For release 10:00 a.m. (EST), Wednesday, December 18, 2013 USDL-13-2392 

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

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

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

Second Quarter 2013 

From June 2012 to June 2013, employment increased in 288 of the 334 largest U.S. counties, the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Fort Bend, Texas, had the largest increase, with a gain of 7.0 

percent over the year, compared with national job growth of 1.6 percent. Within Fort Bend, the largest

employment increase occurred in construction, which gained 2,285 jobs over the year (21.0 percent).

Atlantic, N.J., had the largest over-the-year decrease in employment among the largest counties in the 

U.S. with a loss of 4.5 percent. County employment and wage data are compiled under the Quarterly 

Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, which produces detailed information on county 

employment and wages within 6 months after the end of each quarter. 

The U.S. average weekly wage increased over the year by 2.1 percent to $921 in the second quarter of 

2013. Union, N.J., had the largest over-the-year increase in average weekly wages with a gain of 8.1 

percent. Within Union, an average weekly wage gain of $377, or 28.5 percent, in professional and 

business services made the largest contribution to the increase in average weekly wages. Davidson, 

Tenn., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 2.2 percent over the 

year. 

Chart 1. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

employment, June 2012-13 

(U.S. average = 1.6 percent)

Chart 2. Large counties ranked by percent increase in 

average weekly wages, second quarter 2012-13 

(U.S. average = 2.1 percent)

7.0

6.0 5.8

5.1 4.9

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Fort Bend, 

Texas

Midland, 

Texas

Douglas, 

Colo.

Elkhart, 

Ind.

Placer, 

Calif.

8.1 8.0 7.8

6.9

6.0

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10

Union, 

N.J.

San Mateo, 

Calif.

Williamson, 

Tenn.

Rockingham, 

N.H.

Dane, 

Wis.
- 2 - 

Table A. Large counties ranked by June 2013 employment, June 2012-13 employment 

increase, and June 2012-13 percent increase in employment 

Employment in large counties

June 2013 employment Increase in employment, Percent increase in employment, 

(thousands) June 2012-13 June 2012-13

(thousands)

United States 135,094.0 United States 2,088.2 United States 1.6

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,070.9 Los Angeles, Calif. 80.6 Fort Bend, Texas 7.0

Cook, Ill. 2,452.3 Harris, Texas 67.4 Midland, Texas 6.0

New York, N.Y. 2,434.0 Maricopa, Ariz. 42.3 Douglas, Colo. 5.8

Harris, Texas 2,189.9 Dallas, Texas 39.1 Elkhart, Ind. 5.1

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,678.7 Orange, Calif. 37.5 Placer, Calif. 4.9

Dallas, Texas 1,495.5 New York, N.Y. 35.9 Weld, Colo. 4.8

Orange, Calif. 1,448.0 Santa Clara, Calif. 33.7 Travis, Texas 4.8

San Diego, Calif. 1,310.5 King, Wash. 33.2 Utah, Utah 4.7

King, Wash. 1,205.5 Travis, Texas 29.1 Hamilton, Ind. 4.6

Miami-Dade, Fla. 999.8 Cook, Ill. 28.0 Williamson, Tenn. 4.2

Large County Employment 

In June 2013, national employment was 135.1 million (as measured by the QCEW program). Over the 

year, employment increased 1.6 percent, or 2.1 million. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more jobs 

accounted for 71.4 percent of total U.S. employment and 76.6 percent of total wages. These 334 

counties had a net job growth of 1.6 million over the year, accounting for 78.3 percent of the overall 

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

Fort Bend, Texas, had the largest percentage increase in employment (7.0 percent) among the largest 

U.S. counties. The five counties with the largest increases in employment level were Los Angeles, 

Calif.; Harris, Texas; Maricopa, Ariz.; Dallas, Texas; and Orange, Calif. These counties had a combined 

over-the-year employment gain of 266,900 jobs, which was 12.8 percent of the overall job increase for 

the U.S. (See table A.)

Employment declined in 36 of the large counties from June 2012 to June 2013. Atlantic, N.J., had the 

largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment (-4.5 percent). Within Atlantic, natural 

resources and mining had the largest decrease in employment with a loss of 4,199 (-53.9 percent). 

Caddo, La., had the second largest percentage decrease in employment, followed by Oneida, N.Y., and 

Peoria, Ill. Three counties, Winnebago, Ill., Broome, N.Y., and Jefferson, Texas, tied for the fifth largest 

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

Table B. Large counties ranked by second quarter 2013 average weekly wages, second quarter 2012-13

increase in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2012-13 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 2013 wage, second quarter 2012-13 weekly wage, second

quarter 2012-13

United States $921 United States $19 United States 2.1

Santa Clara, Calif. $1,810 San Mateo, Calif. $121 Union, N.J. 8.1

New York, N.Y. 1,675 Union, N.J. 91 San Mateo, Calif. 8.0

San Mateo, Calif. 1,632 Williamson, Tenn. 76 Williamson, Tenn. 7.8

Washington, D.C. 1,575 Santa Clara, Calif. 73 Rockingham, N.H. 6.9

Arlington, Va. 1,525 Rockingham, N.H. 59 Dane, Wis. 6.0

San Francisco, Calif. 1,512 Lake, Ill. 56 Clayton, Ga. 5.6

Fairfax, Va. 1,459 Midland, Texas 56 Saratoga, N.Y. 5.5

Fairfield, Conn. 1,435 Chester, Pa. 53 Fort Bend, Texas 5.1

Suffolk, Mass. 1,410 Morris, N.J. 52 Midland, Texas 5.1

Middlesex, Mass. 1,371 Dane, Wis. 52 Lake, Ill. 4.9

Montgomery, Texas 4.9

Large County Average Weekly Wages 

Average weekly wages for the nation increased 2.1 percent during the year ending in the second quarter 

of 2013. Among the 334 largest counties, 304 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. 

(See chart 4.) Union, N.J., had the largest wage increase among the largest U.S. counties (8.1 percent). 

Of the 334 largest counties, 18 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Davidson, 

Tenn., had the largest average weekly wage decrease with a loss of 2.2 percent. Within Davidson, 

financial activities had the largest impact on the county’s average weekly wage decrease. Within this 

industry, average weekly wages declined by $254 (-16.2 percent) over the year. Whatcom, Wash., had 

the second largest decrease in average weekly wages, followed by Washington, Ore., and Shelby, Tenn., 

which tied for the third largest percentage decrease. Two counties, El Paso, Colo., and Wyandotte, Kan., 

tied for the fifth largest percentage decrease. (See table 1.)

Ten Largest U.S. Counties 

All of the 10 largest counties had over-the-year percentage increases in employment in June 2013. 

Harris, Texas, had the largest gain (3.2 percent). Within Harris, trade, transportation, and utilities had the 

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

13,618, or 3.1 percent. Cook, Ill., had the smallest percentage increase in employment (1.2 percent) 

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

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

Calif., experienced the largest gain in average weekly wages (4.0 percent). Within San Diego, 

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

Within this industry, average weekly wages increased by $130, or 9.2 percent, over the year. Los 
- 4 - 

Angeles and Orange, Calif., tied for the smallest average weekly wage increase (0.4 percent each) 

among the 10 largest counties.

For More Information

The tables and charts included in this release contain data for the nation and for the 334 U.S. counties 

with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2012. June 2013 employment and 2013 

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

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

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

unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 9.2 million employer reports cover 135.1 million full- and parttime workers. For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read 

the Technical Note. Data for the second quarter of 2013 will be available later at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW data may be obtained by calling 

(202) 691-6567. 

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

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

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2013 is scheduled to be released on

Wednesday, March 19, 2014. 
Technical Note

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

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

from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered 

by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and 

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

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

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

in this release are based on the 2012 North American Industry Classification System. Data for 2013 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 335 counties 

presented in this release were derived using 2012 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2013 data, six counties have been 

added to the publication tables: Boone, Ky.; Warren, Ohio; Jackson, 

Ore.; York, S.C.; Midland, Texas; and Potter, Texas. These counties 

will be included in all 2013 quarterly releases. The counties in table 

2 are selected and sorted each year based on the annual average 

employment from the preceding year.

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

QCEW BED CES

Source Count of UI administrative records 

submitted by 9.2 million establishments in first quarter of 2013 

Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

7.3 million private-sector employers

Sample survey: 557,000 establishments

Coverage UI and UCFE coverage, including all 

employers subject to state and federal UI laws

UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:

UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers

Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs

Publication frequency

Quarterly

— 6 months after the end of each 

quarter

Quarterly

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter

Monthly

— Usually first Friday of following 

month

Use of UI file Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data

Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal database and directly summarizes gross job gains and losses

Uses UI file as a sampling frame and to 

annually realign sample-based estimates 

to population counts (benchmarking)

Principal

products

Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

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

detailed industry

Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

the national level by NAICS 

supersectors and by size of firm, and 

at the state private-sector total level 

Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry

Principal uses Major uses include:

— Detailed locality data

— Periodic universe counts for 

benchmarking sample survey estimates

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys

Major uses include:

— Business cycle analysis

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm

Major uses include:

— Principal national economic indicator

— Official time series for employment 

change measures

— Input into other major economic indicators

Program Web 

sites

www.bls.gov/cew/ www.bls.gov/bdm/ www.bls.gov/ces/
The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ 

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

and ongoing review and editing. The individual states determine 

their data release timetables.

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment 

measures

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

QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and publication product.

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in 

somewhat different measures of employment change over time. It is 

important to understand program differences and the intended uses 

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

program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the 

table.

Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws 

are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted to the 

SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered by the 

Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program, employment and wage data are compiled from quarterly reports submitted by four major federal payroll processing centers on 

behalf of all federal agencies, with the exception of a few agencies

which still report directly to the individual SWA. In addition to the 

quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called the 

"Multiple Worksite Report," which provides detailed information on 

the location and industry of each of their establishments. QCEW 

employment and wage data are derived from microdata summaries 

of 9.1 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted 

by states to the BLS in 2012. 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 2012, 

UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 131.7 million jobs. The 

estimated 126.9 million workers in these jobs (after adjustment for 

multiple jobholders) represented 95.5 percent of civilian wage and 

salary employment. Covered workers received $6.491 trillion in pay, 

representing 93.7 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 40.0 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 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-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may also 

reflect this calendar effect. Growth in average weekly wages may be 

attributed, in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current 

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

only six pay dates. An opposite effect will occur when wages in the 

current quarter reflecting six pay dates are compared with year-ago 

wages for a quarter including seven pay dates. 

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

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

ownership classification of all establishments on a 3-year cycle. 

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

process are introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of 
the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also 

are introduced in the first quarter.

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

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

for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic events, others 

reflecting administrative changes. For example, economic change 

would come from a firm relocating into the county; administrative 

change would come from a company correcting its county designation.

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

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

done by modifying the prior-year levels used to calculate the overthe-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted 

version of the final 2012 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted 

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

in employment and wages are not published. These adjusted prioryear levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the BLS 

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

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

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

news release.

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

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

most common adjustments for administrative change are the result of 

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

involving the classification of establishments that were previously 

reported in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry 

categories. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, adjusted data 

account for administrative changes caused by multi-unit employers 

who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a 

single entity. Beginning with the second quarter of 2011, adjusted 

data account for selected large administrative changes in employment and wages. These new 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 2012 edition 

of this publication, which was published in September 2013, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics 

(BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first 

quarter 2013 version of this news release. Tables and additional 

content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2012 are 

now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn12.htm. 

The 2013 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages 

Online will be available in September 2014. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics 

and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 

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

BDMInfo@bls.gov).

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

message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6.............................. 9,248.7 135,094.0 1.6 - $921 2.1 -

Jefferson, AL................................ 17.5 340.1 1.0 203 917 0.3 297

Madison, AL................................. 8.9 182.9 2.2 99 1,030 1.7 170

Mobile, AL.................................... 9.5 164.8 0.3 266 804 1.8 159

Montgomery, AL........................... 6.3 129.7 1.1 191 784 0.0 305

Tuscaloosa, AL............................. 4.2 85.5 0.9 216 797 0.9 254

Anchorage Borough, AK............... 8.4 155.4 0.0 289 1,009 1.3 218

Maricopa, AZ................................ 93.4 1,678.7 2.6 69 919 1.5 197

Pima, AZ....................................... 18.7 343.6 -0.1 298 812 2.3 98

Benton, AR................................... 5.7 98.7 2.8 50 900 3.0 59

Pulaski, AR................................... 14.6 242.7 -0.6 314 844 2.4 95

Washington, AR........................... 5.7 95.3 2.7 62 751 3.3 43

Alameda, CA................................ 55.3 682.8 2.8 50 1,175 0.3 297

Contra Costa, CA......................... 29.1 334.4 2.1 106 1,123 3.3 43

Fresno, CA................................... 29.5 361.3 2.2 99 706 1.0 248

Kern, CA....................................... 17.0 309.3 2.3 91 803 -0.6 320

Los Angeles, CA........................... 425.8 4,070.9 2.0 114 1,002 0.4 290

Marin, CA..................................... 11.8 110.2 3.0 42 1,136 2.1 123

Monterey, CA............................... 12.6 192.2 2.1 106 779 1.6 183

Orange, CA.................................. 104.9 1,448.0 2.7 62 1,019 0.4 290

Placer, CA.................................... 11.0 138.7 4.9 5 895 1.5 197

Riverside, CA............................... 50.5 597.9 2.8 50 761 2.4 95

Sacramento, CA........................... 50.5 603.2 1.3 172 1,016 0.3 297

San Bernardino, CA..................... 49.3 628.5 2.0 114 791 0.5 286

San Diego, CA.............................. 98.6 1,310.5 1.6 150 1,031 4.0 20

San Francisco, CA....................... 55.3 611.2 3.5 22 1,512 2.2 111

San Joaquin, CA.......................... 16.4 215.2 -1.8 326 757 0.3 297

San Luis Obispo, CA.................... 9.6 109.2 1.6 150 760 1.7 170

San Mateo, CA............................. 24.9 355.5 3.4 23 1,632 8.0 2

Santa Barbara, CA....................... 14.4 191.3 2.1 106 885 2.5 85

Santa Clara, CA........................... 63.4 939.4 3.7 18 1,810 4.2 16

Santa Cruz, CA............................ 9.0 102.0 1.8 131 830 0.5 286

Solano, CA................................... 9.8 126.0 2.1 106 933 3.9 21

Sonoma, CA................................. 18.5 184.0 3.2 28 842 1.0 248

Stanislaus, CA.............................. 13.9 170.7 1.6 150 754 -0.3 316

Tulare, CA.................................... 9.0 154.0 2.4 84 639 0.9 254

Ventura, CA.................................. 24.2 311.5 1.3 172 951 3.5 34

Yolo, CA....................................... 5.9 92.7 0.3 266 944 1.4 209

Adams, CO................................... 9.0 175.8 4.0 12 886 2.3 98

Arapahoe, CO.............................. 19.3 298.6 3.3 24 1,061 2.8 69

Boulder, CO.................................. 13.3 165.7 2.8 50 1,074 2.7 76

Denver, CO.................................. 27.0 441.4 3.3 24 1,093 1.1 237

Douglas, CO................................. 10.0 105.2 5.8 3 1,014 1.0 248

El Paso, CO.................................. 17.0 245.7 2.2 99 835 -1.1 326

Jefferson, CO............................... 17.9 219.5 2.8 50 937 3.4 36

Larimer, CO.................................. 10.3 140.1 3.0 42 786 0.4 290

Weld, CO...................................... 5.9 90.3 4.8 6 791 0.6 281

Fairfield, CT................................. 33.3 419.7 1.3 172 1,435 0.7 267

Hartford, CT.................................. 26.0 502.2 1.1 191 1,120 2.2 111

New Haven, CT............................ 22.8 361.9 0.8 226 968 1.8 159

New London, CT.......................... 7.0 124.3 -1.1 320 939 1.4 209

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE............................ 16.9 269.9 1.6 150 $1,093 2.3 98

Washington, DC........................... 34.9 725.0 0.9 216 1,575 2.1 123

Alachua, FL.................................. 6.6 116.0 0.2 276 799 1.9 143

Brevard, FL................................... 14.6 186.7 -0.5 311 839 0.6 281

Broward, FL.................................. 65.0 710.2 2.6 69 861 3.4 36

Collier, FL..................................... 12.3 114.9 3.8 16 798 2.2 111

Duval, FL..................................... 27.6 447.0 1.6 150 878 2.0 133

Escambia, FL............................... 8.0 120.9 2.3 91 728 0.0 305

Hillsborough, FL........................... 39.0 594.9 2.6 69 884 1.7 170

Lake, FL....................................... 7.4 79.2 3.2 28 633 2.8 69

Lee, FL......................................... 19.4 204.2 3.6 20 739 1.2 227

Leon, FL....................................... 8.3 135.4 0.4 254 768 0.0 305

Manatee, FL................................. 9.6 103.9 3.0 42 721 2.0 133

Marion, FL.................................... 8.0 90.7 0.7 233 668 2.0 133

Miami-Dade, FL............................ 92.6 999.8 2.5 78 885 1.1 237

Okaloosa, FL................................ 6.1 77.4 0.8 226 766 0.7 267

Orange, FL................................... 37.4 699.4 3.6 20 806 2.0 133

Palm Beach, FL............................ 50.9 517.0 2.8 50 892 2.3 98

Pasco, FL..................................... 10.1 94.4 3.0 42 687 3.3 43

Pinellas, FL................................... 31.2 390.2 2.0 114 809 0.5 286

Polk, FL........................................ 12.5 188.2 1.9 124 712 1.9 143

Sarasota, FL................................ 14.7 139.8 3.7 18 777 2.9 62

Seminole, FL................................ 14.0 159.9 2.3 91 784 3.7 29

Volusia, FL................................... 13.5 148.6 0.8 226 675 1.4 209

Bibb, GA....................................... 4.5 79.9 0.2 276 743 (7) -

Chatham, GA................................ 7.9 137.0 2.2 99 763 0.8 262

Clayton, GA.................................. 4.3 111.0 0.3 266 871 5.6 6

Cobb, GA...................................... 22.1 312.8 1.9 124 985 2.5 85

De Kalb, GA................................. 18.2 274.6 0.4 254 957 2.1 123

Fulton, GA.................................... 42.7 743.4 2.6 69 1,204 1.9 143

Gwinnett, GA................................ 24.5 311.2 2.5 78 900 1.9 143

Muscogee, GA.............................. 4.7 94.3 0.0 289 730 2.1 123

Richmond, GA.............................. 4.7 98.7 1.2 183 782 -0.1 314

Honolulu, HI.................................. 24.8 451.5 1.7 143 856 1.5 197

Ada, ID......................................... 13.6 206.3 3.2 28 793 1.4 209

Champaign, IL.............................. 4.4 87.8 0.4 254 795 0.8 262

Cook, IL........................................ 152.6 2,452.3 1.2 183 1,067 1.3 218

Du Page, IL.................................. 38.0 597.6 1.7 143 1,065 1.4 209

Kane, IL........................................ 13.7 203.5 1.4 164 801 1.6 183

Lake, IL........................................ 22.6 335.2 1.3 172 1,206 4.9 10

McHenry, IL.................................. 8.8 95.9 0.1 282 766 3.1 53

McLean, IL.................................... 3.9 85.4 0.2 276 955 3.1 53

Madison, IL................................... 6.1 95.0 -0.6 314 753 1.1 237

Peoria, IL...................................... 4.7 102.9 -2.0 330 871 1.0 248

St. Clair, IL.................................... 5.7 91.8 -1.3 321 737 0.0 305

Sangamon, IL............................... 5.3 126.5 -1.4 323 941 2.1 123

Will, IL.......................................... 15.7 213.2 2.7 62 810 1.4 209

Winnebago, IL.............................. 6.9 124.3 -1.9 327 793 2.5 85

Allen, IN........................................ 8.9 176.0 0.6 241 745 1.5 197

Elkhart, IN..................................... 4.8 117.7 5.1 4 767 3.0 59

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN.................................. 8.7 122.0 4.6 9 $860 2.0 133

Lake, IN........................................ 10.4 189.2 -0.1 298 847 0.4 290

Marion, IN..................................... 24.0 572.6 1.1 191 923 2.1 123

St. Joseph, IN............................... 5.9 114.1 0.0 289 752 -0.5 319

Tippecanoe, IN............................. 3.3 78.4 -0.7 316 786 1.2 227

Vanderburgh, IN........................... 4.8 103.8 -1.5 325 753 3.6 30

Johnson, IA.................................. 3.8 79.7 2.0 114 848 2.5 85

Linn, IA......................................... 6.4 129.7 0.5 244 876 3.5 34

Polk, IA........................................ 15.6 281.8 2.7 62 897 1.5 197

Scott, IA........................................ 5.4 90.2 0.5 244 750 1.8 159

Johnson, KS................................. 21.1 323.6 2.6 69 950 2.7 76

Sedgwick, KS............................... 12.1 242.3 0.9 216 843 3.1 53

Shawnee, KS................................ 4.7 95.6 1.1 191 784 1.7 170

Wyandotte, KS............................. 3.2 83.9 1.1 191 832 -1.1 326

Boone, KY................................... 4.0 77.4 0.5 244 835 1.6 183

Fayette, KY................................... 10.1 180.3 1.0 203 821 1.6 183

Jefferson, KY................................ 23.8 432.1 1.2 183 905 1.2 227

Caddo, LA.................................... 7.4 115.2 -3.1 332 751 0.7 267

Calcasieu, LA............................... 4.9 86.1 1.4 164 778 1.8 159

East Baton Rouge, LA.................. 14.7 259.4 1.8 131 882 3.3 43

Jefferson, LA................................ 13.6 194.6 1.5 158 828 1.3 218

Lafayette, LA................................ 9.2 140.9 1.3 172 900 1.8 159

Orleans, LA.................................. 11.3 177.1 2.3 91 910 0.8 262

St. Tammany, LA.......................... 7.6 80.7 2.6 69 770 3.9 21

Cumberland, ME.......................... 12.7 175.5 0.8 226 825 2.2 111

Anne Arundel, MD........................ 14.9 255.8 2.1 106 981 0.6 281

Baltimore, MD............................... 21.5 364.5 1.0 203 920 1.0 248

Frederick, MD............................... 6.3 96.5 0.9 216 880 -0.9 324

Harford, MD.................................. 5.7 90.1 1.1 191 900 (7) -

Howard, MD................................. 9.5 162.7 0.3 266 1,114 1.9 143

Montgomery, MD.......................... 33.7 458.2 0.5 244 1,246 2.0 133

Prince Georges, MD..................... 15.9 303.3 0.5 244 979 0.0 305

Baltimore City, MD....................... 14.1 332.2 0.3 266 1,049 2.5 85

Barnstable, MA............................. 9.0 102.3 0.8 226 768 1.2 227

Bristol, MA.................................... 16.3 217.5 0.7 233 842 2.1 123

Essex, MA.................................... 22.1 315.0 0.3 266 979 2.8 69

Hampden, MA.............................. 15.9 201.1 -0.3 306 832 0.0 305

Middlesex, MA.............................. 49.8 847.7 1.9 124 1,371 2.2 111

Norfolk, MA................................... 23.6 335.1 1.8 131 1,066 1.1 237

Plymouth, MA............................... 14.2 184.1 1.5 158 889 2.5 85

Suffolk, MA................................... 24.3 608.1 1.7 143 1,410 1.8 159

Worcester, MA.............................. 21.9 328.3 1.2 183 926 1.3 218

Genesee, MI................................. 7.2 132.8 1.4 164 751 1.1 237

Ingham, MI................................... 6.3 150.5 0.9 216 855 1.1 237

Kalamazoo, MI............................. 5.3 112.3 1.3 172 842 3.2 49

Kent, MI....................................... 14.1 349.5 2.8 50 809 0.7 267

Macomb, MI.................................. 17.4 305.9 3.2 28 928 1.9 143

Oakland, MI.................................. 38.4 686.8 2.4 84 1,015 1.4 209

Ottawa, MI.................................... 5.6 111.9 2.9 48 762 2.3 98

Saginaw, MI.................................. 4.2 83.6 0.5 244 733 0.7 267

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Washtenaw, MI............................. 8.3 194.9 1.1 191 $979 1.3 218

Wayne, MI.................................... 31.5 691.1 0.9 216 998 2.3 98

Anoka, MN.................................... 7.2 116.8 3.8 16 881 1.4 209

Dakota, MN.................................. 10.1 180.3 1.7 143 900 2.6 82

Hennepin, MN.............................. 41.0 866.7 2.4 84 1,141 1.7 170

Olmsted, MN................................ 3.5 93.8 1.1 191 1,053 2.3 98

Ramsey, MN................................. 14.0 322.3 1.2 183 1,029 2.2 111

St. Louis, MN................................ 5.6 97.3 1.7 143 750 3.2 49

Stearns, MN................................. 4.4 82.5 1.4 164 750 3.3 43

Harrison, MS................................ 4.5 83.7 -0.4 310 677 1.7 170

Hinds, MS..................................... 6.0 120.3 -0.1 298 811 1.8 159

Boone, MO................................... 4.6 89.1 2.8 50 719 0.8 262

Clay, MO...................................... 5.2 91.2 2.4 84 839 3.2 49

Greene, MO.................................. 8.1 155.1 1.0 203 708 1.9 143

Jackson, MO................................ 19.1 351.5 1.0 203 920 0.0 305

St. Charles, MO............................ 8.4 132.8 3.3 24 756 1.6 183

St. Louis, MO................................ 32.7 575.9 1.5 158 971 1.6 183

St. Louis City, MO........................ 9.8 221.4 0.1 282 972 3.1 53

Yellowstone, MT........................... 6.2 78.5 1.0 203 806 4.8 12

Douglas, NE................................. 18.3 321.0 0.7 233 831 2.6 82

Lancaster, NE............................... 9.8 160.2 1.3 172 743 1.6 183

Clark, NV..................................... 49.9 842.7 2.5 78 822 1.9 143

Washoe, NV................................. 13.7 190.0 2.1 106 814 0.7 267

Hillsborough, NH.......................... 12.1 192.0 0.4 254 987 0.9 254

Rockingham, NH.......................... 10.5 141.2 1.3 172 908 6.9 4

Atlantic, NJ................................... 6.6 138.8 -4.5 333 785 2.5 85

Bergen, NJ................................... 32.9 440.1 1.8 131 1,124 -0.4 317

Burlington, NJ............................... 11.0 201.4 1.4 164 975 1.5 197

Camden, NJ................................. 12.0 197.4 0.0 289 904 1.2 227

Essex, NJ.................................... 20.4 336.5 0.2 276 1,129 3.4 36

Gloucester, NJ.............................. 6.1 99.7 0.2 276 809 2.5 85

Hudson, NJ................................... 14.0 236.3 0.9 216 1,248 1.1 237

Mercer, NJ.................................... 11.0 235.9 1.1 191 1,179 2.3 98

Middlesex, NJ.............................. 21.8 392.5 0.5 244 1,095 2.7 76

Monmouth, NJ.............................. 20.0 253.9 1.0 203 932 2.3 98

Morris, NJ..................................... 17.1 282.3 1.7 143 1,323 4.1 19

Ocean, NJ.................................... 12.4 161.9 1.4 164 761 2.4 95

Passaic, NJ.................................. 12.2 171.1 -0.2 304 934 0.4 290

Somerset, NJ............................... 10.1 181.2 1.8 131 1,370 1.5 197

Union, NJ..................................... 14.3 225.2 0.8 226 1,217 8.1 1

Bernalillo, NM............................... 17.7 310.4 0.4 254 802 0.0 305

Albany, NY................................... 10.1 224.5 0.5 244 965 3.9 21

Bronx, NY..................................... 17.4 244.4 2.4 84 888 1.8 159

Broome, NY.................................. 4.6 90.0 -1.9 327 745 1.5 197

Dutchess, NY............................... 8.4 112.4 0.7 233 961 -0.1 314

Erie, NY........................................ 24.1 459.3 -0.2 304 807 1.6 183

Kings, NY..................................... 55.3 537.5 2.4 84 744 1.1 237

Monroe, NY.................................. 18.4 380.2 0.0 289 869 0.9 254

Nassau, NY.................................. 53.3 609.5 1.8 131 1,046 0.1 302

New York, NY............................... 125.0 2,434.0 1.5 158 1,675 1.8 159

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Oneida, NY................................... 5.3 105.1 -2.3 331 $761 2.8 69

Onondaga, NY.............................. 13.0 243.6 -0.1 298 856 0.7 267

Orange, NY.................................. 9.9 134.6 0.3 266 820 1.7 170

Queens, NY.................................. 48.6 537.1 2.6 69 852 0.7 267

Richmond, NY.............................. 9.2 95.0 3.1 37 787 2.2 111

Rockland, NY............................... 10.1 118.6 0.7 233 995 0.7 267

Saratoga, NY................................ 5.7 82.5 1.7 143 859 5.5 7

Suffolk, NY................................... 51.6 652.8 1.3 172 996 2.2 111

Westchester, NY.......................... 36.2 416.2 0.4 254 1,244 4.2 16

Buncombe, NC............................. 8.0 116.4 2.6 69 690 1.3 218

Catawba, NC................................ 4.3 80.5 0.7 233 694 1.9 143

Cumberland, NC........................... 6.1 119.4 -0.1 298 748 0.5 286

Durham, NC................................. 7.3 185.0 2.0 114 1,202 3.4 36

Forsyth, NC.................................. 9.0 175.0 1.8 131 834 3.6 30

Guilford, NC.................................. 14.0 265.7 1.9 124 809 3.6 30

Mecklenburg, NC.......................... 32.8 578.7 3.1 37 1,026 2.2 111

New Hanover, NC........................ 7.3 99.5 1.6 150 738 0.4 290

Wake, NC..................................... 29.6 475.3 2.5 78 929 3.3 43

Cass, ND...................................... 6.3 110.2 2.3 91 810 2.9 62

Butler, OH..................................... 7.4 139.8 1.4 164 805 2.2 111

Cuyahoga, OH.............................. 35.7 715.5 1.2 183 931 1.7 170

Delaware, OH............................... 4.5 83.0 2.2 99 908 2.7 76

Franklin, OH................................. 29.7 689.6 2.2 99 935 0.2 301

Hamilton, OH................................ 23.1 498.6 0.6 241 999 3.0 59

Lake, OH...................................... 6.3 95.3 0.0 289 754 -0.7 323

Lorain, OH.................................... 6.0 97.0 -0.1 298 764 1.9 143

Lucas, OH.................................... 10.1 203.1 0.1 282 800 -0.6 320

Mahoning, OH.............................. 6.0 97.5 0.1 282 656 1.2 227

Montgomery, OH.......................... 11.9 243.8 -0.5 311 801 1.6 183

Stark, OH..................................... 8.8 157.0 0.9 216 706 2.8 69

Summit, OH................................. 14.1 258.9 0.5 244 816 1.6 183

Warren, OH................................. 4.3 84.5 2.8 50 800 4.7 13

Oklahoma, OK.............................. 25.5 436.7 1.0 203 875 4.2 16

Tulsa, OK..................................... 21.0 336.7 0.7 233 862 3.4 36

Clackamas, OR............................ 12.9 145.7 2.7 62 861 1.3 218

Jackson, OR................................ 6.7 78.8 3.1 37 708 3.8 27

Lane, OR...................................... 10.9 140.8 1.3 172 735 3.4 36

Marion, OR................................... 9.5 139.0 3.2 28 745 2.1 123

Multnomah, OR............................ 30.3 454.7 2.6 69 943 2.5 85

Washington, OR........................... 16.8 258.6 2.5 78 1,105 -1.3 328

Allegheny, PA............................... 34.8 695.4 0.3 266 1,001 3.9 21

Berks, PA..................................... 8.8 164.8 0.4 254 846 3.9 21

Bucks, PA..................................... 19.5 254.1 0.7 233 891 1.4 209

Butler, PA..................................... 4.9 85.6 -0.3 306 865 3.2 49

Chester, PA.................................. 15.0 240.7 0.3 266 1,213 4.6 14

Cumberland, PA........................... 6.1 126.4 0.8 226 877 2.7 76

Dauphin, PA................................ 7.3 179.6 0.4 254 903 1.7 170

Delaware, PA............................... 13.7 215.1 1.3 172 973 1.6 183

Erie, PA........................................ 7.1 125.5 -0.8 317 731 1.1 237

Lackawanna, PA.......................... 5.8 96.9 0.2 276 696 1.2 227

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Lancaster, PA............................... 12.8 224.5 0.4 254 $758 1.3 218

Lehigh, PA.................................... 8.6 181.2 1.6 150 912 3.1 53

Luzerne, PA.................................. 7.6 139.8 0.1 282 723 1.7 170

Montgomery, PA........................... 27.0 475.1 0.6 241 1,145 2.9 62

Northampton, PA.......................... 6.5 105.2 1.1 191 802 3.1 53

Philadelphia, PA........................... 34.7 633.7 0.5 244 1,100 2.9 62

Washington, PA............................ 5.3 87.1 0.1 282 895 1.9 143

Westmoreland, PA....................... 9.3 134.4 -1.3 321 740 1.9 143

York, PA....................................... 8.9 172.5 1.1 191 805 2.8 69

Providence, RI.............................. 17.4 273.2 1.0 203 908 2.0 133

Charleston, SC............................. 12.3 218.7 1.0 203 799 3.6 30

Greenville, SC.............................. 12.6 239.1 3.2 28 796 0.1 302

Horry, SC..................................... 7.9 121.0 1.9 124 537 0.9 254

Lexington, SC............................... 5.9 101.7 2.3 91 707 2.6 82

Richland, SC................................ 9.1 206.4 1.8 131 804 0.6 281

Spartanburg, SC........................... 5.8 120.0 3.3 24 811 1.5 197

York, SC....................................... 4.7 78.5 3.1 37 722 -0.6 320

Minnehaha, SD............................. 6.7 120.1 1.8 131 772 1.2 227

Davidson, TN................................ 18.8 441.2 2.8 50 928 -2.2 331

Hamilton, TN................................ 8.6 187.3 1.2 183 819 1.9 143

Knox, TN...................................... 11.0 219.0 0.0 289 795 2.3 98

Rutherford, TN.............................. 4.6 109.0 (7) - 799 (7) -

Shelby, TN.................................... 19.2 473.7 0.0 289 945 -1.3 328

Williamson, TN............................. 6.7 103.2 4.2 10 1,055 7.8 3

Bell, TX......................................... 4.9 110.1 1.0 203 755 2.0 133

Bexar, TX..................................... 36.0 773.2 3.0 42 812 1.6 183

Brazoria, TX................................. 5.1 95.2 1.5 158 916 1.7 170

Brazos, TX.................................... 4.1 88.9 1.9 124 701 2.2 111

Cameron, TX................................ 6.3 132.7 1.6 150 572 0.7 267

Collin, TX...................................... 20.0 328.0 3.9 14 1,076 1.5 197

Dallas, TX..................................... 70.1 1,495.5 2.7 62 1,106 2.9 62

Denton, TX.................................. 12.0 196.2 4.1 11 822 3.9 21

El Paso, TX.................................. 14.2 281.4 0.9 216 658 0.9 254

Fort Bend, TX............................... 10.3 158.1 7.0 1 951 5.1 8

Galveston, TX............................... 5.6 100.4 2.2 99 808 -0.9 324

Gregg, TX..................................... 4.2 77.7 1.4 164 838 2.9 62

Harris, TX..................................... 105.6 2,189.9 3.2 28 1,190 2.1 123

Hidalgo, TX................................... 11.6 234.4 2.8 50 592 1.2 227

Jefferson, TX................................ 5.8 119.6 -1.9 327 925 0.1 302

Lubbock, TX................................. 7.2 128.5 2.3 91 702 1.9 143

McLennan, TX.............................. 4.9 103.3 1.8 131 751 1.1 237

Midland, TX.................................. 5.1 85.4 6.0 2 1,150 5.1 8

Montgomery, TX........................... 9.5 149.3 3.9 14 917 4.9 10

Nueces, TX.................................. 8.0 161.1 2.4 84 809 0.6 281

Potter, TX..................................... 3.9 77.7 1.9 124 736 0.8 262

Smith, TX..................................... 5.8 96.0 1.8 131 769 0.9 254

Tarrant, TX................................... 39.3 809.4 2.7 62 908 1.8 159

Travis, TX..................................... 33.3 639.7 4.8 6 1,008 0.0 305

Webb, TX..................................... 5.0 92.8 2.1 106 647 1.7 170

Williamson, TX............................. 8.3 140.3 3.2 28 896 3.8 27

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 335 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 4

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-135

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT..................................... 7.5 111.9 2.0 114 $737 1.7 170

Salt Lake, UT................................ 38.8 609.5 3.2 28 875 2.3 98

Utah, UT....................................... 13.3 187.1 4.7 8 735 4.3 15

Weber, UT.................................... 5.5 93.3 2.0 114 700 0.7 267

Chittenden, VT............................. 6.2 98.8 0.4 254 945 3.4 36

Arlington, VA................................ 8.8 166.0 -1.0 319 1,525 1.5 197

Chesterfield, VA........................... 7.9 123.9 3.0 42 821 1.9 143

Fairfax, VA.................................... 35.2 595.9 0.4 254 1,459 2.7 76

Henrico, VA.................................. 10.2 180.4 0.3 266 918 2.5 85

Loudoun, VA................................ 10.2 149.0 2.0 114 1,090 0.7 267

Prince William, VA........................ 8.1 119.5 2.9 48 819 0.4 290

Alexandria City, VA...................... 6.3 95.5 -0.3 306 1,323 2.3 98

Chesapeake City, VA................... 5.7 96.3 1.0 203 740 -0.4 317

Newport News City, VA................ 3.7 97.7 4.0 12 873 0.9 254

Norfolk City, VA........................... 5.6 136.8 -0.9 318 888 1.3 218

Richmond City, VA....................... 7.1 147.8 0.4 254 987 2.0 133

Virginia Beach City, VA................ 11.3 175.2 2.0 114 725 2.0 133

Benton, WA.................................. 5.9 83.3 0.1 282 932 1.1 237

Clark, WA..................................... 14.3 134.8 2.3 91 842 1.9 143

King, WA...................................... 85.2 1,205.5 2.8 50 1,202 2.9 62

Kitsap, WA.................................... 6.9 80.9 -0.3 306 829 0.7 267

Pierce, WA................................... 22.6 271.6 2.0 114 850 1.6 183

Snohomish, WA............................ 20.2 265.3 2.5 78 992 1.6 183

Spokane, WA............................... 16.5 204.3 1.5 158 779 2.1 123

Thurston, WA............................... 7.9 100.4 1.8 131 834 2.2 111

Whatcom, WA.............................. 7.2 83.5 2.1 106 763 -1.5 330

Yakima, WA................................. 9.3 114.0 3.1 37 629 2.3 98

Kanawha, WV............................... 6.0 105.1 -0.5 311 819 0.7 267

Brown, WI..................................... 6.6 150.4 1.0 203 805 2.8 69

Dane, WI...................................... 14.4 311.3 1.1 191 925 6.0 5

Milwaukee, WI.............................. 24.1 474.5 0.0 289 892 1.8 159

Outagamie, WI............................. 5.0 104.1 1.2 183 761 1.5 197

Waukesha, WI.............................. 12.6 233.7 0.9 216 905 1.2 227

Winnebago, WI............................. 3.6 90.4 -1.4 323 842 1.0 248

San Juan, PR............................... 11.3 258.3 -2.0 (8) 601 0.8 (8)

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

334 U.S. counties comprise 71.4 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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-134

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-134

United States5................................................................. 9,248.7 135,094.0 1.6 $921 2.1

 Private industry............................................................. 8,954.6 113,985.0 1.9 910 2.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 132.9 2,151.6 1.3 1,033 3.4

 Construction............................................................... 747.6 5,967.8 3.9 986 2.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 335.9 12,061.7 0.4 1,130 1.9

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 1,905.5 25,608.9 1.5 781 2.1

 Information................................................................. 145.0 2,713.2 0.6 1,527 5.1

 Financial activities...................................................... 819.5 7,661.7 1.8 1,360 3.1

 Professional and business services........................... 1,635.6 18,540.3 2.6 1,183 2.4

 Education and health services................................... 1,444.8 20,098.1 1.6 844 1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 781.8 14,776.7 2.9 379 1.3

 Other services............................................................ 795.3 4,217.3 0.7 621 2.8

 Government.................................................................. 294.1 21,108.9 -0.4 979 1.7

Los Angeles, CA.............................................................. 425.8 4,070.9 2.0 1,002 0.4

 Private industry............................................................. 420.0 3,534.9 2.7 971 0.3

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 10.2 10.2 1,457 10.0

 Construction............................................................... 12.3 115.9 5.4 1,053 0.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 12.5 367.2 -0.4 1,087 2.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 52.1 766.3 1.7 833 1.3

 Information................................................................. 8.4 192.5 5.6 1,727 -3.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 22.6 211.9 0.7 1,497 2.6

 Professional and business services........................... 43.7 586.8 3.0 1,217 -1.1

 Education and health services................................... 187.1 682.3 2.4 801 0.9

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 28.0 443.0 5.1 542 -1.8

 Other services............................................................ 25.3 141.2 -0.9 637 3.6

 Government.................................................................. 5.8 536.0 -2.2 1,203 1.3

Cook, IL........................................................................... 152.6 2,452.3 1.2 1,067 1.3

 Private industry............................................................. 151.2 2,150.6 1.2 1,048 1.2

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.1 0.9 -2.7 998 6.2

 Construction............................................................... 12.6 65.7 2.1 1,287 3.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 6.6 188.8 -1.9 1,083 -1.5

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 30.2 447.9 1.2 849 2.9

 Information................................................................. 2.8 54.5 -1.2 1,582 3.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 15.8 185.6 0.2 1,819 0.3

 Professional and business services........................... 32.4 433.5 2.1 1,351 1.0

 Education and health services................................... 16.1 416.9 1.4 891 1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.6 258.2 3.2 480 2.3

 Other services............................................................ 16.9 95.6 -1.6 798 2.6

 Government.................................................................. 1.3 301.8 1.1 1,199 2.2

New York, NY.................................................................. 125.0 2,434.0 1.5 1,675 1.8

 Private industry............................................................. 124.7 1,998.2 1.8 1,802 2.0

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.0 0.2 4.0 2,366 49.7

 Construction............................................................... 2.2 33.4 4.0 1,668 3.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.3 25.9 0.5 1,194 0.7

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 21.0 256.9 1.5 1,289 5.0

 Information................................................................. 4.5 143.9 0.8 2,230 8.5

 Financial activities...................................................... 19.1 351.9 -1.2 3,321 2.5

 Professional and business services........................... 26.3 505.1 2.8 2,040 0.9

 Education and health services................................... 9.5 313.5 2.6 1,145 2.5

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 13.4 265.8 2.7 760 -0.3

 Other services............................................................ 19.5 95.3 2.2 1,061 4.3

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 435.9 0.0 1,100 -0.2

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-134

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-134

Harris, TX........................................................................ 105.6 2,189.9 3.2 $1,190 2.1

 Private industry............................................................. 105.0 1,935.5 3.5 1,214 1.9

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 1.7 95.1 7.4 3,103 1.3

 Construction............................................................... 6.5 146.6 5.7 1,208 4.7

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.6 195.1 3.1 1,450 3.4

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 23.8 451.5 3.1 1,057 -4.9

 Information................................................................. 1.2 28.6 -1.2 1,371 5.0

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.8 116.5 2.3 1,428 0.5

 Professional and business services........................... 21.2 375.6 3.1 1,459 6.4

 Education and health services................................... 14.5 260.3 2.6 921 3.6

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 8.7 203.2 4.1 398 -0.3

 Other services............................................................ 11.4 61.8 3.6 697 2.2

 Government.................................................................. 0.6 254.5 0.9 1,006 2.8

Maricopa, AZ.................................................................... 93.4 1,678.7 2.6 919 1.5

 Private industry............................................................. 92.7 1,502.8 3.1 903 1.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 8.3 7.5 846 3.0

 Construction............................................................... 7.4 92.4 6.2 947 1.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 3.1 113.6 0.0 1,329 0.1

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 20.6 337.6 1.6 824 -0.2

 Information................................................................. 1.6 31.6 2.1 1,160 1.8

 Financial activities...................................................... 10.8 148.6 5.5 1,163 4.2

 Professional and business services........................... 21.8 290.1 4.4 978 2.3

 Education and health services................................... 10.7 248.2 2.0 941 1.4

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.3 182.4 3.8 424 1.2

 Other services............................................................ 6.5 47.4 -0.4 631 4.3

 Government.................................................................. 0.7 175.9 -1.6 1,038 2.4

Dallas, TX........................................................................ 70.1 1,495.5 2.7 1,106 2.9

 Private industry............................................................. 69.6 1,332.6 2.9 1,113 2.8

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.6 9.3 7.3 4,333 12.1

 Construction............................................................... 4.0 72.2 4.5 1,027 2.8

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.7 109.1 -3.0 1,314 1.3

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 15.2 300.1 2.9 1,012 2.2

 Information................................................................. 1.5 47.4 4.5 1,772 7.7

 Financial activities...................................................... 8.6 148.3 4.4 1,476 2.5

 Professional and business services........................... 15.6 288.3 2.8 1,234 3.4

 Education and health services................................... 8.5 174.9 3.1 967 1.3

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.0 142.3 5.1 451 0.9

 Other services............................................................ 6.7 40.1 1.5 714 1.9

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 162.9 0.7 1,045 3.4

Orange, CA...................................................................... 104.9 1,448.0 2.7 1,019 0.4

 Private industry............................................................. 103.5 1,303.3 3.0 1,006 0.5

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.2 3.4 -2.8 694 -5.4

 Construction............................................................... 6.1 77.4 9.7 1,129 1.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 4.8 157.2 -0.8 1,246 1.0

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 16.4 251.5 2.2 932 -1.1

 Information................................................................. 1.2 25.1 3.3 1,446 2.7

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.8 113.3 4.8 1,566 4.1

 Professional and business services........................... 19.3 260.8 2.7 1,173 0.7

 Education and health services................................... 24.7 178.4 2.9 883 -0.3

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.5 190.4 3.7 438 -1.8

 Other services............................................................ 6.2 41.1 0.7 632 -1.1

 Government.................................................................. 1.4 144.7 -0.2 1,136 0.1

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-134

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-134

San Diego, CA................................................................ 98.6 1,310.5 1.6 $1,031 4.0

 Private industry............................................................. 97.2 1,090.4 1.9 1,014 4.8

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.7 10.9 -0.5 658 4.9

 Construction............................................................... 5.9 61.2 5.3 1,048 0.4

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.9 94.0 -1.1 1,448 6.8

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 13.9 209.6 1.4 798 0.3

 Information................................................................. 1.1 24.2 -1.8 1,515 2.3

 Financial activities...................................................... 8.6 71.3 2.2 1,306 9.7

 Professional and business services........................... 16.7 221.5 2.1 1,549 9.2

 Education and health services................................... 26.9 175.8 1.2 876 1.2

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.3 171.5 3.5 423 1.9

 Other services............................................................ 6.6 46.3 1.6 559 2.8

 Government.................................................................. 1.4 220.1 0.0 1,114 1.0

King, WA......................................................................... 85.2 1,205.5 2.8 1,202 2.9

 Private industry............................................................. 84.6 1,045.7 3.2 1,208 3.1

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.4 3.0 1.4 1,355 -1.4

 Construction............................................................... 5.3 52.5 6.7 1,153 1.3

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.2 105.5 2.5 1,484 4.6

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 14.4 220.5 3.7 1,064 4.3

 Information................................................................. 1.8 82.5 1.0 2,328 3.7

 Financial activities...................................................... 6.3 65.1 3.0 1,445 4.5

 Professional and business services........................... 14.3 198.0 3.2 1,471 2.4

 Education and health services................................... 25.6 155.1 1.4 906 1.0

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 6.5 123.4 5.4 456 2.9

 Other services............................................................ 7.9 40.1 2.3 789 5.1

 Government.................................................................. 0.5 159.8 0.7 1,164 1.8

Miami-Dade, FL............................................................... 92.6 999.8 2.5 885 1.1

 Private industry............................................................. 92.3 877.5 2.9 844 1.6

 Natural resources and mining.................................... 0.5 7.5 -0.9 542 3.6

 Construction............................................................... 5.2 32.3 8.8 831 3.2

 Manufacturing............................................................ 2.6 36.2 1.8 824 3.6

 Trade, transportation, and utilities.............................. 27.5 261.2 2.6 796 2.2

 Information................................................................. 1.6 17.4 3.2 1,444 5.2

 Financial activities...................................................... 9.5 67.8 3.8 1,316 3.9

 Professional and business services........................... 19.5 135.8 4.2 1,026 -0.6

 Education and health services................................... 10.2 158.3 0.5 869 1.5

 Leisure and hospitality............................................... 7.0 123.9 4.0 489 -2.6

 Other services............................................................ 8.1 36.6 1.7 565 3.9

 Government.................................................................. 0.3 122.3 -0.7 1,154 -0.2

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

2 Data are preliminary. Counties selected are based on 2012 annual average employment.

3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,

second quarter 20132

Employment Average weekly wage 3

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-13

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-13

United States4.......................................... 9,248.7 135,094.0 1.6 $921 2.1

Alabama.................................................... 115.8 1,859.5 0.9 794 1.4

Alaska........................................................ 22.1 342.6 -0.1 970 1.6

Arizona...................................................... 145.8 2,438.1 1.8 877 1.7

Arkansas................................................... 87.2 1,150.4 -0.6 734 2.4

California................................................... 1,347.4 15,485.8 2.4 1,048 2.0

Colorado.................................................... 174.3 2,359.4 2.9 933 1.6

Connecticut............................................... 112.8 1,666.3 1.0 1,128 1.5

Delaware................................................... 28.0 417.8 1.8 966 2.0

District of Columbia................................... 34.9 725.0 0.9 1,575 2.1

Florida....................................................... 623.7 7,402.0 2.4 822 2.0

Georgia...................................................... 274.6 3,917.2 1.7 867 2.2

Hawaii........................................................ 38.7 617.0 1.9 823 1.6

Idaho......................................................... 53.5 642.7 2.7 683 1.9

Illinois........................................................ 401.9 5,750.0 0.8 971 1.9

Indiana....................................................... 160.1 2,863.4 1.1 776 1.7

Iowa........................................................... 97.4 1,523.9 1.3 757 2.0

Kansas...................................................... 84.6 1,350.0 1.2 779 2.1

Kentucky.................................................... 117.1 1,790.6 0.6 782 1.3

Louisiana................................................... 128.1 1,894.7 0.9 824 2.4

Maine......................................................... 49.4 604.4 0.4 732 1.8

Maryland.................................................... 169.6 2,570.3 0.9 1,005 1.4

Massachusetts.......................................... 225.0 3,352.7 1.3 1,131 2.0

Michigan.................................................... 238.9 4,073.7 2.2 875 2.0

Minnesota.................................................. 171.0 2,745.2 1.9 929 2.4

Mississippi................................................. 70.3 1,094.9 0.7 691 1.5

Missouri..................................................... 180.0 2,668.2 1.2 803 1.6

Montana.................................................... 43.2 448.4 1.5 717 2.4

Nebraska................................................... 69.8 941.0 0.9 737 2.6

Nevada...................................................... 74.2 1,168.3 2.3 829 1.7

New Hampshire......................................... 49.3 629.1 0.8 916 2.9

New Jersey............................................... 263.6 3,917.5 1.0 1,084 2.6

New Mexico............................................... 55.1 795.0 0.4 781 -0.3

New York.................................................. 615.1 8,804.9 1.1 1,118 2.0

North Carolina........................................... 256.4 3,985.1 1.7 808 2.5

North Dakota............................................. 30.6 433.7 3.2 887 3.7

Ohio........................................................... 287.7 5,162.3 1.1 830 1.7

Oklahoma.................................................. 105.6 1,560.7 0.9 794 3.5

Oregon...................................................... 134.6 1,708.0 2.5 848 1.3

Pennsylvania............................................. 346.0 5,665.9 0.3 918 2.8

Rhode Island............................................. 35.5 465.5 1.0 880 2.3

South Carolina.......................................... 116.5 1,864.9 1.8 747 1.5

South Dakota............................................ 31.7 417.0 1.0 689 1.8

Tennessee................................................. 143.4 2,709.3 1.5 820 0.5

Texas......................................................... 606.1 11,078.8 2.7 944 2.4

Utah........................................................... 87.0 1,259.7 2.8 783 2.2

Vermont..................................................... 24.5 303.1 0.3 808 2.7

Virginia...................................................... 239.6 3,685.4 0.7 968 1.7

Washington............................................... 243.6 3,013.3 2.2 969 2.4

West Virginia............................................. 49.8 713.1 -0.1 781 0.6

Wisconsin.................................................. 162.1 2,768.2 0.6 801 3.0

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,

second quarter 20132 - Continued

Employment Average weekly wage 3

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2013

(thousands)

June

2013

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2012-13

Second

quarter

2013

Percent

change,

second quarter

2012-13

Wyoming................................................... 25.5 290.4 0.4 $845 0.5

Puerto Rico............................................... 48.9 926.1 -1.1 503 1.0

Virgin Islands............................................ 3.4 38.9 -3.0 706 -13.8

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

programs.

2 Data are preliminary.

3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.

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

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 December 2013

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

June 2012-13 (U.S. average = 1.6 percent)
Largest Counties

Higher than U.S. average

U.S. average or lower

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 December 2013

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

or more employees, second quarter 2012-13 (U.S. average = 2.1 percent)