Technical information: (202) 691-6567

http://www.bls.gov/cew/

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 07-1583

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Chart 1. Top ranking large counties in employment 

 growth, first quarter 2007 

 (U.S. average = 1.4 percent)

0

5

10

15

20

Orleans, La. Harrison, Miss. Utah, Utah Williamson,

Texas

Jefferson, La.

Percent

Chart 2. Top ranking large counties by percent growth in

 average weekly wages, first quarter 2007 

 (U.S. average = 5.1 percent)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Trumbull, Ohio New York, N.Y. Cobb, Ga. Suffolk, Mass. Clay, Mo.

Percent

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2007

In March 2007, Orleans County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment

among the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Orleans County, which includes the city of New Orleans, experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 15.0 percent compared with national job growth of 1.4 percent. Harrison County, Miss., followed closely behind Orleans with an over-the-year gain of 14.5 percent.

Employment gains in Orleans and Harrison counties reflected significant recovery following substantial job

losses that occurred in September 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina. Trumbull County, Ohio, had the largest

over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2007, with an increase of 22.3 percent.

The U.S. average weekly wage rose by 5.1 percent over the same time span.

 Changes to County Employment and Wages Data

Beginning with the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data

presented in this release, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is introducing the 2007 North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS 2007). The conversion to NAICS

2007 resulted in minor changes to the data and more accurately reflects the underlying

business activities in selected industries. For further information on the NAICS 2007

revision and its effect on QCEW data, see the note on page 6 and the U.S. Census

Bureau Web site at http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics07/index.html.
2

Employment in large counties

 March 2007 employment

 (thousands)

 Growth in employment,

 March 2006-07

 (thousands)

Percent growth in employment,

 March 2006-07

United States............ 134,320.6 United States......................1,801.9 United States .......................1.4

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by March 2007 employment, March 2006-07 employment

growth, and March 2006-07 percent growth in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. ...... 4,210.2 Harris, Texas .......................... 72.5 Orleans, La. ...................... 15.0

Cook, Ill. ..................... 2,510.1 New York, N.Y. .................... 52.9 Harrison, Miss. ..................14.5

New York, N.Y. ......... 2,331.5 Dallas, Texas .......................... 46.0 Utah, Utah ........................ 7.3

Harris, Texas............... 1,985.7 King, Wash. ........................... 41.1 Williamson, Texas ............. 7.0

Maricopa, Ariz. ........... 1,828.2 Mecklenburg, N.C. ............... 32.8 Jefferson, La. .................... 6.6

Orange, Calif. .............. 1,516.1 Maricopa, Ariz. ...................... 30.5 Mecklenburg, N.C. ........... 6.2

Dallas, Texas............... 1,469.4 Travis, Texas .......................... 25.4 New Hanover, N.C. ......... 6.2

San Diego, Calif. ......... 1,319.8 Salt Lake, Utah....................... 25.4 Williamson, Tenn. .............. 6.0

King, Wash. ................ 1,157.5 Wake, N.C. ........................... 22.6 Wake, N.C. ...................... 5.4

Miami-Dade, Fla. ........ 1,025.1 Orleans, La............................. 21.8 Montgomery, Texas .......... 5.3

Of the 328 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2006 annual average employment, 117

had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (1.4 percent) in March

2007 and 196 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 3.) The percent change in

average weekly wages was higher than the national average (5.1 percent) in 77 of the largest U.S. counties,

but was below the national average in 240 counties. (See chart 4.)

The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled under the Quarterly Census of

Employment and Wages (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 8.9 million

employer reports cover 134.3 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain

data for the nation and for the 328 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more

in 2006. March 2007 employment and 2007 first-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided

in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through

the fourth quarter of 2006 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data

for first quarter 2007 and final data for 2006 will be available later in October on the BLS Web site.

Large County Employment

In March 2007, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 134.3 million, up by

1.4 percent from March 2006. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.1

percent of total U.S. covered employment and 78.2 percent of total covered wages. These 328 counties

had a net job gain of 1,192,248 over the year, accounting for 66.2 percent of the overall U.S. employment

increase. Employment rose in 255 of the large counties from March 2006 to March 2007. Orleans County,

La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (15.0 percent). Harrison, Miss., had

the next largest increase, 14.5 percent, followed by the counties of Utah, Utah (7.3 percent), Williamson,

Texas (7.0 percent), and Jefferson, La. (6.6 percent). The large employment gains in Orleans, Harrison, and
3

United States.....................$885 United States..........................$43 United States................. 5.1

Average weekly wage in large counties

 Average weekly wage,

 first quarter 2007

Percent growth in average

 weekly wage, first

 quarter 2006-07

 Growth in average weekly

 wage, first quarter 2006-07

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by first quarter 2007 average weekly wages, first

quarter 2006-07 growth in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2006-07 percent growth

in average weekly wages

New York, N.Y. ............$2,821 New York, N.Y. ................. $403 Trumbull, Ohio ............. 22.3

Fairfield, Conn. .................1,979 Suffolk, Mass. ........................162 New York, N.Y. ......... 16.7

Suffolk, Mass. ..................1,659 Trumbull, Ohio .......................157 Cobb, Ga. ................... 11.2

San Francisco, Calif. .........1,639 Fairfield, Conn. .......................137 Suffolk, Mass. ............. 10.8

Somerset, N.J. .................1,615 Somerset, N.J. .......................133 Clay, Mo. .................... 9.7

Santa Clara, Calif. ............1,584 San Francisco, Calif. ..............124 Montgomery, Ohio ...... 9.3

San Mateo, Calif. .............1,447 Hudson, N.J. ..........................115 Somerset, N.J.............. 9.0

Arlington, Va. ...................1,447 Westchester, N.Y. ..................107 Westchester, N.Y. ....... 8.9

Hudson, N.J. ....................1,434 San Mateo, Calif. ...................106 Hudson, N.J. ............... 8.7

Washington, D.C. .............1,428 Cobb, Ga. ..............................100 East Baton Rouge, La. . 8.6

Jefferson counties reflected significant recovery from the substantial job losses in September 2005, which

were related to Hurricane Katrina. (See table 1.)

Employment declined in 61 counties from March 2006 to March 2007. The largest percentage decline

in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-6.2 percent). Macomb, Mich., had the next largest employment decline (-3.8 percent), followed by the counties of Wayne, Mich., and Montgomery, Ohio (-3.2 percent each), and Elkhart, Ind. (-2.9 percent). In each of these five counties, the greatest number of jobs lost

occurred in the manufacturing sector.

The largest gains in the level of employment from March 2006 to March 2007 were recorded in the

counties of Harris, Texas (72,500), New York, N.Y. (52,900), Dallas, Texas (46,000), King, Wash.

(41,100), and Mecklenburg, N.C. (32,800). (See table A.)

The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Wayne, Mich. (-24,600), followed by the counties

of Macomb, Mich. (-12,400), Oakland, Mich. (-10,600), Montgomery, Ohio (-8,700), and Pinellas, Fla.

