Technical information: (202) 691-6567

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

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 06-40

For release: 10:00 A.M. EST

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2005

In June 2005, Pasco County, Fla., 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. Pasco County (north of Tampa) experienced an over-the-year

employment gain of 9.5 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.7 percent. Webb County, Texas

(which includes Laredo) had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of

2005, with an increase of 11.3 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.9 percent over the

same time span.

Of the 322 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2004 annual average employment, 131

had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in June 2005, and 176 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the

national average in 128 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was

below the national average in 174 counties. (See chart 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 8.6 million employer

reports cover 132.8 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the

nation and for the 322 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2004.

June 2005 employment and 2005 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table

4 of this release. Final data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the

fourth quarter of 2004 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for

the first and second quarters of 2005 will be available later in January on the BLS Web site.

Large County Employment

In June 2005, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 132.8 million, up by

1.7 percent from June 2004. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.6

percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.3 percent of total covered wages. These 322 counties

Regional Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages News Releases

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.
2

Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by June 2005 employment, June 2004-05 employment change, and

June 2004-05 percent change in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. 4,089 Maricopa, Ariz. 88.0 Pasco, Fla. 9.5

Cook, Ill. 2,528 Clark, Nev. 60.2 Lee, Fla. 9.3

New York, N.Y. 2,257 Harris, Texas 47.0 Clark, Nev. 7.5

Harris, Texas 1,867 Orange, Fla. 32.9 Seminole, Fla. 7.4

Maricopa, Ariz. 1,677 Orange, Calif. 32.5 Kern, Calif. 6.6

Orange, Calif. 1,503 Los Angeles, Calif. 28.3 Collier, Fla. 6.6

Dallas, Texas 1,417 Palm Beach, Fla. 28.3 Montgomery, Texas 6.1

San Diego, Calif. 1,301 Riverside, Calif. 28.2 Okaloosa, Fla. 6.0

King, Wash. 1,120 San Bernardino, Calif. 27.7 Williamson, Texas 5.9

Miami-Dade, Fla. 999 New York, N.Y. 25.7 Lake, Fla. 5.8

Employment in large counties

June 2005 employment

 (thousands)

 Net change in employment,

 June 2004-05

 (thousands)

Percent change in employment,

 June 2004-05

U.S. 132,808.3 U.S. 2,210.2 U.S. 1.7

had a net job gain of 1,494,600 over the year, accounting for 67.6 percent of the U.S. employment increase.

Employment increased in 272 of the large counties from June 2004 to June 2005. Pasco County, Fla., had

the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (9.5 percent). Lee, Fla., had the next largest

increase, 9.3 percent, followed by the counties of Clark, Nev. (7.5 percent), Seminole, Fla. (7.4 percent),

and Kern, Calif., and Collier, Fla. (6.6 percent each). (See table 1.)

Employment declined in 39 large counties from June 2004 to June 2005. The largest percentage decline

in employment was in Hinds County, Miss. (-2.2 percent), followed by the counties of Shawnee, Kan. (-1.8

percent), Lorain, Ohio (-1.5 percent), Orleans, La. (-1.2 percent), and Lucas, Ohio (-1.1 percent).

The largest gains in employment from June 2004 to June 2005 were recorded in the counties of

Maricopa, Ariz. (88,000), Clark, Nev. (60,200), Harris, Texas (47,000), Orange, Fla. (32,900), and

Orange, Calif. (32,500). (See table A.)

The largest decline in employment occurred in Allegheny County, Pa. (-6,500), followed by the counties

of Erie, N.Y. (-3,400), Orleans, La. (-3,100), Hinds, Miss. (-2,800), and Hennepin, Minn. (-2,700).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2005 was $751. Average weekly wages

were higher than the national average in 116 of the largest 322 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y.,

held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,350. Santa

Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,316, followed by San Mateo, Calif. ($1,267),

Arlington, Va. ($1,257), and Washington, D.C. ($1,236). (See table B.)

There were 206 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter

of 2005. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($463), followed by

the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($473), Horry, S.C. ($499), Yakima, Wash. ($509), and Tulare, Calif.

($532). (See table 1.)
3

New York, N.Y. $1,350 San Mateo, Calif. $121 Webb, Texas 11.3

Santa Clara, Calif. 1,316 Fairfax, Va. 88 San Mateo, Calif. 10.6

San Mateo, Calif. 1,267 Arlington, Va. 86 Clark, Nev. 9.4

Arlington, Va. 1,257 Marin, Calif. 68 Collier, Fla. 8.4

Washington, D.C. 1,236 Clark, Nev. 64 Fairfax, Va. 8.1

Fairfax, Va. 1,177 Durham, N.C. 63 Rockingham, N.H. 7.6

Suffolk, Mass. 1,170 San Francisco, Calif. 56 Henrico, Va. 7.5

Fairfield, Conn. 1,169 Henrico, Va. 56 Marin, Calif. 7.4

San Francisco, Calif. 1,162 Fairfield, Conn. 55 Lake, Fla. 7.3

Somerset, N.J. 1,127 Collier, Fla. 55 Arlington, Va. 7.3

Rockingham, N.H. 55

Webb, Texas 55

U.S. $751 U.S. $28 U.S. 3.9

Average weekly wage in large counties

 Average weekly wage,

 second quarter 2005

Percent change in average

 weekly wage, second

 quarter 2004-05

 Change in average weekly

 wage, second quarter 2004-05

Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by second quarter 2005 average weekly wages, second quarter

2004-05 change in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2004-05 percent change in average

weekly wages

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 3.9 percent. Among the largest counties,

Webb, Texas, led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 11.3 percent from the

second quarter of 2004. San Mateo, Calif., was second with 10.6 percent growth, followed by the counties

of Clark, Nev. (9.4 percent), Collier, Fla. (8.4 percent), and Fairfax, Va. (8.1 percent).

Six counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Pierce County, Wash., had

the largest decrease, -7.9 percent, followed by the counties of Clayton, Ga. (-6.3 percent), Rock Island, Ill.

(-2.9 percent), Spartanburg, S.C. (-2.3 percent), and Trumbull, Ohio (-1.3 percent).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2004 annual average employment levels), all reported

increases in employment from June 2004 to June 2005. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the fastest

growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 5.5 percent increase. Within Maricopa County,

employment rose in every industry group except two—natural resources and mining and information. The

largest gains were in construction (15.5 percent) and professional and business services (7.2 percent). (See

table 2.) Harris, Texas, had the next largest increase in employment, 2.6 percent, followed by Miami-Dade,

Fla. (2.4 percent). The smallest employment gain occurred in Cook County, Ill. (0.2 percent).

