For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Tuesday, December 5, 2017 USDL-17-1613

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Second Quarter 2017

From June 2016 to June 2017, employment increased in 318 of the 346 largest U.S. counties, the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Midland, Texas, had the largest percentage increase with a 

gain of 7.3 percent over the year, above the national job growth rate of 1.7 percent. Within Midland, the 

largest employment increase occurred in natural resources and mining, which gained 3,497 jobs over the 

year (19.6 percent). Lucas, Ohio, had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment 

among the largest counties in the U.S., with a loss of 1.9 percent. Within Lucas, construction had the 

largest decrease in employment, with a loss of 1,534 jobs (-14.2 percent). 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased 3.2 percent over the year, growing to $1,020 in the second 

quarter of 2017. New Hanover, N.C., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in average 

weekly wages with a gain of 11.9 percent. Within New Hanover, an average weekly wage gain of $589

(62.7 percent) in professional and business services made the largest contribution to the county’s 

increase in average weekly wages. McLean, Ill., had the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in 

average weekly wages with a loss of 20.4 percent. Within McLean, financial activities had the largest 

impact on the county’s average weekly wage change with a decrease of $953 (-38.9 percent) over the 

year.

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, June 2016-17

(U.S. average = 1.7 percent)

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, second quarter 2016-17 

(U.S. average = 3.2 percent)

4

5

6

7

8

Midland,

Texas

Weld,

Colo.

Utah,

Utah

York,

S.C.

Elkhart,

Ind.

Percent

9

10

11

12

New

Hanover,

N.C.

San Mateo,

Calif.

Midland,

Texas

Kitsap,

Wash.

Clackamas,

Ore.

Percent
- 2 -

County employment and wage data are from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) 

program, which provides the only detailed quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the county, metropolitan statistical area, state, and national levels by detailed 

industry. These data are published within 6 months following the end of each quarter.

Large County Employment

In June 2017, national employment was 145.2 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the 

year, employment increased 1.7 percent, or 2.4 million. In June 2017, the 346 U.S. counties with 75,000 

or more jobs accounted for 72.7 percent of total U.S. employment and 77.7 percent of total wages. These

346 counties had a net job growth of 1.8 million over the year, accounting for 76.8 percent of the overall 

U.S. employment increase. (See chart 3.) The 5 counties with the largest increases in employment levels 

had a combined over-the-year employment gain of 258,900 jobs, which was 10.8 percent of the overall 

job increase for the U.S. (See table A.) 

Employment declined in 23 of the largest counties from June 2016 to June 2017. Lucas, Ohio, had the 

largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-1.9 percent), followed by Caddo, La.;

Kanawha, W.Va.; Shawnee, Kan.; and Anchorage, Alaska. (See table 1.)

Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2017 employment, June 2016-17 employment increase, and 

June 2016-17 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

June 2017 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) June 2016-17 June 2016-17

(thousands)

United States 145,186.4 United States 2,407.0 United States 1.7

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,373.6 Los Angeles, Calif. 71.9 Midland, Texas 7.3

Cook, Ill. 2,598.4 Maricopa, Ariz. 61.2 Weld, Colo. 5.3

New York, N.Y. 2,469.1 King, Wash. 44.2 Utah, Utah 5.2

Harris, Texas 2,284.5 New York, N.Y. 41.1 York, S.C. 4.8

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,891.7 Dallas, Texas 40.5 Elkhart, Ind. 4.7

Dallas, Texas 1,686.9 Orange, Calif. 33.2 Davis, Utah 4.5

Orange, Calif. 1,598.1 San Diego, Calif. 28.9 Clark, Wash. 4.4

San Diego, Calif. 1,440.9 Fulton, Ga. 27.9 Deschutes, Ore. 4.3

King, Wash. 1,369.7 Clark, Nev. 26.9 Boone, Ky. 4.2

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,111.0 Orange, Fla. 26.5 Williamson, Tenn. 4.1

Large County Average Weekly Wages

Average weekly wages for the nation increased to $1,020, a 3.2 percent increase, during the year ending 

in the second quarter of 2017. Among the 346 largest counties, 325 had over-the-year increases in 

average weekly wages. (See chart 4.) New Hanover, N.C., had the largest percentage wage increase 

among the largest U.S. counties (11.9 percent). (See table B.)

Of the 346 largest counties, 19 experienced an over-the-year decrease in average weekly wages.

McLean, Ill., had the largest percentage decrease in average weekly wages (-20.4 percent), followed by

Union, N.J.; Warren, Ohio; Somerset, N.J.; Fairfield, Conn.; and Washington, Ore. (See table 1.)
- 3 -

Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2017 average weekly wages, second quarter 2016-17

increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2016-17 percent increase in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

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

second quarter 2017 wage, second quarter 2016-17 weekly wage, second

quarter 2016-17

United States $1,020 United States $32 United States 3.2

Santa Clara, Calif. $2,392 San Mateo, Calif. $214 New Hanover, N.C. 11.9

San Mateo, Calif. 2,093 Santa Clara, Calif. 141 San Mateo, Calif. 11.4

San Francisco, Calif. 1,941 Midland, Texas 135 Midland, Texas 11.4

New York, N.Y. 1,907 San Francisco, Calif. 132 Kitsap, Wash. 11.0

Washington, D.C. 1,675 Morris, N.J. 102 Clackamas, Ore. 10.0

Suffolk, Mass. 1,651 Kitsap, Wash. 97 Bell, Texas 9.6

Arlington, Va. 1,609 New Hanover, N.C. 94 St. Louis, Minn. 9.5

Fairfax, Va. 1,542 Clackamas, Ore. 93 Newport News City, Va. 7.4

Morris, N.J. 1,525 King, Wash. 83 San Francisco, Calif. 7.3

Middlesex, Mass. 1,522 Bell, Texas 77 Washington, Ark. 7.2

Morris, N.J. 7.2

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

All of the largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June 2017. King, 

Wash., and Maricopa, Ariz., had the largest gain (3.3 percent). Within King, trade, transportation, and 

utilities had the largest over-the-year employment level increase, with a gain of 16,004 jobs, or 6.4 

percent. Within Maricopa, education and health services had the largest over-the-year employment level 

increase, with a gain of 11,768 jobs, or 4.2 percent. Cook, Ill., had the lowest percentage increase in 

employment among the 10 largest counties (0.3 percent). Within Cook, leisure and hospitality had the 

largest over-the-year employment level increase, with a gain of 7,020 jobs, or 2.4 percent. (See table 2.)

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

experienced the largest percentage gain in average weekly wages (6.0 percent). Within King, trade, 

transportation, and utilities had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage growth. Within 

trade, transportation, and utilities, average weekly wages increased by $183, or 12.8 percent, over the 

year. Harris, Texas, had the only percent loss in average weekly wages among the 10 largest counties 

(-0.4 percent). Within Harris, natural resources and mining had the largest impact on the county’s 

average weekly wage growth with a decrease of $290 (-9.0 percent) over the year. 
- 4 -

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 346 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2016. June 2017 employment and 2017 

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

The data are derived from reports submitted by employers who are subject to unemployment insurance 

(UI) laws. The 9.9 million employer reports cover 145.2 million full- and part-time workers. Data for the 

second quarter of 2017 will be available later at www.bls.gov/cew. Additional information about the 

quarterly employment and wages data is available in the Technical Note. More information about 

QCEW data may be obtained by calling (202) 691-6567.

