For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Thursday, June 27, 2013 USDL-13-1244 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Fourth Quarter 2012 

From December 2011 to December 2012, employment increased in 287 of the 328 largest U.S. 

counties, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Elkhart, Ind., posted the largest increase, 

with a gain of 7.4 percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.9 percent. Within 

Elkhart, the largest employment increase occurred in manufacturing, which gained 5,479 jobs over the 

year (11.6 percent). Sangamon, Ill., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the 

largest counties in the U.S. with a loss of 2.5 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 7 months after the end of each quarter. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 4.7 percent to $1,000 in the fourth quarter of 

2012. San Mateo, Calif., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 

107.3 percent. Within San Mateo, a total wage gain of $6.9 billion (379.6 percent) in professional and 

business services had the largest contribution to the increase in average weekly wages. Lake, Ohio, 

experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 3.2 percent over the year. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, December 2011-12 

(U.S. average = 1.9 percent)

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2011-12 

(U.S. average = 4.7 percent)

 

7.4 6.9 6.4 6.0 5.7

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Lexington, 

S.C.

Rutherford, 

Tenn.

Utah, 

Utah

Montgomery, 

Texas

107.3

48.0

13.3 12.0 11.5 11.5

0 

20

40

60

80

100

120

San Mateo, 

Calif.

Douglas, 

Colo.

Virginia 

Beach City, 

Va.

Rockingham, 

N.H.

New York, 

N.Y.

Washington, 

Pa.
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by December 2012 employment, December 2011-12 employment 

increase, and December 2011-12 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

December 2012 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) December 2011-12 December 2011-12

(thousands)

United States 133,726.8 United States 2,440.6 United States 1.9

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,082.2 Harris, Texas 82.2 Elkhart, Ind. 7.4

Cook, Ill. 2,441.2 Los Angeles, Calif. 74.2 Lexington, S.C. 6.9

New York, N.Y. 2,437.9 New York, N.Y. 50.2 Rutherford, Tenn. 6.4

Harris, Texas 2,160.8 Dallas, Texas 49.6 Utah, Utah 6.0

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,721.1 Maricopa, Ariz. 46.0 Montgomery, Texas 5.7

Dallas, Texas 1,499.2 Orange, Calif. 37.9 Fort Bend, Texas 5.3

Orange, Calif. 1,436.6 King, Wash. 34.5 Douglas, Colo. 5.1

San Diego, Calif. 1,302.0 Santa Clara, Calif. 33.0 Collin, Texas 4.8

King, Wash. 1,185.3 San Diego, Calif. 29.2 Brazos, Texas 4.4

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,020.6 Cook, Ill. 28.9 Travis, Texas 4.3

Salt Lake, Utah 4.3

Large County Employment 

In December 2012, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 133.7 million, up by 

1.9 percent or 2.4 million from December 2011. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs 

accounted for 71.3 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.0 percent of total wages. These 328 

counties had a net job growth of 1.8 million over the year, accounting for 73.3 percent of the overall 

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

Elkhart, Ind., had the largest percentage increase in employment (7.4 percent) among the largest U.S. 

counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Harris, Texas; Los 

Angeles, Calif.; New York, N.Y.; Dallas, Texas; and Maricopa, Ariz. These counties had a combined 

over-the-year employment gain of 302,200, which was 12.4 percent of the overall job increase for the 

U.S. (See table A.)

Employment declined in 38 of the large counties from December 2011 to December 2012. Sangamon, 

Ill., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-2.5 percent). Within Sangamon, 

public administration within state government had the largest decrease in employment with a loss of 

1,067 jobs (-2.9 percent). Caddo, La., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, 

followed by Jefferson, Texas. Two counties, Vanderburgh, Ind., and Benton, Wash., tied for the fourth 

largest percentage decrease. (See table 1.)
- 3 - 

Table B. Large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2012 average weekly wages, fourth quarter 2011-12

increase in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2011-12 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

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

fourth quarter 2012 wage, fourth quarter 2011-12 weekly wage, fourth

quarter 2011-12

United States $1,000 United States $45 United States 4.7

San Mateo, Calif. $3,240 San Mateo, Calif. $1,677 San Mateo, Calif. 107.3

New York, N.Y. 2,107 Douglas, Colo. 516 Douglas, Colo. 48.0

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,906 New York, N.Y. 217 Virginia Beach City, Va. 13.3

Suffolk, Mass. 1,724 Suffolk, Mass. 127 Rockingham, N.H. 12.0

Fairfield, Conn. 1,704 San Francisco, Calif. 119 New York, N.Y. 11.5

Washington, D.C. 1,703 Rockingham, N.H. 111 Washington, Pa. 11.5

San Francisco, Calif. 1,694 Fairfield, Conn. 109 McHenry, Ill. 11.2

Arlington, Va. 1,625 Washington, Pa. 105 Utah, Utah 9.4

Douglas, Colo. 1,591 Virginia Beach City, Va. 101 Elkhart, Ind. 8.9

Fairfax, Va. 1,588 Santa Clara, Calif. 91 Yolo, Calif. 8.6

McHenry, Ill. 91 

Harris, Texas 91

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 4.7 percent during the year ending in the fourth

quarter of 2012. Among the 328 largest counties, 316 had over-the-year increases in average weekly 

wages. (See chart 4.) San Mateo, Calif., had the largest wage increase among the largest U.S. counties 

(107.3 percent). 

Of the 328 largest counties, 10 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Lake, 

Ohio, had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 3.2 percent. Within Lake, total wages 

in manufacturing declined by $45.3 million (-12.3 percent) over the year. Passaic, N.J., had the second 

largest decrease in average weekly wages, followed by Genesee, Mich.; Atlantic, N.J.; and Benton, 

Wash. (See table 1.)