(-5,400). Each of the 10 large counties in Michigan experienced employment declines in March 2007.

The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2007 was $885. Average weekly wages were

higher than the national average in 92 of the largest 328 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the

top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,821. Fairfield, Conn.,

was second with an average weekly wage of $1,979, followed by Suffolk, Mass. ($1,659), San Francisco,

Calif. ($1,639), and Somerset, N.J. ($1,615). (See table B.)

Large County Average Weekly Wages
4

There were 236 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of

2007. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($502), followed by the

counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($516), Horry, S.C. ($536), Webb, Texas ($542), and Yakima, Wash. ($569).

(See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 5.1 percent. Among the largest counties,

Trumbull, Ohio, led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 22.3 percent from the

first quarter of 2006. New York, N.Y., was second with growth of 16.7 percent, followed by the counties

of Cobb, Ga. (11.2 percent), Suffolk, Mass. (10.8 percent), and Clay, Mo. (9.7 percent). New York

County experienced substantial over-the-year wage growth which had a significant impact on national average

weekly wage growth in the first quarter of 2007. Without New York County’s over-the-year employment

and wage growth, national average weekly wage growth would have been 4.2 percent; a 0.9 percentage

point reduction.

Fourteen counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Bibb, Ga., and Loudoun, Va., led the nation in declines (-3.0 percent each), followed by the counties of Orleans, La., and

Norfolk, Mass. (-2.7 percent each), and Arapahoe, Colo., Sarasota, Fla., and Peoria, Ill. (-1.8 percent

each).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Each of the 10 largest counties (based on 2006 annual average employment levels) reported increases in

employment from March 2006 to March 2007. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percentage gain in

employment among the largest counties with a 3.8 percent increase. Within Harris County, employment rose

in every industry group. The largest gains were in natural resources and mining (11.0 percent) and

manufacturing (5.6 percent). King, Wash., had the next largest increase in employment, 3.7 percent,

followed by Dallas, Texas (3.2 percent). The smallest percentage increase in employment occurred in

Orange, Calif. (0.1 percent), followed by San Diego, Calif., and Los Angeles, Calif. (0.4 percent each).

(See table 2.)

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

N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties with a gain of 16.7 percent. Within

New York County, average weekly wages increased the most in financial activities (24.2 percent) and in

manufacturing (14.6 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain of 8.5 percent, followed by Cook, Ill. (6.5 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in San

Diego, Calif., and Orange, Calif. (3.2 percent each) and Los Angeles, Calif. (3.3 percent).

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows March 2007 employment and the 2007 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest

county in each state, which is based on 2006 annual average employment levels. (This table includes two

counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that had employment levels below 75,000 in 2006.)

The employment levels in the counties in table 3 in March 2007 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los

Angeles County, Calif., to 41,900 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these

counties was in New York, N.Y. ($2,821) while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone,

Mont. ($672).
5

For More Information

For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical

Note or visit the QCEW Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW

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

For a more detailed analysis of employment declines experienced in the manufacturing sector’s automotive component in various Midwestern states, see the paper entitled “Automotive industries: Concentration

and change,” Issues in Labor Statistics, Summary 07-04/July 2007. For links to this and other Issues in

Labor Statistics papers utilizing QCEW data, see http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewissus.htm.

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 2007 is scheduled to be released on

Thursday, January 17, 2008.

Counties with employment of 75,000 or more in 2006 are included in this

release. For 2007 data, four counties have been added to the publication tables:

Butte, Calif., Tippecanoe, Ind., Saratoga, N.Y., and Williamson, Tenn. One

county, Boone, Ky., which had data for 2006 published in the 2006 releases, will

be excluded from 2007 releases because its 2006 annual average employment level

was less than 75,000.

 County Changes for the 2007 County Employment

 and Wages News Releases

______________________________
6

 Industry Changes to County Employment and Wages Data

In an effort to enhance the comparability of industrial employment and wage statistics across

Mexico, Canada, and the United States, and reflect economic activities within industries more

accurately, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is revised periodically.

In conjunction with its counterparts in Mexico and Canada, the U.S. Office of Management and

Budget developed NAICS 2007.

The conversion to NAICS 2007 resulted in minor revisions reflecting content changes within

the Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector and the Manufacturing sector; the restructuring of the Telecommunications subsector; the elimination of the Real estate and investment trusts

industry within the Finance and insurance sector; and minor content changes within the Professional, scientific, and technical services sector. Several industry titles and descriptions also were

updated. This revision was introduced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) with the release

of first quarter 2007 QCEW data. This revision had a minimal impact on QCEW data. Approximately 1 percent of both employment and establishments and 2 percent of total wages were reclassified into different industries as a result of the revision.

With the introduction of this revision, some industries were directly transferred to new industries while others were split into two or more industries, with the original industry often retaining a portion of the establishments, employment, and wages. Of the 1,179 industries used by

BLS under NAICS 2002, 8 industries were directly moved to new industries created by the

NAICS 2007 revision. Involved in these direct transfers were 41,821 establishments, 829,263

employees, and $12.6 billion in total wages. In addition, 13 industries were split into 2 or more

industries. In all, 27,457 establishments, 662,125 employees, and $16.5 billion in total wages

changed industries via these split transfers.

A total of 69,278 establishments, 1,491,388 employees, and $29.1 billion in total wages

changed industries in first quarter 2007 due to this revision. This represents 37 percent of the

overall 186,702 establishments, 43 percent of the overall 3,478,087 employees, and 55 percent of the overall $52.9 billion in total wages affected by an administrative industry change in

first quarter 2007. (See Technical Note.) All figures cited are preliminary and all employment

figures cited reflect March 2007 data. For further information on the NAICS 2007 revision,

see the U.S. Census Bureau Web site at http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics07/index.html.

More information on the NAICS 2007 revision, including the implementation schedules of

other BLS programs, will be posted on the BLS Web site as it becomes available.
•

Source Count of UI administrative records Count of longitudinally-linked UI Sample survey: 400,000 establishsubmitted by 8.9 million establish- administrative records submitted by ments

ments 7.0 million private-sector employers

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including UI coverage, excluding govern- Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

all employers subject to state and ment, private households, and estab- UI coverage, excluding agriculture,

federal UI laws lishments with zero employment private households, and self-employed workers

Other employment, including railroads, religious organizations, and

other non-UI-covered jobs

Publication Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

frequency - 7 months after the end of each - 8 months after the end of each - Usually first Friday of following

quarter quarter month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and pub- Links each new UI quarter to Uses UI file as a sampling frame

 lishes each new quarter of UI longitudinal database and directly and annually realigns (benchmarks)

 data

Principal Provides a quarterly and annual Provides quarterly employer dynam- Provides current monthly estimates

products universe count of estab- ics data on establishment openings, of employment, hours, and earnings

lishments, employment, and closings, expansions, and contractions at the MSA, state, and national levwages at the county, MSA, at the national level by NAICS super- el by industry

state, and national levels by sectors, at the state private-sector

detailed industry total level, and by size of firm

Principal uses Major uses include: Major uses include: Major uses include:

- Detailed locality data - Business cycle analysis - Principal national economic

- Periodic universe counts for - Analysis of employer dynamics indicator

benchmarking sample survey underlying economic expansions - Official time series for

estimates and contractions employment change measures

- Sample frame for BLS - Analysis of employment ex- - Input into other major economic

establishment surveys pansion and contractions by size indicators

of firm

Program www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/

Web sites

with greater industry detail and data

at the county and MSA level

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 2007 are preliminary and subject to revision.