All of the 10 largest U.S. counties also saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. MiamiDade, Fla., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with an increase of 6.1 percent.

Within Miami-Dade County, wages increased the most in natural resources and mining (15.8 percent) and

professional and business services (10.6 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth, with an

increase of 5.1 percent. The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in San Diego

County, Calif., and Dallas, Texas (3.2 percent each).
4

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows June 2005 employment and the 2005 second quarter average weekly wage in the largest

county in each state. (This table includes two counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that have

employment levels below 75,000.) The employment levels in these counties in June 2005 ranged from

approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 41,300 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest

average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,350), while the lowest average weekly

wage was in Laramie County, Wyo. ($594).

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 e-mailing QCEWinfo@bls.gov or by calling (202) 691-6567.
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. Data for 2005 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 323 counties presented in this release were

derived using 2004 preliminary annual averages of

employment. All of the 318 counties that were published in the

2004 releases are included in the 2005 releases. The following

counties grew enough in 2004 to be included in the 2005

releases: Lake, Fla., Wyandotte, Kan., Harford, Md.,

Washington, Pa., and Whatcom, Wash. These counties will be

included in all 2005 quarterly releases. The counties in table

2 are selected and sorted each year based on the annual

average employment from the preceding year.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may

differ from data released by the individual states. These

potential differences result from the states’ continuing receipt

Source Count of UI administrative records Count of longitudinally-linked UI Sample survey: 400,000 establishsubmitted by 8.6 million establish- administrative records submitted by ments

ments 6.6 million private-sector employers

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

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

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

Other employment, including railroads, religious organizations, and

other non-UI-covered jobs

Publication Quarterly Quarterly Monthly

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

quarter quarter month

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

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

 data summarizes gross job gains sample estimates to first quarter

 and losses

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

products universe count of estab- namics data on establishment open- of employment, hours, and earnings

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

state, and national levels by Future expansions will include

detailed industry data at the county, MSA, and

state level and by size of

establishment

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

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

- Periodic universe counts for - Analysis of employer dynamics indicator

benchmarking sample survey underlying economic expansions - Official time series for

estimates and contractions employment change measures

- Sample frame for BLS - Future: Employment expansion - Input into other major economic

establishment surveys and contraction by size of estab- indicators

lishment

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

Web sites

•

•

•

•

 •

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

 QCEW BED CES

•

UI levels
of UI data over time and ongoing review and editing. The

individual states determine their data release timetables.

Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures

The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based

employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these

measures—QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED),

and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the

quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however,

each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage,

estimation procedure, and publication product.

Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result

in somewhat different measures of employment change over

time. It is important to understand program differences and the

intended uses of the program products. (See table on the

previous page.) Additional information on each program can

be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table on

the previous page.

Coverage

Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI

laws are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted

to the SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers

covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal

Employees (UCFE) program, employment and wage data are

compiled from quarterly reports that are sent to the appropriate

SWA by the specific federal agency. In addition to the

quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple

establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called

the “Multiple Worksite Report,” which provides detailed

information on the location and industry of each of their

establishments. The employment and wage data included in

this release are derived from microdata summaries of more than

8 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 2004, UI and UCFE programs covered

workers in 129.3 million jobs. The estimated 124.4 million

workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)

represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $5.088 trillion in pay,

representing 94.4 percent of the wage and salary component of

personal income and 43.4 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. Beginning with the first quarter

of 2005, Oregon implemented a change in their state UI laws.

This change extended UI coverage to providers of home care

for the elderly. These providers are now considered state

workers for purposes of UI benefits.

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.

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. When comparing average weekly wage

levels between industries and/or states, these factors should be

taken into consideration. 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.

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic,

sometimes large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that

consists of some quarters having more pay periods than others.

Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As

a result of this schedule, in some quarters, federal wages contain

payments for six pay periods, while in other quarters their wages

include payments for seven pay periods. Over-the-year

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect this calendar

effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages may be attributed,

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

which include seven pay periods, with year-ago wages that

reflect only six pay periods. An opposite effect will occur when

wages in the current period, which contain six pay periods, are

compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay periods.

The effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced

in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll

processing. This pattern may exist in private sector pay, however,

because there are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly,

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

visible in counties with large concentrations of federal employment.
In order to ensure the highest possible quality of

data, states verify with employers and update, if necessary, the

industry, location, and ownership classification of all

establishments on a 3-year cycle. Changes in establishment

classification codes resulting from this process are introduced

with the data reported for the first quarter of the year. Changes

resulting from improved employer reporting also are introduced

in the first quarter.

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect

the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry

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

or industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic

events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example,

economic change would come from a firm relocating into the

county; administrative change would come from a company

correcting its county designation.

The over-the-year changes of employment and wages

presented in this release have been adjusted to account for most

of the administrative corrections made to the underlying

establishment reports. This is done by modifying the prior-year

levels used to calculate the over-the-year changes. Percent

changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final

2004 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.

The adjusted data do not account for administrative changes

caused by (1) multi-unit employers who start reporting for each

individual establishment rather than as a single entity and (2) the

classification of establishments previously reported in the

unknown county or unknown industry categories.

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 2004 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 fourth

quarter 2004 version of this news release. Employment and

Wages Annual Averages, 2004 will be available for sale in

January 2006 from the United States Government Printing

Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,

Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone 866-512-1800, outside of

Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone

number is 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512-2104. Also,

the 2004 bulletin is available in a portable document format

(PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/

cewbultn04.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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

second quarter 20052

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,562.0 132,808.3 1.7 - $751 3.9 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.8 371.4 0.2 257 763 6.0 25

Madison, AL ....................... 8.1 168.5 2.1 109 795 0.9 300

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.8 167.2 3.2 56 620 4.7 76

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.7 135.8 2.7 74 643 2.1 255

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.2 81.3 5.0 21 648 6.4 16

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.9 144.2 2.2 100 813 3.0 207

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 82.9 1,677.4 5.5 12 761 4.1 112

Pima, AZ ............................ 18.1 344.4 2.8 71 684 5.1 47

Benton, AR ........................ 4.8 90.2 5.7 11 697 5.1 47

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.4 245.5 1.1 184 689 3.9 129