The most current news release on quarterly measures of gross job flows is available from QCEW 

Business Employment Dynamics at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf.

Several BLS regional offices issue QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. Links to these 

releases are available at www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2017 is scheduled to be released on

Thursday, March 8, 2018.
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 2017 North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). Data for 2017 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 347 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2016 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2017 data, three counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Sussex, Del.; Maui + Kalawao, Hawaii; and Deschutes, Ore. These counties will be included 

in all 2017 quarterly releases. One county, Gregg, Texas, which 

was published in the 2016 releases, will be excluded from this and 

future 2017 releases because its 2016 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 9.9 million establishments in first quarter of 2017

Count of longitudinally-linked UI administrative records submitted by 7.9 

million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 634,000 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

— Within 6 months after the end of 

each quarter

Quarterly

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter

Monthly

— Usually the 3rd Friday after the end 

of the week including the 12th of the 

month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

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

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking)

Principal

products

Provides a quarterly and annual universe count of establishments, employment, and wages at the county, 

metropolitan statistical area (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 federal 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/sae
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 9.7 million employer 

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

2016. 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 2016, UI and 

UCFE programs covered workers in 141.9 million jobs. The estimated 

136.6 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.4 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $7.607 trillion in pay, representing 

94.1 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income 

and 40.9 percent of the gross domestic product.

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

Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, and 

employees of certain small nonprofit organizations.

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes may 

have an impact on the employment and wages reported by employers 

covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may affect the overthe-year comparisons presented in this news release.

Concepts and methodology

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

reported, including production and sales workers, corporation officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. Workers on paid vacations and part-time workers also are included.

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values that 

can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage data are 

non-wage cash payments such as bonuses, the cash value of meals and 

lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, and, in some states, 

employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans such 

as 401(k) plans and stock options. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between the current quarter and 

prior year levels.

Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time to parttime workers as well as the number of individuals in high-paying and 

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

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

increase significantly when there is a large decline in the number of 

employees that had been receiving below-average wages. Wages may 

include payments to workers not present in the employment counts 

because they did not work during the pay period including the 12th of 

the month. When comparing average weekly wage levels between industries, states, or quarters, these factors should be taken into consideration.

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

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

particular, this effect has been observed in counties where government 

employers represent a large fraction of overall employment. Similar 

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

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

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

pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal 

payroll processing. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly 

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to ensure the highest possible quality of data, states verify 

with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, and 

ownership classification of all establishments on a 3-year cycle. 
Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of the 

year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also are 

introduced in the first quarter.

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry for 

a number of reasons—some reflecting economic events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation.

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

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

done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the over-theyear changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2016 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

prior-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year percent change in 

employment and wages are not published. These adjusted prior-year 

levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS Web 

site. Over-the-year change calculations based on data from the Web 

site, or from data published in prior BLS news releases, may differ 

substantially from the over-the-year changes presented in this news 

release.

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

measures presented in this release account for most of the administrative changes—those occurring when employers update the industry, 

location, and ownership information of their establishments. The most 

common adjustments for administrative change are the result of updated information about the county location of individual establishments. Included in these adjustments are administrative changes involving the classification of establishments that were previously reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry categories. Adjusted data account for improvements in reporting employment and wages for individual and multi-unit establishments. To accomplish this, adjustments were implemented to account for: administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers who start reporting 

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

quarter of 2008);selected large administrative changes in employment 

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

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

adjustments allow QCEW to include county employment and wage 

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

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending points 

(a 12-month period) used in that particular release. Comparisons may 

not be valid for any time period other than the one featured in a release 

even if the changes were calculated using adjusted data.

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by the 

Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information 

Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties include those designated as independent cities in some jurisdictions and, 

in Alaska, those designated as census areas where counties have not 

been created. County data also are presented for the New England 

states for comparative purposes even though townships are the more 

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

Additional statistics and other information

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2016 edition of this 

publication, which was published in September 2017, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on 

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

2017 version of this news release. Tables and additional content from

the 2016 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online 

are now available at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn16.htm. The 2017

edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be 

available in September 2018.

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available from BED at www.bls.gov/bdm, (202) 691-6467, or 

data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/forms/bdm.

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

message referral phone number: (800) 877-8339.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 347 largest counties,

second quarter 2017

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

United States4.............................. 9,922.4 145,186.4 1.7 - $1,020 3.2 -