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in December 2012. 

Harris, Texas, had the largest gain (4.0 percent). Within Harris, professional and business services had 

the largest over-the-year employment level increase among all private industry groups with a gain of 

20,112 jobs (5.9 percent). Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.2 percent) 

among the 10 largest counties. (See table 2.)

All of the 10 largest U.S. counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York, 

N.Y., experienced the largest gain in average weekly wages (11.5 percent). Within New York, financial 

activities had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. Within this industry, 

employment declined by 2,288 (-0.6 percent) while total wages increased by $4.8 billion (25.6 percent). 
- 4 - 

Maricopa, Ariz., had the smallest average weekly wage increase (3.4 percent) among the 10 largest 

counties.

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 328 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2011. December 2012 employment and 

2012 fourth 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 9.2 million employer reports cover 133.7 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the fourth quarter of 2012 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 first quarter 2013 is scheduled to be released on

Thursday, September 26, 2013. 

Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the United States on October 29, 2012, during the QCEW 

fourth quarter reference period. This event did not warrant changes to QCEW methodology. 
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 2012 are preliminary and subject to 

revision.

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

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

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

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

large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual 

average of employment for the previous year. The 329 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2011 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2012 data, seven counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Okaloosa, Fla.; Tippecanoe, 

Ind.; Johnson, Iowa; St. Tammany, La.; Saratoga, N.Y.; Delaware, 

Ohio; and Gregg, Texas. These counties will be included in all 2012 

quarterly releases. One county, Jackson, Ore., which was published 

in the 2011 releases, will be excluded from this and future 2012 

releases because its 2011 annual average employment level was less 

than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are selected and sorted each 

year based on the annual average employment from the preceding 

year.

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

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2012

Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.8 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 557,000 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 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 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2011. 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 2011, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 129.4 million jobs. The 

estimated 124.8 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.7 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $6.217 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 41.2 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. 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 

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.

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-the-year 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 overthe-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted 

version of the final 2011 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 prioryear 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 multi-unit employers 

who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a 

single entity.

The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change 

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured 

in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data.

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties include those designated as independent cities in some jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where counties 

have not been created. County data also are presented for the New 

England states for comparative purposes even though townships are 

the more common designation used in New England (and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined as census 

regions.

Additional statistics and other information

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2011 edition 

of this publication, which was published in October 2012, contains 

selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) 

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

2012 version of this news release. Tables and additional content 

from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2011 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn11.htm. The 2012 

edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be 

available later in 2013. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

(202) 691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/); (e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov).

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

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

fourth quarter 2012 2

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,205.6 133,726.8 1.9 – $1,000 4.7 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 17.8 339.3 0.9 223 1,011 5.0 71

Madison, AL ....................... 9.0 181.4 1.4 181 1,077 1.5 265

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.7 165.3 0.1 280 881 0.6 301

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 128.4 1.0 213 883 0.3 306

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 86.4 2.3 94 848 2.3 219

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.3 153.1 0.6 244 1,046 3.9 119

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 95.2 1,721.1 2.7 69 964 3.4 150

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.0 353.5 1.5 172 839 2.1 234

Benton, AR ........................ 5.6 99.2 1.9 134 900 3.9 119

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.5 246.3 1.0 213 927 6.9 24

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 94.6 3.7 23 837 0.8 294

Alameda, CA ...................... 54.7 670.7 4.0 17 1,265 3.9 119

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.0 331.8 2.9 59 1,168 2.9 183

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.2 335.2 1.8 143 777 2.9 183

Kern, CA ............................ 17.0 295.3 3.0 52 842 2.1 234

Los Angeles, CA ................ 421.5 4,082.2 1.9 134 1,185 6.6 29

Marin, CA ........................... 11.7 109.0 3.8 20 1,225 3.4 150

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.4 152.4 3.2 41 809 1.4 271

Orange, CA ........................ 104.2 1,436.6 2.7 69 1,131 4.4 91

Placer, CA .......................... 10.9 132.5 2.8 65 979 4.5 85

Riverside, CA ..................... 49.2 585.6 3.4 33 765 1.5 265

Sacramento, CA ................ 50.1 595.1 2.7 69 1,056 1.3 276

San Bernardino, CA ........... 48.6 629.4 2.2 106 830 2.6 202

San Diego, CA ................... 100.5 1,302.0 2.3 94 1,099 5.5 45

San Francisco, CA ............. 54.7 603.3 4.2 12 1,694 7.6 15

San Joaquin, CA ................ 16.3 205.2 1.5 172 810 1.6 261

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.5 103.9 4.1 15 809 1.3 276

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.8 349.2 3.6 25 3,240 107.3 1

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.3 180.5 3.6 25 961 7.4 17

Santa Clara, CA ................. 63.0 928.0 3.7 23 1,906 5.0 71

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.9 90.4 3.5 29 849 0.1 313

Solano, CA ......................... 9.7 123.9 3.3 39 998 7.4 17

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.3 179.8 3.2 41 918 2.6 202

Stanislaus, CA ................... 13.8 162.3 2.5 80 793 2.3 219

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.9 139.8 0.4 265 697 3.6 139

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.9 311.0 3.1 48 984 3.3 157

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.0 89.4 1.2 194 997 8.6 10

Adams, CO ........................ 9.0 162.3 3.3 39 886 3.1 166

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.2 292.3 3.5 29 1,159 4.5 85