Washington, AR ................. 5.3 90.4 4.4 30 619 5.5 34

Alameda, CA ...................... 47.0 679.2 -0.4 289 988 2.9 215

Contra Costa, CA ............... 26.8 343.9 0.1 267 957 5.0 55

Fresno, CA ......................... 28.1 348.2 2.2 100 601 3.6 161

Kern, CA ............................ 16.0 270.1 6.6 5 636 (7) - 

Los Angeles, CA ................ 363.1 4,089.4 0.7 217 852 4.4 90

Marin, CA ........................... 11.5 110.1 0.3 249 985 7.4 8

Monterey, CA ..................... 11.7 183.3 2.0 116 673 3.9 129

Orange, CA ........................ 89.7 1,503.3 2.2 100 861 3.6 161

Placer, CA .......................... 9.5 135.5 3.1 61 758 3.7 153

Riverside, CA ..................... 39.0 612.3 4.8 24 654 0.9 300

Sacramento, CA ................ 46.6 623.5 1.5 153 816 1.2 294

San Bernardino, CA ........... 42.1 636.5 4.6 27 674 3.9 129

San Diego, CA ................... 86.4 1,301.4 1.5 153 812 3.2 191

San Francisco, CA ............. 42.3 524.8 1.1 184 1,162 5.1 47

San Joaquin, CA ................ 15.8 223.4 1.6 141 650 3.2 191

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 8.6 103.8 1.4 161 616 -0.2 312

San Mateo, CA .................. 22.2 328.0 0.0 273 1,267 10.6 2

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.0 191.6 3.0 65 721 4.8 68

Santa Clara, CA ................. 52.0 860.3 0.5 236 1,316 1.8 275

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.3 101.5 0.2 257 709 3.5 168

Solano, CA ......................... 9.3 129.7 0.7 217 720 4.0 120

Sonoma, CA ...................... 16.9 192.9 -0.2 282 747 3.3 181

Stanislaus, CA ................... 13.1 177.4 2.2 100 643 3.9 129

Tulare, CA .......................... 8.3 144.0 3.4 47 532 3.1 199

Ventura, CA ....................... 20.5 316.3 1.3 167 818 4.7 76

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.1 101.0 2.2 100 715 3.9 129

Adams, CO ........................ 9.0 149.4 2.5 87 708 1.3 289

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.3 275.5 1.3 167 891 3.4 178

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.2 156.2 2.5 87 898 1.9 268

Denver, CO ........................ 24.8 425.7 0.9 199 923 4.1 112

El Paso, CO ....................... 16.6 242.6 1.6 141 701 2.9 215

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.5 209.4 1.4 161 770 4.1 112

Larimer, CO ....................... 9.6 128.1 1.5 153 666 2.8 221

Fairfield, CT ....................... 31.9 420.0 1.1 184 1,169 4.9 62

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.5 494.9 1.7 132 945 5.4 35

New Haven, CT ................. 22.1 368.0 0.6 224 826 2.7 229

New London, CT ................ 6.7 130.5 0.6 224 804 2.0 264

New Castle, DE ................. 19.7 280.9 -0.7 302 890 3.5 168

Washington, DC ................. 30.5 675.1 1.5 153 1,236 4.1 112

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

second quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.2 120.9 (7) - $639 (7) - 

Brevard, FL ........................ 13.7 203.9 3.4 47 728 2.0 264

Broward, FL ....................... 61.1 718.1 2.5 87 743 5.1 47

Collier, FL .......................... 11.6 120.6 6.6 5 713 8.4 4

Duval, FL ........................... 24.4 446.9 3.6 40 735 3.8 144

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.6 124.1 1.1 184 610 5.4 35

Hillsborough, FL ................. 33.9 617.3 3.6 40 713 2.9 215

Lake, FL ............................. 6.2 77.1 5.8 10 572 7.3 9

Lee, FL ............................... 17.2 207.9 9.3 2 675 3.7 153

Leon, FL ............................. 7.7 144.4 2.8 71 647 1.3 289

Manatee, FL ....................... 8.1 120.5 4.5 28 611 4.3 99

Marion, FL .......................... 7.3 97.3 (7) - 573 4.0 120

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 84.9 999.0 2.4 93 760 6.1 21

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 82.2 6.0 8 633 (7) - 

Orange, FL ......................... 32.1 655.9 5.3 15 698 4.2 104

Palm Beach, FL ................. 46.7 542.5 5.5 12 745 2.6 237

Pasco, FL ........................... 8.5 87.3 9.5 1 579 2.7 229

Pinellas, FL ........................ 30.3 434.8 -0.2 282 666 4.7 76

Polk, FL .............................. 11.5 196.7 5.2 18 607 3.8 144

Sarasota, FL ...................... 14.5 154.1 3.1 61 666 5.0 55

Seminole, FL ...................... 13.3 166.1 7.4 4 696 5.0 55

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.2 159.2 4.8 24 573 4.8 68

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 87.5 0.1 267 635 4.1 112

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.2 131.6 3.4 47 634 3.9 129

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 107.4 1.8 128 754 -6.3 316

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.2 306.2 2.9 66 826 2.2 254

De Kalb, GA ....................... 17.0 291.0 0.5 236 823 3.1 199

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.9 741.3 2.9 66 975 3.6 161

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 22.0 314.7 3.1 61 789 3.1 199

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.8 96.8 0.4 245 607 5.0 55

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 106.0 1.2 175 635 2.1 255

Honolulu, HI ....................... 23.6 441.9 3.2 56 700 3.7 153

Ada, ID ............................... 13.6 198.4 4.4 30 693 3.6 161

Champaign, IL ................... 4.0 91.2 1.1 184 642 4.2 104

Cook, IL ............................. 129.8 2,527.8 0.2 257 902 4.9 62

Du Page, IL ........................ 33.5 589.1 0.6 224 878 2.5 243

Kane, IL ............................. 11.6 208.4 1.2 175 693 4.1 112

Lake, IL .............................. 19.5 332.1 0.8 208 896 3.2 191

McHenry, IL ....................... 7.8 101.1 2.8 71 670 4.0 120

McLean, IL ......................... 3.5 84.5 0.8 208 798 5.7 31

Madison, IL ........................ 5.7 94.6 -0.5 293 635 2.1 255

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.6 100.7 2.0 116 710 3.0 207

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.4 79.7 1.3 167 704 -2.9 315

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.2 94.3 1.0 192 610 3.2 191

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.1 132.6 -0.5 293 734 2.1 255

Will, IL ................................ 11.4 171.1 2.5 87 704 4.1 112

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.7 138.1 -0.6 299 656 4.0 120

Allen, IN ............................. 8.8 178.2 -0.1 278 667 3.1 199

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 126.5 -0.3 285 680 2.7 229

Hamilton, IN ....................... 6.6 97.1 5.0 21 739 1.7 282

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

second quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Lake, IN ............................. 10.0 193.4 0.7 217 $689 5.0 55

