For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Tuesday, October 19, 2010 USDL-10-1449 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

First Quarter 2010 

From March 2009 to March 2010, employment declined in 296 of the 326 largest U.S. counties 

according to preliminary data, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Collier, Fla., posted 

the largest percentage decline, with a loss of 6.0 percent over the year, compared with a national job 

decrease of 2.1 percent. Forty-five percent of the employment decline in Collier occurred in natural 

resources and mining, which lost 3,282 jobs over the year (-41.2 percent). Elkhart, Ind., experienced the 

largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the largest counties in the U.S. with a 

gain of 5.7 percent. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 0.8 percent to $889 in the first quarter of 

2010. Among the large counties in the U.S., New York, N.Y., had the largest over-the-year increase in 

average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2010, with a gain of 11.9 percent. Within New York, 

financial activities had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 22.7 

percent. San Mateo, Calif., experienced the largest decline in average weekly wages with a loss of 17.7 

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

Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent decline in 

employment, March 2009-10 

(U.S. average = -2.1 percent) 

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, first quarter 2009-10 

(U.S. average = 0.8 percent) 

-6.0 -5.8 -5.2 -5.1 -5.0

-15.0

-13.0

-11.0

-9.0

-7.0

-5.0

-3.0

-1.0

Collier,

Fla.

Sedgwick,

Kan.

Marion,

Fla.

Clark,

Nev.

San 

Bernardino,

Calif.

11.9

10.6

8.7 8.4

5.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

New York,

N.Y.

Hudson,

N.J.

Santa Clara,

Calif.

Mecklenburg,

N.C.

San Francisco,

Calif.
- 2 - 

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

decrease, and March 2009-10 percent decrease in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

March 2010 employment Decrease in employment, Percent decrease in employment, 

(thousands) March 2009-10 March 2009-10 

 (thousands) 

 

United States 126,281.7 United States -2,646.7 United States -2.1 

 

Los Angeles, Calif. 3,863.3 Los Angeles, Calif. -133.9 Collier, Fla. -6.0 

Cook, Ill. 2,311.0 Cook, Ill. -69.1 Sedgwick, Kan. -5.8 

New York, N.Y. 2,255.5 Maricopa, Ariz. -64.0 Marion, Fla. -5.2 

Harris, Texas 1,970.8 Orange, Calif. -58.2 Clark, Nev. -5.1 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,606.6 Harris, Texas -49.8 San Bernardino, Calif. -5.0 

Dallas, Texas 1,392.8 Clark, Nev. -42.5 McHenry, Ill. -4.8 

Orange, Calif. 1,342.8 New York, N.Y. -38.2 Contra Costa, Calif. -4.7 

San Diego, Calif. 1,229.8 King, Wash. -35.5 Seminole, Fla. -4.6 

King, Wash. 1,098.9 San Diego, Calif. -35.2 Gloucester, N.J. -4.6 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 947.4 San Bernardino, Calif. -30.9 Tulsa, Okla. -4.6 

Large County Employment 

In March 2010, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 126.3 million, down 

by 2.1 percent from March 2009. The 326 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 

70.9 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.5 percent of total wages. These 326 counties had a net job 

decline of 2,075,200 over the year, accounting for 78.4 percent of the overall U.S. employment decrease. 

(See chart 3.) 

Collier, Fla., had the largest percentage decline in employment among the largest U.S. counties. The top 

five counties with the greatest employment level declines (Los Angeles, Calif.; Cook, Ill.; Maricopa, 

Ariz.; Orange, Calif.; and Harris, Texas) had a combined over-the-year loss of 375,000, or 14.2 percent 

of the employment decline for the U.S. as a whole. (See table A.) 

Employment rose in 22 of the large counties from March 2009 to March 2010. Elkhart, Ind., had the 

largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (5.7 percent) in the nation. Within Elkhart, 

manufacturing was the largest contributor to the increase in employment. Benton, Wash., experienced 

the second largest employment increase, followed by Arlington, Va.; Kings, N.Y.; Washington, D.C.; 

and Passaic, N.J. 

 
- 3 - 

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

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

Average weekly wage in large counties 

 

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

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

 quarter 2009-10 

 

United States $889 United States $7 United States 0.8 

 

New York, N.Y. $2,404 New York, N.Y. $255 New York, N.Y. 11.9 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,787 Hudson, N.J. 147 Hudson, N.J. 10.6 

Somerset, N.J. 1,745 Santa Clara, Calif. 133 Santa Clara, Calif. 8.7 

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,655 Mecklenburg, N.C. 89 Mecklenburg, N.C. 8.4 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,594 San Francisco, Calif. 82 San Francisco, Calif. 5.4 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,557 Arlington, Va. 53 Winnebago, Wis. 4.8 

Hudson, N.J. 1,538 Fairfield, Conn. 51 Williamson, Tenn. 4.6 

Arlington, Va. 1,520 Mercer, N.J. 50 Hamilton, Tenn. 4.4 

Washington, D.C. 1,505 Contra Costa, Calif. 46 Mercer, N.J. 4.3 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,469 Durham, N.C. 45 Washington, Ore. 4.3 

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased by 0.8 percent over the year in the first quarter of 

2010. Among the 326 largest counties, 147 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New 

York, N.Y. had the largest wage gain among the largest U.S. counties. (See table B.) Of the 326 largest 

counties, 165 experienced declines in average weekly wages. (See chart 4.) 

San Mateo, Calif., led the nation in average weekly wage decline with a loss of 17.7 percent over the 

year. In the county, manufacturing had the largest over-the-year decline in average weekly wages (-58.2 

percent) due to a large payout related to an acquisition in first quarter of 2009. Solano, Calif., had the 

second largest overall decline among the counties, followed by Pulaski, Ark.; Peoria, Ill.; and Stark, 

Ohio. 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties experienced over-the-year percent declines in employment in March 2010. 

Orange, Calif., experienced the largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 4.2 

percent decrease. Within Orange, every private industry group except education and health services 

experienced an employment decline, with construction experiencing the largest decline (-15.2 percent). 