Boulder, CO ....................... 13.3 163.5 2.5 80 1,134 2.0 246

Denver, CO ........................ 26.5 443.1 4.2 12 1,222 4.6 81

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.9 98.5 5.1 7 1,591 48.0 2

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.0 241.2 1.9 134 884 0.8 294

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.0 215.8 2.6 76 1,010 5.1 64

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.3 134.0 2.7 69 887 4.1 104

Weld, CO ........................... 5.9 86.9 4.2 12 831 2.8 189

Fairfield, CT ....................... 33.1 416.4 1.0 213 1,704 6.8 26

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.8 499.9 1.2 194 1,210 5.1 64

New Haven, CT ................. 22.6 361.7 1.2 194 1,034 2.9 183

New London, CT ................ 7.0 123.3 -0.6 308 971 1.5 265

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.1 272.7 1.0 213 $1,178 7.0 21

Washington, DC ................. 36.8 721.5 1.7 154 1,703 2.2 227

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 117.9 1.0 213 843 2.1 234

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.5 188.7 -1.1 316 874 1.0 290

Broward, FL ....................... 64.5 720.5 2.3 94 920 3.4 150

Collier, FL .......................... 12.1 125.6 2.0 123 839 4.1 104

Duval, FL ........................... 27.5 449.6 2.0 123 953 5.0 71

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.0 120.6 0.6 244 787 2.7 193

Hillsborough, FL ................. 38.7 604.4 2.5 80 953 3.5 146

Lake, FL ............................. 7.4 83.9 3.5 29 653 1.1 287

Lee, FL ............................... 19.1 210.6 2.7 69 774 2.2 227

Leon, FL ............................. 8.3 140.2 0.8 236 810 0.2 308

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.5 110.2 2.8 65 733 -0.1 319

Marion, FL .......................... 8.0 92.5 2.6 76 688 2.1 234

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 91.3 1,020.6 2.3 94 976 4.1 104

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.1 75.4 -0.1 291 779 2.6 202

Orange, FL ......................... 36.9 698.7 3.2 41 860 3.9 119

Palm Beach, FL ................. 50.6 522.9 2.1 114 1,003 7.6 15

Pasco, FL ........................... 10.1 102.2 2.1 114 681 2.6 202

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.1 389.9 1.6 162 901 1.7 256

Polk, FL .............................. 12.4 194.6 1.4 181 740 3.1 166

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.7 142.5 3.2 41 824 3.1 166

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.0 162.0 1.8 143 818 5.1 64

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.4 150.8 0.8 236 709 4.9 76

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 81.4 1.2 194 760 2.3 219

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.8 134.2 2.0 123 828 2.3 219

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 112.0 -0.1 291 914 1.4 271

Cobb, GA ........................... 21.8 306.0 1.1 207 1,033 4.3 94

De Kalb, GA ....................... 18.2 278.8 -0.1 291 1,026 4.4 91

Fulton, GA .......................... 42.4 738.0 3.1 48 1,317 7.2 20

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 24.5 312.0 1.6 162 968 4.8 78

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 94.6 0.1 280 783 3.2 161

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 99.3 0.2 274 826 3.0 173

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.8 455.0 1.8 143 908 3.1 166

Ada, ID ............................... 13.6 202.4 2.7 69 843 1.0 290

Champaign, IL ................... 4.3 88.1 0.6 244 806 2.5 209

Cook, IL ............................. 150.3 2,441.2 1.2 194 1,184 5.3 60

Du Page, IL ........................ 37.4 578.3 2.1 114 1,168 4.5 85

Kane, IL ............................. 13.4 195.7 1.2 194 874 2.0 246

Lake, IL .............................. 22.3 326.3 2.1 114 1,272 6.7 28

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.7 93.6 0.8 236 907 11.2 7

McLean, IL ......................... 3.8 87.3 1.5 172 948 1.2 281

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 94.7 -0.4 305 804 1.5 265

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 103.7 0.6 244 936 1.1 287

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.6 94.0 -1.2 318 781 0.4 303

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 126.8 -2.5 328 986 3.0 173

Will, IL ................................ 15.4 204.8 0.7 242 847 2.8 189

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 124.6 -0.9 315 824 1.2 281

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 177.8 1.8 143 774 -0.3 322

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 112.6 7.4 1 782 8.9 9

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.6 115.3 1.7 154 $921 5.3 60

Lake, IN ............................. 10.4 191.3 1.3 186 902 3.9 119

Marion, IN .......................... 24.1 570.6 2.3 94 992 4.2 100

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 117.2 -0.6 308 786 4.4 91

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 79.7 1.9 134 809 0.1 313

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 105.3 -1.5 324 792 0.9 293

Johnson, IA ........................ 3.7 79.1 2.3 94 854 3.5 146

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 127.3 0.1 280 948 0.7 298

Polk, IA .............................. 15.3 274.1 1.6 162 981 4.1 104

Scott, IA ............................. 5.3 89.0 1.2 194 845 5.5 45

Johnson, KS ...................... 21.3 316.2 2.7 69 1,046 6.1 38

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.4 243.5 1.4 181 915 4.1 104

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 95.4 0.4 265 856 8.5 11

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 84.2 1.6 162 874 0.3 306

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.8 183.7 2.2 106 852 2.0 246

Jefferson, KY ..................... 23.2 436.8 3.8 20 936 2.3 219

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.5 119.2 -2.4 327 818 0.2 308

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 84.6 2.9 59 846 3.4 150

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.7 262.3 2.1 114 948 6.9 24

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.7 195.5 -0.3 301 916 2.6 202

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.1 139.1 1.9 134 989 4.0 115

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.2 180.7 2.2 106 992 1.2 281

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.5 80.9 2.0 123 843 4.5 85

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.7 172.4 0.9 223 890 2.9 183

