Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 

News United States 

Department 

of Labor 

Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 08-1459 

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

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT 

Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, October 17, 2008 

 (NOTE: This news release was reissued on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, to correct two items in 

the Large County Average Weekly Wages section on page 3. In the second sentence of the first 

paragraph, the number of counties with average weekly wages higher than the national average 

was corrected from "183" to "92". In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the number of 

counties with average weekly wages below the national average was corrected from "137" to 

"241". No other changes were made.) 

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2008 

In March 2008, 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-theyear employment gain of 5.0 percent, compared with national job growth of 0.4 percent. Westmoreland County, 

Pa., near Pittsburgh, had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2008, with 

an increase of 14.9 percent due to an increase in the professional and business services supersector. The U.S. 

average weekly wage rose by 2.4 percent over the same time span. 

Of the 334 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2007 annual average employment, 146 had 

over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (0.4 percent) in March 2008; 178 

large counties experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average 

weekly wages was higher than the national average (2.4 percent) in 183 of the largest U.S. counties but was below 

the national average in 137 counties. (See chart 4.) 

C hart 2. T o p ranking large co unties by percent gro wth in

 average weekly wages, first quarter 2008 

 (U.S. average = 2.4 percent)

0

5

10

15

20

Westmoreland,

Pa.

Williamson,

Texas

Somerset, N.J. San Luis Obispo,

Calif.

Jefferson, Texas

P ercent

C hart 1. T o p ranking large co unties by percent gro wth in 

 emplo yment, M arch 2008 

 (U.S. average = 0.4 percent)

0

5

10

15

20

Orleans, La. Fort Bend,

Texas

M ontgomery,

Texas

Williamson,

Texas

Douglas, Colo.

P ercent
2 

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 9.1 million employer reports 

cover 134.8 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation and for 

the 334 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2007. March 2008 

employment and 2008 first-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. 

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by March 2008 employment, March 2007-08 employment growth, 

and March 2007-08 percent growth in employment 

Employment in large counties 

 

March 2008 employment Growth in employment, Percent growth in employment, 

(thousands) March 2007-08 March 2007-08 

 (thousands) 

United States 134,761.1 United States 481.0 United States 0.4 

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,229.6 Harris, Texas 67.2 Orleans, La. 5.0 

Cook, Ill. 2,490.4 New York, N.Y. 38.7 Fort Bend, Texas 4.7 

New York, N.Y. 2,376.0 King, Wash. 31.0 Montgomery, Texas 4.7 

Harris, Texas 2,046.5 Dallas, Texas 29.1 Williamson, Texas 4.6 

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,805.2 Bexar, Texas 20.2 Douglas, Colo. 4.1 

Orange, Calif. 1,504.9 Tarrant, Texas 17.6 Potter, Texas 4.1 

Dallas, Texas 1,489.7 Santa Clara, Calif. 16.8 Cass, N.D. 3.8 

San Diego, Calif. 1,327.6 San Francisco, Calif. 16.1 El Paso, Texas 3.7 

King, Wash. 1,186.2 Los Angeles, Calif. 15.2 Yakima, Wash. 3.6 

Miami-Dade, Fla. 1,029.9 Wake, N.C. 15.2 Wake, N.C. 3.5 

 

Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth quarter of 2007 are 

available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew. Preliminary data for first quarter 2008 and final data 

for 2007 will be available later in October on the BLS Web site. 

Large County Employment

In March 2008, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 134.8 million, up by 0.4 

percent from March 2007. The 334 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.5 percent of 

total U.S. employment and 78.3 percent of total wages. These 334 counties had a net job gain of 198,000 over the 

year, accounting for 41.2 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 189 of the large 

counties from March 2007 to March 2008. Orleans County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase 

in employment (5.0 percent). Fort Bend, Texas, and Montgomery, Texas, tied for the next largest increase, 4.7 

percent, followed by the counties of Williamson, Texas (4.6 percent), and Douglas, Colo., and Potter, Texas (4.1 

percent each). 

Employment declined in 129 counties from March 2007 to March 2008. The largest percentage decline in 

employment was in Lee, Fla. (-8.1 percent). Collier, Fla., had the next largest employment decline (-7.4 percent), 

followed by the counties of Genesee, Mich. (-6.5 percent), Saginaw, Mich. (-5.2 percent), and Marion, Fla., (-5.1 

percent). 

The largest gains in the level of employment from March 2007 to March 2008 were recorded in the counties 

of Harris, Texas (67,200), New York, N.Y. (38,700), King, Wash. (31,000), Dallas, Texas (29,100), and Bexar, 

Texas (20,200). (See table A.) The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Maricopa, Ariz. (-25,100), 
3 

followed by the counties of Hillsborough, Fla. (-23,700), Wayne, Mich. (-23,000), Oakland, Mich. (-19,500), and 

Lee, Fla. (-19,400). 

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by first quarter 2008 average weekly wages, first quarter 2007-08 

growth in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2007-08 percent growth in average weekly wages 

Average weekly wage in large counties

 

Average weekly wage, Growth in average weekly Percent growth in average 

first quarter 2008 wage, first quarter 2007-08 weekly wage, first 

 quarter 2007-08 

United States $905 United States $21 United States 2.4 

New York, N.Y. $2,805 Somerset, N.J. $146 Westmoreland, Pa. 14.9 

Fairfield, Conn. 1,905 Westmoreland, Pa. 98 Williamson, Texas 10.8 

Somerset, N.J. 1,765 Williamson, Texas 89 Somerset, N.J. 9.0 

Suffolk, Mass. 1,708 Hudson, N.J. 87 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 8.3 

San Francisco, Calif. 1,639 Mercer, N.J. 66 Jefferson, Texas 7.9 

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,631 New London, Conn. 64 New London, Conn. 7.3 

Hudson, N.J. 1,528 Jefferson, Texas 63 Adams, Colo. 6.8 

Washington, D.C. 1,488 Washington, D.C. 62 Pima, Ariz. 6.7 

Arlington, Va. 1,473 Hennepin, Minn. 59 Clayton, Ga. 6.7 

San Mateo, Calif. 1,457 McLean, Ill. 58 McLean, Ill. 6.7 

 Hillsborough, N.H. 58 

Washington, Ore. 58

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2008 was $905. Average weekly wages were higher 

than the national average in 92 of the largest 334 U.S. counties. New York, N.Y., held the top position among the 

highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,805. Fairfield, Conn., was second with an average 

weekly wage of $1,905, followed by Somerset, N.J. ($1,765), Suffolk, Mass. ($1,708), and San Francisco, Calif. 

($1,639). (See table B.) 

There were 241 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of 2008. 

The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($523), followed by the counties of 

Hidalgo, Texas ($532), Horry, S.C. ($534), Webb, Texas ($554), and Yakima, Wash. ($587). (See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 2.4 percent. Among the largest counties, 

Westmoreland, Pa., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 14.9 percent from the 

first quarter of 2007. Williamson, Texas, was second with growth of 10.8 percent, followed by the counties of 

Somerset, N.J. (9.0 percent), San Luis Obispo, Calif. (8.3 percent), and Jefferson, Texas (7.9 percent). 