(See table 2.) New York, N.Y., experienced the smallest decline in employment among the 10 largest 

counties. 

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

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

nation with a gain of 11.9 percent. Miami-Dade, Fla., had the largest wage decline among the 10 largest 

counties.
- 4 - 

For More Information 

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

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

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

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

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

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.0 million employer reports cover 126.3 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the first quarter of 2010 will be available later at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. 

Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling (202) 691-6567. 

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

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

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

on Tuesday, January 11, 2011. 

 

QCEW Beta Products 

The QCEW State and County Map application was released on June 30, 2010 

(http://beta.bls.gov/maps). This new feature of the BLS website provides users with supersector 

industry employment and wages at the national, state, and county levels. Data are presented in map, 

tabular, and downloadable formats. 

QCEW flat files are available in a new format as of October 19, 2010 on the BLS web site at 

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/public/cew/beta. The new format was developed to be easier to use than the existing 

format. Files will be available in both formats for approximately one year. Please direct comments on 

the new file format to QCEWInfo@bls.gov. For more information, see the readme file available on 

the ftp directory listed above. 

Changes for the 2010 County Employment and Wages News Releases 

Effective with this release, the “Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the largest 

county by state” table (formerly Table 3), along with the associated text on the largest county by 

state, has been removed. 

Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2009 are included in this release and 

will be included in future 2010 releases. For 2010 data, two counties have been added to the 

publication tables: St. Tammany Parish, La., and Benton, Wash. Ten counties will be excluded from 

2010 releases: Shelby, Ala.; Butte, Calif.; Tippecanoe, Ind.; Johnson, Iowa; Saratoga, N.Y.; 

Trumbull, Ohio; Warren, Ohio; Kent, R.I.; Gregg, Texas; and Racine, Wis.
Technical Note 

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

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

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

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

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

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

in this release are based on the 2007 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2010 are preliminary and subject to 

revision. 

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

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

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

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

large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual 

average of employment for the previous year. The 327 counties 

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the 2009 releases, will be excluded from this and

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

QCEW BED CES 

Source • Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.0 million establishments in first quarter of 2010 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

6.8 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the county, MSA, state, and national levels by 

detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/ 
future 2010 releases because their 2009 annual average employment 

levels were less than 75,000. The counties in table 2 are selected 

and sorted each year based on the annual average employment from 

the preceding year. 

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables. 

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures 

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

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

somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and 

publication product. 

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown 

in the table. 

Coverage 

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) 

program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly 

reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers 

on behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to 

the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple 

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information 

on the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

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

of employment rather than place of residence. 

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

the Federal Unemployment Tax Act became effective, expanding 

coverage to include most State and local government employees. In 

2009, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 128.6 million 

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

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

salary component of personal income and 41.5 percent of the gross 

domestic product. 

Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members of the 

Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of 

railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, 

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes 

may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by 

employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may 

affect the over-the-year comparisons presented in this news release. 

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

worked during or received pay for the pay period including the 12th 

of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of covered firms 

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

Workers on paid vacations and part-time workers also are included. 

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

(all employees, as described above) and dividing the result by 13, 

for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using 

unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values 

that can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database 

may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly 

wage data are non-wage cash payments such as bonuses, the cash 

value of meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, 

and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred 

compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options. Overthe-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages 

between the current quarter and prior year levels. 

Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time to 

part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in highpaying and low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay periods within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage of the 

work force could increase significantly when there is a large decline 

in the number of employees that had been receiving below-average 

wages. Wages may include payments to workers not present in the 

employment counts because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month. When comparing average 

weekly wage levels between industries, states, or quarters, these 

factors should be taken into consideration. 

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that consists of some 

quarters having more pay periods than others. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result of this 

schedule, in some quarters, federal wages contain payments for six 

pay periods, while in other quarters their wages include payments 
for seven pay periods. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average 

weekly wages may be attributed, in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year, which include seven pay periods, with 

year-ago wages that reflect only six pay periods. An opposite effect 

will occur when wages in the current period, which contain six pay 

periods, are compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay 

periods. The effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal 

payroll processing. This pattern may exist in private sector pay; 

however, because there are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect is most 

visible in counties with large concentrations of federal employment. 

In order to ensure the highest possible quality of data, states verify with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, 

and ownership classification of all establishments on a 4-year cycle. 

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of 

the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also 

are introduced in the first quarter. 

QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are 

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a 

point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or 

industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic 

events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change would come from a firm relocating into the county; 

administrative change would come from a company correcting its 

county designation. 

The over-the-year changes of employment and wages presented 

in this release have been adjusted to account for most of the administrative corrections made to the underlying establishment reports. 

This is done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the 

over-the-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an 

adjusted version of the final 2009 quarterly data as the base data. 

The adjusted prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year 

percent change in employment and wages are not published. These 

adjusted prior-year levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS Web site. Over-the-year change calculations 

based on data from the Web site, or from data published in prior 

BLS news releases, may differ substantially from the over-the-year 

changes presented in this news release. 

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

measures presented in this release account for most of the administrative changes—those occurring when employers update the industry, location, and ownership information of their establishments. 

The most common adjustments for administrative change are the 

result of updated information about the county location of individual establishments. Included in these adjustments are administrative 

changes involving the classification of establishments that were 

previously reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, 

adjusted data account for administrative changes caused by multiunit employers who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the one featured in a release even if the changes were calculated using adjusted 

data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the 

Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown 

as counties include those designated as independent cities in some 

jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas where 

counties have not been created. County data also are presented for 

the New England states for comparative purposes even though 

townships are the more common designation used in New England 

(and New Jersey). The regions referred to in this release are defined 

as census regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2008 edition 

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

Tables and additional content from the 2008 Employment and 

Wages Annual Bulletin are now available online at 

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

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

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

a chartbook from the United States Government Printing Office, 

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 

15250, telephone (866) 512-1800, outside Washington, D.C. Within 

Washington, D.C., the telephone number is (202) 512-1800. The 

fax number is (202) 512-2104. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

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

BDMInfo@bls.gov). 