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.8 244.7 2.6 76 1,050 1.9 251

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.4 371.0 1.2 194 1,014 2.7 193

Frederick, MD .................... 6.3 94.5 1.9 134 963 2.3 219

Harford, MD ....................... 5.7 89.1 2.2 106 974 4.8 78

Howard, MD ....................... 9.4 161.8 2.3 94 1,212 3.5 146

Montgomery, MD ............... 33.8 456.9 0.6 244 1,345 1.9 251

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.9 304.4 -0.2 295 1,019 0.2 308

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.2 333.0 0.2 274 1,180 6.1 38

Barnstable, MA .................. 8.9 85.3 2.5 80 842 2.1 234

Bristol, MA ......................... 16.0 213.4 0.4 265 901 5.5 45

Essex, MA .......................... 21.7 309.3 1.5 172 1,056 2.2 227

Hampden, MA .................... 15.5 197.4 0.2 274 898 3.9 119

Middlesex, MA ................... 49.4 841.1 1.9 134 1,434 4.5 85

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.4 328.3 1.5 172 1,212 4.6 81

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.0 179.0 2.5 80 924 2.3 219

Suffolk, MA ........................ 23.6 602.9 1.6 162 1,724 8.0 12

Worcester, MA ................... 21.4 319.2 -0.3 301 964 -0.1 319

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.3 131.9 0.9 223 816 -1.7 326

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.4 155.8 0.1 280 924 1.7 256

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.4 110.9 0.9 223 892 4.0 115

Kent, MI ............................. 14.2 341.8 3.0 52 879 2.9 183

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.4 294.7 1.7 154 1,012 1.2 281

Oakland, MI ....................... 38.8 675.6 3.4 33 1,141 3.4 150

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.6 110.1 3.8 20 831 0.1 313

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.2 84.6 0.5 257 789 0.8 294

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.2 198.6 2.3 94 1,030 3.6 139

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.9 696.3 1.1 207 $1,083 0.6 301

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.2 112.7 2.1 114 900 3.0 173

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.0 174.8 1.8 143 943 4.9 76

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.4 857.2 1.9 134 1,236 6.5 31

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 92.4 3.2 41 1,047 1.7 256

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.0 321.0 0.6 244 1,071 4.1 104

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.6 94.9 1.7 154 776 0.1 313

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.4 81.7 1.2 194 799 5.5 45

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.4 82.5 -0.2 295 693 1.0 290

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.0 120.9 -1.3 319 856 3.8 128

Boone, MO ......................... 4.6 87.7 2.4 91 762 4.0 115

Clay, MO ............................ 5.2 86.3 -1.4 320 879 1.9 251

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 156.0 2.9 59 737 3.8 128

Jackson, MO ...................... 19.0 351.3 1.2 194 1,026 6.2 36

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.4 129.8 3.4 33 763 2.6 202

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.6 574.9 0.6 244 1,088 7.0 21

St. Louis City, MO .............. 9.5 218.1 -0.5 307 1,059 2.7 193

Yellowstone, MT ................ 6.1 78.7 1.7 154 846 5.4 55

Douglas, NE ....................... 17.8 321.6 2.0 123 905 5.5 45

Lancaster, NE .................... 9.5 160.1 2.5 80 792 3.8 128

Clark, NV ........................... 49.3 827.6 2.3 94 867 3.1 166

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.7 186.7 0.9 223 886 3.0 173

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.1 192.2 0.5 257 1,137 3.7 136

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.6 137.1 1.0 213 1,034 12.0 4

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.7 131.7 -0.2 295 816 -1.4 325

Bergen, NJ ......................... 33.1 435.0 0.3 272 1,272 6.2 36

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.0 198.1 2.8 65 1,035 1.8 255

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.1 195.2 -0.2 295 1,002 1.4 271

Essex, NJ ........................... 20.6 343.5 -0.3 301 1,221 3.6 139

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.1 98.6 0.5 257 873 2.3 219

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 238.6 2.0 123 1,285 1.3 276

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.0 233.0 1.5 172 1,312 3.6 139

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.8 393.4 1.9 134 1,162 1.6 261

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.0 243.6 0.2 274 1,031 2.6 202

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.3 276.1 0.9 223 1,476 5.4 55

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.3 147.3 1.2 194 835 4.6 81

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.2 175.1 0.3 272 998 -2.1 327

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.1 174.1 0.9 223 1,429 2.2 227

Union, NJ ........................... 14.4 222.2 0.5 257 1,228 0.2 308

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.9 313.9 1.3 186 836 0.7 298

Albany, NY ......................... 10.0 222.6 0.9 223 976 2.0 246

Bronx, NY .......................... 17.2 239.7 1.8 143 932 2.5 209

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 90.2 -0.8 313 764 2.1 234

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.2 112.3 -0.8 313 975 2.2 227

Erie, NY ............................. 24.0 461.8 0.5 257 853 3.0 173

Kings, NY ........................... 54.0 529.5 2.0 123 821 2.8 189

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.3 380.0 0.1 280 890 0.2 308

Nassau, NY ........................ 53.0 609.0 1.8 143 1,134 2.0 246

New York, NY .................... 123.7 2,437.9 2.1 114 2,107 11.5 5

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 105.4 -1.4 320 777 3.7 136

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Onondaga, NY ................... 13.0 244.7 0.5 257 $929 5.9 41

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 134.2 0.4 265 820 1.9 251

Queens, NY ....................... 47.9 533.4 2.9 59 938 2.2 227

Richmond, NY .................... 9.1 95.3 1.6 162 843 3.8 128

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.9 116.6 -0.2 295 1,054 6.3 35