For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as

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

for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. averages, rankings, or in the analysis in the text. Each

year, these large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual average of employment for the previous year.

The 329 counties presented in this release were derived using

2006 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2007 data,

four counties have been added to the publication tables: Butte,

Calif., Tippecanoe, Ind., Saratoga, N.Y., and Williamson, Tenn.

These counties will be included in all 2007 quarterly releases.

One county, Boone, Ky., which was published in the 2006 re-

•

•

•

•

 •

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

 QCEW BED CES

•

sample estimates to first quarter

UI levels

summarizes gross job gains

and losses

Future expansions will include data
leases, will be excluded from this and future 2007 releases because its 2006 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.

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 on the previous page.) Additional information on each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table on the

previous page.

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 that are sent to the appropriate SWA by the

specific federal agency. 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. The employment and wage data included in this release are derived

from microdata summaries of nearly 9 million employer reports

of employment and wages submitted by states to the BLS. These

reports are based on place of employment rather than place of

residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable from

state to state. In 2006, UI and UCFE programs covered workers

in 133.8 million jobs. The estimated 128.9 million workers in

these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented

96.4 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered

workers received $5.693 trillion in pay, representing 94.3 percent

of the wage and salary component of personal income and 43.1

percent of the gross domestic product.

Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed

workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members

of the Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations.

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes

may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by

employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes

may affect the over-the-year comparisons presented in this news

release.

Concepts and methodology

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who

worked during or received pay for the pay period including the

12th of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of covered firms are reported, including production and sales workers,

corporation officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels (all employees, as described above) and dividing

the result by 13, for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using unrounded employment and wage values.

The average wage values that can be calculated using rounded

data from the BLS database may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage data are non-wage cash

payments such as bonuses, the cash value of meals and lodging

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

employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans

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

the current quarter and prior-year levels.

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

part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in highpaying and low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay

periods within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage

of the work force could increase significantly when there is a

large decline in the number of employees that had been receiving below-average wages. Wages may include payments to

workers not present in the employment counts because they did

not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month.

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

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

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-the-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2006 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. The adjusted

data do not 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 A ct 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 2006 edition of this bulletin will contain selected data

produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains

and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2007

version of this news release. As with the 2005 edition, this

edition will include the data on a CD for enhanced access and

usability with the printed booklet containing selected graphic

representations of QCEW data; the data tables themselves will

be published exclusively in electronic formats as PDFs.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2006 will be available

for sale in early 2008 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 Dynam-
ics), telephone (202) 691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/);

(e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov).

Information in this release will be made available to

sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-

5200; TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,

first quarter 2007 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 8,947.1 134,320.6 1.4 – $885 5.1 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.8 366.0 1.1 139 878 4.3 135

Madison, AL ....................... 8.5 174.9 3.6 33 892 2.5 252

Mobile, AL .......................... 10.0 175.0 2.8 56 692 4.7 111

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.7 139.3 1.9 88 713 3.9 169

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.4 87.0 2.5 64 700 4.0 156

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 143.6 0.8 163 875 4.7 111

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 95.5 1,828.2 1.7 99 857 4.4 129

Pima, AZ ............................ 20.6 375.7 1.9 88 733 4.4 129

Benton, AR ........................ 5.4 96.3 3.3 39 838 5.5 62

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.5 248.6 0.4 216 756 3.6 185

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 92.6 0.4 216 661 5.4 65

Alameda, CA ...................... 50.3 686.0 0.4 216 1,139 3.4 199

Butte, CA ........................... 7.8 75.7 1.4 118 620 3.7 179

Contra Costa, CA ............... 28.4 344.2 0.2 240 1,116 5.0 84

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.8 342.0 1.6 109 667 4.9 88

Kern, CA ............................ 17.7 266.1 0.7 182 735 5.8 51

Los Angeles, CA ................ 401.3 4,210.2 0.4 216 974 3.3 204

Marin, CA ........................... 11.6 107.8 2.1 79 1,043 4.5 121

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.4 156.8 2.8 56 791 3.3 204

Orange, CA ........................ 95.8 1,516.1 0.1 250 1,001 3.2 212

Placer, CA .......................... 10.5 139.9 2.4 69 832 4.7 111

Riverside, CA ..................... 44.1 638.0 0.2 240 741 5.0 84

Sacramento, CA ................ 51.9 638.5 0.2 240 933 2.1 267

San Bernardino, CA ........... 47.2 666.3 1.1 139 726 3.7 179

San Diego, CA ................... 93.3 1,319.8 0.4 216 930 3.2 212

San Francisco, CA ............. 45.0 548.1 2.5 64 1,639 8.2 12

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.4 221.3 0.3 231 710 4.6 117

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.2 105.7 1.8 95 684 3.2 212

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.2 338.5 1.4 118 1,447 7.9 15

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.8 184.2 0.4 216 816 4.1 147

Santa Clara, CA ................. 56.6 893.4 2.3 73 1,584 0.1 308

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.8 94.2 0.9 158 846 4.4 129

Solano, CA ......................... 10.0 126.9 -0.4 282 831 5.1 78

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.0 190.7 0.7 182 805 2.2 261

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.3 171.5 -0.3 272 697 4.0 156

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.0 139.6 1.0 149 593 3.1 221

Ventura, CA ....................... 21.9 321.7 0.4 216 939 6.3 35

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.6 99.7 0.8 163 805 6.3 35

Adams, CO ........................ 9.3 150.8 -0.1 262 764 1.7 283

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.9 276.8 2.0 84 1,062 -1.8 317

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.8 158.5 3.6 33 1,030 4.8 101

Denver, CO ........................ 25.5 436.9 3.0 49 1,120 4.9 88

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.2 88.4 4.5 18 896 4.2 139

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.6 244.1 0.6 195 761 3.3 204

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.9 207.5 1.2 131 886 4.0 156

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.2 126.3 1.7 99 742 2.8 237

Weld, CO ........................... 6.0 81.6 3.8 27 687 2.5 252

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.7 415.8 1.5 113 1,979 7.4 20

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.2 498.2 1.3 127 1,183 6.5 31

New Haven, CT ................. 22.5 364.4 0.1 250 914 5.2 73

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

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New London, CT ................ 6.8 127.9 0.1 250 $876 3.9 169