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

TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 327 largest counties,

first quarter 2010 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,043.6 126,281.7 -2.1 – $889 0.8 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.0 331.3 -2.6 210 880 -1.2 228

Madison, AL ....................... 8.8 177.1 -0.7 45 938 0.6 117

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.9 164.0 -2.5 202 707 -0.8 204

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.4 129.7 -1.4 92 741 1.9 47

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 82.2 -1.2 76 746 2.1 42

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 144.8 -0.2 29 933 0.0 148

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 95.1 1,606.6 -3.8 289 848 -0.8 204

Pima, AZ ............................ 19.6 345.5 -3.0 242 739 -0.9 214

Benton, AR ........................ 5.5 91.3 -2.1 161 1,038 1.8 54

Pulaski, AR ........................ 15.1 240.7 -2.0 153 779 -11.3 318

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 89.4 1.1 7 691 0.7 105

Alameda, CA ...................... 54.3 629.9 -3.4 269 1,142 2.2 36

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.8 310.3 -4.7 313 1,140 4.2 11

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.7 316.1 -3.6 282 686 -0.1 156

Kern, CA ............................ 18.2 253.1 -2.1 161 760 -0.7 196

Los Angeles, CA ................ 431.4 3,863.3 -3.4 269 978 1.0 93

Marin, CA ........................... 11.6 99.2 -3.2 257 1,040 -0.7 196

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.8 148.1 -2.2 174 797 1.0 93

Orange, CA ........................ 101.6 1,342.8 -4.2 303 1,001 1.2 85

Placer, CA .......................... 10.7 124.4 -3.1 248 843 -0.6 188

Riverside, CA ..................... 48.2 553.4 -4.4 308 728 -1.2 228

Sacramento, CA ................ 54.4 583.8 -3.5 275 974 0.5 124

San Bernardino, CA ........... 50.5 588.9 -5.0 315 732 0.0 148

San Diego, CA ................... 98.5 1,229.8 -2.8 224 930 -0.6 188

San Francisco, CA ............. 52.9 537.7 -3.1 248 1,594 5.4 5

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.6 200.8 -3.7 286 721 0.1 141

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.6 97.6 -4.0 296 729 -2.8 291

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.8 313.8 -3.2 257 1,469 -17.7 320

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.3 171.1 -3.5 275 830 0.5 124

Santa Clara, CA ................. 60.9 832.2 -3.4 269 1,655 8.7 3

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.1 85.6 -4.1 300 791 -2.8 291

Solano, CA ......................... 10.2 119.9 -1.0 57 888 -12.0 319

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.6 171.2 -3.8 289 820 1.5 73

Stanislaus, CA ................... 15.1 156.5 -2.0 153 735 2.2 36

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.4 133.2 -2.8 224 604 0.3 135

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.7 295.2 -3.8 289 923 1.7 60

Yolo, CA ............................. 6.0 92.9 -4.0 296 820 1.5 73

Adams, CO ........................ 9.0 145.2 -3.2 257 771 -3.6 306

Arapahoe, CO .................... 18.9 266.6 -1.6 112 1,088 0.6 117

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.8 150.2 -2.1 161 1,011 -0.5 182

Denver, CO ........................ 25.2 413.6 -2.1 161 1,158 1.8 54

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.4 87.5 -2.1 161 1,003 1.2 85

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.8 229.1 -2.2 174 790 -0.8 204

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.0 200.0 -2.2 174 899 0.7 105

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.0 123.0 -1.6 112 755 -1.0 219

Weld, CO ........................... 5.8 77.7 -3.7 286 722 -0.1 156

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.7 387.7 -3.3 262 1,787 2.9 20

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.2 475.0 -2.8 224 1,162 1.8 54

New Haven, CT ................. 22.4 341.7 -2.6 210 911 -0.2 165

New London, CT ................ 6.9 121.7 -3.4 269 918 -2.3 282

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 17.7 257.4 -4.1 300 $1,123 0.8 100

Washington, DC ................. 34.3 685.2 1.2 5 1,505 2.8 25

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.7 114.9 -2.3 186 709 -4.1 311

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.6 188.7 -2.1 161 793 0.4 127

Broward, FL ....................... 63.0 680.6 -3.1 248 807 -0.7 196

Collier, FL .......................... 11.8 114.8 -6.0 319 739 1.9 47

Duval, FL ........................... 26.7 430.4 -2.9 234 861 1.4 76

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 120.1 -0.1 24 659 -2.7 290

Hillsborough, FL ................. 37.0 570.3 -3.1 248 842 -1.9 266

Lake, FL ............................. 7.3 79.2 -4.0 296 572 -1.0 219

Lee, FL ............................... 18.7 197.7 -3.1 248 682 -1.6 252

Leon, FL ............................. 8.2 138.4 -1.3 83 713 -1.7 256

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.2 110.7 -1.6 112 632 -2.6 289

Marion, FL .......................... 8.0 89.7 -5.2 317 600 -1.2 228

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 84.8 947.4 -2.0 153 845 -1.3 237

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 75.6 -1.8 129 706 1.3 79

Orange, FL ......................... 35.1 641.7 -2.2 174 774 -0.9 214

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.0 494.6 -3.1 248 855 1.4 76

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.8 95.9 -2.5 202 579 -2.2 279

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.5 390.7 -1.8 129 738 -0.3 169

Polk, FL .............................. 12.3 192.0 -3.9 293 643 -1.4 242

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.6 133.9 -4.0 296 706 -1.8 261

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.9 154.7 -4.6 310 714 -3.1 298

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.4 152.3 -2.9 234 614 1.3 79

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 78.9 -2.7 218 682 -0.7 196

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 127.6 -1.8 129 726 -1.5 246

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 101.6 ( 7) – 756 ( 7) – 

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.5 283.4 -3.1 248 923 -1.1 225

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.4 274.8 -2.6 210 943 0.0 148

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.2 696.4 -2.9 234 1,262 2.9 20

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.3 292.3 -2.8 224 844 -1.2 228

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.7 91.7 -1.3 83 705 1.9 47

Richmond, GA ................... 4.7 98.1 -0.9 51 718 -1.6 252

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.9 429.6 -2.3 186 797 -0.4 176

