 1,079 2.1 207

Bell, TX......................................... 5.0 114.9 2.2 147 782 1.4 276

Bexar, TX..................................... 37.8 817.9 2.7 102 854 2.4 180

Brazoria, TX................................. 5.3 104.9 5.6 5 996 4.1 37

Brazos, TX.................................... 4.2 94.9 3.6 51 731 1.0 298

Cameron, TX................................ 6.4 137.0 1.0 256 586 0.5 317

Collin, TX...................................... 22.0 365.9 4.3 21 1,145 3.8 51

Dallas, TX..................................... 72.4 1,607.2 4.2 22 1,154 2.8 132

Denton, TX.................................. 13.2 219.9 5.1 6 867 3.8 51

Ector, TX..................................... 3.9 73.2 -4.2 341 1,026 -5.1 340

El Paso, TX.................................. 14.5 291.3 2.5 120 674 0.3 319

Fort Bend, TX............................... 11.7 170.8 4.2 22 945 0.6 311

Galveston, TX............................... 5.8 104.3 3.6 51 865 4.0 41

Gregg, TX..................................... 4.2 76.3 -3.3 339 844 -1.5 335

Harris, TX..................................... 110.5 2,295.1 1.7 183 1,232 0.0 324

Hidalgo, TX................................... 11.9 244.8 1.7 183 614 1.0 298

Jefferson, TX................................ 5.8 124.8 1.7 183 1,001 3.1 105

Lubbock, TX................................. 7.3 133.4 1.7 183 750 3.6 69

McLennan, TX.............................. 5.0 107.2 1.6 202 791 3.4 79

Midland, TX.................................. 5.4 89.3 -3.2 338 1,233 -3.2 339

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 343 largest counties,

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-153

Ranking by

percent

change

Montgomery, TX........................... 10.4 164.0 3.9 36 $982 2.6 154

Nueces, TX.................................. 8.2 164.1 1.6 202 845 1.4 276

Potter, TX..................................... 3.9 79.3 0.8 275 772 4.3 35

Smith, TX..................................... 6.0 100.5 4.0 32 805 1.8 240

Tarrant, TX................................... 40.7 845.3 2.4 130 963 1.7 252

Travis, TX..................................... 36.6 690.9 4.2 22 1,090 2.9 120

Webb, TX..................................... 5.1 97.4 2.7 102 651 0.8 307

Williamson, TX............................. 9.4 152.2 4.1 26 924 5.8 11

Davis, UT..................................... 7.9 120.3 5.0 7 770 3.6 69

Salt Lake, UT................................ 41.8 645.2 3.3 71 920 3.7 65

Utah, UT....................................... 14.4 209.1 7.5 1 778 2.9 120

Weber, UT.................................... 5.7 98.9 3.3 71 737 2.5 160

Chittenden, VT............................. 6.5 102.2 1.5 207 950 2.0 220

Arlington, VA................................ 8.9 170.7 2.3 138 1,546 1.6 264

Chesterfield, VA........................... 8.2 130.5 2.9 93 833 1.8 240

Fairfax, VA.................................... 35.4 593.9 1.4 220 1,517 3.9 45

Henrico, VA.................................. 10.6 186.0 2.5 120 921 2.2 198

Loudoun, VA................................ 10.9 155.9 2.7 102 1,108 1.7 252

Prince William, VA........................ 8.6 124.4 1.8 172 837 2.1 207

Alexandria City, VA...................... 6.3 97.1 1.4 220 1,324 0.5 317

Chesapeake City, VA................... 5.8 97.9 0.6 291 780 3.9 45

Newport News City, VA................ 3.7 98.0 -0.5 328 921 -0.6 331

Norfolk City, VA........................... 5.6 139.7 0.3 308 948 1.5 270

Richmond City, VA....................... 7.2 149.9 2.0 160 1,039 2.5 160

Virginia Beach City, VA................ 11.4 178.3 1.2 235 744 2.2 198

Benton, WA.................................. 5.6 89.0 3.5 59 977 3.2 96

Clark, WA..................................... 13.9 145.8 4.1 26 879 2.1 207

King, WA...................................... 84.2 1,285.2 3.8 42 1,288 3.9 45

Kitsap, WA.................................... 6.6 85.6 2.6 113 860 2.0 220

Pierce, WA................................... 21.5 287.9 3.2 76 880 2.0 220

Snohomish, WA............................ 20.1 277.6 2.7 102 1,036 2.0 220

Spokane, WA............................... 15.4 212.2 2.5 120 810 1.8 240

Thurston, WA............................... 7.9 106.8 4.0 32 878 3.3 87

Whatcom, WA.............................. 7.1 87.7 2.8 96 804 4.4 32

Yakima, WA................................. 7.8 121.6 3.6 51 660 2.5 160

Kanawha, WV............................... 5.9 103.8 -1.0 333 848 2.4 180

Brown, WI..................................... 6.6 154.4 1.0 256 856 5.5 12

Dane, WI...................................... 14.6 323.8 1.5 207 982 3.4 79

Milwaukee, WI.............................. 25.7 485.0 0.9 265 921 1.3 285

Outagamie, WI............................. 5.1 107.0 0.8 275 798 2.3 194

Waukesha, WI.............................. 12.5 239.3 1.5 207 948 2.6 154

Winnebago, WI............................. 3.6 90.8 0.3 308 883 1.0 298

San Juan, PR............................... 10.7 245.8 -2.6 (6) 614 2.5 (6)

1 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.

2 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note.

4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

5 Data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

6 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.

Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees

(UCFE) programs. These 342 U.S. counties comprise 72.1 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 2015

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-152

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-152

United States3................................................................. 9,575.3 140,594.9 2.0 $968 3.0

 Private industry............................................................. 9,276.4 119,288.6 2.3 959 3.1

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 138.0 2,120.1 -3.3 1,053 -1.9

 Construction............................................................... 767.1 6,569.2 4.6 1,045 3.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 342.2 12,372.6 1.0 1,181 2.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 1,925.3 26,688.8 2.3 821 2.9

 Information................................................................. 152.6 2,761.1 1.0 1,671 3.9

 Financial activities...................................................... 847.1 7,862.3 1.9 1,461 4.8

 Professional and business services........................... 1,727.1 19,644.7 2.6 1,257 4.2

 Education and health services................................... 1,522.6 20,963.7 2.3 879 2.3

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 809.6 15,658.4 2.6 403 3.9

 Other services............................................................ 827.9 4,369.9 1.5 658 3.3

 Government.................................................................. 298.8 21,306.3 0.5 1,017 2.2

Los Angeles, CA.............................................................. 452.5 4,232.7 2.0 1,058 3.6

 Private industry............................................................. 446.6 3,670.0 2.0 1,025 3.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 9.0 -2.3 1,259 0.6

 Construction............................................................... 13.5 125.7 5.2 1,110 5.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 12.4 358.9 -1.4 1,133 1.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 53.4 795.8 1.5 888 3.9

 Information................................................................. 9.7 199.6 1.8 1,871 2.2

 Financial activities...................................................... 24.7 211.5 0.5 1,665 4.3

 Professional and business services........................... 47.6 588.2 0.9 1,312 5.5

 Education and health services................................... 208.1 721.4 2.4 818 2.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 31.4 486.9 2.4 591 7.1

 Other services............................................................ 27.8 145.6 0.2 673 5.3

 Government.................................................................. 5.9 562.7 2.0 1,277 3.5

New York, NY.................................................................. 129.7 2,378.9 2.3 1,842 3.3

 Private industry............................................................. 128.9 2,119.6 2.5 1,920 3.3

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.0 0.2 -5.6 2,162 -6.5

 Construction............................................................... 2.2 37.1 6.2 1,724 2.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.2 27.1 0.5 1,307 -0.5

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 20.4 260.8 0.7 1,328 2.0

 Information................................................................. 4.9 152.7 1.4 2,406 -1.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 19.2 370.2 1.4 3,599 5.4

 Professional and business services........................... 27.4 547.3 4.0 2,164 4.1

 Education and health services................................... 9.8 325.7 2.1 1,213 2.8

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.9 289.8 2.5 815 2.9

 Other services............................................................ 20.5 101.3 1.8 1,091 1.6

 Government.................................................................. 0.8 259.3 0.9 1,211 1.7

Cook, IL........................................................................... 164.0 2,548.6 1.5 1,116 2.5

 Private industry............................................................. 162.6 2,247.6 1.6 1,099 2.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.1 1.0 12.2 1,182 7.6

 Construction............................................................... 13.6 74.2 6.3 1,363 4.4

 Manufacturing............................................................ 6.8 187.8 0.1 1,133 1.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 32.4 469.6 2.1 892 1.2

 Information................................................................. 2.8 54.5 0.1 1,699 2.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 16.4 187.2 0.4 1,974 5.3

 Professional and business services........................... 35.1 464.6 1.5 1,397 1.1

 Education and health services................................... 17.0 432.2 1.5 926 2.8

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 14.8 274.6 2.5 502 5.9

 Other services............................................................ 18.6 96.9 -1.0 848 4.0

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 301.0 0.7 1,242 3.1

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

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-152

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-152

Harris, TX........................................................................ 110.5 2,295.1 1.7 $1,232 0.0

 Private industry............................................................. 110.0 2,029.8 1.7 1,255 -0.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 1.8 86.9 -6.9 3,187 -1.8

 Construction............................................................... 7.0 163.5 5.3 1,268 0.1

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.8 191.1 -3.9 1,512 0.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 24.8 475.3 2.6 1,121 1.7

 Information................................................................. 1.2 27.9 -0.5 1,453 3.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 11.4 120.4 1.4 1,536 2.1

 Professional and business services........................... 22.4 396.3 0.8 1,514 -0.7

 Education and health services................................... 15.1 277.4 4.5 958 2.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 9.4 224.5 4.3 429 2.4

 Other services............................................................ 11.7 65.6 2.3 753 1.5

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 265.3 1.8 1,057 2.9

Maricopa, AZ.................................................................... 95.3 1,774.4 3.2 948 1.7

 Private industry............................................................. 94.5 1,595.0 3.5 932 1.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.5 1.9 868 6.2

 Construction............................................................... 7.2 96.1 2.0 970 2.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.2 115.5 -0.1 1,381 1.7

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 19.9 356.3 3.1 853 2.2

 Information................................................................. 1.6 35.3 4.2 1,220 -2.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 11.1 158.8 4.4 1,218 5.7

 Professional and business services........................... 21.9 304.5 2.8 1,024 2.0

 Education and health services................................... 10.8 266.6 4.2 950 -0.1

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.6 198.0 3.7 432 -1.1

 Other services............................................................ 6.3 49.7 4.5 671 3.1

 Government.................................................................. 0.7 179.5 0.5 1,075 2.0

Dallas, TX........................................................................ 72.4 1,607.2 4.2 1,154 2.8

 Private industry............................................................. 71.8 1,438.3 4.4 1,162 2.7

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.6 9.5 0.9 4,023 3.2

 Construction............................................................... 4.2 81.6 6.2 1,097 2.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.7 106.1 -0.3 1,269 -3.7

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 15.6 326.4 5.6 1,039 3.2

 Information................................................................. 1.4 48.1 -0.2 1,739 3.1

 Financial activities...................................................... 8.8 155.8 2.1 1,606 5.2

 Professional and business services........................... 16.2 326.1 4.9 1,362 5.0

 Education and health services................................... 8.9 186.4 5.0 997 1.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.2 155.6 6.7 467 3.8

 Other services............................................................ 6.8 42.1 1.8 748 1.1

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 168.8 2.5 1,085 3.4

Orange, CA...................................................................... 111.2 1,519.8 2.7 1,086 4.9

 Private industry............................................................. 109.9 1,369.2 2.8 1,075 5.1

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.2 3.2 -8.2 800 4.3

 Construction............................................................... 6.5 88.4 7.0 1,185 2.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.9 155.2 0.4 1,328 6.8

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 16.7 253.6 0.9 971 3.4

 Information................................................................. 1.3 25.1 -0.1 1,665 2.9

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.8 115.6 2.1 1,659 9.4

 Professional and business services........................... 20.4 280.1 1.5 1,337 7.0

 Education and health services................................... 28.4 190.4 3.6 910 2.1

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.1 203.4 3.4 454 3.9

 Other services............................................................ 7.0 44.6 2.3 665 3.4

 Government.................................................................. 1.4 150.6 2.1 1,178 3.2

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

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-152

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-152

San Diego, CA................................................................ 103.6 1,374.7 2.7 $1,073 3.1

 Private industry............................................................. 101.8 1,147.1 3.0 1,057 3.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.7 9.5 -3.0 672 -3.6

 Construction............................................................... 6.5 68.9 8.5 1,103 4.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.1 104.2 2.8 1,601 12.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.1 214.3 0.9 823 4.0

 Information................................................................. 1.2 23.6 -4.1 1,608 0.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.5 70.4 1.9 1,351 9.6

 Professional and business services........................... 18.0 227.3 2.5 1,603 -0.9

 Education and health services................................... 28.6 184.6 3.0 900 0.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.8 186.4 2.7 462 6.9

 Other services............................................................ 7.4 49.9 2.0 582 4.7

 Government.................................................................. 1.8 227.6 1.5 1,158 2.2

King, WA......................................................................... 84.2 1,285.2 3.8 1,288 3.9

 Private industry............................................................. 83.7 1,119.3 3.9 1,296 4.1

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 2.9 17.6 1,325 2.9

 Construction............................................................... 6.2 63.7 12.4 1,230 2.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.4 106.4 0.1 1,544 2.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.6 240.6 4.2 1,182 6.3

 Information................................................................. 2.0 89.0 3.2 2,596 5.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 6.4 66.2 1.6 1,553 7.0

 Professional and business services........................... 16.3 212.5 6.0 1,533 2.8

 Education and health services................................... 19.7 163.3 1.8 955 2.8

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.9 132.0 3.8 516 3.2

 Other services............................................................ 8.8 42.8 3.4 818 2.5

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 165.9 2.7 1,235 2.5

Miami-Dade, FL............................................................... 96.7 1,061.4 3.5 931 2.1

 Private industry............................................................. 96.3 939.7 4.0 896 2.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 7.4 0.7 556 0.4

 Construction............................................................... 5.7 39.0 9.3 899 3.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.8 38.9 3.2 879 3.7

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 27.7 275.5 3.1 832 0.1

 Information................................................................. 1.5 17.7 -2.8 1,493 1.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.1 73.3 3.9 1,454 4.7

 Professional and business services........................... 20.3 146.4 5.9 1,068 1.9

 Education and health services................................... 10.1 165.5 2.4 920 2.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.3 132.9 3.3 551 7.6

 Other services............................................................ 8.4 40.5 6.7 587 1.0

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 121.7 0.2 1,179 0.9

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

2 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note.

3 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Note: Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2014 annual average employment. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance

(UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Table 3. Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state,

second quarter 2015

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-15

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-15

United States2.......................................... 9,575.3 140,594.9 2.0 $968 3.0

Alabama.................................................... 118.5 1,899.3 1.3 819 1.6

Alaska........................................................ 22.3 346.6 0.4 1,028 2.4

Arizona...................................................... 151.1 2,549.9 2.5 904 1.8

Arkansas................................................... 88.6 1,184.6 1.7 762 2.1

California................................................... 1,420.0 16,338.9 2.8 1,131 5.5

Colorado.................................................... 185.4 2,517.1 3.2 989 3.0

Connecticut............................................... 115.4 1,693.1 0.9 1,177 2.0

Delaware................................................... 30.5 439.1 2.2 991 1.5

District of Columbia................................... 37.2 745.1 1.8 1,599 1.8

Florida....................................................... 658.3 7,907.7 3.6 861 2.6

Georgia...................................................... 289.2 4,167.8 3.4 903 2.4

Hawaii........................................................ 39.5 635.9 1.6 876 3.8

Idaho......................................................... 55.4 678.5 2.9 713 2.3

Illinois........................................................ 428.3 5,925.5 1.5 1,015 2.6

Indiana....................................................... 159.7 2,966.0 1.7 811 3.4

Iowa........................................................... 100.6 1,561.2 0.9 802 2.8

Kansas...................................................... 86.8 1,382.1 0.7 819 2.8

Kentucky.................................................... 121.7 1,850.5 1.7 822 3.0

Louisiana................................................... 126.5 1,930.6 0.5 850 0.8

Maine......................................................... 50.6 615.8 0.8 768 2.9

Maryland.................................................... 167.3 2,631.3 1.4 1,046 2.6

Massachusetts.......................................... 239.5 3,488.3 2.1 1,211 4.7

Michigan.................................................... 237.7 4,225.0 1.5 916 2.1

Minnesota.................................................. 164.1 2,826.3 1.5 977 3.2

Mississippi................................................. 71.9 1,114.7 1.1 709 0.6

Missouri..................................................... 191.1 2,746.6 1.7 842 2.8

Montana.................................................... 45.4 461.5 1.8 754 2.7

Nebraska................................................... 71.5 968.7 1.2 787 4.1

Nevada...................................................... 78.4 1,248.1 3.2 855 2.6

New Hampshire......................................... 50.7 647.7 1.5 967 1.3

New Jersey............................................... 266.9 4,000.2 1.5 1,126 2.6

New Mexico............................................... 56.1 808.4 0.8 805 1.4

New York.................................................. 636.6 9,136.9 1.9 1,180 3.1

North Carolina........................................... 266.0 4,185.6 2.6 850 3.9

North Dakota............................................. 32.1 445.0 -1.8 939 0.3

Ohio........................................................... 290.2 5,308.1 1.4 865 2.4

Oklahoma.................................................. 108.8 1,591.5 0.6 818 0.5

Oregon...................................................... 143.1 1,810.4 3.4 899 3.0

Pennsylvania............................................. 354.1 5,763.9 0.8 958 2.7

Rhode Island............................................. 36.4 480.0 1.5 925 2.9

South Carolina.......................................... 121.2 1,963.5 2.5 782 2.1

South Dakota............................................ 32.4 428.6 1.3 740 3.9

Tennessee................................................. 149.7 2,832.1 2.8 863 3.1

Texas......................................................... 635.0 11,689.4 2.4 988 1.5

Utah........................................................... 92.9 1,345.9 3.9 821 3.1

Vermont..................................................... 24.7 309.3 0.6 831 2.2

Virginia...................................................... 247.6 3,767.2 1.7 1,000 2.5

Washington............................................... 235.5 3,197.6 3.3 1,026 3.1

West Virginia............................................. 50.1 706.5 -0.8 803 1.4

Wisconsin.................................................. 166.7 2,839.8 1.0 836 2.6

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

second quarter 2015 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2015

(thousands)

June

2015

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2014-15

Second

quarter

2015

Percent

change,

second quarter

2014-15

Wyoming................................................... 26.1 291.5 -1.5 $869 -0.1

Puerto Rico............................................... 46.1 884.6 -1.4 513 2.0

Virgin Islands............................................ 3.4 37.9 0.1 748 2.2

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

2 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Note: Data are preliminary. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for

Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

June 2014-15 (U.S. average = 2.0 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

or more employees, second quarter 2014-15 (U.S. average = 3.0 percent)