Jefferson, AL................................ 18.5 345.1 1.2 212 1,008 4.3 71

Madison, AL................................. 9.6 197.0 2.7 70 1,072 2.3 220

Mobile, AL.................................... 10.1 170.3 -0.1 324 857 1.4 273

Montgomery, AL........................... 6.4 133.2 1.1 222 840 0.2 322

Shelby, AL.................................... 5.8 85.2 0.6 274 948 2.6 196

Tuscaloosa, AL............................. 4.6 91.7 0.7 264 850 4.8 48

Anchorage, AK............................. 8.3 151.4 -1.1 342 1,064 1.0 300

Maricopa, AZ................................ 96.5 1,891.7 3.3 29 986 1.6 261

Pima, AZ....................................... 18.8 359.5 1.8 146 861 4.2 75

Benton, AR................................... 6.4 118.0 2.1 117 1,022 2.6 196

Pulaski, AR................................... 14.4 250.1 0.7 264 909 1.5 266

Washington, AR........................... 6.0 106.3 1.9 134 867 7.2 10

Alameda, CA................................ 62.9 778.9 2.9 55 1,376 5.8 23

Butte, CA..................................... 8.5 82.8 2.2 109 771 3.4 134

Contra Costa, CA......................... 32.0 370.7 1.5 183 1,240 3.9 92

Fresno, CA................................... 35.1 392.9 2.2 109 805 3.9 92

Kern, CA....................................... 18.8 325.6 3.1 37 840 2.2 226

Los Angeles, CA........................... 483.9 4,373.6 1.7 157 1,130 3.8 102

Marin, CA..................................... 12.5 118.0 2.2 109 1,278 1.4 273

Merced, CA................................. 6.6 80.0 1.9 134 790 3.8 102

Monterey, CA............................... 13.7 205.9 0.3 304 878 4.6 57

Napa, CA..................................... 5.9 79.3 2.4 89 1,014 4.8 48

Orange, CA.................................. 119.3 1,598.1 2.1 117 1,130 2.5 207

Placer, CA.................................... 12.9 162.4 3.0 47 1,015 1.9 242

Riverside, CA............................... 63.0 713.6 3.2 33 826 2.0 236

Sacramento, CA........................... 57.4 652.4 2.6 80 1,107 3.9 92

San Bernardino, CA..................... 58.1 727.0 3.3 29 863 2.6 196

San Diego, CA.............................. 109.8 1,440.9 2.0 125 1,101 2.8 183

San Francisco, CA....................... 60.4 717.4 3.1 37 1,941 7.3 9

San Joaquin, CA.......................... 17.6 248.9 3.4 24 863 4.5 60

San Luis Obispo, CA.................... 10.4 120.6 3.5 21 870 3.7 114

San Mateo, CA............................. 28.1 402.5 2.8 62 2,093 11.4 2

Santa Barbara, CA....................... 15.5 201.7 1.8 146 988 4.4 66

Santa Clara, CA........................... 72.2 1,077.3 2.5 85 2,392 6.3 14

Santa Cruz, CA............................ 9.6 110.3 1.8 146 950 5.7 25

Solano, CA................................... 11.4 139.9 2.0 125 1,056 5.0 41

Sonoma, CA................................. 20.0 208.4 2.5 85 973 4.6 57

Stanislaus, CA.............................. 15.4 189.3 2.5 85 860 5.0 41

Tulare, CA.................................... 10.3 169.4 3.1 37 711 0.7 309

Ventura, CA.................................. 26.9 326.4 1.3 200 1,015 2.9 175

Yolo, CA....................................... 6.7 103.5 2.2 109 1,098 3.7 114

Adams, CO................................... 10.9 206.7 3.0 47 975 2.1 231

Arapahoe, CO.............................. 22.0 331.5 2.3 99 1,166 4.4 66

Boulder, CO.................................. 15.2 181.2 2.3 99 1,192 4.4 66

Denver, CO.................................. 32.1 510.0 3.1 37 1,214 3.4 134

Douglas, CO................................. 12.0 123.6 2.8 62 1,135 4.1 82

El Paso, CO.................................. 19.6 274.0 3.0 47 899 2.6 196

Jefferson, CO............................... 20.2 235.7 0.4 294 1,047 4.1 82

Larimer, CO.................................. 12.0 160.5 2.8 62 899 3.2 148

Weld, CO...................................... 7.3 106.1 5.3 2 894 5.1 38

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 347 largest counties,

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Fairfield, CT................................. 35.3 429.3 -0.5 334 $1,503 -1.9 341

Hartford, CT.................................. 27.9 514.9 0.8 252 1,214 1.6 261

New Haven, CT............................ 24.0 369.2 1.2 212 1,067 2.3 220

New London, CT.......................... 7.5 126.7 1.9 134 1,003 -0.2 331

New Castle, DE............................ 19.6 286.6 -0.3 327 1,135 3.3 140

Sussex, DE.................................. 6.7 84.6 3.4 24 732 2.2 226

Washington, DC........................... 39.0 766.5 1.0 235 1,675 3.3 140

Alachua, FL.................................. 7.2 127.3 2.8 62 845 -1.4 338

Bay, FL......................................... 5.7 78.9 1.0 235 760 3.8 102

Brevard, FL................................... 15.8 206.5 2.9 55 932 6.5 13

Broward, FL.................................. 69.7 793.0 2.4 89 958 3.1 156

Collier, FL..................................... 13.9 135.4 2.3 99 874 0.9 303

Duval, FL..................................... 29.9 500.3 3.2 33 959 3.2 148

Escambia, FL............................... 8.3 133.7 3.8 13 783 0.1 324

Hillsborough, FL........................... 42.4 663.6 2.0 125 964 1.2 291

Lake, FL....................................... 8.2 92.2 3.3 29 702 3.2 148

Lee, FL......................................... 22.1 248.2 3.1 37 830 2.9 175

Leon, FL....................................... 8.8 146.2 0.7 264 819 0.4 315

Manatee, FL................................. 10.9 116.7 3.0 47 792 1.7 253

Marion, FL.................................... 8.3 100.6 2.7 70 716 0.0 326

Miami-Dade, FL............................ 98.8 1,111.0 1.8 146 971 1.8 247

Okaloosa, FL................................ 6.4 82.7 0.9 247 868 5.7 25

Orange, FL................................... 42.4 811.8 3.4 24 900 3.9 92

Osceola, FL.................................. 7.0 89.1 3.0 47 716 3.6 124

Palm Beach, FL............................ 56.4 593.4 2.4 89 1,002 3.7 114

Pasco, FL..................................... 11.0 109.5 3.2 33 749 2.3 220

Pinellas, FL................................... 33.1 425.8 2.6 80 888 1.4 273

Polk, FL........................................ 13.3 209.9 2.3 99 773 0.8 307

Sarasota, FL................................ 15.9 163.3 2.4 89 839 2.9 175

Seminole, FL................................ 15.1 187.0 2.7 70 891 4.2 75

Volusia, FL................................... 14.4 167.2 2.6 80 751 2.7 189

Bibb, GA....................................... 4.2 83.0 0.2 311 775 -0.1 328

Chatham, GA................................ 8.2 152.7 1.5 183 857 3.5 125

Clayton, GA.................................. 4.0 122.4 0.5 287 966 3.4 134

Cobb, GA...................................... 22.1 358.4 2.7 70 1,070 3.5 125

DeKalb, GA................................. 18.0 298.6 1.0 235 1,030 1.4 273

Fulton, GA.................................... 43.5 854.1 3.4 24 1,329 3.4 134

Gwinnett, GA................................ 25.0 352.5 1.7 157 969 0.4 315

Hall, GA....................................... 4.4 85.7 4.0 11 866 6.1 15

Muscogee, GA.............................. 4.6 93.1 0.8 252 782 1.4 273

Richmond, GA.............................. 4.4 104.2 0.6 274 843 2.6 196

Honolulu, HI.................................. 26.3 472.5 0.6 274 976 3.8 102

Maui + Kalawao, HI...................... 6.2 77.3 1.6 170 840 2.8 183

Ada, ID......................................... 15.4 235.8 4.0 11 884 3.3 140

Champaign, IL.............................. 4.4 89.6 -0.3 327 886 2.5 207

Cook, IL........................................ 155.4 2,598.4 0.3 304 1,179 3.1 156