Ada, ID ............................... 14.3 189.4 -1.7 121 739 -1.6 252

Champaign, IL ................... 4.2 87.0 -1.3 83 732 0.4 127

Cook, IL ............................. 142.9 2,311.0 -2.9 234 1,083 -0.1 156

Du Page, IL ........................ 36.3 535.6 -2.9 234 1,043 1.3 79

Kane, IL ............................. 13.0 186.7 -4.2 303 750 -0.4 176

Lake, IL .............................. 21.4 300.6 -3.4 269 1,154 3.2 18

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.6 90.1 -4.8 314 699 -0.9 214

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 84.2 -0.8 47 885 -1.1 225

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 91.8 -0.9 51 724 2.1 42

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 97.3 -3.5 275 794 -11.0 317

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 73.3 -3.0 242 868 -2.1 275

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.5 92.7 -1.9 144 697 -0.3 169

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.3 124.7 -1.0 57 877 1.7 60

Will, IL ................................ 14.4 187.0 -2.6 210 754 0.4 127

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 122.3 -3.5 275 714 -3.8 309

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 166.2 -1.1 67 718 0.1 141

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 97.6 5.7 1 $664 3.6 14

Hamilton, IN ....................... 8.0 104.7 -3.5 275 866 2.9 20

Lake, IN ............................. 10.4 179.8 -2.4 190 746 -1.5 246

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 540.4 -1.1 67 951 1.8 54

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 113.0 -2.2 174 696 -2.5 285

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 103.6 0.1 19 690 -3.0 296

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 121.6 -1.9 144 813 -1.2 228

Polk, IA .............................. 14.6 262.3 -1.5 98 898 0.7 105

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 83.2 -1.8 129 683 -1.7 256

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.9 291.9 -3.2 257 932 2.9 20

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.4 237.1 -5.8 318 762 -3.4 303

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 93.1 -1.2 76 725 -2.8 291

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 78.3 -0.6 42 787 1.7 60

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.4 165.6 -1.8 129 767 -0.5 182

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.2 402.6 -1.3 83 845 0.2 138

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.6 120.1 -1.5 98 695 -0.4 176

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 5.0 83.1 -3.6 282 728 -4.2 312

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.9 256.6 -2.3 186 802 -3.5 304

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.3 191.7 -1.8 129 800 0.1 141

Lafayette, LA ...................... 9.3 129.2 -3.6 282 808 -2.2 279

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.0 171.3 1.0 8 957 -0.3 169

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.5 74.6 -0.8 47 679 -2.9 295

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.1 163.7 -1.5 98 803 0.8 100

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.3 222.6 -0.8 47 944 1.7 60

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.2 359.5 -1.7 121 899 0.9 98

Frederick, MD .................... 5.9 89.9 -2.4 190 853 -3.5 304

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 79.6 0.0 23 809 -0.6 188

Howard, MD ....................... 8.7 142.5 -0.5 37 1,068 2.6 28

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.2 436.3 -1.6 112 1,260 2.4 31

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.5 295.4 -3.5 275 918 -0.1 156

Baltimore City, MD ............. 13.4 319.3 -2.7 218 1,049 3.1 19

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.1 77.9 -1.0 57 726 -1.9 266

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.7 201.3 -1.9 144 749 0.1 141

Essex, MA .......................... 21.0 284.9 -0.6 42 903 1.0 93

Hampden, MA .................... 14.8 189.0 -1.4 92 803 1.4 76

Middlesex, MA ................... 48.0 790.0 -1.1 67 1,274 0.2 138

Norfolk, MA ........................ 23.8 306.1 -1.0 57 1,026 0.8 100

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.8 164.7 -1.8 129 780 -0.9 214

Suffolk, MA ........................ 22.3 565.0 -1.1 67 1,557 -0.9 214

Worcester, MA ................... 20.9 303.3 -1.5 98 849 -1.2 228

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.6 124.7 -3.0 242 691 -3.1 298

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.6 150.5 -1.2 76 833 2.6 28

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 105.2 -3.3 262 778 -0.5 182

Kent, MI ............................. 14.0 297.7 -1.5 98 769 -1.5 246

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.3 267.4 -1.9 144 847 -0.2 165

Oakland, MI ....................... 38.0 595.9 -3.8 289 952 -2.4 284

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.6 96.1 0.3 17 674 -3.3 302

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.3 77.2 -0.4 35 692 -1.0 219

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.1 183.7 0.1 19 915 -1.8 261

Wayne, MI .......................... 31.4 645.5 -3.9 293 922 -1.7 256

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.4 102.7 -3.3 262 $773 -3.1 298

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.0 164.0 -1.3 83 867 1.2 85

Hennepin, MN .................... 43.5 791.1 -1.4 92 1,106 -0.1 156

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 85.3 -2.8 224 937 0.5 124

Ramsey, MN ...................... 14.4 308.6 -2.4 190 1,031 1.9 47

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.8 90.9 -1.1 67 680 -3.7 307

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.3 75.2 -1.8 129 693 -0.6 188

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.5 82.4 -1.0 57 676 -0.1 156

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.2 122.9 -2.2 174 754 -0.4 176

Boone, MO ......................... 4.4 81.2 0.9 10 670 1.7 60

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 88.6 -2.7 218 829 3.6 14

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 147.9 -1.5 98 632 -2.0 272

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.1 338.9 -3.6 282 878 -1.7 256

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 115.7 -3.3 262 733 1.9 47

St. Louis, MO ..................... 31.6 562.1 -3.3 262 938 -3.0 296

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.6 210.6 ( 7) – 978 -0.3 169

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.8 74.5 -0.6 42 688 -1.3 237

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.6 304.3 -1.7 121 827 -3.2 301

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.0 150.8 -1.8 129 686 0.4 127

Clark, NV ........................... 48.8 793.0 -5.1 316 775 -4.8 314

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.1 180.7 -3.5 275 768 -2.3 282

Hillsborough, NH ................ 11.9 181.7 -2.7 218 921 -0.5 182

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.6 128.2 -0.1 24 815 -1.0 219

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.0 130.3 -2.4 190 752 0.7 105