New Castle, DE ................. 19.1 281.1 0.2 240 1,131 1.9 277

Washington, DC ................. 31.9 674.4 1.1 139 1,428 4.7 111

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.6 128.4 2.5 64 690 4.1 147

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.8 205.8 -1.7 311 772 2.9 234

Broward, FL ....................... 64.4 761.7 1.0 149 814 2.4 255

Collier, FL .......................... 12.4 141.3 0.5 205 772 6.0 45

Duval, FL ........................... 26.0 468.7 1.4 118 868 2.8 237

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.0 131.1 0.1 250 663 3.1 221

Hillsborough, FL ................. 36.8 654.9 1.2 131 809 2.8 237

Lake, FL ............................. 7.0 83.7 0.5 205 592 0.7 301

Lee, FL ............................... 19.1 231.1 0.7 182 714 0.6 303

Leon, FL ............................. 8.1 147.9 0.9 158 698 3.3 204

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.0 129.2 -1.1 303 651 2.7 243

Marion, FL .......................... 8.3 105.4 1.6 109 599 1.7 283

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 85.8 1,025.1 1.4 118 862 3.9 169

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.1 82.1 -2.0 315 670 3.1 221

Orange, FL ......................... 35.7 692.8 3.0 49 774 2.1 267

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.9 562.2 -0.3 272 855 5.9 50

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.7 101.6 0.3 231 591 4.8 101

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.4 442.8 -1.2 305 719 1.4 291

Polk, FL .............................. 12.6 211.0 1.0 149 648 3.0 232

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.1 160.5 -0.2 267 716 -1.8 317

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.9 177.4 0.0 256 737 3.7 179

Volusia, FL ......................... 14.0 171.4 0.3 231 608 4.8 101

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 83.6 -0.3 272 674 -3.0 322

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.4 138.0 4.7 14 701 1.4 291

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.3 112.9 1.4 118 759 0.9 299

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.3 318.3 1.2 131 995 11.2 3

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.2 297.8 -0.3 272 957 5.7 55

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.5 758.9 2.4 69 1,258 7.1 21

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.3 325.0 3.6 33 883 0.7 301

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 96.8 -2.6 317 685 5.1 78

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 103.4 -1.0 301 699 3.2 212

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.5 452.1 0.7 182 771 3.9 169

Ada, ID ............................... 15.0 209.6 1.9 88 768 5.6 57

Champaign, IL ................... 4.1 91.2 1.0 149 678 3.5 189

Cook, IL ............................. 136.9 2,510.1 0.8 163 1,117 6.5 31

Du Page, IL ........................ 35.3 589.2 0.4 216 1,040 3.5 189

Kane, IL ............................. 12.4 206.2 0.4 216 741 0.3 306

Lake, IL .............................. 20.6 323.3 0.9 158 1,128 4.1 147

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.3 99.9 1.0 149 718 3.2 212

McLean, IL ......................... 3.6 84.7 1.4 118 862 -0.1 310

Madison, IL ........................ 5.9 94.8 0.7 182 683 1.5 287

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 102.8 1.9 88 815 -1.8 317

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 78.4 0.4 216 847 2.3 258

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.3 95.7 2.4 69 650 2.0 271

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 128.3 -0.7 295 808 3.9 169

Will, IL ................................ 13.0 185.2 3.6 33 736 2.1 267

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 135.6 1.1 139 731 3.7 179

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

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Allen, IN ............................. 9.0 182.9 0.9 158 $718 2.3 258

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.9 124.7 -2.9 318 703 0.0 309

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.4 107.2 3.9 26 865 2.2 261

Lake, IN ............................. 10.1 192.5 0.4 216 735 1.9 277

Marion, IN .......................... 24.0 573.7 0.8 163 930 3.4 199

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 122.8 -0.3 272 699 3.2 212

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.2 76.1 1.5 113 736 3.1 221

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 107.2 -1.1 303 706 2.0 271

Linn, IA ............................... 6.2 121.1 1.6 109 816 5.3 70

Polk, IA .............................. 14.6 267.5 1.9 88 887 3.3 204

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 87.4 0.4 216 670 1.7 283

Johnson, KS ...................... 19.9 312.8 4.4 19 910 3.2 212

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.0 254.8 3.4 38 848 6.4 34

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 94.6 1.8 95 721 4.0 156

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 80.6 ( 7) – 784 1.0 298

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.2 174.7 2.6 63 763 5.1 78

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.2 426.8 0.5 205 846 5.8 51

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 125.0 -0.5 288 678 4.1 147

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.8 86.9 2.3 73 711 1.3 294

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.8 261.6 0.5 205 772 8.6 10

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.8 198.1 6.6 5 771 0.8 300

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.3 132.5 4.3 21 787 8.0 14

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.2 167.8 15.0 1 964 -2.7 320

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.3 168.7 1.2 131 785 4.0 156

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.4 229.4 1.1 139 900 4.0 156

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.8 374.4 0.0 256 882 3.8 178

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 94.0 0.0 256 832 4.8 101

Harford, MD ....................... 5.7 83.1 0.3 231 802 3.1 221

Howard, MD ....................... 8.5 145.4 0.8 163 1,001 4.2 139

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.8 457.4 0.2 240 1,213 6.6 30

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 313.2 0.8 163 891 3.0 232

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.0 344.0 0.1 250 995 4.5 121

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 82.7 -0.7 295 724 3.7 179

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.7 216.4 -0.6 290 735 4.1 147

Essex, MA .......................... 20.5 291.5 0.3 231 917 4.0 156

Hampden, MA .................... 14.0 196.1 -0.3 272 802 4.3 135

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.0 802.0 1.2 131 1,250 6.0 45

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.6 318.0 0.6 195 1,042 -2.7 320

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.8 173.6 0.2 240 782 4.8 101

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.6 576.7 2.4 69 1,659 10.8 4

Worcester, MA ................... 20.6 316.6 0.5 205 848 3.3 204

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.0 143.0 -2.4 316 760 2.0 271

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.9 159.8 -1.0 301 802 3.1 221

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 116.2 -0.2 267 746 1.5 287

Kent, MI ............................. 14.3 336.0 -0.4 282 760 4.0 156

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.9 310.7 -3.8 321 893 4.0 156

Oakland, MI ....................... 39.4 687.4 -1.5 309 1,009 3.4 199

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.8 107.9 -1.7 311 716 1.8 281

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.4 86.1 -0.3 272 745 4.1 147

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 192.2 -1.3 308 970 6.1 42

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

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Wayne, MI .......................... 32.7 744.8 -3.2 319 $999 7.5 17

Anoka, MN ......................... 8.0 113.1 -0.1 262 778 2.6 249

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.6 171.6 -0.1 262 840 3.6 185

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.8 837.9 0.8 163 1,128 6.9 24