DuPage, IL................................. 38.6 631.9 1.1 222 1,149 3.0 168

Kane, IL........................................ 13.9 216.3 2.1 117 898 2.3 220

Lake, IL........................................ 22.6 349.0 2.7 70 1,300 2.1 231

McHenry, IL.................................. 8.8 100.4 0.7 264 827 1.2 291

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 347 largest counties,

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

McLean, IL.................................... 3.7 83.5 -0.2 325 $920 -20.4 346

Madison, IL................................... 6.0 98.1 1.3 200 791 2.2 226

Peoria, IL...................................... 4.6 100.3 0.3 304 907 0.8 307

St. Clair, IL.................................... 5.5 93.3 0.5 287 812 5.2 37

Sangamon, IL............................... 5.2 129.5 0.4 294 988 0.5 312

Will, IL.......................................... 16.4 242.3 2.3 99 886 1.3 282

Winnebago, IL.............................. 6.6 127.8 0.0 319 844 1.2 291

Allen, IN........................................ 8.8 186.6 1.5 183 829 3.2 148

Elkhart, IN..................................... 4.7 135.0 4.7 5 915 3.5 125

Hamilton, IN.................................. 9.4 142.0 2.4 89 955 2.8 183

Lake, IN........................................ 10.4 188.5 0.2 311 854 1.8 247

Marion, IN..................................... 24.1 597.4 1.2 212 1,027 4.7 52

St. Joseph, IN............................... 5.8 123.7 0.0 319 828 3.0 168

Tippecanoe, IN............................. 3.4 82.4 -0.5 334 878 5.0 41

Vanderburgh, IN........................... 4.8 107.9 0.6 274 827 4.9 45

Johnson, IA.................................. 4.2 84.1 1.7 157 944 3.1 156

Linn, IA......................................... 6.8 132.3 0.5 287 971 2.6 196

Polk, IA........................................ 17.3 303.5 1.9 134 1,018 4.3 71

Scott, IA........................................ 5.6 93.0 1.6 170 812 2.4 215

Johnson, KS................................. 23.7 342.0 1.0 235 1,031 1.2 291

Sedgwick, KS............................... 12.7 247.2 -0.5 334 860 0.4 315

Shawnee, KS................................ 5.2 96.5 -1.2 343 842 4.9 45

Wyandotte, KS............................. 3.5 91.0 0.7 264 987 5.9 18

Boone, KY................................... 4.3 87.7 4.2 9 888 -1.8 340

Fayette, KY................................... 10.8 193.7 0.8 252 918 4.2 75

Jefferson, KY................................ 24.9 468.0 1.2 212 1,014 4.3 71

Caddo, LA.................................... 7.3 112.5 -1.7 345 804 1.5 266

Calcasieu, LA............................... 5.3 98.3 2.6 80 871 2.8 183

East Baton Rouge, LA.................. 15.7 261.4 0.5 287 959 1.9 242

Jefferson, LA................................ 14.0 192.7 -0.8 339 905 4.5 60

Lafayette, LA................................ 9.6 128.7 -0.4 331 860 0.1 324

Orleans, LA.................................. 12.6 191.9 0.4 294 928 0.5 312

St. Tammany, LA.......................... 8.3 88.4 -0.3 327 850 2.9 175

Cumberland, ME.......................... 14.0 186.7 1.9 134 909 0.9 303

Anne Arundel, MD........................ 15.2 274.4 1.6 170 1,089 4.1 82

Baltimore, MD............................... 21.4 379.4 0.0 319 1,005 3.1 156

Frederick, MD............................... 6.4 102.0 1.5 183 931 1.5 266

Harford, MD.................................. 5.8 94.6 1.9 134 952 1.1 298

Howard, MD................................. 10.1 172.4 0.2 311 1,220 2.1 231

Montgomery, MD.......................... 33.0 477.9 1.3 200 1,333 1.4 273

Prince George's, MD.................... 16.0 322.4 3.5 21 1,064 3.7 114

Baltimore City, MD....................... 13.7 341.5 1.5 183 1,183 4.1 82

Barnstable, MA............................. 9.5 108.6 2.0 125 869 4.2 75

Bristol, MA.................................... 17.5 230.5 1.3 200 950 1.3 282

Essex, MA.................................... 25.4 330.4 0.0 319 1,093 3.7 114

Hampden, MA.............................. 18.1 209.8 0.6 274 900 1.7 253

Middlesex, MA.............................. 55.0 912.0 2.1 117 1,522 3.3 140

Norfolk, MA................................... 25.4 357.7 0.8 252 1,182 3.7 114

Plymouth, MA............................... 15.9 198.2 1.9 134 1,000 4.8 48

Suffolk, MA................................... 29.5 677.3 2.3 99 1,651 4.4 66

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 347 largest counties,

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Worcester, MA.............................. 25.2 350.0 1.1 222 $1,012 2.0 236