Marion, IN .......................... 23.5 581.0 0.2 257 783 1.8 275

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 125.9 -0.5 293 654 5.1 47

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 107.7 0.5 236 633 1.4 286

Linn, IA ............................... 6.1 120.0 2.1 109 711 3.5 168

Polk, IA .............................. 14.2 267.0 1.3 167 740 4.2 104

Scott, IA ............................. 5.1 89.5 1.6 141 627 5.4 35

Johnson, KS ...................... 19.1 304.3 1.8 128 778 3.6 161

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 11.8 244.4 1.7 132 705 5.4 35

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.7 94.5 -1.8 315 663 5.1 47

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.2 76.6 0.2 257 747 3.8 144

Fayette, KY ........................ 8.7 170.4 2.6 80 690 2.4 247

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.2 425.1 1.1 184 748 3.7 153

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.1 123.5 1.3 167 638 0.8 302

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.7 86.4 5.2 18 607 3.8 144

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 13.2 251.7 2.0 116 642 4.9 62

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.3 217.0 0.7 217 624 3.0 207

Lafayette, LA ...................... 7.8 121.5 2.6 80 658 4.4 90

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.9 245.7 -1.2 313 691 (7) - 

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.6 172.8 -0.6 299 684 3.0 207

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.1 222.8 1.7 132 788 4.2 104

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.2 374.7 1.1 184 769 3.9 129

Frederick, MD .................... 5.8 93.0 2.6 80 715 1.4 286

Harford, MD ....................... 5.5 81.8 1.7 132 705 0.6 306

Howard, MD ....................... 8.2 140.4 2.5 87 872 4.2 104

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.4 464.9 2.1 109 995 4.8 68

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.6 313.6 -0.1 278 827 3.9 129

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.1 351.9 -0.6 299 871 3.8 144

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.5 101.2 -0.5 293 654 1.9 268

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.8 223.9 0.1 267 686 1.8 275

Essex, MA .......................... 21.3 299.0 -0.7 302 807 3.5 168

Hampden, MA .................... 14.6 202.4 0.1 267 689 2.1 255

Middlesex, MA ................... 49.3 798.8 1.0 192 1,062 1.8 275

Norfolk, MA ........................ 22.5 322.7 0.2 257 899 1.9 268

Plymouth, MA .................... 14.2 181.3 2.7 74 747 1.9 268

Suffolk, MA ........................ 22.8 566.1 0.8 208 1,170 0.7 304

Worcester, MA ................... 20.9 322.1 -0.4 289 778 2.1 255

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.5 150.4 (7) - 705 1.4 286

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.1 159.9 (7) - 729 4.1 112

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.6 117.2 0.5 236 683 0.4 308

Kent, MI ............................. 14.6 341.0 1.2 175 711 5.3 41

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.2 333.6 0.9 199 830 3.1 199

Oakland, MI ....................... 41.1 729.9 0.5 236 913 2.6 237

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.8 115.4 2.0 116 671 1.1 297

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.6 90.0 -0.8 307 673 0.7 304

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.3 193.5 0.4 245 856 2.3 252

Wayne, MI .......................... 34.4 797.2 0.0 273 894 4.4 90

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.6 114.8 0.0 273 777 6.9 11

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.0 172.2 -0.9 309 757 2.9 215

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.1 831.3 -0.3 285 941 2.8 221

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

second quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.4 90.0 0.4 245 $785 2.5 243

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.2 329.5 -0.7 302 849 0.2 310

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.8 96.4 0.5 236 613 0.5 307

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.3 77.8 0.8 208 602 1.2 294

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.6 91.7 1.3 167 558 6.3 17

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 127.6 -2.2 316 656 3.3 181

Boone, MO ......................... 4.3 80.9 3.5 45 613 4.6 81

Clay, MO ............................ 5.0 89.5 1.7 132 694 2.5 243

Greene, MO ....................... 8.0 149.8 3.2 56 592 2.6 237

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.6 367.4 0.6 224 775 3.9 129

St. Charles, MO ................. 7.5 119.0 2.9 66 670 4.4 90

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.6 626.0 0.8 208 818 4.9 62

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.1 224.2 0.6 224 856 6.5 14

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.1 312.5 0.3 249 691 3.3 181

Lancaster, NE .................... 7.7 155.0 1.3 167 608 1.2 294

Clark, NV ........................... 41.5 867.2 7.5 3 748 9.4 3

Washoe, NV ....................... 13.2 212.2 3.3 53 720 4.8 68

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.2 197.9 1.2 175 836 5.7 31

Rockingham, NH ................ 10.8 139.5 1.6 141 776 7.6 6

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 6.7 153.1 1.7 132 692 3.9 129

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.2 453.5 0.3 249 950 4.3 99

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.3 205.0 1.5 153 809 3.3 181

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.5 212.7 0.1 267 779 3.7 153

Essex, NJ ........................... 21.2 361.5 0.3 249 965 3.9 129

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.2 105.4 3.2 56 697 3.6 161

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.0 237.8 1.6 141 982 2.8 221

Mercer, NJ ......................... 10.8 224.4 2.7 74 939 4.7 76

Middlesex, NJ .................... 20.8 396.9 0.5 236 921 0.8 302

Monmouth, NJ ................... 20.1 264.1 1.5 153 809 1.3 289

Morris, NJ .......................... 17.8 290.5 0.6 224 1,094 5.2 44

Ocean, NJ .......................... 11.6 154.5 1.6 141 659 3.8 144

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.5 180.5 1.4 161 839 5.4 35

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.1 174.1 3.6 40 1,127 2.7 229

Union, NJ ........................... 14.9 231.3 (7) - 945 (7) - 

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.5 320.9 1.4 161 685 5.4 35

Albany, NY ......................... 9.7 230.7 0.2 257 779 2.4 247

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.7 222.9 2.4 93 733 1.8 275

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 95.5 -1.0 311 625 6.3 17

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.0 119.5 1.4 161 785 6.2 19

Erie, NY ............................. 23.4 457.2 -0.7 302 671 2.8 221

Kings, NY ........................... 42.6 456.3 1.7 132 671 3.2 191

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.7 388.7 0.8 208 783 6.5 14

Nassau, NY ........................ 51.3 606.9 0.2 257 863 4.6 81

New York, NY .................... 113.9 2,256.6 1.2 175 1,350 4.2 104

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 110.8 0.0 273 596 3.5 168

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.8 252.9 1.0 192 700 1.6 285