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.6 78.8 2.0 123 876 3.8 128

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.9 630.9 1.1 207 1,056 0.0 317

Westchester, NY ................ 36.1 413.1 0.6 244 1,346 5.4 55

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.1 116.2 2.5 80 752 2.7 193

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 79.3 0.1 280 733 0.4 303

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 118.5 -1.4 320 770 -0.1 319

Durham, NC ....................... 7.5 188.2 2.6 76 1,225 1.6 261

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.0 177.3 1.7 154 883 3.3 157

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.2 266.9 1.1 207 863 5.5 45

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 33.5 584.2 3.0 52 1,103 5.1 64

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.5 97.1 1.6 162 797 2.4 214

Wake, NC .......................... 30.1 464.2 3.4 33 967 2.4 214

Cass, ND ........................... 6.3 108.7 3.6 25 883 6.6 29

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 140.6 -0.2 295 844 2.8 189

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 35.7 711.1 2.0 123 1,020 5.4 55

Delaware, OH .................... 4.4 81.4 4.1 15 950 3.9 119

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.8 687.2 2.5 80 970 1.6 261

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.2 491.7 0.4 265 1,092 6.0 40

Lake, OH ............................ 6.4 94.7 0.0 288 813 -3.2 328

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.0 94.5 -0.7 310 816 2.5 209

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.1 203.3 0.8 236 866 2.1 234

Mahoning, OH .................... 5.9 98.8 1.3 186 718 3.8 128

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.1 245.6 0.6 244 864 2.7 193

Stark, OH ........................... 8.8 155.6 0.8 236 752 3.0 173

Summit, OH ....................... 14.2 258.8 1.1 207 893 4.3 94

Oklahoma, OK ................... 25.2 434.9 1.6 162 947 5.3 60

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.7 341.5 1.8 143 962 0.0 317

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.9 142.2 2.2 106 893 4.2 100

Lane, OR ........................... 10.9 138.1 1.0 213 758 2.7 193

Marion, OR ........................ 9.5 129.9 0.5 257 760 3.4 150

Multnomah, OR .................. 30.4 447.5 2.0 123 988 2.1 234

Washington, OR ................ 16.8 252.7 1.2 194 1,101 1.4 271

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.8 689.7 0.7 242 1,058 5.0 71

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 166.3 1.3 186 869 2.1 234

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.8 250.5 0.4 265 957 2.9 183

Butler, PA ........................... 4.9 82.9 -0.3 301 895 3.6 139

Chester, PA ....................... 15.1 238.7 0.1 280 1,283 0.7 298

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.2 125.7 0.6 244 866 3.0 173

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.5 174.5 0.5 257 955 4.3 94

Delaware, PA ..................... 14.0 215.7 1.3 186 1,076 6.4 33

Erie, PA .............................. 7.6 124.6 -0.7 310 775 1.7 256

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.9 98.1 -0.4 305 726 1.4 271

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.8 221.7 0.9 223 816 3.7 136

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 177.8 -0.1 291 964 3.0 173

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 139.5 -1.4 320 746 3.2 161

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.5 473.9 1.0 213 $1,250 5.9 41

Northampton, PA ............... 6.6 104.9 2.0 123 842 1.3 276

Philadelphia, PA ................ 36.5 638.0 1.1 207 1,180 4.1 104

Washington, PA ................. 5.6 86.3 0.8 236 1,016 11.5 5

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 133.8 0.9 223 795 -0.7 323

York, PA ............................. 9.1 172.6 0.4 265 837 3.6 139

Providence, RI ................... 17.5 272.7 1.4 181 992 3.0 173

Charleston, SC .................. 12.1 219.0 2.5 80 837 1.5 265

Greenville, SC .................... 12.3 238.5 2.3 94 838 2.7 193

Horry, SC ........................... 7.7 104.7 2.5 80 576 1.2 281

Lexington, SC .................... 5.7 105.1 6.9 2 732 2.4 214

Richland, SC ...................... 9.0 206.5 1.4 181 843 2.4 214

Spartanburg, SC ................ 5.8 117.4 2.4 91 832 2.1 234

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.7 118.1 2.5 80 850 4.3 94

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.5 441.6 3.0 52 1,090 6.5 31

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 188.0 2.2 106 897 3.8 128

Knox, TN ............................ 10.9 222.5 0.6 244 875 3.9 119

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.4 107.4 6.4 3 877 4.2 100

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.1 481.9 1.7 154 1,023 5.5 45

Williamson, TN ................... 6.4 100.6 4.0 17 1,121 6.4 33

Bell, TX .............................. 4.9 109.4 1.7 154 783 1.7 256

Bexar, TX ........................... 35.7 765.3 2.9 59 877 1.5 265

Brazoria, TX ....................... 5.1 94.2 3.6 25 934 4.1 104

Brazos, TX ......................... 4.0 90.3 4.4 9 735 3.5 146

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 131.7 2.1 114 609 2.7 193

Collin, TX ........................... 19.7 318.7 4.8 8 1,158 5.5 45

Dallas, TX .......................... 70.1 1,499.2 3.4 33 1,209 5.5 45

Denton, TX ......................... 11.7 189.8 3.1 48 877 5.0 71

El Paso, TX ........................ 14.2 282.0 2.2 106 697 3.4 150

Fort Bend, TX .................... 10.0 149.5 5.3 6 1,007 5.1 64

Galveston, TX .................... 5.5 97.3 1.3 186 903 4.0 115

Gregg, TX .......................... 4.2 78.1 0.6 244 913 3.8 128

Harris, TX ........................... 104.3 2,160.8 4.0 17 1,331 7.3 19

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 11.5 235.2 2.3 94 612 2.2 227