Genesee, MI................................. 6.8 136.3 0.7 264 832 0.6 310

Ingham, MI................................... 6.0 151.7 1.6 170 969 2.1 231

Kalamazoo, MI............................. 5.0 119.1 1.3 200 938 2.7 189

Kent, MI....................................... 14.4 398.2 2.0 125 884 3.9 92

Macomb, MI.................................. 17.6 334.7 1.2 212 1,007 3.2 148

Oakland, MI.................................. 39.2 741.5 2.1 117 1,131 3.1 156

Ottawa, MI.................................... 5.6 126.5 0.9 247 858 2.3 220

Saginaw, MI.................................. 3.9 84.5 -0.3 327 818 3.7 114

Washtenaw, MI............................. 8.2 207.1 2.0 125 1,094 2.0 236

Wayne, MI.................................... 30.8 725.2 1.2 212 1,111 2.5 207

Anoka, MN.................................... 7.1 124.4 2.4 89 980 1.9 242

Dakota, MN.................................. 9.9 190.3 2.1 117 998 3.1 156

Hennepin, MN.............................. 39.0 919.1 1.8 146 1,273 4.8 48

Olmsted, MN................................ 3.4 99.1 2.1 117 1,073 3.8 102

Ramsey, MN................................. 13.3 334.8 2.2 109 1,131 1.6 261

St. Louis, MN................................ 5.3 99.8 1.1 222 855 9.5 7

Stearns, MN................................. 4.4 88.1 1.9 134 831 -0.1 328

Washington, MN........................... 5.5 86.5 3.0 47 882 5.9 18

Harrison, MS................................ 4.6 86.9 1.8 146 718 3.0 168

Hinds, MS..................................... 5.8 120.7 -0.8 339 849 1.0 300

Boone, MO................................... 5.1 93.5 1.2 212 822 3.8 102

Clay, MO...................................... 5.7 106.9 2.8 62 904 2.8 183

Greene, MO.................................. 9.0 166.2 1.9 134 789 2.7 189

Jackson, MO................................ 22.1 371.6 1.8 146 1,021 3.5 125

St. Charles, MO............................ 9.5 149.4 1.6 170 823 -0.4 333

St. Louis, MO................................ 39.0 610.4 0.8 252 1,059 1.7 253

St. Louis City, MO........................ 14.6 227.7 0.9 247 1,077 4.7 52

Yellowstone, MT........................... 6.7 82.7 0.3 304 875 2.9 175

Douglas, NE................................. 19.1 341.3 1.1 222 938 2.9 175

Lancaster, NE............................... 10.3 168.8 0.3 304 820 3.8 102

Clark, NV..................................... 55.0 967.0 2.9 55 886 2.2 226

Washoe, NV................................. 14.6 217.7 3.6 16 906 3.5 125

Hillsborough, NH.......................... 12.2 204.1 1.5 183 1,080 3.1 156

Merrimack, NH............................. 5.2 77.8 1.1 222 944 4.1 82

Rockingham, NH.......................... 10.9 153.0 2.3 99 1,009 1.0 300

Atlantic, NJ................................... 6.6 132.1 0.3 304 855 2.0 236

Bergen, NJ................................... 33.2 453.0 0.8 252 1,179 1.3 282

Burlington, NJ............................... 11.0 210.1 2.7 70 1,036 1.2 291

Camden, NJ................................. 12.1 207.8 1.5 183 987 4.0 89

Essex, NJ.................................... 20.6 346.7 1.7 157 1,231 4.5 60

Gloucester, NJ.............................. 6.4 109.1 1.6 170 872 0.9 303

Hudson, NJ................................... 15.2 263.9 3.8 13 1,350 3.7 114

Mercer, NJ.................................... 11.2 251.9 1.4 194 1,279 3.5 125

Middlesex, NJ.............................. 22.4 426.1 2.2 109 1,181 1.8 247

Monmouth, NJ.............................. 20.2 271.7 1.6 170 988 0.5 312

Morris, NJ..................................... 17.2 295.0 1.1 222 1,525 7.2 10

Ocean, NJ.................................... 13.3 176.8 2.4 89 806 1.4 273

Passaic, NJ.................................. 12.7 169.9 0.4 294 992 3.1 156

Somerset, NJ............................... 10.3 192.2 1.1 222 1,464 -3.4 343

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 347 largest counties,

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Union, NJ..................................... 14.4 223.5 1.6 170 $1,237 -3.7 345

Bernalillo, NM............................... 18.4 327.1 1.1 222 865 1.3 282

Albany, NY................................... 10.4 235.0 0.1 316 1,084 0.6 310

Bronx, NY..................................... 18.8 303.2 0.9 247 978 3.7 114

Broome, NY.................................. 4.5 87.6 0.4 294 817 2.1 231

Dutchess, NY............................... 8.5 113.5 0.4 294 1,023 3.0 168

Erie, NY........................................ 24.9 474.9 0.6 274 904 2.7 189

Kings, NY..................................... 62.8 714.0 3.7 15 850 3.2 148

Monroe, NY.................................. 19.0 390.9 0.6 274 968 3.9 92

Nassau, NY.................................. 54.4 643.6 1.7 157 1,150 -1.5 339

New York, NY............................... 129.2 2,469.1 1.7 157 1,907 2.4 215

Oneida, NY................................... 5.4 106.9 0.8 252 810 3.1 156

Onondaga, NY.............................. 13.0 247.7 0.4 294 936 1.8 247

Orange, NY.................................. 10.5 145.5 1.4 194 905 2.7 189

Queens, NY.................................. 53.2 666.3 2.9 55 965 2.4 215

Richmond, NY.............................. 9.8 116.7 1.7 157 911 2.4 215

Rockland, NY............................... 10.9 126.5 2.4 89 989 -0.7 336

Saratoga, NY................................ 6.0 89.2 2.4 89 949 1.3 282

Suffolk, NY................................... 53.3 682.8 1.0 235 1,086 0.4 315

Westchester, NY.......................... 36.6 437.6 1.3 200 1,327 2.6 196

Buncombe, NC............................. 9.2 129.3 1.7 157 783 3.2 148

Catawba, NC................................ 4.4 87.9 1.8 146 793 4.1 82

Cumberland, NC........................... 6.2 119.2 -0.6 337 795 5.7 25

Durham, NC................................. 8.3 199.1 0.6 274 1,231 3.0 168

Forsyth, NC.................................. 9.2 183.1 0.0 319 906 4.5 60

Guilford, NC.................................. 14.2 279.1 1.4 194 890 3.9 92

Mecklenburg, NC.......................... 37.3 683.2 3.1 37 1,152 4.0 89

New Hanover, NC........................ 8.0 112.4 2.8 62 884 11.9 1

Wake, NC..................................... 34.0 549.7 3.1 37 1,040 4.7 52

Cass, ND...................................... 7.2 119.1 1.0 235 917 3.9 92

Butler, OH..................................... 7.8 153.8 2.9 55 901 3.0 168

Cuyahoga, OH.............................. 35.8 728.8 0.5 287 1,029 3.5 125

Delaware, OH............................... 5.3 90.4 2.6 80 971 1.3 282

Franklin, OH................................. 31.9 753.3 2.7 70 1,007 1.9 242

Hamilton, OH................................ 23.8 520.9 1.2 212 1,072 2.7 189

Lake, OH...................................... 6.3 96.9 0.3 304 838 5.4 33

Lorain, OH.................................... 6.2 100.0 1.3 200 792 2.9 175

Lucas, OH.................................... 10.2 209.5 -1.9 346 856 -0.6 335

Mahoning, OH.............................. 5.9 97.2 1.1 222 720 4.3 71

Montgomery, OH.......................... 11.8 254.9 1.6 170 871 2.6 196

Stark, OH..................................... 8.5 160.7 0.7 264 762 4.7 52

Summit, OH................................. 14.3 269.1 0.6 274 886 1.8 247

Warren, OH................................. 4.9 94.2 1.1 222 898 -3.6 344

Cleveland, OK.............................. 5.8 79.7 0.2 311 749 0.9 303

Oklahoma, OK.............................. 28.0 450.0 0.4 294 943 2.5 207

Tulsa, OK..................................... 22.4 353.0 1.1 222 914 2.5 207

Clackamas, OR............................ 14.8 165.0 2.7 70 1,027 10.0 5

Deschutes, OR............................. 8.3 81.9 4.3 8 844 5.9 18

Jackson, OR................................ 7.3 88.1 3.0 47 791 5.6 29

Lane, OR...................................... 12.0 156.3 2.4 89 816 4.1 82

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 347 largest counties,

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Marion, OR................................... 10.6 155.6 1.5 183 $854 4.0 89