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.3 419.7 -2.2 174 1,119 1.0 93

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.3 189.8 -3.3 262 931 1.7 60

Camden, NJ ....................... 12.9 194.0 -1.3 83 859 -1.2 228

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.4 339.8 -1.6 112 1,173 2.4 31

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 96.4 -4.6 310 760 -1.8 261

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.0 228.0 -2.2 174 1,538 10.6 2

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.2 222.5 -1.5 98 1,208 4.3 9

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.1 375.1 -1.6 112 1,146 0.4 127

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.7 239.5 -1.9 144 922 0.7 105

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.0 266.0 -2.9 234 1,421 2.0 45

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.4 140.5 -0.5 37 725 0.7 105

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.4 168.8 1.2 5 889 -1.8 261

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.2 163.7 -1.8 129 1,745 -0.6 188

Union, NJ ........................... 14.9 216.9 ( 7) – 1,177 ( 7) – 

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.4 309.5 -2.1 161 760 -1.3 237

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 217.1 -2.0 153 907 2.8 25

Bronx, NY .......................... 16.5 231.4 0.7 13 791 -1.5 246

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 90.6 -2.4 190 672 -2.5 285

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.1 110.3 -1.9 144 897 -0.7 196

Erie, NY ............................. 23.4 441.7 -0.5 37 757 -0.1 156

Kings, NY ........................... 48.6 483.9 1.4 4 718 -1.0 219

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.8 364.1 -1.3 83 820 -0.8 204

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.1 576.2 -1.5 98 985 2.0 45

New York, NY .................... 118.3 2,255.5 -1.7 121 2,404 11.9 1

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 106.0 -0.9 51 679 0.4 127

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.7 237.1 -2.2 174 795 -0.4 176

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 125.7 -1.0 57 $743 2.2 36

Queens, NY ....................... 44.3 485.1 -0.3 32 812 -1.0 219

Richmond, NY .................... 8.8 90.9 -1.1 67 728 -0.3 169

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.8 110.0 -1.8 129 966 0.7 105

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.0 591.4 -1.5 98 929 0.8 100

Westchester, NY ................ 35.8 393.1 -2.3 186 1,319 ( 7) – 

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.8 108.3 -1.6 112 654 -0.2 165

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.4 76.4 -2.4 190 643 2.9 20

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 117.6 -0.7 45 672 2.4 31

Durham, NC ....................... 7.1 175.1 -4.1 300 1,272 3.7 13

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.9 172.1 -3.0 242 827 2.2 36

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.1 255.6 -2.5 202 767 1.5 73

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 31.9 532.1 -2.1 161 1,150 8.4 4

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.2 94.5 -2.6 210 714 1.1 90

Wake, NC .......................... 28.2 423.6 -1.9 144 902 2.7 27

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 97.3 0.5 15 718 0.0 148

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 135.3 -1.5 98 775 0.6 117

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 36.0 673.1 -2.7 218 885 -0.8 204

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.0 638.1 -1.8 129 884 -1.1 225

Hamilton, OH ..................... 23.3 476.2 -2.8 224 953 0.4 127

Lake, OH ............................ 6.5 90.5 -4.3 305 747 3.8 12

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.1 88.9 -4.4 308 697 -2.0 272

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.4 194.1 -2.2 174 752 -2.5 285

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.1 93.3 -2.4 190 609 -1.9 266

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.3 236.5 -2.9 234 753 -2.8 291

Stark, OH ........................... 8.7 145.7 -3.7 286 641 -5.6 316

Summit, OH ....................... 14.4 248.7 -2.8 224 823 1.6 69

Oklahoma, OK ................... 24.2 403.7 -2.8 224 800 1.1 90

Tulsa, OK ........................... 20.2 324.6 -4.6 310 788 -2.1 275

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.5 134.6 -3.4 269 775 0.0 148

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 73.9 -2.0 153 625 -0.5 182

Lane, OR ........................... 10.8 133.4 -1.7 121 650 -0.8 204

Marion, OR ........................ 9.3 129.2 -1.4 92 687 -0.4 176

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.3 415.7 -2.1 161 874 0.0 148

Washington, OR ................ 16.0 230.1 -2.0 153 1,048 4.3 9

Allegheny, PA .................... 34.8 656.0 -1.2 76 951 0.1 141

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 159.1 -1.1 67 750 -2.1 275

Bucks, PA .......................... 19.6 244.5 -1.8 129 831 -1.7 256

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 76.8 -0.1 24 734 -0.3 169

Chester, PA ....................... 14.9 231.4 -2.0 153 1,132 1.3 79

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 118.5 -2.7 218 787 -1.3 237

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 173.0 -2.1 161 849 0.0 148

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.5 201.2 -1.0 57 965 2.4 31

Erie, PA .............................. 7.5 117.9 -3.0 242 654 -4.8 314

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 96.6 -2.0 153 648 0.6 117

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.5 213.2 -2.2 174 702 -2.2 279

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 166.9 -1.0 57 848 -1.2 228

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.7 134.6 -1.0 57 661 -1.3 237

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.2 454.0 -2.6 210 1,174 1.2 85

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 96.5 -0.4 35 755 -2.1 275

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Philadelphia, PA ................ 31.9 619.4 -0.9 51 $1,035 -1.4 242

Washington, PA ................. 5.4 76.5 -1.7 121 796 0.1 141

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.3 127.3 -2.5 202 676 -1.9 266

York, PA ............................. 9.0 165.5 -2.4 190 761 0.7 105

Providence, RI ................... 17.4 262.3 -1.5 98 876 1.3 79

Charleston, SC .................. 11.6 201.2 -1.4 92 737 -0.7 196

Greenville, SC .................... 12.0 222.9 -1.2 76 732 0.0 148

Horry, SC ........................... 7.6 101.2 -2.1 161 519 -1.5 246

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 92.5 -2.8 224 624 -0.8 204

Richland, SC ...................... 9.1 202.8 -1.5 98 774 -1.8 261

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.0 109.1 -2.5 202 748 -0.1 156

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.4 110.3 -2.4 190 713 -0.8 204