Orange, NY ........................ 9.5 130.9 1.2 175 680 4.5 85

Queens, NY ....................... 40.7 481.7 1.6 141 755 3.0 207

Richmond, NY .................... 8.2 91.0 1.1 184 694 3.6 161

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.5 114.9 1.3 167 826 3.9 129

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

second quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Suffolk, NY ......................... 48.6 621.9 0.3 249 $814 3.8 144

Westchester, NY ................ 35.8 419.5 0.7 217 1,001 2.4 247

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.0 108.8 1.9 124 599 5.3 41

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.3 86.1 -0.8 307 593 3.3 181

Cumberland, NC ................ 5.7 115.8 3.4 47 574 1.8 275

Durham, NC ....................... 6.2 168.6 1.2 175 982 6.9 11

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.5 178.7 2.2 100 702 3.4 178

Guilford, NC ....................... 13.6 272.8 0.8 208 683 3.2 191

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 27.6 520.7 3.1 61 879 4.9 62

New Hanover, NC .............. 6.6 94.9 5.2 18 613 4.4 90

Wake, NC .......................... 23.9 406.4 4.3 32 753 2.7 229

Cass, ND ........................... 5.7 92.3 3.2 56 613 3.9 129

Butler, OH .......................... 7.0 136.4 1.0 192 680 0.4 308

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.1 758.5 -0.1 278 778 2.8 221

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.2 684.8 0.9 199 759 3.7 153

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.6 545.8 -0.1 278 804 2.9 215

Lake, OH ............................ 6.9 102.2 0.3 249 628 3.5 168

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 102.8 -1.5 314 650 2.0 264

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.9 227.1 -1.1 312 689 3.1 199

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.5 108.1 0.9 199 563 3.5 168

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.2 283.6 -0.4 289 717 2.7 229

Stark, OH ........................... 9.3 168.1 0.2 257 602 3.1 199

Summit, OH ....................... 15.0 271.1 0.6 224 726 5.8 28

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.8 85.2 -0.3 285 663 -1.3 313

Oklahoma, OK ................... 22.4 411.5 1.6 141 644 1.1 297

Tulsa, OK ........................... 18.5 330.9 3.6 40 673 3.7 153

Clackamas, OR .................. 11.8 145.7 2.7 74 710 3.5 168

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.5 83.1 3.4 47 581 2.1 255

Lane, OR ........................... 10.5 147.1 4.1 34 608 2.0 264

Marion, OR ........................ 8.8 140.3 2.6 80 602 2.6 237

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.8 429.5 1.7 132 772 2.9 215

Washington, OR ................ 15.0 237.5 3.8 39 857 1.3 289

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.2 689.1 -0.9 309 793 4.2 104

Berks, PA ........................... 9.0 165.5 1.6 141 685 2.1 255

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.3 266.5 1.4 161 743 2.6 237

Chester, PA ....................... 15.1 233.6 2.6 80 982 4.0 120

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.8 126.0 -0.5 293 709 0.0 311

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.1 179.8 1.6 141 740 1.9 268

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.7 210.9 0.8 208 793 4.5 85

Erie, PA .............................. 7.2 131.1 2.4 93 603 3.4 178

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 100.6 1.9 124 595 5.1 47

Lancaster, PA .................... 11.9 230.7 0.9 199 662 4.3 99

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.4 176.7 0.6 224 753 4.0 120

Luzerne, PA ....................... 8.1 144.3 0.5 236 605 2.7 229

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.9 485.9 0.7 217 929 5.2 44

Northampton, PA ............... 6.3 95.6 2.4 93 673 3.2 191

Philadelphia, PA ................ 29.1 630.4 0.6 224 865 3.3 181

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 77.2 0.1 267 649 1.7 282

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.6 140.7 0.9 199 603 2.7 229

York, PA ............................. 8.8 172.7 2.6 80 672 4.0 120

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

second quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Kent, RI .............................. 5.6 83.5 1.2 175 $683 1.3 289

Providence, RI ................... 18.0 286.9 -0.7 302 736 3.1 199

Charleston, SC .................. 12.3 200.1 2.7 74 634 6.0 25

Greenville, SC .................... 12.6 225.1 0.6 224 679 5.8 28

Horry, SC ........................... 8.3 115.1 3.4 47 499 5.7 31

Lexington, SC .................... 5.8 88.5 3.9 37 598 6.2 19

Richland, SC ...................... 9.7 203.2 0.6 224 650 3.7 153

Spartanburg, SC ................ 6.4 115.3 -0.2 282 670 -2.3 314

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.0 112.4 2.0 116 624 3.0 207

Davidson, TN ..................... 17.9 433.4 2.0 116 749 3.5 168

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.4 189.0 1.0 192 657 2.8 221

Knox, TN ............................ 10.4 218.7 1.6 141 659 5.3 41

Rutherford, TN ................... 3.8 94.7 5.3 15 692 1.9 268

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.8 500.8 0.9 199 752 1.8 275

Bell, TX .............................. 4.2 94.3 (7) - 578 4.7 76

Bexar, TX ........................... 30.1 677.1 2.9 66 655 3.0 207

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.3 78.2 1.2 175 709 4.4 90

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.6 79.2 3.3 53 562 6.6 13

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.2 116.1 0.3 249 463 2.4 247

Collin, TX ........................... 14.1 243.1 5.0 21 909 6.1 21

Dallas, TX .......................... 65.8 1,416.8 1.5 153 909 3.2 191

Denton, TX ......................... 9.2 146.6 4.2 33 657 5.0 55

El Paso, TX ........................ 12.6 256.1 2.2 100 540 3.3 181

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.1 110.5 2.4 93 767 5.8 28

Galveston, TX .................... 4.9 88.2 2.2 100 657 3.8 144

Harris, TX ........................... 90.0 1,866.9 2.6 80 892 5.1 47

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 9.7 197.9 4.8 24 473 3.3 181

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 118.3 2.7 74 683 4.4 90

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.5 118.7 0.9 199 563 5.2 44

McLennan, TX ................... 4.7 101.7 0.6 224 604 4.3 99

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.0 103.5 6.1 7 683 4.9 62

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 147.7 1.9 124 615 4.8 68

Potter, TX ........................... 3.7 71.8 0.0 273 595 4.6 81

Smith, TX ........................... 5.0 89.4 1.7 132 636 2.1 255

Tarrant, TX ......................... 34.6 716.3 2.1 109 770 5.0 55

Travis, TX .......................... 25.1 531.7 4.0 36 840 4.5 85

Webb, TX ........................... 4.4 80.4 2.4 93 543 11.3 1

Williamson, TX ................... 5.9 101.7 5.9 9 763 6.1 21

Davis, UT ........................... 6.6 97.8 2.1 109 600 1.7 282

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 36.2 539.7 3.5 45 688 2.5 243