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 121.3 -2.3 326 1,006 4.1 104

Lubbock, TX ....................... 7.1 128.2 1.8 143 772 8.0 12

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 103.2 2.1 114 813 5.4 55

Montgomery, TX ................ 9.3 146.4 5.7 5 985 7.7 14

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 157.6 3.2 41 885 5.1 64

Smith, TX ........................... 5.7 94.6 0.1 280 867 6.8 26

Tarrant, TX ......................... 39.0 800.8 3.0 52 974 4.5 85

Travis, TX .......................... 32.7 619.4 4.3 10 1,114 3.1 166

Webb, TX ........................... 4.9 92.6 1.3 186 683 5.1 64

Williamson, TX ................... 8.1 136.2 3.5 29 934 2.5 209

Davis, UT ........................... 7.5 108.7 2.4 91 778 0.8 294

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 38.8 606.5 4.3 10 947 5.5 45

Utah, UT ............................ 13.3 183.9 6.0 4 834 9.4 8

Weber, UT ......................... 5.5 91.8 2.2 106 721 2.4 214

Chittenden, VT ................... 6.1 99.0 0.2 274 981 4.1 104

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.7 165.9 -1.1 316 1,625 2.1 234

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Chesterfield, VA ................. 8.0 121.2 3.1 48 $881 3.2 161

Fairfax, VA ......................... 35.3 597.8 0.9 223 1,588 4.3 94

Henrico, VA ........................ 10.3 181.9 2.9 59 949 1.3 276

Loudoun, VA ...................... 10.2 144.2 3.2 41 1,171 2.7 193

Prince William, VA ............. 8.1 115.9 3.4 33 863 2.1 234

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.3 97.2 1.6 162 1,460 2.5 209

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.8 96.8 0.0 288 775 3.3 157

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.7 98.3 1.8 143 912 3.1 166

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 138.7 0.0 288 972 4.2 100

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.2 149.1 0.6 244 1,066 4.1 104

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.5 165.4 1.8 143 862 13.3 3

Benton, WA ........................ 5.9 76.4 -1.5 324 969 -1.0 324

Clark, WA ........................... 14.0 132.3 3.0 52 894 5.8 44

King, WA ............................ 84.1 1,185.3 3.0 52 1,276 4.7 80

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.8 80.7 0.2 274 860 3.2 161

Pierce, WA ......................... 22.1 266.8 1.2 194 869 3.2 161

Snohomish, WA ................. 19.6 261.7 2.8 65 1,005 0.4 303

Spokane, WA ..................... 16.2 200.1 1.0 213 809 3.3 157

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.7 97.8 1.5 172 839 1.1 287

Whatcom, WA .................... 7.0 81.0 2.3 94 801 3.6 139

Yakima, WA ....................... 9.0 95.1 1.5 172 679 4.6 81

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 105.5 -0.7 310 843 1.2 281

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 148.3 1.0 213 892 5.2 63

Dane, WI ............................ 14.3 310.5 1.5 172 957 5.9 41

Milwaukee, WI ................... 23.8 476.8 0.9 223 969 3.0 173

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.1 104.1 1.6 162 830 4.3 94

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.7 229.5 0.9 223 1,004 7.0 21

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.6 90.2 1.3 186 924 3.9 119

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.0 275.6 1.5 ( 7) 661 0.8 ( 7) 

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

These 328 U.S. counties comprise 71.3 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 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 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

fourth quarter 2012 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 4

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,205.6 133,726.8 1.9 $1,000 4.7

Private industry .............................................. 8,911.3 112,271.7 2.3 1,008 5.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 131.9 1,888.3 2.0 1,148 6.1

Construction ............................................... 750.2 5,627.0 2.8 1,102 5.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 335.7 11,950.0 1.4 1,207 3.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,894.7 26,179.3 1.5 827 3.9

Information ................................................. 143.9 2,696.7 0.4 1,620 8.0

Financial activities ...................................... 815.1 7,595.9 1.7 1,629 11.4

Professional and business services ........... 1,617.5 18,205.1 3.3 1,370 8.2

Education and health services ................... 942.0 19,708.0 2.0 928 2.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 776.6 13,631.9 3.7 416 3.0

Other services ............................................ 1,280.2 4,575.7 3.4 604 1.0

Government ................................................... 294.2 21,455.1 -0.2 960 1.6

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 421.5 4,082.2 1.9 1,185 6.6

Private industry .............................................. 415.8 3,546.4 2.5 1,179 6.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.0 1.4 1,731 19.5

Construction ............................................... 12.2 110.9 3.6 1,160 4.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 12.5 364.8 0.2 1,182 3.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 51.3 792.1 2.0 907 4.3

Information ................................................. 8.5 203.9 5.3 2,224 6.3

Financial activities ...................................... 22.2 213.7 1.4 1,841 19.4

Professional and business services ........... 43.1 584.3 3.7 1,483 5.1

Education and health services ................... 30.0 541.1 2.4 1,096 4.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.9 421.3 4.7 985 6.5

Other services ............................................ 182.1 284.5 -2.4 418 9.4

Government ................................................... 5.7 535.8 -2.5 1,221 4.3

Cook, IL .............................................................. 150.3 2,441.2 1.2 1,184 5.3

Private industry .............................................. 148.9 2,144.5 1.4 1,189 5.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.7 -6.1 1,088 -1.0

Construction ............................................... 12.4 61.7 0.1 1,482 5.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.6 194.1 0.4 1,255 4.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 29.2 462.5 1.2 899 4.2