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.6 88.8 0.8 163 933 4.9 88

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.7 328.2 0.5 205 977 5.6 57

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.9 93.9 0.1 250 675 3.2 212

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.5 80.7 3.2 40 654 2.2 261

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.4 84.8 14.5 2 662 -0.3 313

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 127.8 -0.4 282 753 4.9 88

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 82.5 1.0 149 632 2.9 234

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 89.5 -0.4 282 805 9.7 5

Greene, MO ....................... 8.1 156.4 2.8 56 631 2.8 237

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.6 369.0 1.4 118 873 3.6 185

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.0 122.5 1.7 99 741 6.2 41

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.0 605.1 1.1 139 903 1.2 295

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 229.3 -1.7 311 1,020 3.1 221

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.5 311.4 0.7 182 794 1.5 287

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.9 153.5 1.0 149 666 3.1 221

Clark, NV ........................... 47.6 922.6 1.9 88 811 5.3 70

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.2 216.5 0.7 182 767 4.4 129

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.4 195.2 -0.2 267 922 4.2 139

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.9 134.8 0.8 163 874 6.8 27

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.1 143.2 -1.2 305 763 5.0 84

Bergen, NJ ......................... 35.3 447.9 0.6 195 1,110 4.4 129

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.6 202.3 -1.2 305 899 4.8 101

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.4 207.8 -0.3 272 876 5.4 65

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.8 360.6 0.2 240 1,184 5.6 57

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.4 103.0 -0.3 272 748 2.2 261

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 234.5 -0.2 267 1,434 8.7 9

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.3 222.1 0.5 205 1,140 6.9 24

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.3 406.7 0.7 182 1,135 5.1 78

Monmouth, NJ ................... 21.1 253.5 0.0 256 902 0.6 303

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.4 287.1 0.6 195 1,363 5.2 73

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.7 145.6 0.2 240 716 2.0 271

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.8 177.1 -1.5 309 888 2.4 255

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.4 171.9 -0.6 290 1,615 9.0 7

Union, NJ ........................... 15.5 229.2 -0.4 282 1,235 ( 7) – 

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.5 332.3 1.5 113 732 3.4 199

Albany, NY ......................... 9.8 225.3 0.6 195 838 1.6 286

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.8 219.1 -0.6 290 788 5.1 78

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 94.6 1.2 131 671 3.5 189

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 115.8 -0.7 295 875 4.5 121

Erie, NY ............................. 23.3 451.5 0.6 195 764 6.3 35

Kings, NY ........................... 44.4 464.8 1.9 88 742 4.8 101

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.8 376.6 -0.3 272 835 3.5 189

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.2 598.1 0.8 163 983 7.5 17

New York, NY .................... 116.7 2,331.5 2.3 73 2,821 16.7 2

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 108.9 1.5 113 671 6.8 27

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 246.5 0.5 205 788 4.4 129

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

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 128.2 -0.2 267 $715 3.9 169

Queens, NY ....................... 42.1 487.7 2.1 79 831 3.5 189

Richmond, NY .................... 8.5 91.9 3.2 40 733 3.5 189

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.7 113.1 1.6 109 913 4.0 156

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.3 74.6 0.3 231 715 4.5 121

Suffolk, NY ......................... 49.7 607.8 0.8 163 891 4.6 117

Westchester, NY ................ 36.2 413.6 1.5 113 1,308 8.9 8

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.8 114.3 3.8 27 638 4.1 147

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.6 89.4 2.7 59 656 1.9 277

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.2 118.5 1.7 99 628 5.2 73

Durham, NC ....................... 6.8 182.2 4.1 24 1,204 6.1 42

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.2 184.8 1.8 95 791 4.1 147

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.6 280.5 2.1 79 766 5.7 55

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 31.7 565.0 6.2 6 1,220 4.9 88

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.4 105.1 6.2 6 678 ( 7) – 

Wake, NC .......................... 27.5 439.6 5.4 9 867 4.2 139

Cass, ND ........................... 5.6 94.5 2.7 59 678 4.5 121

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 145.8 3.7 30 750 2.6 249

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.0 740.6 -0.4 282 914 5.4 65

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.4 677.7 0.7 182 896 6.9 24

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.1 513.8 -0.6 290 956 4.7 111

Lake, OH ............................ 6.8 99.4 0.2 240 725 4.8 101

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 99.4 -0.6 290 710 2.6 249

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.8 219.4 -1.8 314 773 2.7 243

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.3 102.7 0.0 256 620 4.0 156

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.9 267.5 -3.2 319 832 9.3 6

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 159.8 -0.8 298 672 4.2 139

Summit, OH ....................... 15.0 269.0 0.0 256 793 4.8 101

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.8 78.9 -6.2 322 860 22.3 1

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.2 419.5 0.8 163 751 -0.8 314

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.2 344.8 2.5 64 792 -1.7 316

Clackamas, OR .................. 13.0 149.4 2.9 52 768 3.5 189

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.9 83.4 2.3 73 615 2.0 271

Lane, OR ........................... 11.3 149.5 1.8 95 641 2.7 243

Marion, OR ........................ 9.5 137.0 2.7 59 661 4.9 88

Multnomah, OR .................. 27.7 443.0 3.1 46 864 2.7 243

Washington, OR ................ 16.4 248.7 1.3 127 964 -0.1 310

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.5 676.7 0.8 163 946 8.1 13

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 167.7 1.4 118 752 3.6 185

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.5 262.8 1.1 139 830 4.5 121

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 78.1 3.1 46 714 5.6 57

Chester, PA ....................... 15.0 236.4 2.0 84 1,117 2.9 234

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 124.6 0.2 240 776 2.2 261

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.3 179.6 0.8 163 834 5.2 73

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.7 208.4 1.7 99 926 5.6 57

Erie, PA .............................. 7.3 126.5 0.8 163 669 5.5 62

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 101.0 0.6 195 634 3.1 221

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.2 225.3 0.6 195 708 2.2 261

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 175.9 1.1 139 868 6.0 45

Luzerne, PA ....................... 8.0 140.0 -0.8 298 679 6.1 42

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

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.7 483.5 0.8 163 $1,176 5.4 65

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 98.1 0.7 182 745 4.2 139

Philadelphia, PA ................ 29.7 631.8 -0.1 262 1,038 5.8 51

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 77.4 1.3 127 732 4.9 88

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 135.0 0.3 231 659 2.5 252

York, PA ............................. 9.0 175.1 0.8 163 737 3.9 169

Kent, RI .............................. 5.7 81.2 0.4 216 784 7.0 23

Providence, RI ................... 18.2 284.5 0.5 205 857 6.3 35

Charleston, SC .................. 14.0 208.3 4.8 11 708 1.9 277

Greenville, SC .................... 14.1 235.6 2.5 64 713 2.3 258

Horry, SC ........................... 9.9 114.7 4.8 11 536 2.1 267

Lexington, SC .................... 6.6 95.0 3.6 33 621 1.5 287

Richland, SC ...................... 10.9 215.3 1.7 99 749 1.4 291

Spartanburg, SC ................ 7.0 118.0 2.1 79 754 2.0 271

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.2 112.0 2.0 84 708 3.7 179

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.4 444.9 0.7 182 857 6.3 35

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 192.3 1.0 149 728 3.9 169

Knox, TN ............................ 10.9 224.4 2.1 79 705 3.5 189

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.1 97.8 0.8 163 758 7.1 21

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.0 505.4 0.6 195 842 3.3 204

Williamson, TN ................... 5.6 83.4 6.0 8 914 4.9 88

Bell, TX .............................. 4.4 97.5 3.2 40 635 3.3 204

Bexar, TX ........................... 31.5 707.1 2.9 52 768 3.4 199

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.5 85.6 2.9 52 839 1.8 281

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.7 84.2 0.5 205 597 5.3 70

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 123.4 2.3 73 502 5.0 84

Collin, TX ........................... 15.8 274.9 4.4 19 1,055 5.1 78

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.5 1,469.4 3.2 40 1,092 5.2 73

Denton, TX ......................... 10.0 163.8 4.7 14 723 3.9 169

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.2 265.1 1.0 149 597 5.5 62

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.8 121.0 ( 7) – 934 5.4 65

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 94.8 ( 7) – 801 ( 7) – 

Harris, TX ........................... 94.5 1,985.7 3.8 27 1,125 8.5 11

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.3 213.0 3.7 30 516 4.0 156

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 129.0 0.9 158 782 4.7 111

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.7 120.2 0.7 182 618 1.1 297

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 102.9 1.7 99 669 4.9 88

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.7 119.1 5.3 10 774 0.3 306

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.1 151.3 1.2 131 712 4.9 88

Smith, TX ........................... 5.2 92.4 1.7 99 691 3.1 221

Tarrant, TX ......................... 36.0 754.1 2.7 59 865 3.2 212

Travis, TX .......................... 27.4 566.2 4.7 14 944 0.5 305

Webb, TX ........................... 4.7 87.2 4.2 23 542 2.8 237

Williamson, TX ................... 6.6 114.7 7.0 4 826 -1.0 315

Davis, UT ........................... 7.0 101.7 4.0 25 656 2.8 237

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 37.6 577.6 4.6 17 788 5.8 51

Utah, UT ............................ 12.6 172.8 7.3 3 623 6.0 45

Weber, UT ......................... 5.6 93.9 4.3 21 604 4.3 135

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.8 93.5 0.5 205 846 -0.2 312

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.5 150.5 ( 7) – 1,447 2.4 255

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

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.3 120.4 1.4 118 $765 3.1 221

Fairfax, VA ......................... 32.5 579.5 1.2 131 1,371 4.3 135

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.0 178.5 3.2 40 1,008 7.7 16

Loudoun, VA ...................... 8.0 126.5 1.7 99 1,081 -3.0 322

Prince William, VA ............. 6.8 101.9 -0.9 300 744 4.2 139

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.0 99.9 ( 7) – 1,136 ( 7) – 

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.5 99.6 0.4 216 661 4.8 101

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 99.1 1.3 127 761 7.5 17

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.8 143.4 1.7 99 826 6.7 29

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.4 157.3 ( 7) – 1,071 ( 7) – 

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.5 174.9 0.3 231 661 4.9 88

Clark, WA ........................... 11.5 130.8 2.0 84 746 3.5 189

King, WA ............................ 75.1 1,157.5 3.7 30 1,080 3.5 189

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.4 83.5 0.4 216 727 4.0 156

Pierce, WA ......................... 19.9 272.0 3.0 49 768 4.9 88

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.2 248.0 4.8 11 895 6.5 31

Spokane, WA ..................... 14.7 206.7 2.9 52 680 4.5 121

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.6 98.4 3.2 40 743 4.1 147

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.7 81.2 3.1 46 653 4.6 117

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.6 94.1 2.3 73 569 2.7 243

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 108.1 0.6 195 743 4.9 88

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 146.7 -0.1 262 755 1.2 295

Dane, WI ............................ 13.7 298.3 0.8 163 848 4.6 117

Milwaukee, WI ................... 20.7 489.6 0.3 231 875 4.2 139

Outagamie, WI ................... 4.9 101.6 1.1 139 724 2.7 243

Racine, WI ......................... 4.2 74.4 -0.5 288 765 6.3 35

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.0 232.4 0.7 182 860 4.5 121

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 88.6 1.1 139 824 6.0 45

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.5 293.9 -3.3 ( 8) 573 7.1 ( 8) 

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

These 328 U.S. counties comprise 71.1 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 2007 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 4

United States 5 ................................................... 8,947.1 134,320.6 1.4 $885 5.1

Private industry .............................................. 8,667.5 112,574.0 1.4 892 5.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 123.7 1,683.1 3.2 925 4.0

Construction ............................................... 885.8 7,298.4 0.0 859 4.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 361.2 13,862.4 -1.7 1,061 3.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,906.6 25,963.5 1.4 731 3.4

Information ................................................. 143.0 3,011.6 -0.8 1,438 4.6

Financial activities ...................................... 865.2 8,139.4 0.5 1,891 12.2

Professional and business services ........... 1,455.9 17,617.5 2.7 1,083 6.2

Education and health services ................... 813.1 17,314.4 2.8 740 3.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 716.7 12,938.1 2.4 351 4.2

Other services ............................................ 1,154.7 4,395.2 1.6 527 3.9

Government ................................................... 279.6 21,746.6 1.1 850 4.4

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 401.3 4,210.2 0.4 974 3.3

Private industry .............................................. 397.3 3,616.3 0.3 957 3.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 12.3 6.0 1,512 19.9

Construction ............................................... 14.1 158.9 2.2 952 7.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 15.4 453.9 -3.0 1,034 3.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 55.7 807.7 0.8 785 2.1

Information ................................................. 8.8 210.0 2.3 1,733 2.9

Financial activities ...................................... 25.2 247.9 ( 6) 1,806 8.9

Professional and business services ........... 43.1 607.9 -0.1 1,108 1.1

Education and health services ................... 28.0 478.6 1.1 825 3.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.9 392.6 1.9 518 5.1

Other services ............................................ 179.6 246.3 1.0 421 4.5

Government ................................................... 4.0 593.9 ( 6) 1,079 2.7

Cook, IL .............................................................. 136.9 2,510.1 0.8 1,117 6.5

Private industry .............................................. 135.7 2,197.0 1.0 1,133 6.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.2 -3.6 992 0.5

Construction ............................................... 11.9 88.3 -1.0 1,202 2.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.1 237.9 -1.2 1,044 5.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.5 472.5 0.4 818 2.8

Information ................................................. 2.6 58.3 -0.5 1,799 9.9

Financial activities ...................................... 15.7 216.7 -0.3 2,780 15.9

Professional and business services ........... 27.9 429.6 1.9 1,353 4.4

Education and health services ................... 13.4 368.6 2.5 804 4.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.4 224.2 2.5 407 5.2

Other services ............................................ 13.8 95.1 0.0 701 5.1

Government ................................................... 1.2 313.1 -0.8 1,007 4.5

New York, NY ..................................................... 116.7 2,331.5 2.3 2,821 16.7

Private industry .............................................. 116.5 1,883.8 2.8 3,261 17.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -10.0 2,411 -4.0

Construction ............................................... 2.2 32.7 5.4 1,469 5.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.9 37.3 -5.0 1,591 14.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 242.2 1.6 1,202 6.6

Information ................................................. 4.1 131.7 0.7 2,586 6.2

Financial activities ...................................... 17.9 372.3 2.7 10,156 24.2

Professional and business services ........... 23.4 475.5 3.1 2,258 10.1

Education and health services ................... 8.4 289.7 1.8 954 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.7 202.9 3.4 769 4.5

Other services ............................................ 17.0 84.9 1.3 961 5.7

Government ................................................... 0.2 447.7 0.4 982 3.3

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

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 94.5 1,985.7 3.8 $1,125 8.5

Private industry .............................................. 94.1 1,737.8 4.1 1,160 8.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.4 76.7 11.0 3,237 3.4

Construction ............................................... 6.3 148.1 4.5 1,009 7.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 179.2 5.6 1,483 6.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 411.7 2.3 1,048 10.0

Information ................................................. 1.3 32.6 4.6 1,419 8.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.3 119.2 2.7 1,673 13.9

Professional and business services ........... 18.4 328.9 4.1 1,227 9.7

Education and health services ................... 9.8 206.9 4.4 800 4.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 171.2 2.5 374 1.9

Other services ............................................ 10.8 56.9 1.8 602 5.6

Government ................................................... 0.4 248.0 1.5 882 6.7

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 95.5 1,828.2 1.7 857 4.4

Private industry .............................................. 94.9 1,609.9 1.5 856 4.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.2 4.1 818 9.5

Construction ............................................... 10.0 166.1 -6.5 867 1.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.5 133.2 -2.0 1,190 0.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.2 370.3 2.1 819 5.5

Information ................................................. 1.6 29.8 -5.1 1,157 6.6

Financial activities ...................................... 12.1 151.3 0.4 1,250 3.6

Professional and business services ........... 20.6 315.6 3.5 850 8.3

Education and health services ................... 9.2 194.8 4.7 849 5.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.7 184.0 3.4 404 6.9

Other services ............................................ 6.8 49.9 4.9 558 2.0

Government ................................................... 0.6 218.3 2.9 859 4.1

Orange, CA ........................................................ 95.8 1,516.1 0.1 1,001 3.2

Private industry .............................................. 94.4 1,361.1 -0.2 986 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 6.4 -7.1 555 4.9

Construction ............................................... 7.1 103.5 -2.5 1,074 5.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.5 177.5 ( 6) 1,157 ( 6) 

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.9 275.0 -0.3 916 ( 6) 

Information ................................................. 1.4 30.4 -3.3 1,431 0.1

Financial activities ...................................... 11.5 134.2 ( 6) 1,660 3.4

Professional and business services ........... 19.3 276.8 ( 6) 1,048 ( 6) 

Education and health services ................... 9.8 139.9 2.9 848 4.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 169.8 2.8 392 6.5

Other services ............................................ 14.6 47.6 -0.1 558 4.3

Government ................................................... 1.4 155.0 2.9 1,140 5.4

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.5 1,469.4 3.2 1,092 5.2

Private industry .............................................. 67.0 1,306.2 3.4 1,116 5.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.0 -4.6 2,910 -3.5

Construction ............................................... 4.3 81.0 4.4 943 5.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 143.6 0.3 1,352 7.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 302.5 2.1 980 3.5

Information ................................................. 1.7 48.6 -5.2 1,616 5.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.6 146.1 3.3 1,816 10.9

Professional and business services ........... 14.1 267.1 6.1 1,166 3.8

Education and health services ................... 6.4 143.3 6.9 856 1.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.1 124.5 3.9 517 7.9

Other services ............................................ 6.3 38.2 -2.9 605 3.4

Government ................................................... 0.5 163.2 1.8 895 4.6

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

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 93.3 1,319.8 0.4 $930 3.2

Private industry .............................................. 92.0 1,096.3 0.3 920 2.6

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.3 -3.0 513 2.0

Construction ............................................... 7.3 88.5 -5.7 950 2.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 102.8 -1.7 1,248 3.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.7 219.6 1.1 745 2.3

Information ................................................. 1.3 37.6 1.6 1,994 -13.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.1 81.8 -2.7 1,362 7.8

Professional and business services ........... 16.5 214.8 0.2 1,135 6.1

Education and health services ................... 8.1 127.5 2.3 813 4.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 156.8 3.5 416 6.4

Other services ............................................ 23.1 55.6 2.4 475 2.4

Government ................................................... 1.3 223.5 1.1 977 6.3

King, WA ............................................................ 75.1 1,157.5 3.7 1,080 3.5

Private industry .............................................. 74.6 1,004.1 4.2 1,095 3.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.1 4.7 1,618 16.4

Construction ............................................... 6.8 68.6 12.3 1,017 5.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 111.2 2.9 1,374 -3.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.9 216.2 2.9 940 4.7

Information ................................................. 1.8 74.1 7.1 1,907 4.4

Financial activities ...................................... 7.0 76.1 -0.8 1,673 9.4

Professional and business services ........... 12.8 183.5 6.4 1,258 2.3

Education and health services ................... 6.3 119.7 3.2 793 1.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.0 106.8 4.0 451 1.3

Other services ............................................ 16.1 44.8 1.8 557 6.3

Government ................................................... 0.5 153.4 0.1 988 4.9

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 85.8 1,025.1 1.4 862 3.9

Private industry .............................................. 85.5 872.1 1.4 830 3.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 11.5 1.2 455 -4.8

Construction ............................................... 6.0 53.4 6.5 831 -1.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 48.0 -2.0 763 1.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.1 251.2 0.9 773 4.2

Information ................................................. 1.5 20.8 -0.5 1,383 6.8

Financial activities ...................................... 10.3 71.3 0.0 1,442 5.9

Professional and business services ........... 17.3 137.2 -2.0 981 6.6

Education and health services ................... 8.8 135.2 3.4 772 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.7 104.4 2.3 498 -1.8

Other services ............................................ 7.6 35.7 3.4 520 8.6

Government ................................................... 0.3 153.0 1.5 1,044 4.5

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

Technical Note. 5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, first quarter 2007 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

United States 6 ......................... 8,947.1 134,320.6 1.4 $885 5.1

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.8 366.0 1.1 878 4.3

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 143.6 0.8 875 4.7

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 95.5 1,828.2 1.7 857 4.4

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.5 248.6 0.4 756 3.6

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 401.3 4,210.2 0.4 974 3.3

Denver, CO .............................. 25.5 436.9 3.0 1,120 4.9

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.2 498.2 1.3 1,183 6.5

New Castle, DE ........................ 19.1 281.1 0.2 1,131 1.9

Washington, DC ....................... 31.9 674.4 1.1 1,428 4.7

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 85.8 1,025.1 1.4 862 3.9

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.5 758.9 2.4 1,258 7.1

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.5 452.1 0.7 771 3.9

Ada, ID ..................................... 15.0 209.6 1.9 768 5.6

Cook, IL .................................... 136.9 2,510.1 0.8 1,117 6.5

Marion, IN ................................. 24.0 573.7 0.8 930 3.4

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.6 267.5 1.9 887 3.3

Johnson, KS ............................. 19.9 312.8 4.4 910 3.2

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.2 426.8 0.5 846 5.8

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 13.8 261.6 0.5 772 8.6

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.3 168.7 1.2 785 4.0

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.8 457.4 0.2 1,213 6.6

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.0 802.0 1.2 1,250 6.0

Wayne, MI ................................ 32.7 744.8 -3.2 999 7.5

Hennepin, MN .......................... 42.8 837.9 0.8 1,128 6.9

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.5 127.8 -0.4 753 4.9

St. Louis, MO ............................ 33.0 605.1 1.1 903 1.2

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.6 75.5 3.6 672 5.5

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.5 311.4 0.7 794 1.5

Clark, NV .................................. 47.6 922.6 1.9 811 5.3

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.4 195.2 -0.2 922 4.2

Bergen, NJ ............................... 35.3 447.9 0.6 1,110 4.4

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.5 332.3 1.5 732 3.4

New York, NY ........................... 116.7 2,331.5 2.3 2,821 16.7

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 31.7 565.0 6.2 1,220 4.9

Cass, ND .................................. 5.6 94.5 2.7 678 4.5

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 38.0 740.6 -0.4 914 5.4

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.2 419.5 0.8 751 -0.8

Multnomah, OR ........................ 27.7 443.0 3.1 864 2.7

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.5 676.7 0.8 946 8.1

Providence, RI .......................... 18.2 284.5 0.5 857 6.3

Greenville, SC .......................... 14.1 235.6 2.5 713 2.3

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.2 112.0 2.0 708 3.7

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.0 505.4 0.6 842 3.3

Harris, TX ................................. 94.5 1,985.7 3.8 1,125 8.5

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 37.6 577.6 4.6 788 5.8

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.8 93.5 0.5 846 -0.2

Fairfax, VA ................................ 32.5 579.5 1.2 1,371 4.3

King, WA .................................. 75.1 1,157.5 3.7 1,080 3.5

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 108.1 0.6 743 4.9

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 20.7 489.6 0.3 875 4.2

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by

state, first quarter 2007 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.1 41.9 2.1 $673 6.2

San Juan, PR ........................... 13.5 293.9 -3.3 573 7.1

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.5 -0.6 653 6.0

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

(UCFE) programs. 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.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

first quarter 2007 2

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07

United States 4 ................... 8,947.1 134,320.6 1.4 $885 5.1

Alabama ............................. 118.8 1,953.7 1.6 716 3.5

Alaska ................................ 21.0 299.8 1.1 831 5.2

Arizona ............................... 156.1 2,667.2 1.8 803 4.7

Arkansas ............................ 82.5 1,179.9 0.7 642 3.2

California ............................ 1,311.2 15,569.4 1.2 988 3.9

Colorado ............................ 177.0 2,262.4 2.3 889 3.6

Connecticut ........................ 112.3 1,665.0 0.9 1,263 6.1

Delaware ............................ 29.4 416.6 0.4 986 2.1

District of Columbia ............ 31.9 674.4 1.1 1,428 4.7

Florida ................................ 601.6 8,093.4 0.9 764 3.4

Georgia .............................. 268.0 4,065.1 1.9 837 4.9

Hawaii ................................ 38.6 626.4 1.6 748 4.2

Idaho .................................. 56.1 645.0 3.4 636 4.6

Illinois ................................. 355.5 5,795.7 1.1 956 4.6

Indiana ............................... 157.6 2,880.8 0.4 739 2.9

Iowa ................................... 92.8 1,457.6 0.8 686 3.6

Kansas ............................... 84.7 1,349.1 2.7 720 4.7

Kentucky ............................ 110.7 1,791.5 0.9 699 4.0

Louisiana ........................... 119.7 1,863.5 4.2 730 4.4

Maine ................................. 50.2 582.1 0.9 677 3.7

Maryland ............................ 163.9 2,527.0 0.6 939 4.6

Massachusetts ................... 208.9 3,167.5 1.0 1,110 6.1

Michigan ............................ 257.5 4,130.2 -1.7 851 4.0

Minnesota .......................... 168.8 2,629.6 0.0 873 5.2

Mississippi ......................... 69.8 1,127.3 1.1 616 3.2

Missouri ............................. 173.0 2,710.1 1.1 744 2.9

Montana ............................. 41.9 428.8 3.0 600 4.9

Nebraska ........................... 57.8 899.3 1.1 667 2.8

Nevada .............................. 73.8 1,282.3 1.8 802 4.8

New Hampshire ................. 48.5 619.8 0.4 836 4.6

New Jersey ........................ 278.7 3,926.6 0.2 1,097 5.6

New Mexico ....................... 53.3 819.3 3.2 685 5.9

New York ........................... 574.0 8,441.3 1.3 1,397 11.8

North Carolina .................... 249.1 4,034.3 3.2 779 4.7

North Dakota ...................... 24.6 334.5 1.7 615 4.8

Ohio ................................... 292.3 5,241.0 -0.3 793 5.3

Oklahoma .......................... 97.9 1,534.3 1.9 676 1.3

Oregon ............................... 133.5 1,707.8 2.3 755 2.7

Pennsylvania ..................... 339.6 5,589.6 0.9 849 5.1

Rhode Island ...................... 36.0 472.2 0.8 834 7.1

South Carolina ................... 134.7 1,885.9 3.0 677 2.3

South Dakota ..................... 29.8 381.9 2.4 602 3.4

Tennessee ......................... 139.1 2,732.5 0.7 738 4.7

Texas ................................. 545.9 10,143.0 3.3 872 5.6

Utah ................................... 84.9 1,203.9 5.1 696 5.3

Vermont ............................. 24.7 300.0 -0.2 704 2.3

Virginia ............................... 225.9 3,644.6 1.0 901 4.4

Washington ........................ 213.4 2,869.9 3.1 868 4.3

West Virginia ...................... 48.3 700.3 0.3 652 4.2

Wisconsin .......................... 157.5 2,727.7 0.5 745 3.9

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

first quarter 2007 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2007

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2007

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2006-07

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2006-07

Wyoming ............................ 24.1 269.1 4.8 $730 9.3

Puerto Rico ........................ 56.5 1,024.5 -2.3 476 5.3

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.4 45.6 -0.3 687 6.3

 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.
Large

NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in

2006 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.

Source

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

March 2006-07 (U.S. average = 1.4 percent)
Large

NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in

2006 but are included because they are the largest county in their state

or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.

Source

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

or more employees, first quarter 2006-07 (U.S. average = 5.1 percent