Utah, UT ............................ 11.7 156.8 3.6 40 570 3.8 144

Weber, UT ......................... 5.5 89.0 1.8 128 564 2.4 247

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.7 96.3 -0.4 289 740 2.6 237

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.2 155.1 0.2 257 1,257 7.3 9

Chesterfield, VA ................. 6.8 116.1 2.1 109 683 4.8 68

Fairfax, VA ......................... 30.6 571.1 3.9 37 1,177 8.1 5

Henrico, VA ........................ 8.5 172.8 1.8 128 802 7.5 7

Loudoun, VA ...................... 6.9 121.4 5.3 15 950 2.8 221

Prince William, VA ............. 6.3 102.4 3.3 53 678 4.5 85

Alexandria City, VA ............ 5.8 94.4 1.5 153 968 4.4 90

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,

second quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

Ranking by

percent

change

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.0 95.4 1.6 141 $602 4.5 85

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.8 99.4 1.0 192 694 4.4 90

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.6 146.5 0.8 208 725 4.0 120

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 161.1 1.9 124 845 1.9 268

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 10.9 179.1 2.3 99 591 4.8 68

Clark, WA ........................... 10.4 126.1 4.1 34 690 3.3 181

King, WA ............................ 74.0 1,119.5 2.1 109 933 4.8 68

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.1 83.0 2.9 66 681 2.3 252

Pierce, WA ......................... 19.2 259.0 2.5 87 676 -7.9 317

Snohomish, WA ................. 16.0 224.2 5.4 14 775 6.0 25

Spokane, WA ..................... 14.2 199.0 2.0 116 617 3.9 129

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.2 94.2 2.2 100 689 4.2 104

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.4 80.3 4.5 28 592 3.3 181

Yakima, WA ....................... 7.5 107.7 0.5 236 509 3.9 129

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.2 108.8 -0.5 293 674 4.3 99

Brown, WI .......................... 6.7 148.7 0.3 249 680 3.0 207

Dane, WI ............................ 13.9 296.7 2.0 116 729 1.1 297

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.6 494.4 -0.3 285 753 4.0 120

Outagamie, WI ................... 4.9 103.5 1.0 192 659 3.5 168

Racine, WI ......................... 4.3 77.5 0.9 199 703 4.6 81

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.4 233.6 0.4 245 759 2.8 221

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.9 88.8 0.7 217 725 6.1 21

San Juan, PR ..................... 14.1 315.7 -1.2 (8) 490 4.3 (8) 

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

These 322 U.S. counties comprise 70.6 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 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical

Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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 ten largest counties,

second quarter 20052

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-053

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-053

United States5 .................................................... 8,562.0 132,808.3 1.7 $751 3.9

Private industry .............................................. 8,285.5 111,711.2 1.9 740 3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 122.7 1,849.4 2.1 697 7.4

Construction ............................................... 843.5 7,445.2 4.7 775 3.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 366.5 14,270.1 -0.6 913 3.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,869.1 25,635.7 1.3 656 3.6

Information ................................................. 142.0 3,062.2 -1.4 1,137 4.2

Financial activities ...................................... 810.8 8,064.3 1.7 1,083 4.0

Professional and business services ........... 1,367.5 16,929.2 3.1 905 5.4

Education and health services ................... 764.2 16,430.5 2.4 704 4.1

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 690.0 13,292.2 2.4 315 2.3

Other services ............................................ 1,086.5 4,387.6 0.7 488 3.6

Government ................................................... 276.5 21,097.1 0.8 808 3.3

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 363.1 4,089.4 0.7 852 4.4

Private industry .............................................. 359.3 3,500.5 0.8 830 4.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 11.5 -3.5 1,088 25.2

Construction ............................................... 13.1 148.9 6.4 841 5.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 16.1 468.8 -3.5 884 6.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 52.3 781.7 0.7 718 2.6

Information ................................................. 8.4 196.9 -4.9 1,484 5.5

Financial activities ...................................... 23.0 242.4 1.7 1,302 6.4

Professional and business services ........... 39.4 576.2 2.5 960 4.8

Education and health services ................... 27.0 453.1 0.0 774 5.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 25.3 382.4 2.3 467 -1.7

Other services ............................................ 153.8 237.9 6.4 402 1.5

Government ................................................... 3.8 589.0 -0.1 988 7.0

Cook, IL .............................................................. 129.8 2,527.8 0.2 902 4.9

Private industry .............................................. 128.5 2,208.2 0.4 892 5.1

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.5 7.5 950 5.7

Construction ............................................... 11.0 95.6 -1.5 1,081 3.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.5 253.8 -1.7 912 2.8

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.0 476.0 -0.5 737 3.8

Information ................................................. 2.5 61.1 -2.2 1,224 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 14.5 217.4 -0.2 1,378 2.8

Professional and business services ........... 26.7 417.7 2.1 1,165 11.6

Education and health services ................... 12.8 355.7 2.3 761 3.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.9 229.6 0.6 384 4.6

Other services ............................................ 13.0 96.0 -1.2 637 1.8

Government ................................................... 1.2 319.6 -1.0 972 4.0

New York, NY ..................................................... 113.9 2,256.6 1.2 1,350 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 113.6 1,803.3 1.3 1,452 4.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -2.2 1,177 -1.2

Construction ............................................... 2.1 28.9 -0.2 1,288 -0.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 42.8 -7.0 1,092 8.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.5 236.9 0.8 1,035 3.6

Information ................................................. 4.1 129.2 0.7 1,714 2.9

Financial activities ...................................... 17.2 356.8 1.2 2,538 5.9

Professional and business services ........... 22.5 447.6 1.8 1,593 5.3

Education and health services ................... 8.0 272.0 0.6 904 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.4 193.8 0.7 670 2.8

Other services ............................................ 16.4 84.0 1.2 820 4.9

Government ................................................... 0.2 453.3 0.4 944 0.6

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

second quarter 20052 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-053

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-053

Harris, TX ........................................................... 90.0 1,866.9 2.6 $892 5.1

Private industry .............................................. 89.5 1,622.7 2.8 907 5.3

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.3 65.9 5.7 2,284 8.7

Construction ............................................... 6.2 130.6 0.8 848 3.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.5 167.1 2.3 1,134 5.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.0 393.0 2.1 817 4.1

Information ................................................. 1.3 32.4 -2.9 1,100 4.3

Financial activities ...................................... 9.8 115.4 0.6 1,100 5.4