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.2 412.4 -1.5 98 901 2.6 28

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 177.1 -1.7 121 785 4.4 8

Knox, TN ............................ 10.8 212.4 -2.1 161 725 1.1 90

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 93.4 -0.2 29 761 3.4 17

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.2 462.1 -3.3 262 870 0.7 105

Williamson, TN ................... 6.0 85.6 ( 7) – 1,002 4.6 7

Bell, TX .............................. 4.6 104.6 ( 7) – 708 ( 7) – 

Bexar, TX ........................... 33.2 719.5 0.1 19 786 1.8 54

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.8 85.0 -1.7 121 838 -1.4 242

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.8 87.2 0.5 15 640 -0.6 188

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 124.1 0.9 10 531 0.6 117

Collin, TX ........................... 17.7 281.8 -0.3 32 1,017 -0.7 196

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.7 1,392.8 -1.9 144 1,093 0.7 105

Denton, TX ......................... 10.8 168.8 -0.1 24 746 -2.5 285

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.5 269.7 1.0 8 608 0.8 100

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.9 129.2 -1.6 112 909 -4.6 313

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 93.4 ( 7) – 815 ( 7) – 

Harris, TX ........................... 99.5 1,970.8 -2.5 202 1,168 2.2 36

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.8 219.8 0.6 14 540 0.2 138

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 118.8 -2.9 234 852 -1.2 228

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.9 121.6 -0.9 51 637 1.0 93

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 99.6 ( 7) – 708 1.7 60

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.5 125.7 -1.3 83 799 0.4 127

Nueces, TX ........................ 7.9 153.1 -1.1 67 704 -3.7 307

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 73.0 -2.4 190 731 ( 7) – 

Smith, TX ........................... 5.3 90.5 -1.4 92 712 -1.4 242

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.3 740.9 -1.3 83 875 1.7 60

Travis, TX .......................... 29.7 565.3 0.1 19 972 2.1 42

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 85.1 -1.5 98 561 1.6 69

Williamson, TX ................... 7.4 120.0 -0.1 24 867 1.9 47

Davis, UT ........................... 7.0 97.2 -0.3 32 688 0.9 98

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 36.2 551.1 -1.8 129 827 0.6 117

Utah, UT ............................ 12.5 160.5 -2.4 190 657 -0.2 165

Weber, UT ......................... 5.5 87.9 -3.1 248 626 0.3 135

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 90.6 -0.5 37 852 -2.0 272

Arlington, VA ...................... 8.0 160.4 1.6 3 1,520 3.6 14

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.6 112.0 -2.5 202 798 1.9 47

Fairfax, VA ......................... 34.1 563.1 -1.0 57 1,419 2.2 36

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.7 168.8 -3.0 242 $967 1.8 54

Loudoun, VA ...................... 9.2 128.7 0.2 18 1,071 1.6 69

Prince William, VA ............. 7.4 101.2 0.8 12 773 -0.1 156

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.1 96.0 -0.8 47 1,223 2.3 35

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 93.2 -1.8 129 702 1.2 85

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 95.0 -1.2 76 791 0.1 141

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 136.3 -2.6 210 834 -1.9 266

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.2 147.5 -2.5 202 1,025 -0.8 204

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.3 161.3 -1.2 76 677 -1.9 266

Benton, WA ........................ 5.4 77.4 5.0 2 915 1.6 69

Clark, WA ........................... 12.7 125.4 -0.9 51 763 -0.5 182

King, WA ............................ 79.0 1,098.9 -3.1 248 1,120 -0.6 188

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.5 80.1 -1.9 144 783 1.7 60

Pierce, WA ......................... 21.0 258.2 -2.6 210 794 0.3 135

Snohomish, WA ................. 18.3 235.9 -3.2 257 890 0.7 105

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.6 195.3 -2.4 190 716 -0.7 196

Thurston, WA ..................... 7.1 96.1 -2.1 161 794 0.6 117

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.8 76.4 -3.9 293 697 -0.6 188

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.7 94.0 -0.2 29 592 -0.8 204

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.0 103.8 -2.2 174 757 -3.8 309

Brown, WI .......................... 6.5 141.3 -1.1 67 772 -0.3 169

Dane, WI ............................ 13.7 288.5 -1.6 112 826 -1.5 246

Milwaukee, WI ................... 20.8 458.5 -2.8 224 867 -1.6 252

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 96.0 -4.3 305 723 1.3 79

Waukesha, WI ................... 12.7 211.9 -4.3 305 871 0.7 105

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 86.2 -0.5 37 815 4.8 6

San Juan, PR ..................... 11.6 265.7 -3.6 ( 8) 600 0.8 ( 8) 

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

These 326 U.S. counties comprise 70.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

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

first quarter 2010 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,043.6 126,281.7 -2.1 $889 0.8

Private industry .............................................. 8,746.4 104,193.4 -2.5 890 1.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 125.9 1,615.4 -3.3 1,019 2.7

Construction ............................................... 806.6 5,192.5 -12.4 894 -1.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 345.6 11,343.0 -6.2 1,081 1.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,875.7 23,997.7 -2.4 727 -0.7

Information ................................................. 144.0 2,707.0 -5.2 1,468 2.1

Financial activities ...................................... 824.9 7,380.6 -3.4 1,711 7.2

Professional and business services ........... 1,528.2 16,314.2 -1.2 1,153 2.0

Education and health services ................... 880.9 18,587.8 1.7 770 -0.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 740.1 12,534.9 -1.5 353 0.6

Other services ............................................ 1,267.8 4,296.4 -1.5 540 -0.4

Government ................................................... 297.2 22,088.3 -0.1 883 -0.2

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 431.4 3,863.3 -3.4 978 1.0

Private industry .............................................. 425.9 3,280.3 -3.4 958 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.1 -5.0 1,635 10.3

Construction ............................................... 13.1 104.6 -16.0 966 -0.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 13.6 373.5 -6.6 1,080 1.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 51.6 720.9 -2.8 764 -1.0

Information ................................................. 8.4 190.6 -2.9 1,805 2.0

Financial activities ...................................... 22.5 208.0 -4.3 1,736 9.4

Professional and business services ........... 41.2 524.0 -3.6 1,178 1.1

Education and health services ................... 28.4 510.9 0.7 859 -0.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.7 374.8 -2.9 520 0.6

Other services ............................................ 205.5 248.6 -4.0 421 -0.7

Government ................................................... 5.5 583.0 -3.1 1,093 0.3

Cook, IL .............................................................. 142.9 2,311.0 -2.9 1,083 -0.1

Private industry .............................................. 141.5 2,002.3 -3.1 1,088 -0.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 0.8 -7.1 840 5.7

Construction ............................................... 12.1 58.6 -15.8 1,289 -1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 6.7 192.0 -6.4 1,028 1.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.5 420.1 -3.5 777 -2.0

Information ................................................. 2.6 51.1 -5.4 1,676 2.5

Financial activities ...................................... 15.4 189.0 -4.5 2,465 2.2

Professional and business services ........... 29.7 389.6 -2.8 1,417 0.9

Education and health services ................... 14.6 389.0 0.6 815 -2.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 12.2 215.0 -1.3 402 -0.5

Other services ............................................ 15.2 92.3 -3.7 720 -1.5

Government ................................................... 1.4 308.7 -1.3 1,045 2.2

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.3 2,255.5 -1.7 2,404 11.9

Private industry .............................................. 118.0 1,806.6 -1.9 2,743 13.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -15.7 2,233 -0.7

Construction ............................................... 2.2 30.2 -13.2 1,532 3.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 26.4 -10.5 1,503 9.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.9 225.6 -2.2 1,175 3.8

Information ................................................. 4.3 127.6 -4.5 2,504 2.4

Financial activities ...................................... 18.7 341.6 -3.7 7,709 22.7

Professional and business services ........... 24.7 446.9 -3.2 2,422 10.9

Education and health services ................... 8.9 300.2 2.1 1,013 1.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.9 215.6 1.9 707 -1.9

Other services ............................................ 18.2 85.6 -3.2 1,174 18.1

Government ................................................... 0.3 448.9 -0.8 1,045 2.8

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 99.5 1,970.8 -2.5 $1,168 2.2

Private industry .............................................. 98.9 1,704.4 -3.1 1,204 2.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.6 71.7 -3.6 3,911 12.9

Construction ............................................... 6.5 133.4 -10.4 1,039 -1.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 167.1 -7.4 1,490 7.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.5 410.7 -2.9 1,084 1.4

Information ................................................. 1.3 28.7 -6.3 1,284 -2.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.5 112.0 -3.5 1,645 7.7

Professional and business services ........... 19.8 310.1 -4.0 1,333 0.2

Education and health services ................... 10.9 233.9 4.4 841 -1.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.9 176.6 -1.6 381 1.9

Other services ............................................ 13.0 59.0 0.2 617 -2.5

Government ................................................... 0.5 266.3 2.0 937 0.9

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 95.1 1,606.6 -3.8 848 -0.8

Private industry .............................................. 94.4 1,386.6 -4.0 854 0.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.6 -11.6 971 13.7

Construction ............................................... 9.1 80.2 -20.7 866 -1.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 105.6 -9.1 1,272 3.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.8 331.0 -3.0 796 0.0

Information ................................................. 1.5 27.0 -2.3 1,156 -2.4

Financial activities ...................................... 11.4 133.2 -3.1 1,176 2.5

Professional and business services ........... 21.6 258.1 -4.4 893 0.0

Education and health services ................... 10.2 224.7 3.7 862 -1.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 172.1 -3.6 403 1.3

Other services ............................................ 6.8 46.1 -0.8 549 -2.3

Government ................................................... 0.7 219.9 -2.7 811 -6.5

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.7 1,392.8 -1.9 1,093 0.7

Private industry .............................................. 67.2 1,223.5 -2.3 1,113 0.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 7.8 0.6 3,466 14.2

Construction ............................................... 4.2 66.6 -12.6 955 1.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 113.2 -8.2 1,271 0.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 276.3 -2.7 954 0.1

Information ................................................. 1.6 45.1 -3.9 1,852 1.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.5 135.6 -3.1 1,729 5.9

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 253.2 -0.6 1,228 -0.5

Education and health services ................... 6.9 161.5 4.4 919 -0.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.5 125.3 -0.8 487 -2.2

Other services ............................................ 7.0 38.0 0.1 607 -2.7

Government ................................................... 0.5 169.3 0.8 952 0.1

Orange, CA ........................................................ 101.6 1,342.8 -4.2 1,001 1.2

Private industry .............................................. 100.2 1,194.0 -4.2 976 1.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 5.0 -2.3 524 -6.9

Construction ............................................... 6.5 66.4 -15.2 1,038 -3.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.0 149.3 -7.3 1,209 5.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 16.3 239.9 -3.7 896 -0.7

Information ................................................. 1.3 25.1 -10.4 1,814 15.2

Financial activities ...................................... 9.9 103.3 -3.8 1,579 5.5

Professional and business services ........... 18.5 235.4 -4.4 1,132 0.5

Education and health services ................... 10.1 154.5 1.2 852 -1.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 162.4 -2.9 391 3.2

Other services ............................................ 20.5 47.5 -1.2 502 -2.3

Government ................................................... 1.4 148.8 -3.8 1,197 0.8

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 98.5 1,229.8 -2.8 $930 -0.6

Private industry .............................................. 97.2 1,004.0 -3.3 912 -0.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.7 9.8 -2.5 530 -2.6

Construction ............................................... 6.5 55.1 -14.3 982 0.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 92.6 -6.2 1,354 3.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 13.7 192.9 -2.9 740 -1.7

Information ................................................. 1.2 25.3 -5.9 1,423 1.9

Financial activities ...................................... 8.7 67.1 -4.0 1,233 -2.1

Professional and business services ........... 15.9 204.0 -4.0 1,260 0.2

Education and health services ................... 8.3 146.2 1.5 844 -0.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 149.7 -1.6 381 -2.8

Other services ............................................ 27.9 57.0 -1.2 479 0.4