Thirty-four large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Trumbull, Ohio, had 

the largest decrease (-17.2 percent), followed by the counties of Saginaw, Mich. (-4.4 percent), Rockingham, N.H. 

(-3.9 percent), Fairfield, Conn. (-3.8 percent), and Mecklenburg, N.C. (-3.4 percent). 

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Five of the 10 largest counties (based on 2007 annual average employment levels) experienced over-the-year 

percent increases in employment in March 2008. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in 

employment (3.4 percent) among the 10 largest counties. Within Harris County, the largest gains in employment 
4 

were in natural resources and mining (5.5 percent) and construction (5.4 percent). King, Wash., had the next 

largest increase in employment, 2.7 percent, followed by Dallas, Texas (2.0 percent). Maricopa, Ariz., 

experienced the largest decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 1.4 percent decrease. Within 

Maricopa, six industry groups experienced employment declines, with construction experiencing the largest 

decline, -14.2 percent. Orange, Calif., had the next largest decline in employment, -1.1 percent, followed by 

Miami-Dade, Fla. (-1.0 percent). (See table 2.) 

Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. King, Wash., had 

the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 4.2 percent. Within King County, 

average weekly wages increased the most in the information industry (12.8 percent), followed by the other 

services industry (7.7 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain of 3.8 percent, followed by 

Cook, Ill. (2.7 percent). The smallest wage gain occurred in Orange, Calif. (1.2 percent), followed by Maricopa, 

Ariz. (1.3 percent). The only wage decline among the 10 largest counties occurred in New York, N.Y. (-1.0 

percent). 

Within New York County, two industry groups experienced over-the-year wage declines in the first quarter of 

2008--manufacturing (-4.1percent) and financial activities (3.7 percent.) Financial activities employs ten times 

more workers than manufacturing in New York County and had the county's highest average weekly wages. The 

declines for the first quarter of 2008 follow over-the-year average weekly wage gains of 14.6 percent in 

manufacturing and 24.2 percent in financial activities in the first quarter of 2007.

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows March 2008 employment and the 2008 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest county 

in each state, which is based on 2007 annual average employment levels. (This table includes one county—

Laramie, Wyo.—that had an employment level below 75,000 in 2007.) The employment levels in the counties in 

table 3 in March 2008 ranged from approximately 4.23 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 43,100 in 

Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($2,805), 

while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($695). 

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. 

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 2008 is scheduled to be released on Tuesday, 

January 13, 2009. 

County Changes for the 2008 County Employment and Wages News Releases: Six Counties 

Added 

 Counties with annual average employment of 75,000 or more in 2007 are included in this 

release. For 2008 data, six counties have been added to the publication tables: Shelby, Ala., Boone, 

Ky., St. Tammany, La., Yellowstone, Mont., Warren, Ohio, and Potter, Texas. 
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 2008 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 2007 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2008 data, six counties have 

been added to the publication tables: Shelby, Ala., Boone, Ky., St. 

Tammany, La., Yellowstone, Mont., Warren, Ohio, and Potter, 

Texas. These counties will be included in all 2008 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 9.1 million establishments 

• Count of longitudinally-linked UI 

administrative records submitted by 

7.1 million private-sector employers 

• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments 

Coverage • UI and UCFE coverage, including 

all employers subject to state and 

federal UI laws 

• UI coverage, excluding government, 

private households, and establishments with zero employment 

Nonfarm wage and salary jobs: 

• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private 

households, and self-employed workers 

• Other employment, including railroads, 

religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs 

Publication frequency • Quarterly 

— 7 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Quarterly 

— 8 months after the end of each 

quarter 

• Monthly 

— Usually first Friday of following 

month 

Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes 

each new quarter of UI data 

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

annually realigns (benchmarks) sample 

estimates to first quarter UI levels 

Principal 

products • Provides a quarterly and annual 

universe count of establishments, 

employment, and wages at the 

county, MSA, state, and national 

levels by detailed industry 

• Provides quarterly employer dynamics 

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

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

state private-sector total level 

• Future expansions will include data 

with greater industry detail and data at 

the county and MSA level 

• Provides current monthly estimates of 

employment, hours, and earnings at the 

MSA, state, and national level by industry 

Principal uses • Major uses include: 

— Detailed locality data 

— Periodic universe counts for 

benchmarking sample survey estimates 

— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys 

• Major uses include: 

— Business cycle analysis 

— Analysis of employer dynamics 

underlying economic expansions 

and contractions 

— Analysis of employment expansion 

and contraction by size of firm 

• Major uses include: 

— Principal national economic indicator 

— Official time series for employment 

change measures 

— Input into other major economic indicators 

Program Web 

sites • www.bls.gov/cew/ • www.bls.gov/bdm/ • www.bls.gov/ces/ 
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. The 

employment and wage data included in this release are derived from 

microdata summaries of 9.1 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 2007, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 

135.4 million jobs. The estimated 130.3 million workers in these 

jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.2 

percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers 

received $6.018 trillion in pay, representing 94.6 percent of the 

wage and salary component of personal income and 43.6 percent of 

the gross domestic product. 

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

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

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

and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations. 

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes 

may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by 

employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes may 

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

Concepts and methodology 

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who 

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

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

are reported, including production and sales workers, corporation 

officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and clerical workers. 

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

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly 

total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels 

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

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

unrounded employment and wage values. The average wage values 

that can be calculated using rounded data from the BLS database 

may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly 

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

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

and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred 

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

between the current quarter and prior year levels. 

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

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

work force could increase significantly when there is a large decline 

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

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

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

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

factors should be taken into consideration. 

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes 

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

quarters having more pay periods than others. Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a result of this schedule, in some quarters, federal wages contain payments for six pay 

periods, while in other quarters their wages include payments for 

seven pay periods. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly 

wages may reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average 

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

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

effect will occur when wages in the current period, which contain 

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

seven pay periods. The effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can 

be pronounced in federal government due to the uniform nature of 
federal payroll processing. This pattern may exist in private sector 

pay; however, because there are more pay period types (weekly, 

biweekly, semimonthly, monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect 

is most visible in counties with large concentrations of federal employment. 

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

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

Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this 

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

the year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also 

are introduced in the first quarter. 

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect the 

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

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

industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic 

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

administrative change would come from a company correcting its 

county designation. 

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

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

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

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

adjusted version of the final 2007 quarterly data as the base data. 

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

percent change in employment and wages are not published. These 

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

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

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

changes presented in this news release. 

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

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

The most common adjustments for administrative change are the 

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

changes involving the classification of establishments that were 

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

adjusted data will also account for administrative changes caused by 

multi-unit employers who start reporting for each individual establishment rather than as a single entity. 

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

measures presented in any County Employment and Wages news 

release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending 

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

data. 

County definitions are assigned according to Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) as issued by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, after approval by 

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

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

as counties include those designated as independent cities in some 

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

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

the New England states for comparative purposes even though 

townships are the more common designation used in New England 

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

as census regions. 

Additional statistics and other information 

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 contains 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 includes 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 have been published exclusively in electronic formats as 

PDFs. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2006 is available 

in a PDF on the BLS Web site at 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn06.htm. 

News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are 

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

BDMInfo@bls.gov). 

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

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

first quarter 2008 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

United States 6 ................... 9,112.7 134,761.1 0.4 – $905 2.4 – 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 19.0 359.3 -1.3 277 914 4.0 62

Madison, AL ....................... 8.9 181.4 3.4 11 919 3.3 112

Mobile, AL .......................... 10.1 176.0 0.5 139 710 2.7 158

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.8 138.9 -0.4 226 723 1.4 233

Shelby, AL ......................... 5.0 75.8 2.5 23 878 0.9 260

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.5 86.0 -0.5 230 718 2.9 140

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 144.4 0.6 120 916 4.7 38

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 101.7 1,805.2 -1.4 282 867 1.3 239

Pima, AZ ............................ 21.2 373.5 -1.5 283 778 6.7 8

Benton, AR ........................ 5.6 95.7 -0.9 257 880 4.9 30

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.8 250.4 0.9 93 791 4.8 35

Washington, AR ................. 5.7 91.7 -1.3 277 690 4.9 30

Alameda, CA ...................... 51.8 686.6 -0.6 237 1,146 1.0 253

Butte, CA ........................... 8.0 75.6 0.2 168 640 1.7 224

Contra Costa, CA ............... 29.5 341.6 -0.8 249 1,109 -0.5 304

Fresno, CA ......................... 30.7 339.8 -0.9 257 689 3.3 112

Kern, CA ............................ 18.4 267.5 0.1 180 758 3.6 89

Los Angeles, CA ................ 425.0 4,229.6 0.4 147 992 2.1 204

Marin, CA ........................... 12.0 109.0 0.7 107 1,073 3.4 103

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.7 160.6 2.3 27 800 1.7 224

Orange, CA ........................ 100.1 1,504.9 -1.1 264 1,019 1.2 243

Placer, CA .......................... 11.0 137.7 -2.3 302 829 -0.1 295

Riverside, CA ..................... 46.5 624.8 -2.9 311 751 1.9 217

Sacramento, CA ................ 54.3 632.7 -1.2 272 962 3.6 89

San Bernardino, CA ........... 49.2 656.3 -2.3 302 741 2.2 199

San Diego, CA ................... 97.8 1,327.6 0.0 190 945 1.9 217

San Francisco, CA ............. 47.2 564.5 2.9 16 1,639 -0.4 300

San Joaquin, CA ................ 18.1 218.5 -2.1 296 731 3.2 122

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.5 105.8 0.3 154 741 8.3 4

San Mateo, CA .................. 24.1 343.9 1.3 70 1,457 0.6 271

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 14.3 186.7 0.6 120 821 0.9 260

Santa Clara, CA ................. 60.0 912.0 1.9 48 1,631 3.1 129

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 9.1 92.7 -1.2 272 819 -2.3 320

Solano, CA ......................... 10.2 124.8 -2.4 305 837 1.2 243

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.7 192.9 0.7 107 817 1.7 224

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.9 171.2 -0.8 249 713 2.6 163

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.5 144.1 1.9 48 608 3.4 103

Ventura, CA ....................... 23.0 318.9 -1.1 264 924 -0.6 307

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.9 100.8 0.5 139 806 -0.5 304

Adams, CO ........................ 9.3 154.4 3.1 14 813 6.8 7

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.5 281.6 1.9 48 1,081 2.3 192

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.9 161.8 2.1 39 1,068 3.5 97

Denver, CO ........................ 25.7 445.9 1.6 60 1,166 4.2 56

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.5 91.9 4.1 5 952 6.3 11

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.6 244.2 0.0 190 788 3.7 80

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.7 209.7 1.2 77 899 1.8 221

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.4 128.1 1.4 65 755 2.0 212

Weld, CO ........................... 6.1 82.8 1.7 56 718 4.7 38

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.9 418.1 1.2 77 1,905 -3.8 325

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.5 503.7 1.2 77 1,188 0.3 283

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

New Haven, CT ................. 22.7 366.2 0.6 120 $924 1.2 243

New London, CT ................ 6.9 128.4 0.3 154 939 7.3 6

New Castle, DE ................. 18.4 279.9 -0.2 212 1,130 -0.2 297

Washington, DC ................. 32.5 680.8 1.1 84 1,488 4.3 52

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.9 122.6 ( 7) – 725 ( 7) – 

Brevard, FL ........................ 15.2 204.8 -2.3 302 777 1.2 243

Broward, FL ....................... 66.6 757.1 -1.9 292 815 -0.4 300

Collier, FL .......................... 12.8 134.6 -7.4 330 750 -1.4 315

Duval, FL ........................... 27.3 466.7 -1.8 290 888 2.8 151

Escambia, FL ..................... 8.1 128.3 -2.5 307 675 2.6 163

Hillsborough, FL ................. 38.0 633.8 -3.6 321 843 4.2 56

Lake, FL ............................. 7.4 86.5 -3.3 317 595 2.6 163

Lee, FL ............................... 20.3 219.3 -8.1 331 718 2.1 204

Leon, FL ............................. 8.3 145.0 -2.4 305 717 2.9 140

Manatee, FL ....................... 9.5 115.4 0.0 190 664 0.2 286

Marion, FL .......................... 8.8 104.2 -5.1 327 609 1.8 221

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 88.2 1,029.9 -1.0 262 871 1.5 231

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.2 80.1 -3.5 320 681 3.2 122

Orange, FL ......................... 37.5 701.4 -0.4 226 796 3.1 129

Palm Beach, FL ................. 51.6 552.2 -3.3 317 851 0.4 279

Pasco, FL ........................... 10.2 104.3 -0.3 219 594 1.0 253

Pinellas, FL ........................ 32.1 433.4 -3.3 317 742 3.6 89

Polk, FL .............................. 13.0 210.0 -1.8 290 664 2.8 151

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.6 157.6 -4.8 326 717 0.6 271

Seminole, FL ...................... 15.4 178.6 -2.0 294 745 2.1 204

Volusia, FL ......................... 14.3 168.2 -4.1 324 616 2.2 199

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.6 83.8 -0.6 237 693 3.1 129

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.6 136.8 -1.3 277 736 ( 7) – 

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 113.6 0.6 120 810 6.7 8

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.8 318.5 -0.3 219 969 -2.6 323

De Kalb, GA ....................... 16.9 300.2 -0.1 203 962 0.2 286

Fulton, GA .......................... 39.4 749.3 0.6 120 1,268 0.1 290

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.7 321.7 -1.1 264 876 0.0 292

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.9 96.3 -0.7 243 708 3.4 103

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 101.5 0.2 168 727 4.0 62

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.6 452.8 0.0 190 800 3.6 89

Ada, ID ............................... 15.3 209.2 -0.5 230 746 -2.4 321

Champaign, IL ................... 4.1 91.4 0.5 139 705 4.0 62

Cook, IL ............................. 138.2 2,490.4 -0.5 230 1,147 2.7 158

Du Page, IL ........................ 35.9 590.6 -0.1 203 1,058 1.3 239

Kane, IL ............................. 12.7 205.7 -1.2 272 763 3.0 136

Lake, IL .............................. 21.0 326.0 0.2 168 1,134 0.4 279

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.4 100.1 -0.1 203 729 1.7 224

McLean, IL ......................... 3.7 85.2 0.2 168 918 6.7 8

Madison, IL ........................ 6.0 95.9 0.9 93 704 3.5 97

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.8 104.3 1.4 65 840 3.2 122

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 79.3 0.6 120 863 2.0 212

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.4 95.9 0.2 168 673 3.1 129

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 128.3 0.1 180 849 4.9 30

Will, IL ................................ 13.5 192.7 2.3 27 757 3.1 129

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.9 135.5 -0.2 212 $751 2.9 140

Allen, IN ............................. 9.1 178.2 -2.8 308 726 1.4 233

Elkhart, IN .......................... 5.0 120.2 -3.6 321 703 0.1 290

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.6 109.4 1.7 56 897 3.7 80

Lake, IN ............................. 10.3 192.7 -0.1 203 752 2.6 163

Marion, IN .......................... 24.2 575.0 0.3 154 953 2.5 177

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.1 122.1 -0.9 257 740 6.2 13

Tippecanoe, IN .................. 3.3 75.3 -1.6 287 765 4.4 48

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 106.5 -0.9 257 728 3.7 80

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 124.1 2.3 27 834 2.3 192

Polk, IA .............................. 14.8 271.7 1.6 60 905 2.3 192

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 88.0 0.7 107 698 4.3 52

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.2 316.7 1.5 63 938 2.9 140

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.0 259.2 1.3 70 836 -1.1 312

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.8 94.6 0.3 154 736 2.8 151

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 80.2 0.5 139 805 2.0 212

Boone, KY .......................... 3.6 74.4 2.2 37 751 2.2 199

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.4 174.3 -0.4 226 767 0.8 263

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.7 426.6 0.3 154 849 0.7 267

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.3 126.0 0.8 101 693 2.4 184

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.8 86.2 -1.1 264 749 5.8 19

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.1 265.1 1.4 65 814 4.9 30

Jefferson, LA ...................... 13.8 199.5 0.3 154 797 3.8 73

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.6 135.3 2.0 42 817 3.9 70

Orleans, LA ........................ 10.2 171.6 5.0 1 1,005 2.7 158

St. Tammany, LA ............... 7.1 74.8 -1.2 272 689 4.7 38

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.4 169.6 0.7 107 824 5.0 28

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.6 232.5 0.6 120 928 3.2 122

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.7 374.7 0.0 190 901 2.5 177

Frederick, MD .................... 6.0 94.1 -0.5 230 863 3.6 89

Harford, MD ....................... 5.7 82.2 -1.9 292 826 2.6 163

Howard, MD ....................... 8.7 147.9 0.6 120 1,025 2.0 212

Montgomery, MD ............... 33.0 455.7 -0.4 226 1,238 2.1 204

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.8 314.5 0.4 147 913 2.8 151

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.1 340.7 -0.8 249 1,033 4.1 60

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.1 82.7 -0.5 230 748 3.5 97

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.5 214.8 -0.8 249 770 4.9 30

Essex, MA .......................... 20.8 296.3 1.2 77 922 0.4 279

Hampden, MA .................... 14.2 196.9 0.2 168 824 3.1 129

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.5 814.4 1.3 70 1,285 3.0 136

Norfolk, MA ........................ 22.8 320.0 0.8 101 1,066 2.6 163

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.8 173.7 0.3 154 798 2.4 184

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.7 587.3 1.5 63 1,708 3.4 103

Worcester, MA ................... 20.7 318.3 0.2 168 875 3.6 89

Genesee, MI ...................... 7.8 134.7 -6.5 329 750 -0.9 310

Ingham, MI ......................... 6.8 159.8 -1.0 262 819 2.8 151

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.5 114.1 -2.2 299 773 4.0 62

Kent, MI ............................. 14.2 330.2 -1.1 264 770 1.0 253

Macomb, MI ....................... 17.7 302.0 -3.2 313 879 -1.3 314

Oakland, MI ....................... 39.0 668.6 -2.8 308 1,021 1.2 243

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.7 105.8 -2.2 299 $715 0.3 283

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.3 81.8 -5.2 328 717 -4.4 327

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.0 187.5 -2.8 308 947 -2.0 318

Wayne, MI .......................... 32.1 724.6 -3.1 312 1,013 1.7 224

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.9 112.4 -1.1 264 796 2.7 158

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.7 172.8 0.1 180 870 3.4 103

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.9 837.2 0.4 147 1,188 5.2 24

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.6 89.3 0.9 93 910 -2.5 322

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.5 327.4 0.1 180 1,006 2.3 192

St. Louis, MN ..................... 6.0 95.8 1.3 70 691 2.5 177

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.6 81.2 0.7 107 683 4.4 48

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 86.9 1.9 48 667 1.1 252

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.4 127.3 -0.1 203 755 0.8 263

Boone, MO ......................... 4.6 82.8 0.4 147 655 3.8 73

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 89.1 -0.7 243 809 0.6 271

Greene, MO ....................... 8.2 155.4 -0.6 237 638 1.8 221

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.7 370.0 0.6 120 894 3.0 136

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.2 120.8 -2.1 296 741 0.7 267

St. Louis, MO ..................... 32.8 600.2 -1.1 264 953 5.4 22

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.5 232.3 0.7 107 1,033 1.9 217

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.7 77.1 2.0 42 695 3.4 103

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.7 317.4 2.0 42 814 2.6 163

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.0 155.9 1.2 77 683 2.1 204

Clark, NV ........................... 50.2 917.5 -0.6 237 854 5.3 23

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.6 209.5 -3.2 313 796 3.8 73

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.3 195.0 0.0 190 982 6.3 11

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.9 134.4 -0.7 243 839 -3.9 326

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.1 142.2 -0.1 203 790 3.3 112

Bergen, NJ ......................... 35.1 447.7 0.1 180 1,150 4.0 62

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.6 202.4 0.0 190 921 2.4 184

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.2 207.4 0.0 190 882 0.8 263

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.6 362.0 0.1 180 1,190 0.5 276

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.3 103.0 0.6 120 784 4.7 38

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.1 236.6 0.7 107 1,528 6.0 15

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.4 229.3 2.0 42 1,206 5.8 19

Middlesex, NJ .................... 22.3 403.8 -0.3 219 1,167 2.9 140

Monmouth, NJ ................... 21.1 254.9 0.1 180 935 3.3 112

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.4 284.3 -1.5 283 1,388 2.1 204

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.6 146.2 0.2 168 725 1.4 233

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.7 177.5 -0.3 219 894 0.8 263

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.4 172.8 0.5 139 1,765 9.0 3

Union, NJ ........................... 15.3 234.4 1.0 88 1,231 0.7 267

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.6 331.4 -0.2 212 758 3.7 80

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 225.8 -0.1 203 858 2.0 212

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.9 224.6 2.2 37 803 2.3 192

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 95.0 0.6 120 695 3.4 103

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.4 115.2 -0.8 249 906 3.7 80

Erie, NY ............................. 23.6 453.4 0.3 154 762 0.0 292

Kings, NY ........................... 45.6 478.3 2.1 39 730 -1.2 313

Monroe, NY ........................ 18.0 376.4 -0.3 219 863 3.2 122

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.5 601.3 0.6 120 $958 -2.1 319

New York, NY .................... 118.5 2,376.0 1.7 56 2,805 -1.0 311

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 109.5 0.4 147 676 0.9 260

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 248.6 0.5 139 804 2.4 184

Orange, NY ........................ 10.0 130.2 0.8 101 723 1.4 233

Queens, NY ....................... 43.2 499.9 2.3 27 852 3.1 129

Richmond, NY .................... 8.7 93.1 0.1 180 745 2.1 204

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.8 115.6 1.9 48 949 3.4 103

Saratoga, NY ..................... 5.4 74.9 -0.2 212 743 3.8 73

Suffolk, NY ......................... 50.5 618.0 1.0 88 892 0.2 286

Westchester, NY ................ 36.6 418.5 0.6 120 1,311 -0.2 297

Buncombe, NC .................. 8.1 115.8 1.1 84 657 3.3 112

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.6 86.8 -2.1 296 662 1.5 231

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.3 119.1 0.5 139 657 4.6 42

Durham, NC ....................... 7.0 184.9 1.0 88 1,237 2.6 163

Forsyth, NC ........................ 9.3 186.3 0.6 120 827 5.1 26

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.9 281.0 0.2 168 770 1.0 253

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 32.8 571.2 2.1 39 1,181 -3.4 324

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.5 104.5 0.0 190 704 3.7 80

Wake, NC .......................... 28.6 452.1 3.5 10 877 1.2 243

Cass, ND ........................... 5.8 98.1 3.8 7 715 5.6 21

Butler, OH .......................... 7.4 146.9 0.6 120 778 3.9 70

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 37.8 725.6 -1.7 288 907 -0.4 300

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.9 674.4 -0.1 203 906 1.2 243

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.1 511.0 0.0 190 961 1.2 243

Lake, OH ............................ 6.8 98.8 -0.6 237 731 1.0 253

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 95.9 -4.2 325 721 1.7 224

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.8 212.7 -2.0 294 771 -0.5 304

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.4 100.5 -1.5 283 618 1.0 253

Montgomery, OH ............... 12.9 259.2 -3.2 313 804 -1.5 316

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 160.1 -0.2 212 679 1.3 239

Summit, OH ....................... 15.0 270.8 0.6 120 814 2.9 140

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.7 75.5 -3.2 313 709 -17.2 328

Warren, OH ........................ 4.2 76.0 -0.7 243 747 ( 7) – 

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.8 424.9 1.3 70 788 5.2 24

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.4 348.8 1.1 84 823 4.0 62

Clackamas, OR .................. 13.0 150.8 0.9 93 789 2.6 163

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.8 81.8 -1.7 288 620 0.6 271

Lane, OR ........................... 11.0 149.6 0.1 180 657 2.5 177

Marion, OR ........................ 9.6 138.2 0.7 107 675 2.7 158

Multnomah, OR .................. 28.3 449.5 1.7 56 885 2.4 184

Washington, OR ................ 16.4 249.1 -0.2 212 1,020 6.0 15

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.4 677.2 0.3 154 952 0.5 276

Berks, PA ........................... 9.2 167.9 0.2 168 770 2.4 184

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.3 262.0 0.5 139 849 2.3 192

Butler, PA ........................... 4.8 78.8 0.8 101 750 6.1 14

Chester, PA ....................... 15.2 241.7 2.0 42 1,118 0.3 283

Cumberland, PA ................ 6.0 125.1 0.3 154 794 2.3 192

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.4 180.0 0.1 180 842 1.4 233

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.8 209.1 0.6 120 959 3.7 80

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Erie, PA .............................. 7.3 125.4 -1.1 264 $683 2.4 184

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 100.4 -0.9 257 645 2.4 184

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.4 227.3 0.7 107 729 2.8 151

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 176.4 0.2 168 872 0.7 267

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 140.2 0.0 190 674 -0.7 308

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.6 486.3 1.0 88 1,189 1.0 253

Northampton, PA ............... 6.5 99.2 0.8 101 772 3.9 70

Philadelphia, PA ................ 30.4 630.8 -0.3 219 1,064 2.6 163

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 78.1 1.2 77 762 3.5 97

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 133.6 -0.5 230 757 14.9 1

York, PA ............................. 9.1 176.3 0.6 120 759 3.3 112

Kent, RI .............................. 5.7 78.0 -3.6 321 773 1.2 243

Providence, RI ................... 18.1 279.3 -2.2 299 896 4.2 56

Charleston, SC .................. 12.1 209.4 0.7 107 733 4.3 52

Greenville, SC .................... 12.5 240.6 0.9 93 733 2.9 140

Horry, SC ........................... 8.3 113.9 -1.3 277 534 -0.4 300

Lexington, SC .................... 5.6 97.3 0.9 93 639 2.9 140

Richland, SC ...................... 9.4 215.6 0.0 190 771 2.9 140

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.1 119.9 0.7 107 783 3.2 122

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.3 114.6 2.5 23 736 4.5 46

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.8 438.8 0.4 147 898 4.1 60

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.7 195.0 1.2 77 742 2.2 199

Knox, TN ............................ 11.2 230.5 2.3 27 711 0.6 271

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.3 100.4 1.4 65 741 -1.9 317

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.2 502.6 -0.2 212 883 5.1 26

Williamson, TN ................... 6.1 87.0 2.3 27 939 2.8 151

Bell, TX .............................. 4.6 102.3 2.6 20 674 5.0 28

Bexar, TX ........................... 32.2 729.6 2.9 16 788 2.9 140

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.6 87.4 1.8 55 867 3.7 80

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.8 84.2 ( 7) – 637 ( 7) – 

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.5 125.2 1.1 84 523 4.6 42

Collin, TX ........................... 16.8 293.3 ( 7) – 1,059 ( 7) – 

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.8 1,489.7 2.0 42 1,119 2.6 163

Denton, TX ......................... 10.4 168.2 2.7 18 744 3.3 112

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.4 273.6 3.7 8 599 0.0 292

Fort Bend, TX .................... 8.2 127.8 4.7 2 968 4.0 62

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 96.9 3.1 14 840 4.6 42

Harris, TX ........................... 96.6 2,046.5 3.4 11 1,172 3.8 73

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.6 221.2 3.4 11 532 3.5 97

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.9 124.9 -0.8 249 856 7.9 5

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.8 122.9 2.5 23 626 3.6 89

McLennan, TX ................... 4.9 103.3 1.3 70 694 4.4 48

Montgomery, TX ................ 8.1 125.1 4.7 2 797 3.2 122

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.1 155.0 2.6 20 754 6.0 15

Potter, TX ........................... 3.8 76.4 4.1 5 739 ( 7) – 

Smith, TX ........................... 5.2 94.1 2.3 27 711 3.3 112

Tarrant, TX ......................... 37.1 770.1 2.3 27 885 2.5 177

Travis, TX .......................... 28.6 577.5 2.4 26 974 3.6 89

Webb, TX ........................... 4.8 88.6 1.4 65 554 1.3 239

Williamson, TX ................... 7.1 121.2 4.6 4 912 10.8 2

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

Ranking by

percent

change

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 101.7 -0.6 237 $671 2.1 204

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 38.2 587.6 1.9 48 811 3.0 136

Utah, UT ............................ 13.0 173.1 -0.3 219 651 4.3 52

Weber, UT ......................... 5.7 95.0 1.6 60 617 2.5 177

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.9 93.5 -0.5 230 896 6.0 15

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.6 153.1 1.0 88 1,473 1.7 224

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.5 120.1 -0.8 249 790 3.3 112

Fairfax, VA ......................... 33.2 585.0 0.8 101 1,376 0.4 279

Henrico, VA ........................ 9.4 179.6 0.4 147 998 -0.8 309

Loudoun, VA ...................... 8.7 130.2 1.9 48 1,105 2.5 177

Prince William, VA ............. 7.0 102.6 0.2 168 761 2.6 163

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.1 99.8 0.3 154 1,180 4.0 62

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.7 99.3 -1.3 277 672 1.4 233

Newport News City, VA ..... 4.0 99.5 -0.1 203 794 4.6 42

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.8 143.6 -0.7 243 826 -0.2 297

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.4 157.8 0.7 107 1,114 4.4 48

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.6 172.7 -0.7 243 683 3.8 73

Clark, WA ........................... 12.0 132.0 0.6 120 770 3.5 97

King, WA ............................ 76.8 1,186.2 2.7 18 1,125 4.2 56

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.6 83.8 0.3 154 744 2.6 163

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.4 273.9 0.7 107 804 4.8 35

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.8 254.2 2.3 27 895 0.2 286

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.0 209.4 1.3 70 701 3.4 103

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.8 100.9 2.6 20 769 3.8 73

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.9 83.0 2.3 27 683 4.8 35

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.7 97.7 3.6 9 587 3.3 112

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 106.5 -1.2 272 765 3.7 80

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 146.8 0.0 190 787 4.5 46

Dane, WI ............................ 14.0 299.3 0.3 154 859 1.9 217

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.0 494.8 0.9 93 893 2.2 199

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.1 101.8 0.3 154 737 2.6 163

Racine, WI ......................... 4.2 74.1 -1.5 283 784 2.9 140

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.3 230.6 -0.8 249 867 0.5 276

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.8 89.2 0.9 93 823 -0.1 295

San Juan, PR ..................... 13.5 284.1 -2.4 ( 8) 593 3.1 ( 8) 

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

These 334 U.S. counties comprise 71.5 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 2008 2

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 4

United States 5 ................................................... 9,112.7 134,761.1 0.4 $905 2.4

Private industry .............................................. 8,820.9 112,728.2 0.2 913 2.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 125.3 1,731.8 2.7 1,020 10.5

Construction ............................................... 890.0 7,020.0 -4.1 898 4.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 361.3 13,529.8 -2.3 1,079 1.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,923.2 26,031.1 0.2 745 1.9

Information ................................................. 144.9 3,013.5 -0.1 1,469 2.3

Financial activities ...................................... 872.4 8,005.6 -1.7 1,898 0.2

Professional and business services ........... 1,504.2 17,691.9 0.5 1,131 4.2

Education and health services ................... 838.9 17,845.8 3.0 767 3.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 731.2 13,112.5 1.3 360 2.9

Other services ............................................ 1,194.1 4,444.1 1.0 547 3.4

Government ................................................... 291.8 22,032.9 1.3 868 2.7

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 425.0 4,229.6 0.4 992 2.1

Private industry .............................................. 421.0 3,617.0 -0.1 975 2.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 11.4 -5.0 1,745 13.8

Construction ............................................... 14.0 149.6 -5.5 975 2.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 14.8 440.0 -3.4 1,084 5.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 54.2 803.6 0.0 792 1.1

Information ................................................. 8.5 214.6 2.2 1,723 0.5

Financial activities ...................................... 24.4 240.6 -4.3 1,807 0.3

Professional and business services ........... 42.4 597.5 -1.5 1,165 4.3

Education and health services ................... 27.9 492.5 2.9 848 3.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 26.7 397.9 1.2 528 3.5

Other services ............................................ 192.2 250.0 1.3 441 4.8

Government ................................................... 4.0 612.6 3.2 1,088 1.5

Cook, IL .............................................................. 138.2 2,490.4 -0.5 1,147 2.7

Private industry .............................................. 136.8 2,178.2 -0.5 1,167 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.0 -10.7 919 -6.5

Construction ............................................... 12.1 84.3 -4.9 1,315 9.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.0 229.4 -3.0 1,062 1.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.4 465.9 -1.1 838 2.7

Information ................................................. 2.5 57.5 0.4 1,820 0.2

Financial activities ...................................... 15.7 209.6 -2.4 2,905 4.5

Professional and business services ........... 28.5 431.2 -0.1 1,403 3.2

Education and health services ................... 13.7 373.1 1.9 833 3.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.5 226.6 1.2 412 1.2

Other services ............................................ 14.2 95.6 0.6 721 2.9

Government ................................................... 1.4 312.2 -0.5 1,006 1.3

New York, NY ..................................................... 118.5 2,376.0 1.7 2,805 -1.0

Private industry .............................................. 118.3 1,923.2 1.9 3,229 -1.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.2 -4.5 2,375 23.3

Construction ............................................... 2.3 36.2 8.9 1,596 8.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 36.0 -6.3 1,499 -4.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.7 246.4 0.8 1,211 0.8

Information ................................................. 4.4 134.1 0.7 2,698 5.0

Financial activities ...................................... 18.7 377.6 0.7 9,840 -3.7

Professional and business services ........... 24.7 489.3 1.9 2,343 3.8

Education and health services ................... 8.7 293.1 1.5 989 3.9

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.3 213.9 3.7 766 2.7

Other services ............................................ 17.6 87.8 1.8 1,105 7.6

Government ................................................... 0.3 452.8 0.8 1,004 1.7

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 4

Harris, TX ........................................................... 96.6 2,046.5 3.4 $1,172 3.8

Private industry .............................................. 96.1 1,791.5 3.5 1,212 3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.5 80.0 5.5 3,698 13.5

Construction ............................................... 6.7 157.0 5.4 1,042 3.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.7 184.1 2.7 1,524 2.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.2 426.9 3.3 1,068 1.6

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.6 0.0 1,363 -4.0

Financial activities ...................................... 10.6 120.3 0.9 1,701 1.3

Professional and business services ........... 19.3 337.7 3.6 1,293 4.0

Education and health services ................... 10.2 216.5 4.6 839 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.5 176.8 3.0 384 2.7

Other services ............................................ 11.4 58.5 1.7 632 5.3

Government ................................................... 0.5 255.0 2.9 893 2.1

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 101.7 1,805.2 -1.4 867 1.3

Private industry .............................................. 101.0 1,580.7 -1.9 865 1.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.7 -4.2 991 22.5

Construction ............................................... 11.0 144.5 -14.2 884 2.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.6 127.3 -4.6 1,252 5.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.4 372.2 -0.1 805 -1.2

Information ................................................. 1.7 30.9 3.5 1,164 0.9

Financial activities ...................................... 13.0 145.0 -4.4 1,238 -0.8

Professional and business services ........... 22.6 306.8 -1.9 870 1.6

Education and health services ................... 9.9 206.5 4.6 879 3.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.3 187.1 0.6 405 0.0

Other services ............................................ 7.2 50.5 1.0 577 4.2

Government ................................................... 0.7 224.5 2.8 880 3.0

Orange, CA ........................................................ 100.1 1,504.9 -1.1 1,019 1.2

Private industry .............................................. 98.7 1,347.3 -1.4 1,001 0.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 6.5 0.7 563 -0.2

Construction ............................................... 7.0 94.5 -8.2 1,080 0.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.3 174.2 -2.2 1,188 3.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.5 276.2 -0.4 918 -1.2

Information ................................................. 1.4 29.7 -2.7 1,544 10.9

Financial activities ...................................... 11.0 115.7 -13.6 1,722 ( 6) 

Professional and business services ........... 19.0 273.9 -1.7 1,124 3.7

Education and health services ................... 9.9 146.8 4.2 863 3.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 175.1 3.5 397 0.3

Other services ............................................ 15.3 47.9 1.7 560 0.4

Government ................................................... 1.4 157.6 1.5 1,170 3.0

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.8 1,489.7 2.0 1,119 2.6

Private industry .............................................. 67.3 1,322.2 1.9 1,145 2.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 8.0 13.6 3,497 20.2

Construction ............................................... 4.4 84.0 3.7 953 1.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.1 135.4 -3.3 1,320 1.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.1 304.5 1.4 1,003 2.8

Information ................................................. 1.7 49.6 0.3 1,694 5.2

Financial activities ...................................... 8.8 144.1 ( 6) 1,869 2.2

Professional and business services ........... 14.7 279.0 3.8 1,236 3.3

Education and health services ................... 6.6 148.6 3.6 891 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.3 128.8 2.6 509 -2.9

Other services ............................................ 6.5 38.9 1.7 625 3.1

Government ................................................... 0.5 167.4 2.6 913 3.4

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 4

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 4

San Diego, CA ................................................... 97.8 1,327.6 0.0 $945 1.9

Private industry .............................................. 96.5 1,098.1 -0.5 936 1.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.3 0.7 534 4.3

Construction ............................................... 7.1 78.0 -12.3 985 3.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 103.1 -0.2 1,316 5.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.4 216.1 -1.7 772 3.8

Information ................................................. 1.3 38.2 1.9 1,910 -4.8

Financial activities ...................................... 9.7 76.4 -6.5 1,329 -2.4

Professional and business services ........... 16.1 217.2 -0.2 1,170 3.5

Education and health services ................... 8.1 135.2 4.1 840 3.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 160.4 2.0 422 1.7

Other services ............................................ 24.3 55.9 1.4 482 0.6

Government ................................................... 1.3 229.5 2.7 986 2.2

King, WA ............................................................ 76.8 1,186.2 2.7 1,125 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 76.3 1,030.4 2.9 1,142 4.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.1 0.4 1,621 -0.5

Construction ............................................... 6.9 71.3 4.9 1,086 6.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 112.5 1.4 1,443 4.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.1 220.2 2.1 958 1.9

Information ................................................. 1.8 77.8 5.2 2,144 12.8

Financial activities ...................................... 7.1 76.1 0.3 1,651 -1.8

Professional and business services ........... 13.7 189.6 3.3 1,306 3.7

Education and health services ................... 6.5 124.4 4.2 837 5.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.2 110.0 3.6 447 -1.1

Other services ............................................ 16.2 45.4 0.6 599 7.7

Government ................................................... 0.5 155.8 1.5 1,010 3.0

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 88.2 1,029.9 -1.0 871 1.5

Private industry .............................................. 87.8 876.6 -1.2 837 1.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.8 -6.5 465 -1.5

Construction ............................................... 6.5 50.9 -11.4 812 1.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.7 46.0 -6.3 774 2.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 23.5 253.7 -0.2 777 1.0

Information ................................................. 1.6 20.1 -3.6 1,354 -3.2

Financial activities ...................................... 10.6 70.5 -3.0 1,483 4.0

Professional and business services ........... 17.9 135.6 -4.1 992 0.7

Education and health services ................... 9.4 141.7 3.9 796 3.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.9 107.0 0.1 506 1.8

Other services ............................................ 7.6 37.2 2.5 526 1.3

Government ................................................... 0.4 153.3 0.2 1,062 2.5

 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 2008 2

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

United States 6 ......................... 9,112.7 134,761.1 0.4 $905 2.4

Jefferson, AL ............................ 19.0 359.3 -1.3 914 4.0

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 144.4 0.6 916 4.7

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 101.7 1,805.2 -1.4 867 1.3

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.8 250.4 0.9 791 4.8

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 425.0 4,229.6 0.4 992 2.1

Denver, CO .............................. 25.7 445.9 1.6 1,166 4.2

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.5 503.7 1.2 1,188 0.3

New Castle, DE ........................ 18.4 279.9 -0.2 1,130 -0.2

Washington, DC ....................... 32.5 680.8 1.1 1,488 4.3

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 88.2 1,029.9 -1.0 871 1.5

Fulton, GA ................................ 39.4 749.3 0.6 1,268 0.1

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.6 452.8 0.0 800 3.6

Ada, ID ..................................... 15.3 209.2 -0.5 746 -2.4

Cook, IL .................................... 138.2 2,490.4 -0.5 1,147 2.7

Marion, IN ................................. 24.2 575.0 0.3 953 2.5

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.8 271.7 1.6 905 2.3

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.2 316.7 1.5 938 2.9

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.7 426.6 0.3 849 0.7

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.1 265.1 1.4 814 4.9

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.4 169.6 0.7 824 5.0

Montgomery, MD ...................... 33.0 455.7 -0.4 1,238 2.1

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.5 814.4 1.3 1,285 3.0

Wayne, MI ................................ 32.1 724.6 -3.1 1,013 1.7

Hennepin, MN .......................... 42.9 837.2 0.4 1,188 5.2

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.4 127.3 -0.1 755 0.8

St. Louis, MO ............................ 32.8 600.2 -1.1 953 5.4

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.7 77.1 2.0 695 3.4

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.7 317.4 2.0 814 2.6

Clark, NV .................................. 50.2 917.5 -0.6 854 5.3

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.3 195.0 0.0 982 6.3

Bergen, NJ ............................... 35.1 447.7 0.1 1,150 4.0

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.6 331.4 -0.2 758 3.7

New York, NY ........................... 118.5 2,376.0 1.7 2,805 -1.0

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 32.8 571.2 2.1 1,181 -3.4

Cass, ND .................................. 5.8 98.1 3.8 715 5.6

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 37.8 725.6 -1.7 907 -0.4

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.8 424.9 1.3 788 5.2

Multnomah, OR ........................ 28.3 449.5 1.7 885 2.4

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.4 677.2 0.3 952 0.5

Providence, RI .......................... 18.1 279.3 -2.2 896 4.2

Greenville, SC .......................... 12.5 240.6 0.9 733 2.9

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.3 114.6 2.5 736 4.5

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.2 502.6 -0.2 883 5.1

Harris, TX ................................. 96.6 2,046.5 3.4 1,172 3.8

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 38.2 587.6 1.9 811 3.0

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.9 93.5 -0.5 896 6.0

Fairfax, VA ................................ 33.2 585.0 0.8 1,376 0.4

King, WA .................................. 76.8 1,186.2 2.7 1,125 4.2

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 106.5 -1.2 765 3.7

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.0 494.8 0.9 893 2.2

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

state, first quarter 2008 2—Continued

County 3

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 4

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08 5

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08 5

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.2 43.1 2.6 $704 4.5

San Juan, PR ........................... 13.5 284.1 -2.4 593 3.1

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 24.1 3.1 637 -2.5

 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 2008 2

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08

United States 4 ................... 9,112.7 134,761.1 0.4 $905 2.4

Alabama ............................. 121.7 1,947.0 -0.2 740 3.2

Alaska ................................ 21.1 303.0 1.0 866 4.2

Arizona ............................... 162.7 2,639.7 -1.3 820 2.4

Arkansas ............................ 85.2 1,178.4 -0.1 667 4.1

California ............................ 1,345.1 15,561.5 0.1 1,008 2.1

Colorado ............................ 178.2 2,300.0 1.7 920 3.6

Connecticut ........................ 113.2 1,683.9 1.2 1,254 -0.6

Delaware ............................ 29.0 418.4 0.5 987 0.1

District of Columbia ............ 32.5 680.8 1.1 1,488 4.3

Florida ................................ 631.0 7,918.6 -2.2 777 1.8

Georgia .............................. 276.4 4,060.9 0.1 847 1.3

Hawaii ................................ 39.0 628.1 0.2 773 3.5

Idaho .................................. 57.6 645.3 0.2 635 0.3

Illinois ................................. 365.0 5,796.1 0.1 980 2.6

Indiana ............................... 160.1 2,858.7 -0.7 757 2.4

Iowa ................................... 94.2 1,469.8 0.9 710 3.6

Kansas ............................... 86.0 1,363.2 1.0 737 2.4

Kentucky ............................ 112.9 1,794.0 0.1 714 2.4

Louisiana ........................... 121.7 1,887.3 1.3 765 4.8

Maine ................................. 50.8 584.1 0.5 701 3.5

Maryland ............................ 164.8 2,530.3 0.0 963 2.8

Massachusetts ................... 212.7 3,203.1 0.9 1,143 3.3

Michigan ............................ 259.1 4,058.8 -1.8 857 0.9

Minnesota .......................... 173.5 2,644.8 0.6 908 4.0

Mississippi ......................... 71.0 1,138.2 0.8 634 3.3

Missouri ............................. 175.2 2,708.0 0.0 768 3.5

Montana ............................. 42.9 432.4 0.9 625 4.3

Nebraska ........................... 59.1 912.2 1.4 687 3.2

Nevada .............................. 76.7 1,266.3 -1.2 839 4.7

New Hampshire ................. 48.9 621.2 0.3 863 3.4

New Jersey ........................ 276.3 3,939.9 0.5 1,133 3.3

New Mexico ....................... 54.5 823.8 0.6 717 4.7

New York ........................... 582.3 8,555.0 1.3 1,399 0.1

North Carolina .................... 258.4 4,069.1 0.9 788 1.3

North Dakota ...................... 25.4 343.3 2.6 652 6.2

Ohio ................................... 294.4 5,189.1 -1.0 798 1.0

Oklahoma .......................... 100.4 1,560.0 1.6 707 4.7

Oregon ............................... 133.8 1,713.1 0.3 776 2.9

Pennsylvania ..................... 341.5 5,608.8 0.5 869 2.4

Rhode Island ...................... 35.9 464.8 -1.5 851 2.3

South Carolina ................... 117.4 1,888.3 0.1 695 2.8

South Dakota ..................... 30.3 389.4 2.0 632 5.2

Tennessee ......................... 143.4 2,746.4 0.6 761 3.3

Texas ................................. 558.7 10,420.8 2.8 903 3.6

Utah ................................... 86.7 1,220.2 1.4 718 3.2

Vermont ............................. 24.8 300.8 -0.3 735 4.4

Virginia ............................... 229.2 3,653.5 0.2 918 2.0

Washington ........................ 218.9 2,928.6 2.1 899 3.7

West Virginia ...................... 48.8 700.3 0.3 679 4.0

Wisconsin .......................... 159.7 2,734.3 0.2 760 2.2

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

first quarter 2008 2—Continued

State

Establishments,

first quarter

2008

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage 3

March

2008

(thousands)

Percent

change,

March

2007-08

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

first quarter

2007-08

Wyoming ............................ 24.8 277.2 2.9 $779 6.7

Puerto Rico ........................ 57.1 1,004.5 -1.6 489 2.7

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 46.5 1.1 708 3.4

 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 U.S. Counties

0.5% to 5.0%

-8.1% to 0.4%

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

in 2007 but are included because they are the largest county in their

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 October 2008

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

March 2007-08 (U.S. average = 0.4 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties

2.5% to 14.9%

-17.2% to 2.4%

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

in 2007 but are included because they are the largest county in their 

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 October 2008

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

or more employees, first quarter 2007-08 (U.S. average = 2.4 percent)