Multnomah, OR............................ 34.5 505.1 2.0 125 1,071 5.7 25

Washington, OR........................... 19.1 293.7 2.8 62 1,264 -1.9 341

Allegheny, PA............................... 35.8 703.6 0.6 274 1,082 3.8 102

Berks, PA..................................... 9.0 172.2 0.8 252 929 3.3 140

Bucks, PA..................................... 20.0 269.2 1.8 146 949 1.5 266

Butler, PA..................................... 5.1 86.2 0.2 311 949 4.5 60

Chester, PA.................................. 15.5 252.6 1.5 183 1,322 5.1 38

Cumberland, PA........................... 6.5 133.6 0.7 264 931 3.9 92

Dauphin, PA................................ 7.6 185.4 0.6 274 997 4.9 45

Delaware, PA............................... 14.3 223.9 1.0 235 1,063 -0.7 336

Erie, PA........................................ 7.1 123.4 -0.4 331 771 0.0 326

Lackawanna, PA.......................... 5.7 97.7 0.6 274 777 2.5 207

Lancaster, PA............................... 13.5 239.7 1.2 212 840 2.2 226

Lehigh, PA.................................... 8.9 191.5 1.4 194 977 -0.3 332

Luzerne, PA.................................. 7.5 146.3 0.7 264 797 3.5 125

Montgomery, PA........................... 27.8 498.8 1.7 157 1,205 0.2 322

Northampton, PA.......................... 6.8 114.7 1.7 157 878 3.8 102

Philadelphia, PA........................... 35.5 671.5 1.9 134 1,170 1.7 253

Washington, PA............................ 5.5 89.3 3.1 37 990 4.2 75

Westmoreland, PA....................... 9.3 136.2 0.8 252 829 5.9 18

York, PA....................................... 9.2 177.8 0.1 316 896 5.5 32

Providence, RI.............................. 18.2 287.2 0.5 287 1,016 1.5 266

Charleston, SC............................. 14.9 249.2 1.7 157 915 4.2 75

Greenville, SC.............................. 13.7 267.8 1.9 134 903 5.4 33

Horry, SC..................................... 8.6 136.2 3.4 24 622 3.8 102

Lexington, SC............................... 6.5 117.5 1.4 194 775 2.9 175

Richland, SC................................ 10.1 220.0 1.3 200 854 0.4 315

Spartanburg, SC........................... 6.2 137.3 2.9 55 888 1.3 282

York, SC....................................... 5.6 94.3 4.8 4 824 4.7 52

Minnehaha, SD............................. 7.2 127.5 1.3 200 876 3.4 134

Davidson, TN................................ 22.3 485.4 3.6 16 1,053 3.7 114

Hamilton, TN................................ 9.6 201.9 1.6 170 893 1.8 247

Knox, TN...................................... 12.2 236.6 0.8 252 877 3.1 156

Rutherford, TN.............................. 5.5 124.6 3.6 16 927 2.0 236

Shelby, TN.................................... 20.4 495.2 1.0 235 1,008 3.8 102

Williamson, TN............................. 8.6 130.1 4.1 10 1,124 2.8 183

Bell, TX......................................... 5.4 119.1 1.5 183 883 9.6 6

Bexar, TX..................................... 40.7 853.6 1.8 146 914 4.6 57

Brazoria, TX................................. 5.7 106.0 -0.2 325 1,030 1.7 253

Brazos, TX.................................... 4.5 97.7 1.0 235 763 5.0 41

Cameron, TX................................ 6.5 140.2 1.3 200 615 2.3 220

Collin, TX...................................... 24.5 398.6 3.6 16 1,169 1.7 253

Dallas, TX..................................... 76.1 1,686.9 2.5 85 1,213 2.6 196

Denton, TX.................................. 14.7 240.2 3.6 16 933 4.4 66

El Paso, TX.................................. 15.0 299.6 1.7 157 717 3.3 140

Fort Bend, TX............................... 13.1 179.7 1.6 170 936 0.4 315

Galveston, TX............................... 6.2 111.3 1.7 157 904 3.1 156

Harris, TX..................................... 114.2 2,284.5 0.7 264 1,231 -0.4 333

Hidalgo, TX................................... 12.3 254.8 2.7 70 632 1.1 298

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 347 largest counties,

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 2

County1

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-173

Ranking by

percent

change

Jefferson, TX................................ 5.9 123.4 0.4 294 $1,026 1.2 291

Lubbock, TX................................. 7.5 138.7 1.3 200 801 5.1 38

McLennan, TX.............................. 5.2 113.4 2.0 125 830 1.6 261

Midland, TX.................................. 5.4 89.3 7.3 1 1,321 11.4 2

Montgomery, TX........................... 11.2 175.2 3.2 33 1,008 2.0 236

Nueces, TX.................................. 8.3 164.5 1.3 200 861 1.4 273

Potter, TX..................................... 4.0 78.6 -0.4 331 832 6.1 15

Smith, TX..................................... 6.2 103.4 0.8 252 823 1.5 266

Tarrant, TX................................... 42.8 877.0 2.7 70 1,011 3.9 92

Travis, TX..................................... 40.2 728.7 3.1 37 1,186 5.6 29

Webb, TX..................................... 5.4 99.9 2.2 109 667 1.4 273

Williamson, TX............................. 10.6 166.8 3.1 37 992 5.6 29

Davis, UT..................................... 8.3 128.1 4.5 6 837 5.4 33

Salt Lake, UT................................ 44.0 687.6 2.8 62 967 2.7 189

Utah, UT....................................... 15.8 232.4 5.2 3 814 1.6 261

Weber, UT.................................... 6.0 103.9 2.3 99 762 1.7 253

Chittenden, VT............................. 6.9 103.5 0.8 252 978 0.3 321

Arlington, VA................................ 9.2 178.7 2.3 99 1,609 3.3 140

Chesterfield, VA........................... 9.0 137.1 1.4 194 862 2.5 207

Fairfax, VA.................................... 37.3 610.3 1.2 212 1,542 3.5 125

Henrico, VA.................................. 11.6 195.4 1.6 170 972 1.7 253

Loudoun, VA................................ 12.2 168.2 2.9 55 1,165 2.6 196

Prince William, VA........................ 9.3 130.7 1.5 183 880 2.4 215

Alexandria City, VA...................... 6.5 94.8 -0.9 341 1,389 3.1 156

Chesapeake City, VA................... 6.1 100.0 1.0 235 806 1.9 242

Newport News City, VA................ 3.9 97.8 0.9 247 975 7.4 8

Norfolk City, VA........................... 5.9 142.4 2.1 117 1,029 5.8 23

Richmond City, VA....................... 7.7 154.1 1.6 170 1,087 3.3 140

Virginia Beach City, VA................ 12.2 183.8 0.6 274 786 3.8 102

Benton, WA.................................. 5.7 93.1 3.0 47 1,010 1.3 282

Clark, WA..................................... 14.4 157.8 4.4 7 954 5.9 18

King, WA...................................... 86.1 1,369.7 3.3 29 1,472 6.0 17

Kitsap, WA.................................... 6.7 88.6 2.0 125 978 11.0 4

Pierce, WA................................... 21.7 303.9 1.8 146 934 3.4 134

Snohomish, WA............................ 20.7 286.2 0.1 316 1,106 3.0 168

Spokane, WA............................... 15.6 222.0 2.3 99 868 4.5 60

Thurston, WA............................... 8.2 113.4 3.5 21 934 5.3 36

Whatcom, WA.............................. 7.3 90.4 1.9 134 860 6.8 12

Yakima, WA................................. 7.7 121.6 -0.6 337 716 4.2 75

Kanawha, WV............................... 5.7 100.7 -1.5 344 876 1.5 266

Brown, WI..................................... 6.8 159.3 2.2 109 868 1.2 291

Dane, WI...................................... 15.1 334.2 1.0 235 1,004 -0.1 328

Milwaukee, WI.............................. 25.7 488.8 0.4 294 970 2.6 196

Outagamie, WI............................. 5.2 110.2 1.0 235 860 3.2 148

Waukesha, WI.............................. 12.8 246.6 0.5 287 996 1.3 282

Winnebago, WI............................. 3.7 94.8 1.1 222 928 2.5 207

San Juan, PR............................... 11.0 242.0 -0.9 (5) 622 2.6 (5)

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

2 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

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

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

(UCFE) programs. These 346 U.S. counties comprise 72.7 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
Table 2. Covered establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 2017