Government ................................................... 1.3 225.8 -0.6 1,010 -0.7

King, WA ............................................................ 79.0 1,098.9 -3.1 1,120 -0.6

Private industry .............................................. 78.5 941.8 -3.7 1,129 -0.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.8 2.9 1,491 -5.0

Construction ............................................... 5.8 45.7 -19.4 1,112 -1.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.3 96.9 -6.8 1,383 1.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.4 199.1 -3.2 961 -0.4

Information ................................................. 1.7 78.4 -3.2 2,136 0.2

Financial activities ...................................... 6.5 64.6 -7.5 1,542 -2.3

Professional and business services ........... 13.5 170.1 -3.5 1,350 2.4

Education and health services ................... 6.7 130.2 -0.2 857 -0.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.2 104.0 -1.4 434 2.6

Other services ............................................ 21.0 50.0 8.3 574 -4.5

Government ................................................... 0.5 157.1 0.6 1,066 -0.8

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 84.8 947.4 -2.0 845 -1.3

Private industry .............................................. 84.4 801.0 -1.9 819 0.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.7 -5.7 379 -5.3

Construction ............................................... 5.5 31.7 -17.1 831 -2.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 34.6 -10.8 827 5.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.6 234.6 -1.3 763 -0.3

Information ................................................. 1.5 17.7 -4.7 1,370 3.3

Financial activities ...................................... 9.2 60.6 -4.0 1,439 6.2

Professional and business services ........... 17.7 122.9 -1.8 988 0.3

Education and health services ................... 9.6 148.2 2.1 792 -0.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.2 105.5 1.3 466 -1.7

Other services ............................................ 7.6 34.8 -1.4 519 -1.9

Government ................................................... 0.4 146.4 -2.8 988 -7.9

 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 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, 

first quarter 2010 2

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10

United States 4 ................... 9,043.6 126,281.7 -2.1 $889 0.8

Alabama ............................. 117.0 1,803.7 -2.1 737 0.0

Alaska ................................ 21.2 304.4 0.2 878 -0.9

Arizona ............................... 148.9 2,373.3 -3.5 800 -0.9

Arkansas ............................ 86.0 1,133.6 -1.0 674 -2.9

California ............................ 1,367.1 14,280.4 -3.0 1,003 0.9

Colorado ............................ 171.7 2,151.3 -2.7 912 -0.1

Connecticut ........................ 111.6 1,566.7 -3.2 1,206 1.3

Delaware ............................ 28.5 388.4 -2.9 971 -0.5

District of Columbia ............ 34.3 685.2 1.2 1,505 2.8

Florida ................................ 595.5 7,162.0 -2.6 766 -0.5

Georgia .............................. 269.0 3,728.2 -2.6 837 0.6

Hawaii ................................ 39.3 585.6 -2.4 767 -0.9

Idaho .................................. 55.3 591.8 -1.6 634 -0.6

Illinois ................................. 376.9 5,406.6 -2.6 946 -0.4

Indiana ............................... 160.2 2,666.1 -1.3 739 0.0

Iowa ................................... 94.0 1,410.0 -1.6 707 -0.1

Kansas ............................... 87.8 1,286.4 -2.9 718 -0.1

Kentucky ............................ 109.2 1,690.8 -1.1 712 0.0

Louisiana ........................... 128.6 1,827.6 -2.1 762 -1.4

Maine ................................. 48.9 557.7 -0.9 691 0.4

Maryland ............................ 162.1 2,414.4 -1.6 977 1.5

Massachusetts ................... 216.7 3,071.0 -1.2 1,098 -0.2

Michigan ............................ 250.9 3,677.2 -2.3 815 -1.2

Minnesota .......................... 168.8 2,493.9 -1.8 883 0.2

Mississippi ......................... 69.9 1,068.6 -1.8 633 0.0

Missouri ............................. 173.1 2,554.7 -2.4 762 -0.9

Montana ............................. 42.2 411.0 -0.6 634 1.0

Nebraska ........................... 59.4 880.4 -1.7 694 -0.7

Nevada .............................. 73.9 1,097.8 -4.6 780 -3.7

New Hampshire ................. 47.7 589.9 -1.7 833 -0.6

New Jersey ........................ 269.6 3,710.7 -1.5 1,121 1.8

New Mexico ....................... 54.2 777.3 -2.0 716 -0.8

New York ........................... 586.1 8,239.4 -1.1 1,281 6.1

North Carolina .................... 250.8 3,752.2 -2.5 791 3.1

North Dakota ...................... 25.8 347.2 1.5 684 2.5

Ohio ................................... 285.3 4,806.4 -2.7 783 -0.8

Oklahoma .......................... 102.7 1,474.2 -3.0 705 -0.4

Oregon ............................... 130.3 1,570.1 -1.9 776 0.5

Pennsylvania ..................... 341.3 5,376.6 -1.3 858 -0.3

Rhode Island ...................... 35.1 437.1 -1.1 836 0.7

South Carolina ................... 111.9 1,742.0 -1.9 692 -0.1

South Dakota ..................... 30.8 377.2 -1.4 634 0.6

Tennessee ......................... 139.9 2,535.5 -1.7 764 1.6

Texas ................................. 569.5 10,101.3 -1.3 893 0.8

Utah ................................... 82.7 1,135.8 -2.2 729 0.3

Vermont ............................. 24.3 288.6 -1.0 716 -0.4

Virginia ............................... 231.6 3,489.1 -1.3 932 1.3

Washington ........................ 226.0 2,752.4 -2.2 899 -0.4

West Virginia ...................... 48.5 682.3 -1.1 693 -1.6

Wisconsin .......................... 156.8 2,565.5 -2.1 741 -0.8

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

first quarter 2010 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2010

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2010

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2009-10

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2009-10

Wyoming ............................ 25.0 262.2 -3.8 $775 -0.4

Puerto Rico ........................ 49.2 943.4 -2.6 497 0.0

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.6 44.9 0.5 720 5.1

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

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

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 October 2010

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

March 2009-10 (U.S. average = -2.1 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 October 2010

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

or more employees, first quarter 2009-10 (U.S. average = 0.8 percent)