Professional and business services ........... 17.4 297.0 4.5 1,008 6.8

Education and health services ................... 9.2 194.6 4.1 769 3.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.8 166.8 2.8 336 4.7

Other services ............................................ 10.5 56.1 0.4 530 4.7

Government ................................................... 0.4 244.2 1.3 792 3.3

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 82.9 1,677.4 5.5 761 4.1

Private industry .............................................. 82.3 1,498.7 5.9 744 4.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.2 -8.3 544 14.5

Construction ............................................... 8.5 160.5 15.5 761 5.0

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 132.7 2.8 1,017 3.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 18.5 345.7 5.2 736 4.0

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.6 -5.8 912 5.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.1 143.0 5.1 987 9.5

Professional and business services ........... 18.1 287.6 7.2 734 2.5

Education and health services ................... 8.1 171.5 3.8 776 4.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.9 165.1 5.0 350 1.4

Other services ............................................ 5.7 45.8 0.1 520 5.5

Government ................................................... 0.6 178.7 2.7 889 3.7

Orange, CA ........................................................ 89.7 1,503.3 2.2 861 3.6

Private industry .............................................. 88.3 1,352.6 2.5 854 3.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 6.4 -16.4 576 9.7

Construction ............................................... 6.6 102.9 7.1 900 4.3

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.7 183.5 0.3 1,017 3.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 17.0 269.2 0.6 818 4.3

Information ................................................. 1.4 32.4 -1.9 1,181 7.1

Financial activities ...................................... 10.2 140.1 3.8 1,327 2.4

Professional and business services ........... 17.6 268.8 5.9 881 2.9

Education and health services ................... 9.3 131.8 1.8 774 4.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.7 168.6 1.5 372 3.3

Other services ............................................ 13.5 48.7 1.4 522 5.0

Government ................................................... 1.4 150.7 -0.2 919 1.4

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 65.8 1,416.8 1.5 909 3.2

Private industry .............................................. 65.3 1,259.1 1.4 918 3.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 7.3 6.3 2,065 -9.5

Construction ............................................... 4.3 78.0 6.7 849 4.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 145.8 0.9 1,042 3.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 297.4 0.4 885 5.9

Information ................................................. 1.7 53.9 -2.5 1,211 -1.9

Financial activities ...................................... 8.4 135.1 1.6 1,186 3.9

Professional and business services ........... 13.6 242.9 2.3 1,018 0.5

Education and health services ................... 6.2 130.4 0.2 849 5.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.0 125.2 1.2 411 0.7

Other services ............................................ 6.5 40.0 -0.6 571 4.0

Government ................................................... 0.5 157.6 1.8 839 4.6

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

second quarter 20052 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-053

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-053

San Diego, CA ................................................... 86.4 1,301.4 1.5 $812 3.2

Private industry .............................................. 85.0 1,080.7 1.5 796 3.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 11.7 -1.3 528 4.3

Construction ............................................... 6.8 92.7 5.0 831 3.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 104.6 -0.1 1,070 3.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.0 213.9 0.4 677 3.2

Information ................................................. 1.3 37.5 2.5 1,538 1.1

Financial activities ...................................... 9.3 83.1 1.3 1,044 0.9

Professional and business services ........... 14.8 211.1 3.2 967 4.3

Education and health services ................... 7.7 120.2 -0.8 750 5.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.5 150.8 1.6 365 6.7

Other services ............................................ 20.3 54.8 2.1 457 2.2

Government ................................................... 1.4 220.7 1.2 891 1.4

King, WA ............................................................ 74.0 1,119.5 2.1 933 4.8

Private industry .............................................. 73.5 966.2 2.6 935 4.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 3.3 0.4 1,099 8.5

Construction ............................................... 6.3 59.2 6.1 890 1.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 106.2 4.4 1,259 10.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.5 216.8 0.7 822 3.4

Information ................................................. 1.6 69.4 1.3 1,674 8.6

Financial activities ...................................... 6.3 74.7 -0.1 1,155 7.5

Professional and business services ........... 12.0 168.7 6.2 1,065 0.3

Education and health services ................... 6.1 115.2 3.3 750 3.6

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 107.0 1.8 396 -0.8

Other services ............................................ 18.2 45.5 -3.3 505 8.1

Government ................................................... 0.5 153.3 -0.5 919 4.0

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 84.9 999.0 2.4 760 6.1

Private industry .............................................. 84.7 847.6 3.1 729 6.7

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 8.8 -2.4 476 15.8

Construction ............................................... 5.5 46.2 14.0 793 7.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.8 48.9 -3.6 675 -1.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 24.1 242.5 2.0 702 7.8

Information ................................................. 1.9 23.7 (6) 1,047 (6) 

Financial activities ...................................... 9.3 69.2 5.6 1,051 7.0

Professional and business services ........... 16.8 143.0 6.6 868 10.6

Education and health services ................... 8.4 127.3 1.6 726 4.0

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.8 99.9 3.1 417 4.0

Other services ............................................ 7.8 34.8 -0.1 483 10.3

Government ................................................... 0.3 151.4 -1.4 935 4.9

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

programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See

Technical Note. 4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county

by state, second quarter 20052

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

United States6 .................... 8,562.0 132,808.3 1.7 $751 3.9

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.8 371.4 0.2 763 6.0

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 7.9 144.2 2.2 813 3.0

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 82.9 1,677.4 5.5 761 4.1

Pulaski, AR ........................ 13.4 245.5 1.1 689 3.9

Los Angeles, CA ................ 363.1 4,089.4 0.7 852 4.4

Denver, CO ........................ 24.8 425.7 0.9 923 4.1

Hartford, CT ....................... 24.5 494.9 1.7 945 5.4

New Castle, DE ................. 19.7 280.9 -0.7 890 3.5

Washington, DC ................. 30.5 675.1 1.5 1,236 4.1

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 84.9 999.0 2.4 760 6.1

Fulton, GA .......................... 37.9 741.3 2.9 975 3.6

Honolulu, HI ....................... 23.6 441.9 3.2 700 3.7

Ada, ID ............................... 13.6 198.4 4.4 693 3.6

Cook, IL ............................. 129.8 2,527.8 0.2 902 4.9

Marion, IN .......................... 23.5 581.0 0.2 783 1.8

Polk, IA .............................. 14.2 267.0 1.3 740 4.2

Johnson, KS ...................... 19.1 304.3 1.8 778 3.6

Jefferson, KY ..................... 21.2 425.1 1.1 748 3.7

Orleans, LA ........................ 12.9 245.7 -1.2 691 (7) 

Cumberland, ME ................ 11.6 172.8 -0.6 684 3.0

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.4 464.9 2.1 995 4.8

Middlesex, MA ................... 49.3 798.8 1.0 1,062 1.8

Wayne, MI .......................... 34.4 797.2 0.0 894 4.4

Hennepin, MN .................... 41.1 831.3 -0.3 941 2.8

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 127.6 -2.2 656 3.3

St. Louis, MO ..................... 33.6 626.0 0.8 818 4.9

Yellowstone, MT ................ 5.4 73.0 1.3 606 4.5

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.1 312.5 0.3 691 3.3

Clark, NV ........................... 41.5 867.2 7.5 748 9.4

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.2 197.9 1.2 836 5.7

Bergen, NJ ......................... 34.2 453.5 0.3 950 4.3

Bernalillo, NM .................... 16.5 320.9 1.4 685 5.4

New York, NY .................... 113.9 2,256.6 1.2 1,350 4.2

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 27.6 520.7 3.1 879 4.9

Cass, ND ........................... 5.7 92.3 3.2 613 3.9

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.1 758.5 -0.1 778 2.8

Oklahoma, OK ................... 22.4 411.5 1.6 644 1.1

Multnomah, OR .................. 25.8 429.5 1.7 772 2.9

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.2 689.1 -0.9 793 4.2

Providence, RI ................... 18.0 286.9 -0.7 736 3.1

Greenville, SC .................... 12.6 225.1 0.6 679 5.8

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.0 112.4 2.0 624 3.0

Shelby, TN ......................... 19.8 500.8 0.9 752 1.8

Harris, TX ........................... 90.0 1,866.9 2.6 892 5.1

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 36.2 539.7 3.5 688 2.5

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.7 96.3 -0.4 740 2.6

Fairfax, VA ......................... 30.6 571.1 3.9 1,177 8.1

King, WA ............................ 74.0 1,119.5 2.1 933 4.8

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.2 108.8 -0.5 674 4.3

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.6 494.4 -0.3 753 4.0

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county

by state, second quarter 20052 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-054

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-054

Laramie, WY ...................... 3.0 41.3 1.6 $594 3.7

San Juan, PR ..................... 14.1 315.7 -1.2 490 4.3

St. Thomas, VI ................... 1.8 23.0 0.3 626 6.6

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 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county

reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 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.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 20052

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-05

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-05

United States4 .................... 8,562.0 132,808.3 1.7 $751 3.9

Alabama ............................. 116.8 1,900.6 2.2 644 3.9

Alaska ................................ 20.6 315.1 2.7 759 3.3

Arizona ............................... 133.1 2,429.7 5.3 723 4.3

Arkansas ............................ 77.4 1,158.2 1.8 592 4.2

California ............................ 1,213.5 15,387.2 2.0 849 3.5

Colorado ............................ 169.3 2,215.9 2.0 769 3.4

Connecticut ........................ 110.2 1,676.5 1.1 946 4.3

Delaware ............................ 29.9 421.3 0.7 797 3.1

District of Columbia ............ 30.5 675.1 1.5 1,236 4.1

Florida ................................ 558.8 7,656.1 3.4 689 5.2

Georgia .............................. 256.6 3,937.6 2.7 722 3.1

Hawaii ................................ 36.1 605.9 3.4 678 4.0

Idaho .................................. 51.6 628.5 3.5 574 3.4

Illinois ................................. 336.6 5,816.8 0.6 803 4.2

Indiana ............................... 153.4 2,889.9 0.6 664 2.8

Iowa ................................... 91.8 1,475.0 1.7 614 3.9

Kansas ............................... 83.0 1,323.6 0.6 636 4.6

Kentucky ............................ 105.5 1,772.9 1.8 651 3.8

Louisiana ........................... 119.5 1,909.2 1.5 616 4.1

Maine ................................. 48.2 610.7 -0.6 609 3.7

Maryland ............................ 160.0 2,527.3 1.4 818 4.1

Massachusetts ................... 217.1 3,219.6 0.6 916 2.1

Michigan ............................ 257.2 4,366.7 0.1 768 3.4

Minnesota .......................... 161.4 2,664.7 0.0 760 2.3

Mississippi ......................... 67.5 1,117.3 0.7 556 4.1

Missouri ............................. 169.6 2,702.2 1.3 678 4.1

Montana ............................. 40.2 424.9 1.6 553 4.7

Nebraska ........................... 56.4 905.4 1.0 598 3.3

Nevada .............................. 66.8 1,220.7 6.4 738 7.7

New Hampshire ................. 47.4 631.7 1.1 754 5.2

New Jersey ........................ 270.8 4,012.7 1.4 901 3.4

New Mexico ....................... 50.5 784.8 1.9 624 4.5

New York ........................... 562.1 8,471.1 0.9 913 4.1

North Carolina .................... 233.1 3,855.7 1.7 665 4.1

North Dakota ...................... 24.7 333.2 2.0 561 4.1

Ohio ................................... 292.0 5,376.0 0.4 693 3.1

Oklahoma .......................... 94.6 1,465.3 2.7 594 2.8

Oregon ............................... 122.8 1,683.2 2.9 687 2.5

Pennsylvania ..................... 335.4 5,620.2 0.9 737 3.8

Rhode Island ...................... 35.6 487.7 0.4 720 3.4

South Carolina ................... 118.0 1,823.5 0.7 621 4.4

South Dakota ..................... 29.0 387.4 1.5 543 3.4

Tennessee ......................... 132.4 2,695.7 1.6 670 3.4

Texas ................................. 519.1 9,592.4 2.6 738 4.5

Utah ................................... 80.5 1,120.9 3.7 622 3.2

Vermont ............................. 24.5 304.1 0.5 644 1.6

Virginia ............................... 212.1 3,618.9 2.2 787 5.5

Washington ........................ 206.9 2,825.2 2.4 761 3.4

West Virginia ...................... 48.0 703.0 1.3 612 3.9

Wisconsin .......................... 160.6 2,794.2 0.9 663 3.1

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

second quarter 20052 — Continued

State

Establishments,

second quarter

2005

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

June

2005

(thousands)

Percent

change,

June

2004-05

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

second quarter

2004-05

Wyoming ............................ 23.0 267.0 2.9 $616 5.1

Puerto Rico ........................ 56.3 1,039.3 -0.5 418 2.7

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 44.3 3.8 639 3.7

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.
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 emp

June 200405 (U.S. Average = 1.7%)

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

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

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

S

J
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75

or more, second quarter 200405 (U.S. Average = 3.9%)

Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees

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

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

So

Ja