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-172

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-172

United States3................................................................. 9,922.4 145,186.4 1.7 $1,020 3.2

 Private industry............................................................. 9,624.1 123,579.7 1.9 1,010 3.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 136.9 2,001.8 1.9 1,017 2.2

 Construction............................................................... 791.8 7,102.1 3.6 1,119 4.0

 Manufacturing............................................................ 348.4 12,484.2 0.7 1,239 3.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 1,925.9 27,199.7 1.0 863 3.1

 Information................................................................. 162.6 2,794.8 0.5 1,880 5.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 871.5 8,131.0 1.7 1,537 3.0

 Professional and business services........................... 1,789.3 20,439.6 1.9 1,318 2.7

 Education and health services................................... 1,640.5 22,056.4 2.5 929 3.0

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 840.1 16,514.3 2.1 431 3.9

 Other services............................................................ 847.2 4,514.9 1.4 701 3.9

 Government.................................................................. 298.3 21,606.6 0.7 1,075 3.4

Los Angeles, CA.............................................................. 483.9 4,373.6 1.7 1,130 3.8

 Private industry............................................................. 477.5 3,791.8 1.7 1,099 4.0

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.6 7.0 1,082 2.5

 Construction............................................................... 14.1 138.4 4.6 1,187 5.0

 Manufacturing............................................................ 12.2 347.5 -3.3 1,307 6.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 54.0 818.4 0.8 924 3.8

 Information................................................................. 10.1 185.8 -0.2 2,192 4.5

 Financial activities...................................................... 25.7 219.2 0.9 1,782 3.2

 Professional and business services........................... 48.0 598.6 1.0 1,406 5.3

 Education and health services................................... 228.1 773.2 3.2 862 1.8

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 33.4 525.9 3.1 625 3.6

 Other services............................................................ 26.6 148.8 0.9 753 10.1

 Government.................................................................. 6.3 581.8 1.2 1,334 3.0

Cook, IL........................................................................... 155.4 2,598.4 0.3 1,179 3.1

 Private industry............................................................. 154.1 2,299.4 0.4 1,166 3.1

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.1 1.3 5.2 1,182 4.9

 Construction............................................................... 12.5 76.3 1.2 1,436 2.9

 Manufacturing............................................................ 6.3 186.1 0.0 1,232 3.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 30.1 469.1 -0.3 973 5.2

 Information................................................................. 2.7 51.4 0.5 1,778 -0.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 15.3 194.7 0.3 2,051 2.4

 Professional and business services........................... 32.8 475.4 -0.6 1,495 4.2

 Education and health services................................... 16.5 443.0 0.5 962 1.7

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 14.6 297.5 2.4 539 3.5

 Other services............................................................ 17.7 98.4 0.5 947 6.2

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 299.0 -0.7 1,276 2.8

New York, NY.................................................................. 129.2 2,469.1 1.7 1,907 2.4

 Private industry............................................................. 128.4 2,206.4 1.8 1,976 2.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.0 0.2 7.0 2,059 4.4

 Construction............................................................... 2.3 40.4 -2.4 1,865 3.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.1 25.5 -3.8 1,418 2.5

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 19.5 253.3 -0.5 1,367 0.2

 Information................................................................. 5.0 164.2 5.4 2,509 0.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 19.5 377.1 0.0 3,591 2.0

 Professional and business services........................... 27.0 578.4 2.1 2,201 1.5

 Education and health services................................... 10.0 342.7 1.0 1,334 7.8

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 14.1 303.0 2.3 875 3.3

 Other services............................................................ 20.5 104.4 1.1 1,253 7.4

 Government.................................................................. 0.8 262.7 0.7 1,339 5.1

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

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-172

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-172

Harris, TX........................................................................ 114.2 2,284.5 0.7 $1,231 -0.4

 Private industry............................................................. 113.7 2,007.4 0.6 1,247 -0.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 1.6 66.7 -2.3 2,940 -9.0

 Construction............................................................... 7.4 158.9 -1.4 1,328 2.5

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.8 169.5 -1.1 1,558 1.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 25.0 468.0 0.1 1,118 1.4

 Information................................................................. 1.2 26.9 -4.2 1,400 -2.1

 Financial activities...................................................... 12.1 126.2 2.1 1,633 2.6

 Professional and business services........................... 23.1 394.6 0.6 1,529 -3.0

 Education and health services................................... 15.9 291.2 2.8 1,034 3.1

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 10.0 236.5 1.7 451 4.6

 Other services............................................................ 11.6 66.4 1.5 800 3.0

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 277.1 1.5 1,113 1.1

Maricopa, AZ.................................................................... 96.5 1,891.7 3.3 986 1.6

 Private industry............................................................. 95.8 1,705.9 3.5 975 1.8

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 8.6 2.3 908 5.5

 Construction............................................................... 6.9 110.6 7.1 1,038 4.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.1 117.9 1.0 1,432 -1.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 18.2 370.5 2.1 899 2.5

 Information................................................................. 1.5 34.7 -0.5 1,376 -0.7

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.7 174.5 5.2 1,258 0.2

 Professional and business services........................... 20.6 323.8 2.0 1,065 2.1

 Education and health services................................... 10.6 289.1 4.2 978 2.5

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.6 211.6 3.7 477 5.8

 Other services............................................................ 5.9 50.6 -2.3 718 4.8

 Government.................................................................. 0.7 185.7 1.9 1,075 0.4

Dallas, TX........................................................................ 76.1 1,686.9 2.5 1,213 2.6

 Private industry............................................................. 75.5 1,514.5 2.7 1,218 2.4

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.7 5.1 3,279 -4.9

 Construction............................................................... 4.5 89.0 4.1 1,222 7.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.8 112.7 0.9 1,440 -1.2

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 15.9 342.8 3.2 1,046 0.6

 Information................................................................. 1.4 48.6 -1.3 1,818 -1.7

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.4 165.4 4.2 1,704 3.1

 Professional and business services........................... 17.1 340.5 2.5 1,417 3.5

 Education and health services................................... 9.5 197.2 2.9 1,105 5.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.8 164.1 2.4 489 2.5

 Other services............................................................ 7.0 43.9 -0.6 803 6.2

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 172.4 0.4 1,170 5.0

Orange, CA...................................................................... 119.3 1,598.1 2.1 1,130 2.5

 Private industry............................................................. 117.8 1,443.1 2.3 1,115 2.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.2 2.9 -1.0 899 6.8

 Construction............................................................... 6.7 101.0 3.4 1,320 6.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.9 158.0 -0.4 1,397 2.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 16.9 258.5 1.3 1,003 1.4

 Information................................................................. 1.3 27.0 1.2 1,930 9.4

 Financial activities...................................................... 11.1 117.9 1.3 1,724 1.6

 Professional and business services........................... 20.4 294.6 1.2 1,344 3.9

 Education and health services................................... 32.9 208.2 4.0 911 -0.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.7 219.9 3.2 502 6.1

 Other services............................................................ 6.8 45.9 1.1 725 5.7