Information ................................................. 2.7 54.1 0.1 1,627 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 15.6 184.1 -0.2 2,350 16.6

Professional and business services ........... 31.8 432.2 2.4 1,565 5.0

Education and health services ................... 15.8 414.1 1.1 968 1.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 13.3 241.5 3.6 473 2.8

Other services ............................................ 16.7 95.8 -0.3 843 4.1

Government ................................................... 1.4 296.7 -0.4 1,149 3.6

New York, NY ..................................................... 123.7 2,437.9 2.1 2,107 11.5

Private industry .............................................. 123.5 1,999.2 2.5 2,331 12.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 5.0 1,862 18.1

Construction ............................................... 2.1 32.5 8.5 2,003 2.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.4 26.6 1.0 1,552 -7.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.9 267.0 2.6 1,529 13.0

Information ................................................. 4.4 142.9 1.7 2,447 5.5

Financial activities ...................................... 18.8 353.5 -0.5 5,186 26.4

Professional and business services ........... 25.7 500.5 3.8 2,430 6.3

Education and health services ................... 9.4 314.8 1.5 1,226 3.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 13.1 259.9 3.2 907 2.4

Other services ............................................ 19.2 94.5 3.7 1,094 2.1

Government ................................................... 0.3 438.7 0.4 1,100 1.3

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 4

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 104.3 2,160.8 4.0 $1,331 7.3

Private industry .............................................. 103.8 1,904.6 4.4 1,372 7.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.7 91.3 6.9 3,544 9.5

Construction ............................................... 6.5 142.3 5.3 1,335 7.9

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 192.7 5.0 1,704 9.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.4 459.4 3.0 1,196 8.4

Information ................................................. 1.2 27.2 -2.9 1,463 5.3

Financial activities ...................................... 10.7 116.0 2.9 1,708 10.7

Professional and business services ........... 20.8 362.7 5.9 1,639 4.5

Education and health services ................... 11.9 256.5 3.4 1,021 6.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 8.6 192.7 5.9 430 3.6

Other services ............................................ 13.7 62.6 3.1 718 5.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 256.2 0.8 1,026 3.0

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 95.2 1,721.1 2.7 964 3.4

Private industry .............................................. 94.5 1,512.0 3.0 967 3.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.5 3.7 918 0.7

Construction ............................................... 7.6 88.3 7.2 1,049 7.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 113.7 1.8 1,290 0.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 357.3 1.7 917 2.5

Information ................................................. 1.6 28.5 2.3 1,253 5.4

Financial activities ...................................... 10.9 146.2 3.0 1,194 5.7

Professional and business services ........... 22.0 285.1 3.5 1,086 5.6

Education and health services ................... 10.6 252.8 2.4 1,001 1.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 180.6 2.7 444 3.3

Other services ............................................ 6.5 46.9 1.1 634 4.1

Government ................................................... 0.7 209.1 1.1 946 1.4

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 70.1 1,499.2 3.4 1,209 5.5

Private industry .............................................. 69.6 1,335.4 3.8 1,228 5.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 10.1 8.5 3,980 -9.0

Construction ............................................... 4.0 71.0 6.4 1,171 6.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 111.8 -0.1 1,398 7.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.2 305.9 3.3 1,065 5.7

Information ................................................. 1.5 47.6 3.6 1,640 1.9

Financial activities ...................................... 8.6 145.1 2.6 1,663 12.1

Professional and business services ........... 15.5 292.6 5.6 1,451 4.8

Education and health services ................... 7.9 176.8 3.9 1,068 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.9 133.2 4.6 528 6.5

Other services ............................................ 7.3 40.4 1.4 756 8.2

Government ................................................... 0.5 163.8 0.2 1,059 3.6

Orange, CA ........................................................ 104.2 1,436.6 2.7 1,131 4.4

Private industry .............................................. 102.8 1,300.9 3.1 1,138 4.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 3.0 -5.3 746 7.8

Construction ............................................... 6.0 73.2 5.3 1,269 7.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.8 158.6 0.5 1,352 3.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.2 258.9 1.8 1,002 2.3

Information ................................................. 1.2 24.2 -0.4 1,692 11.8

Financial activities ...................................... 9.6 111.6 4.3 2,030 6.8

Professional and business services ........... 19.1 264.5 4.3 1,329 5.1

Education and health services ................... 10.7 165.4 2.1 1,064 2.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.4 182.5 4.2 431 4.6

Other services ............................................ 19.6 52.9 4.2 534 -1.1

Government ................................................... 1.4 135.7 -1.3 1,064 3.5

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12 4

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 100.5 1,302.0 2.3 $1,099 5.5

Private industry .............................................. 99.1 1,084.0 2.6 1,090 5.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 9.0 1.1 665 4.2

Construction ............................................... 5.8 57.5 3.6 1,133 0.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 93.7 -0.6 1,534 5.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.6 219.0 2.1 843 6.7

Information ................................................. 1.1 24.9 1.7 1,580 -1.8

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 71.5 3.4 1,381 12.3

Professional and business services ........... 16.6 221.5 2.7 1,670 8.8

Education and health services ................... 8.8 157.7 1.4 1,044 3.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.2 160.2 3.3 439 0.5

Other services ............................................ 26.6 63.5 5.2 503 2.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 218.1 0.7 1,143 4.4

King, WA ............................................................ 84.1 1,185.3 3.0 1,276 4.7

Private industry .............................................. 83.5 1,028.2 3.4 1,291 5.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.5 -8.0 2,021 35.5

Construction ............................................... 5.3 50.4 9.5 1,248 -1.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.2 103.6 3.5 1,482 -2.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.4 223.0 3.6 1,086 6.2

Information ................................................. 1.8 80.9 0.7 2,489 11.8

Financial activities ...................................... 6.2 64.2 2.5 1,587 8.3

Professional and business services ........... 14.1 195.1 4.8 1,689 6.7

Education and health services ................... 7.3 140.3 2.3 1,007 2.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 115.6 4.0 485 1.7

Other services ............................................ 25.2 52.7 -0.7 627 6.8

Government ................................................... 0.5 157.1 0.5 1,177 1.2

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 91.3 1,020.6 2.3 976 4.1

Private industry .............................................. 90.9 882.1 2.8 957 5.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.9 -2.7 609 2.5

Construction ............................................... 5.0 30.8 2.8 1,017 10.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.7 35.7 -1.2 930 3.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 26.4 266.5 1.9 852 4.8

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.7 1.3 1,489 10.9

Financial activities ...................................... 9.3 69.2 3.8 1,483 8.4

Professional and business services ........... 19.1 134.1 4.2 1,342 8.8

Education and health services ................... 10.1 159.0 1.0 929 0.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 122.8 6.0 554 3.2

Other services ............................................ 8.0 35.7 2.8 586 3.9

Government ................................................... 0.4 138.5 -1.2 1,092 -2.3

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2011 annual average employment. 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.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

fourth quarter 2012 2

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12

United States 4 ................... 9,205.6 133,726.8 1.9 $1,000 4.7

Alabama ............................. 117.0 1,847.3 1.1 854 2.6

Alaska ................................ 21.9 314.8 1.1 1,007 2.7

Arizona ............................... 147.5 2,509.2 2.4 912 3.3

Arkansas ............................ 85.1 1,160.3 0.2 767 4.2

California ............................ 1,337.1 15,216.3 3.3 1,186 7.8

Colorado ............................ 173.6 2,311.4 2.7 1,032 5.8

Connecticut ........................ 111.9 1,657.6 1.0 1,253 5.3

Delaware ............................ 27.8 411.0 1.2 1,044 6.1

District of Columbia ............ 36.8 721.5 1.7 1,703 2.2

Florida ................................ 618.3 7,535.5 2.3 880 3.9

Georgia .............................. 273.7 3,889.9 1.7 927 4.7

Hawaii ................................ 38.6 620.7 2.1 868 2.7

Idaho .................................. 53.4 618.4 2.0 732 2.1

Illinois ................................. 396.4 5,697.9 1.1 1,058 4.4

Indiana ............................... 160.4 2,850.5 1.8 816 3.4

Iowa ................................... 96.0 1,486.6 1.3 821 3.7

Kansas ............................... 84.9 1,339.2 1.5 835 4.4

Kentucky ............................ 113.2 1,796.0 1.4 801 1.8

Louisiana ........................... 127.1 1,891.9 1.0 884 4.1

Maine ................................. 49.7 582.2 0.2 773 2.4

Maryland ............................ 169.1 2,544.1 1.2 1,086 2.5

Massachusetts ................... 221.0 3,279.3 1.3 1,248 4.8

Michigan ............................ 238.9 3,988.9 1.9 954 2.3

Minnesota .......................... 170.1 2,677.2 1.6 985 5.1

Mississippi ......................... 69.4 1,096.5 1.1 720 3.2

Missouri ............................. 179.3 2,641.9 0.9 863 4.6

Montana ............................. 42.8 434.6 1.9 757 4.1

Nebraska ........................... 68.0 931.3 2.2 797 4.6

Nevada .............................. 73.5 1,145.8 1.9 877 2.9

New Hampshire ................. 49.5 620.8 0.8 1,023 5.5

New Jersey ........................ 263.8 3,846.4 1.1 1,172 2.9

New Mexico ....................... 55.7 796.8 1.5 802 0.4

New York ........................... 608.4 8,741.9 1.4 1,280 6.9

North Carolina .................... 259.9 3,963.9 1.9 854 3.6

North Dakota ...................... 30.1 421.0 6.1 944 8.4

Ohio ................................... 287.1 5,098.0 1.3 887 3.6

Oklahoma .......................... 104.9 1,565.3 1.9 847 3.9

Oregon ............................... 134.8 1,654.1 1.4 871 2.5

Pennsylvania ..................... 354.4 5,629.8 0.5 972 3.8

Rhode Island ...................... 35.4 456.4 1.0 945 2.7

South Carolina ................... 113.9 1,832.2 2.0 784 2.8

South Dakota ..................... 31.6 401.7 1.2 749 3.5

Tennessee ......................... 142.1 2,710.4 2.1 903 5.2

Texas ................................. 599.6 10,956.4 3.2 1,027 5.5

Utah ................................... 87.2 1,246.6 3.7 844 4.5

Vermont ............................. 24.5 306.1 0.7 829 2.5

Virginia ............................... 242.5 3,663.7 1.1 1,042 3.7

Washington ........................ 239.6 2,902.0 2.1 1,017 4.0

West Virginia ...................... 49.6 714.3 0.0 788 1.5

Wisconsin .......................... 162.9 2,723.6 1.2 855 4.8

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

fourth quarter 2012 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2012

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

December

2012

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2011-12

Fourth

quarter

2012

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2011-12

Wyoming ............................ 25.6 277.6 0.2 $908 3.7

Puerto Rico ........................ 47.3 978.6 1.6 550 -0.4

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.4 39.8 -7.9 738 -3.9

 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

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 June 2013

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

December 2011-12 (U.S. average = 1.9 percent)
Largest Counties

U.S. average or lower

Higher than U.S. average

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 June 2013

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

or more employees, fourth quarter 2011-12 (U.S. average = 4.7 percent)