 Government.................................................................. 1.5 155.0 0.6 1,267 2.2

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

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-172

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-172

San Diego, CA................................................................ 109.8 1,440.9 2.0 $1,101 2.8

 Private industry............................................................. 107.9 1,205.0 2.0 1,058 1.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.6 9.0 -8.3 720 2.3

 Construction............................................................... 6.8 79.2 4.2 1,181 3.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.2 107.9 0.7 1,504 3.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.2 224.1 0.9 873 0.3

 Information................................................................. 1.2 24.2 0.3 1,890 5.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.9 73.3 0.9 1,446 4.1

 Professional and business services........................... 18.0 229.2 0.5 1,481 0.1

 Education and health services................................... 31.3 198.4 3.0 933 0.5

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.3 200.0 2.8 504 5.7

 Other services............................................................ 7.2 51.9 2.4 625 4.3

 Government.................................................................. 1.9 235.9 2.1 1,317 8.2

King, WA......................................................................... 86.1 1,369.7 3.3 1,472 6.0

 Private industry............................................................. 85.6 1,198.8 3.6 1,495 6.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 3.1 1.1 1,240 1.2

 Construction............................................................... 6.8 71.1 5.9 1,334 3.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.5 102.6 -2.7 1,617 -1.8

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.5 265.8 6.4 1,618 12.8

 Information................................................................. 2.2 103.4 5.9 2,991 8.6

 Financial activities...................................................... 6.7 67.9 2.7 1,650 3.8

 Professional and business services........................... 17.9 224.5 2.6 1,668 5.0

 Education and health services................................... 18.0 170.8 2.5 1,040 4.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.3 143.8 4.5 578 4.1

 Other services............................................................ 9.3 45.7 1.6 882 5.6

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 171.0 1.7 1,318 1.7

Miami-Dade, FL............................................................... 98.8 1,111.0 1.8 971 1.8

 Private industry............................................................. 98.5 985.9 1.8 949 3.3

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.1 4.4 627 1.6

 Construction............................................................... 6.7 46.0 5.6 926 1.6

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.9 41.4 2.7 879 1.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 25.9 280.3 0.5 898 3.8

 Information................................................................. 1.6 17.9 -0.8 1,696 8.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.6 75.5 1.4 1,498 3.7

 Professional and business services........................... 22.1 157.2 2.9 1,128 2.8

 Education and health services................................... 10.5 176.8 2.1 972 2.3

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.3 141.5 1.8 581 3.8

 Other services............................................................ 8.4 39.6 -0.4 621 2.5

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 125.2 1.3 1,125 -6.9

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

Note: Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2016 annual average employment. Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance

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

second quarter 2017

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-17

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-17

United States2.......................................... 9,922.4 145,186.4 1.7 $1,020 3.2

Alabama.................................................... 124.2 1,946.4 1.2 858 2.8

Alaska........................................................ 22.1 338.4 -0.7 1,005 -0.5

Arizona...................................................... 158.2 2,699.6 2.9 943 2.5

Arkansas................................................... 89.5 1,206.0 0.7 810 3.2

California................................................... 1,522.5 17,150.9 2.2 1,210 4.7

Colorado.................................................... 198.4 2,638.8 2.5 1,042 4.2

Connecticut............................................... 118.6 1,701.2 0.6 1,216 0.4

Delaware................................................... 31.7 446.6 0.6 1,012 2.2

District of Columbia................................... 39.0 766.5 1.0 1,675 3.3

Florida....................................................... 684.9 8,390.6 2.8 905 2.5

Georgia...................................................... 278.1 4,357.8 2.1 956 2.9

Hawaii........................................................ 41.7 653.0 1.0 935 3.5

Idaho......................................................... 61.0 723.5 3.4 765 3.4

Illinois........................................................ 412.2 6,006.6 0.9 1,062 2.4

Indiana....................................................... 164.3 3,041.0 1.5 859 3.7

Iowa........................................................... 101.7 1,571.4 0.4 853 3.3

Kansas...................................................... 90.3 1,377.8 -0.1 849 2.4

Kentucky.................................................... 120.8 1,889.4 0.8 862 2.9

Louisiana................................................... 131.4 1,907.7 0.0 869 2.0

Maine......................................................... 54.4 629.1 0.9 814 2.5

Maryland.................................................... 171.8 2,694.8 1.4 1,103 3.1

Massachusetts.......................................... 252.3 3,604.5 1.6 1,278 3.6

Michigan.................................................... 242.9 4,365.3 1.6 969 2.9

Minnesota.................................................. 169.0 2,902.1 2.0 1,037 3.9

Mississippi................................................. 73.4 1,128.9 0.7 732 0.8

Missouri..................................................... 206.6 2,818.7 1.2 889 3.0

Montana.................................................... 48.3 473.6 1.3 797 3.9

Nebraska................................................... 72.6 984.0 0.4 833 3.5

Nevada...................................................... 80.7 1,333.5 3.4 900 2.9

New Hampshire......................................... 52.1 665.4 1.6 1,015 1.2

New Jersey............................................... 272.8 4,123.5 1.8 1,173 2.3

New Mexico............................................... 58.5 815.4 0.7 823 1.5

New York.................................................. 648.6 9,417.4 1.6 1,237 2.2

North Carolina........................................... 272.0 4,361.4 1.8 902 4.3

North Dakota............................................. 31.9 422.7 -0.2 953 5.0

Ohio........................................................... 295.2 5,422.8 1.2 912 3.3

Oklahoma.................................................. 110.4 1,583.8 0.8 845 2.5

Oregon...................................................... 150.2 1,912.6 2.2 967 3.8

Pennsylvania............................................. 360.1 5,859.4 1.3 1,000 3.0

Rhode Island............................................. 37.3 487.3 1.0 980 2.6

South Carolina.......................................... 128.1 2,053.9 2.0 834 3.6

South Dakota............................................ 33.2 435.5 0.6 785 3.4

Tennessee................................................. 157.2 2,948.1 1.8 906 3.5

Texas......................................................... 671.5 12,059.6 2.1 1,027 2.7

Utah........................................................... 98.5 1,440.3 3.4 862 2.6

Vermont..................................................... 25.6 314.2 1.0 870 2.1

Virginia...................................................... 269.6 3,886.6 1.5 1,047 3.7

Washington............................................... 239.2 3,352.5 2.2 1,141 5.6

West Virginia............................................. 50.1 690.9 -0.3 828 3.4

Wisconsin.................................................. 171.7 2,905.3 1.1 876 2.3

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

second quarter 2017 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 1

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2017

(thousands)

June

2017

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2016-17

Second

quarter

2017

Percent

change,

second quarter

2016-17

Wyoming................................................... 26.1 280.2 -0.7 $875 3.1

Puerto Rico............................................... 46.9 873.6 -1.0 515 1.2

Virgin Islands............................................ 3.3 38.6 0.4 762 2.6

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

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

Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees, June

2016-17 (U.S. average = 1.7 percent)

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 or more

employees, second quarter 2016-17 (U.S. average = 3.2 percent)

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics