Hurricane Katrina

The employment and wages reported in this news release reflect the impact of Hurricane

Katrina and ongoing labor market trends in certain counties. The effects of Hurricane Katrina,

which hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, were first apparent in the September QCEW

employment counts and in the wage totals for the third quarter of 2005. This catastrophic

storm continued to affect monthly employment and quarterly wage totals in parts of Louisiana

and Mississippi in the fourth quarter of 2006. For more information, see the QCEW section

of the Katrina coverage on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/katrina/qcewquestions.htm.

Technical information: (202) 691-6567

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

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 07-1119

For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FOURTH QUARTER 2006

As of December 2006, three counties heavily affected by Hurricane Katrina had recovered some of the

job losses caused by the storm. Harrison County, Miss., 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. Harrison County, which includes the cities of

Gulfport and Biloxi, experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 18.7 percent compared with national

job growth of 1.6 percent. Orleans and Jefferson counties in Louisiana had over-the-year gains of 12.2 and

10.5 percent, respectively. Employment gains in these counties reflected a partial employment recovery

following substantial job losses that occurred in 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina. The U.S. average weekly

wage rose by 4.2 percent from fourth quarter 2005 to fourth quarter 2006. Among the largest counties,

Rockingham, N.H., had the greatest gain over the same time span with an increase of 18.0 percent.

Of the 325 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2005 annual average employment, 135

had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (1.6 percent) in December

2006 and 179 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) The percent change in

average weekly wages was higher than the national average (4.2 percent) in 122 of the largest U.S. counties,

but was below the national average in 185 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 8.9 million employer

reports cover 135.9 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the

nation and for the 325 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2005.
2

Employment in large counties

 December 2006 employment

 (thousands)

 Growth in employment,

 December 2005-06

 (thousands)

Percent growth in employment,

 December 2005-06

United States............ 135,933.2 United States................... 2,110.6 United States .................... 1.6

Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by December 2006 employment, December 2005-06

employment growth, and December 2005-06 percent growth in employment

Los Angeles, Calif. ... 4,242.5 Harris, Texas................... 76.3 Harrison, Miss. ................. 18.7

Cook, Ill. ................. 2,569.9 Maricopa, Ariz. ............... 68.5 Orleans, La. ...................... 12.2

New York, N.Y. ..... 2,359.8 New York, N.Y. ............. 43.9 Jefferson, La. .................... 10.5

Harris, Texas............ 1,993.9 Dallas, Texas................... 42.6 Williamson, Texas ............. 7.7

Maricopa, Ariz. ........ 1,854.5 King, Wash. .................... 34.2 Utah, Utah ........................ 6.8

Orange, Calif. ........... 1,519.1 Bexar, Texas ................... 26.6 Horry, S.C........................ 6.6

Dallas, Texas............ 1,490.2 Salt Lake, Utah ............... 26.5 Collin, Texas..................... 6.5

San Diego, Calif. ...... 1,335.2 Travis, Texas................... 25.7 Montgomery, Texas .......... 6.3

King, Wash. ............. 1,173.0 Clark, Nev. ..................... 24.3 Fort Bend, Texas.............. 5.6

Miami-Dade, Fla. ..... 1,032.7 Mecklenburg, N.C. ......... 24.1 Wake, N.C. ...................... 5.1

December 2006 employment and 2006 fourth-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 2005 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data

for fourth quarter 2006, along with updated data for the first, second, and third quarters of 2006, will be

available later in July on the BLS Web site.

Large County Employment

In December 2006, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 135.9 million, up

by 1.6 percent from December 2005. The 325 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted

for 71.0 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 77.1 percent of total covered wages. These 325

counties had a net job gain of 1,409,950 over the year, accounting for 66.8 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 270 of the large counties from December 2005 to December 2006.

Harrison County, Miss., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (18.7 percent).

Orleans, La., had the next largest increase, 12.2 percent, followed by the counties of Jefferson, La. (10.5

percent), Williamson, Texas (7.7 percent), and Utah, Utah (6.8 percent). The large employment gains in

Harrison, Orleans, and Jefferson counties reflected significant recovery from depressed employment levels in

December 2005, which were related to Hurricane Katrina. (See table 1.)

Employment declined in 41 counties from December 2005 to December 2006. The largest percentage

decline in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-4.7 percent). Elkhart, Ind., had the next largest employment decline (-3.3 percent), followed by the counties of Wayne, Mich. (-3.1 percent), Oakland, Mich.

(-2.7 percent), and Genesee, Mich. (-2.4 percent). In each of these five counties, the greatest number of

jobs lost occurred in the manufacturing industry.

The largest gains in the level of employment from December 2005 to December 2006 were recorded in

the counties of Harris, Texas (76,300), Maricopa, Ariz. (68,500), New York, N.Y. (43,900), Dallas, Texas

(42,600), and King, Wash. (34,200). (See table A.)
3

United States.....................$861 United States..........................$35 United States............... 4.2

Average weekly wage in large counties

 Average weekly wage,

 fourth quarter 2006

Percent growth in average

 weekly wage, fourth

 quarter 2005-06

 Growth in average weekly

 wage, fourth quarter 2005-06

Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2006 average weekly wages, fourth

quarter 2005-06 growth in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2005-06 percent growth

in average weekly wages

New York, N.Y. ...........$1,781 Rockingham, N.H. .............. $155 Rockingham, N.H. ....... 18.0

Santa Clara, Calif. ............1,569 Sedgwick, Kan. .................. 104 Sedgwick, Kan. ........... 14.0

Fairfield, Conn. ................1,515 Travis, Texas...................... 102 Trumbull, Ohio ............ 14.0

Suffolk, Mass. ..................1,481 Trumbull, Ohio ................... 100 Travis, Texas............... 10.9

San Francisco, Calif. ........1,460 New York, N.Y. ................ 96 Waukesha, Wis. .......... 10.4

Washington, D.C..............1,424 Rock Island, Ill. .................. 86 Santa Cruz, Calif. ........ 10.1

Arlington, Va....................1,419 Waukesha, Wis. ................. 86 Rock Island, Ill. ........... 9.5

San Mateo, Calif. .............1,402 San Francisco, Calif. .......... 83 Ada, Idaho .................. 8.9

Somerset, N.J. .................1,373 Santa Clara, Calif. .............. 76 Miami-Dade, Fla. ........ 8.1

Fairfax, Va. ......................1,297 Santa Cruz, Calif. ............... 75 East Baton Rouge, La. 8.1

Lafayette, La. .............. 8.1

Utah, Utah................... 8.1

The largest declines in employment levels occurred in Wayne, Mich. (-25,100), followed by the counties

of Oakland, Mich. (-19,800), Montgomery, Ohio (-5,200), and Elkhart, Ind., and Monroe, N.Y. (-4,200

each).

Large County Average Weekly Wages

The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2006 was $861. Average weekly wages

were higher than the national average in 105 of the largest 325 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y.,

held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,781. Santa

Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,569, followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,515),

Suffolk, Mass. ($1,481), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,460). (See table B.)

There were 219 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the fourth quarter

of 2006. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($527), followed by

the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($542), Yakima, Wash. ($570), Webb, Texas ($571), and Horry, S.C.

($578). (See table 1.)

Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.2 percent. Among the largest counties,

Rockingham, N.H., led the nation in average weekly wage growth with an increase of 18.0 percent from the

fourth quarter of 2005. Sedgwick, Kan., and Trumbull, Ohio, were second in wage growth (14.0 percent

each), followed by the counties of Travis, Texas (10.9 percent) and Waukesha, Wis. (10.4 percent).
4

Eight counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. New Castle, Del., had the

largest decrease (-5.7 percent), followed by the counties of Elkhart, Ind. (-5.3 percent), Orleans, La. (-4.4

percent), York, Pa. (-4.3 percent), and Harrison, Miss. (-2.4 percent).

Ten Largest U.S. Counties

Each of the 10 largest counties (based on 2005 annual average employment levels) reported increases in

employment from December 2005 to December 2006. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent increase in employment among the largest counties (4.0 percent). Within Harris County, employment rose in

every industry group. The largest percent gains were in natural resources and mining (12.2 percent), followed by construction (6.8 percent). Maricopa, Ariz., had the next largest percent increase in employment (3.8

percent), followed by King, Wash. (3.0 percent). The smallest percent increases in employment occurred in

Los Angeles, Calif. (0.5 percent), Orange, Calif. (0.7 percent), and San Diego, Calif. (0.8 percent). (See

table 2.)

Each of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. MiamiDade, Fla., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties with a gain of 8.1 percent. Within

Miami-Dade County, average weekly wages increased the most in professional and business services (18.7

percent), followed by financial activities (9.0 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain

of 7.2 percent, followed by King, Wash. (5.8 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in Orange, Calif. (2.7 percent), followed by Dallas, Texas (3.3 percent) and San Diego, Calif.

(3.6 percent).

Largest County by State

Table 3 shows December 2006 employment and the 2006 fourth quarter average weekly wage in the

largest county in each state, which is based on 2005 annual average employment levels. (This table includes

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

employment levels in the counties in table 3 in December 2006 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los

Angeles County, Calif., to 42,200 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these

counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,781), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Laramie, Wyo.

($682).

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.

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 first quarter 2007 is scheduled to be released on

Thursday, October 18.
5

Data for 2006 will be the last from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

(QCEW) program using the 2002 version of the North American Industry Classification

System (NAICS). With the release of first quarter 2007 data, scheduled for October 18,

the QCEW program will switch to the 2007 NAICS as the basis for the assignment and

tabulation of economic data by industry.

Upcoming Changes to Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data
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 2006 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 326 counties presented in this release were

derived using 2005 preliminary annual averages of

employment. For 2006 data, four counties have been added to

the publication tables: Douglas, Colo., Weld, Colo., Boone,

Ky., and Butler, Pa. These counties will be included in all 2006

quarterly releases. One county, Potter, Texas, which was

published in the 2005 releases, no longer has an employment

level of 75,000 or more and will be excluded in the 2006 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 8.9 million establish- administrative records submitted by ments

ments 6.8 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 con- at the MSA, state, and national levwages at the county, MSA, tractions at the national level by el by industry

state, and national levels by NAICS supersectors and by size

detailed industry of firm

Future expansions will include data

at the county, MSA, and state level

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 - An analysis of employment ex- - Input into other major economic

establishment surveys pansion and contraction by size indicators

of firm

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 nearly 9

million employer reports of employment and wages submitted

by states to the BLS. These reports are based on place of

employment rather than place of residence.

UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable

from state to state. In 2005, UI and UCFE programs covered

workers in 131.6 million jobs. The estimated 126.7 million

workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)

represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $5.352 trillion in pay,

representing 94.5 percent of the wage and salary component of

personal income and 43.0 percent of the gross domestic

product.

Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed

workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members

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

employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student

workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit

organizations.

State and federal UI laws change periodically. These

changes may have an impact on the employment and wages

reported by employers covered under the UI program.

Coverage changes may affect the over-the-year comparisons

presented in this news release.

Concepts and methodology

Monthly employment is based on the number of workers

who worked during or received pay for the pay period including

the 12th of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of

covered firms are reported, including production and sales

workers, corporation officials, executives, supervisory

personnel, and clerical workers. Workers on paid vacations

and part-time workers also are included.

Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing

quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly

employment levels (all employees, as described above) and

dividing the result by 13, for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These

calculations are made using unrounded employment and wage

values. The average wage values that can be calculated using

rounded data from the BLS database may differ from the

averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage data are

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

meals and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities,

and, in some states, employer contributions to certain deferred

compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options.

Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may

reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total

quarterly wages between the current quarter and prior year

levels.

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

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

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

of the work force could increase significantly when there is a

large decline in the number of employees that had been receiving

below-average wages. Wages may include payments to workers

not present in the employment counts because they did not work

during the pay period including the 12th of the month. When

comparing average weekly wage levels between industries,

states, or quarters, these factors should be taken into

consideration.

Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic,

sometimes large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that

consists of some quarters having more pay periods than others.

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

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

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

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

comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect this calendar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll
processing. This pattern may exist in private sector pay, however,

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

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

visible in counties with large concentrations of federal employment.

In order to ensure the highest possible quality of

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

industry, location, and ownership classification of all

establishments on a 3-year cycle. Changes in establishment

classification codes resulting from this process are introduced

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

resulting from improved employer reporting also are introduced

in the first quarter.

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

simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect

the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry

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

or industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic

events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example,

economic change would come from a firm relocating into the

county; administrative change would come from a company

correcting its county designation.

The over-the-year changes of employment and wages

presented in this release have been adjusted to account for most

of the administrative corrections made to the underlying

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

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

changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final

2005 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted prior-year

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

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

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

from the Web site, or from data published in prior BLS news

releases, may differ substantially from the over-the-year changes

presented in this news release.

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

measures presented in this release account for most of the

administrative changes—those occurring when employers

update the industry, location, and ownership information of their

establishments. The most common adjustments for administrative

change are the result of updated information about the county

location of individual establishments. Included in these

adjustments are administrative changes involving the

classification of establishments that were previously reported

in the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry

categories. The adjusted data do not 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 2005 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 2005 version of this news release. This edition is the

first to include the data on a CD for enhanced access and

usability. As a result of this change, the printed booklet

contains only selected graphic representations of QCEW data;

the data tables themselves are published exclusively in

electronic formats as PDF and fixed-width text files.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2005 is available

for sale 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 2005 bulletin

is available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS

Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn05.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 326 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20062

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

United States6 .................... 8,929.5 135,933.2 1.6 - $861 4.2 - 

Jefferson, AL ...................... 18.8 378.1 1.0 180 868 4.1 137

Madison, AL ....................... 8.5 176.1 2.2 87 893 5.8 35

Mobile, AL .......................... 9.9 172.7 1.1 168 756 6.2 31

Montgomery, AL ................ 6.6 139.0 0.3 249 764 5.5 50

Tuscaloosa, AL .................. 4.3 85.9 3.1 44 759 2.8 248

Anchorage Borough, AK .... 8.1 145.2 1.0 180 879 4.9 75

Maricopa, AZ ..................... 94.1 1,854.5 3.8 28 856 4.6 101

Pima, AZ ............................ 20.1 377.2 3.1 44 743 3.6 183

Benton, AR ........................ 5.4 95.6 4.0 22 752 1.2 303

Pulaski, AR ........................ 14.4 249.5 0.7 212 782 4.3 114

Washington, AR ................. 5.6 93.9 1.5 141 716 5.0 71

Alameda, CA ...................... 50.1 686.3 0.0 271 1,106 5.3 54

Contra Costa, CA ............... 28.5 350.0 0.8 199 1,057 4.8 83

Fresno, CA ......................... 29.6 352.8 2.1 95 688 3.6 183

Kern, CA ............................ 17.5 282.9 2.4 76 721 5.1 64

Los Angeles, CA ................ 400.2 4,242.5 0.5 232 1,011 4.3 114

Marin, CA ........................... 11.8 111.7 1.1 168 1,148 0.5 308

Monterey, CA ..................... 12.3 149.5 -1.3 305 764 6.1 32

Orange, CA ........................ 96.6 1,519.1 0.7 212 994 2.7 255

Placer, CA .......................... 10.6 136.4 -0.1 279 866 7.0 16

Riverside, CA ..................... 43.9 637.0 1.3 156 711 4.4 108

Sacramento, CA ................ 51.4 631.6 0.1 266 929 4.3 114

San Bernardino, CA ........... 46.7 666.6 1.0 180 747 4.0 145

San Diego, CA ................... 93.8 1,335.2 0.8 199 922 3.6 183

San Francisco, CA ............. 44.9 547.8 2.2 87 1,460 6.0 33

San Joaquin, CA ................ 17.3 221.5 0.6 224 744 3.3 212

San Luis Obispo, CA ......... 9.2 104.1 2.6 66 727 3.9 160

San Mateo, CA .................. 23.3 343.3 2.4 76 1,402 2.9 241

Santa Barbara, CA ............. 13.8 182.3 2.3 80 810 1.3 301

Santa Clara, CA ................. 56.7 898.3 2.1 95 1,569 5.1 64

Santa Cruz, CA .................. 8.8 92.3 0.3 249 818 10.1 6

Solano, CA ......................... 10.0 129.3 -2.2 314 809 5.3 54

Sonoma, CA ...................... 18.0 193.0 0.5 232 841 2.3 275

Stanislaus, CA ................... 14.2 174.4 0.7 212 708 2.2 281

Tulare, CA .......................... 9.0 149.0 4.0 22 593 2.4 269

Ventura, CA ....................... 22.0 319.6 0.0 271 948 6.4 25

Yolo, CA ............................. 5.5 98.6 1.2 163 763 4.8 83

Adams, CO ........................ 9.3 153.4 1.8 124 785 3.0 235

Arapahoe, CO .................... 19.8 280.3 1.9 115 1,022 4.8 83

Boulder, CO ....................... 12.6 160.8 3.5 33 1,026 5.4 51

Denver, CO ........................ 25.4 439.7 2.2 87 1,069 6.3 28

Douglas, CO ...................... 9.1 89.8 3.5 33 859 2.1 285

El Paso, CO ....................... 17.5 247.2 1.0 180 774 3.2 220

Jefferson, CO ..................... 18.8 209.2 0.0 271 852 4.4 108

Larimer, CO ....................... 10.1 128.2 2.3 80 784 3.7 176

Weld, CO ........................... 5.9 81.8 3.4 37 711 5.0 71

Fairfield, CT ....................... 32.8 428.5 1.9 115 1,515 1.2 303

Hartford, CT ....................... 25.1 507.6 2.7 60 1,045 1.2 303

New Haven, CT ................. 22.4 374.8 2.2 87 911 2.2 281

New London, CT ................ 6.8 130.5 0.0 271 869 3.2 220

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

New Castle, DE ................. 19.6 289.1 0.3 249 $1,004 -5.7 321

Washington, DC ................. 32.7 675.0 0.4 238 1,424 5.0 71

Alachua, FL ........................ 6.5 125.7 0.4 238 691 5.7 39

Brevard, FL ........................ 14.6 207.7 -0.3 289 807 3.5 196

Broward, FL ....................... 63.8 762.9 1.6 136 861 5.6 46

Collier, FL .......................... 12.4 140.4 3.1 44 818 1.6 297

Duval, FL ........................... 25.7 470.9 2.0 104 849 4.0 145

Escambia, FL ..................... 7.9 131.1 -0.3 289 687 2.5 262

Hillsborough, FL ................. 36.2 656.1 2.1 95 815 4.2 123

Lake, FL ............................. 6.9 85.8 3.0 50 693 3.6 183

Lee, FL ............................... 18.9 229.6 3.1 44 749 2.2 281

Leon, FL ............................. 8.0 149.6 1.6 136 730 2.7 255

Manatee, FL ....................... 8.9 132.3 1.8 124 674 3.4 204

Marion, FL .......................... 8.1 104.9 2.7 60 636 3.8 168

Miami-Dade, FL ................. 84.9 1,032.7 1.3 156 898 8.1 9

Okaloosa, FL ..................... 6.0 83.8 1.9 115 691 3.6 183

Orange, FL ......................... 34.9 693.7 3.3 38 786 3.1 227

Palm Beach, FL ................. 49.5 578.8 2.5 71 873 5.7 39

Pasco, FL ........................... 9.5 102.0 2.5 71 630 5.0 71

Pinellas, FL ........................ 31.0 448.1 0.4 238 765 4.7 88

Polk, FL .............................. 12.5 212.6 0.8 199 675 2.1 285

Sarasota, FL ...................... 15.1 161.7 1.4 146 766 3.1 227

Seminole, FL ...................... 14.7 180.1 1.4 146 784 1.8 293

Volusia, FL ......................... 13.9 167.5 0.7 212 645 5.6 46

Bibb, GA ............................ 4.7 85.5 -1.3 305 695 2.8 248

Chatham, GA ..................... 7.5 138.7 4.0 22 738 3.2 220

Clayton, GA ....................... 4.4 109.6 -0.4 291 751 0.3 311

Cobb, GA ........................... 20.2 313.7 1.5 141 917 4.1 137

De Kalb, GA ....................... 15.9 284.2 0.1 266 900 4.8 83

Fulton, GA .......................... 40.2 790.0 1.8 124 1,120 -2.0 316

Gwinnett, GA ..................... 23.3 333.5 4.2 16 910 4.6 101

Muscogee, GA ................... 4.9 97.4 -1.3 305 671 3.7 176

Richmond, GA ................... 4.8 104.1 (7) - 711 5.3 54

Honolulu, HI ....................... 24.1 460.2 1.6 136 787 3.1 227

Ada, ID ............................... 15.1 211.7 3.6 31 818 8.9 8

Champaign, IL ................... 4.1 91.8 0.6 224 706 4.1 137

Cook, IL ............................. 136.4 2,569.9 0.9 189 1,051 5.1 64

Du Page, IL ........................ 35.0 601.8 1.1 168 1,021 4.9 75

Kane, IL ............................. 12.3 210.4 1.1 168 803 3.1 227

Lake, IL .............................. 20.5 329.8 0.9 189 1,081 5.3 54

McHenry, IL ....................... 8.2 102.3 3.2 41 771 3.2 220

McLean, IL ......................... 3.6 86.0 1.0 180 795 4.3 114

Madison, IL ........................ 5.9 95.2 0.4 238 713 -1.2 315

Peoria, IL ........................... 4.7 104.1 2.5 71 818 2.3 275

Rock Island, IL ................... 3.5 78.6 -0.8 297 996 9.5 7

St. Clair, IL ......................... 5.3 96.2 1.3 156 691 3.6 183

Sangamon, IL .................... 5.2 130.6 0.0 271 823 4.6 101

Will, IL ................................ 12.7 183.8 3.5 33 788 2.5 262

Winnebago, IL .................... 6.8 138.4 0.9 189 729 3.0 235

Allen, IN ............................. 8.9 186.4 1.4 146 723 2.6 258

Elkhart, IN .......................... 4.8 123.8 -3.3 318 691 -5.3 320

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Hamilton, IN ....................... 7.1 101.3 2.1 95 $840 2.1 285

Lake, IN ............................. 10.0 196.9 -0.1 279 738 2.9 241

Marion, IN .......................... 23.6 589.6 1.1 168 867 3.6 183

St. Joseph, IN .................... 6.0 126.9 0.2 259 706 2.5 262

Vanderburgh, IN ................ 4.8 108.2 -2.0 313 708 4.0 145

Linn, IA ............................... 6.3 122.8 2.8 55 829 3.4 204

Polk, IA .............................. 14.6 274.6 2.9 52 853 3.1 227

Scott, IA ............................. 5.2 90.1 0.2 259 705 3.2 220

Johnson, KS ...................... 20.1 315.1 3.6 31 881 3.6 183

Sedgwick, KS ..................... 12.2 257.0 3.8 28 848 14.0 2

Shawnee, KS ..................... 4.9 93.0 -1.3 305 716 3.8 168

Wyandotte, KS ................... 3.3 81.8 4.4 15 818 4.9 75

Boone, KY .......................... 3.5 76.9 0.9 189 783 4.0 145

Fayette, KY ........................ 9.3 178.7 (7) - 778 2.9 241

Jefferson, KY ..................... 22.8 439.0 2.1 95 830 4.0 145

Caddo, LA .......................... 7.4 125.4 -0.6 293 716 3.9 160

Calcasieu, LA ..................... 4.9 86.2 2.1 95 726 4.3 114

East Baton Rouge, LA ....... 14.0 263.4 0.7 212 771 8.1 9

Jefferson, LA ...................... 14.5 198.1 10.5 3 817 2.4 269

Lafayette, LA ...................... 8.4 132.7 3.2 41 818 8.1 9

Orleans, LA ........................ 11.8 162.5 12.2 2 941 -4.4 319

Cumberland, ME ................ 12.1 175.1 0.6 224 769 2.5 262

Anne Arundel, MD ............. 14.3 230.7 2.3 80 888 3.3 212

Baltimore, MD .................... 21.7 381.6 0.3 249 919 5.4 51

Frederick, MD .................... 5.9 93.9 1.7 131 805 3.2 220

Harford, MD ....................... 5.6 83.1 0.9 189 771 3.9 160

Howard, MD ....................... 8.4 145.6 1.9 115 995 3.6 183

Montgomery, MD ............... 32.7 472.8 1.4 146 1,136 2.4 269

Prince Georges, MD .......... 15.7 317.6 0.0 271 934 4.2 123

Baltimore City, MD ............. 14.1 355.0 0.6 224 1,013 2.2 281

Barnstable, MA .................. 9.2 87.3 -1.2 304 759 3.8 168

Bristol, MA ......................... 15.7 224.2 0.4 238 769 3.8 168

Essex, MA .......................... 20.7 300.5 0.7 212 916 3.4 204

Hampden, MA .................... 14.1 202.1 0.2 259 789 4.1 137

Middlesex, MA ................... 47.1 815.6 1.4 146 1,209 4.3 114

Norfolk, MA ........................ 21.5 325.6 0.3 249 1,060 4.2 123

Plymouth, MA .................... 13.8 179.4 0.3 249 834 4.0 145

Suffolk, MA ........................ 21.7 584.8 2.2 87 1,481 4.9 75

Worcester, MA ................... 20.6 325.0 0.7 212 858 3.5 196

Genesee, MI ...................... 8.4 147.7 -2.4 315 782 (7) - 

Ingham, MI ......................... 7.1 162.3 0.0 271 824 4.2 123

Kalamazoo, MI ................... 5.7 117.2 -0.7 296 769 3.5 196

Kent, MI ............................. 14.7 342.8 -1.0 299 793 3.0 235

Macomb, MI ....................... 18.5 320.5 (7) - 889 -0.1 314

Oakland, MI ....................... 40.7 701.7 -2.7 316 1,030 1.9 290

Ottawa, MI ......................... 5.9 110.0 -1.8 311 758 2.6 258

Saginaw, MI ....................... 4.5 89.5 -0.2 286 759 1.6 297

Washtenaw, MI .................. 8.3 196.2 -1.1 300 924 1.3 301

Wayne, MI .......................... 33.9 771.4 -3.1 317 969 1.8 293

Anoka, MN ......................... 7.9 116.8 -0.1 279 811 4.8 83

Dakota, MN ........................ 10.5 175.5 0.4 238 832 3.0 235

Hennepin, MN .................... 42.4 851.5 0.1 266 1,052 3.8 168

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Olmsted, MN ...................... 3.6 90.7 0.8 199 $843 4.1 137

Ramsey, MN ...................... 15.6 333.6 -0.2 286 907 3.3 212

St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.9 96.5 0.8 199 696 3.1 227

Stearns, MN ....................... 4.5 81.3 2.0 104 667 4.2 123

Harrison, MS ...................... 4.4 86.0 18.7 1 663 -2.4 317

Hinds, MS .......................... 6.5 129.4 0.6 224 759 3.3 212

Boone, MO ......................... 4.5 82.8 1.4 146 647 3.4 204

Clay, MO ............................ 5.1 88.7 0.8 199 774 2.4 269

Greene, MO ....................... 8.2 155.8 1.7 131 632 1.0 306

Jackson, MO ...................... 18.8 371.0 0.9 189 863 2.9 241

St. Charles, MO ................. 8.0 123.8 3.2 41 714 0.8 307

St. Louis, MO ..................... 34.1 635.1 1.4 146 907 2.4 269

St. Louis City, MO .............. 8.1 220.5 -1.1 300 936 4.1 137

Douglas, NE ....................... 15.6 318.4 1.2 163 814 3.0 235

Lancaster, NE .................... 8.0 155.9 1.0 180 677 2.4 269

Clark, NV ........................... 47.6 921.1 2.7 60 815 5.6 46

Washoe, NV ....................... 14.3 221.8 2.0 104 821 4.9 75

Hillsborough, NH ................ 12.6 200.8 -0.1 279 994 4.7 88

Rockingham, NH ................ 11.0 140.5 1.0 180 1,015 18.0 1

Atlantic, NJ ......................... 7.0 148.0 1.6 136 783 4.5 107

Bergen, NJ ......................... 35.1 460.7 1.1 168 1,114 4.0 145

Burlington, NJ .................... 11.7 205.7 0.6 224 906 3.3 212

Camden, NJ ....................... 13.9 214.4 0.8 199 926 3.7 176

Essex, NJ ........................... 22.0 365.6 0.3 249 1,111 3.7 176

Gloucester, NJ ................... 6.5 107.4 1.5 141 793 3.4 204

Hudson, NJ ........................ 14.4 239.6 0.2 259 1,119 4.9 75

Mercer, NJ ......................... 11.3 231.5 1.1 168 1,118 3.6 183

Middlesex, NJ .................... 21.6 405.9 1.4 146 1,101 5.1 64

Monmouth, NJ ................... 21.1 259.4 0.2 259 954 3.0 235

Morris, NJ .......................... 18.5 297.8 2.3 80 1,284 3.6 183

Ocean, NJ .......................... 12.3 148.4 0.2 259 762 2.8 248

Passaic, NJ ........................ 12.9 181.3 -0.1 279 929 3.9 160

Somerset, NJ ..................... 10.4 176.5 1.0 180 1,373 4.9 75

Union, NJ ........................... 15.3 233.9 0.6 224 1,118 4.0 145

Bernalillo, NM .................... 17.3 335.7 2.7 60 760 4.0 145

Albany, NY ......................... 9.9 231.7 0.7 212 901 (7) - 

Bronx, NY .......................... 15.7 224.7 0.1 266 828 5.7 39

Broome, NY ....................... 4.5 96.3 0.5 232 663 4.7 88

Dutchess, NY ..................... 8.3 120.2 0.4 238 853 3.9 160

Erie, NY ............................. 23.3 461.7 0.0 271 757 6.9 17

Kings, NY ........................... 44.1 474.7 2.1 95 771 4.0 145

Monroe, NY ........................ 17.8 385.0 -1.1 300 809 2.8 248

Nassau, NY ........................ 52.2 616.6 1.1 168 980 3.7 176

New York, NY .................... 116.4 2,359.8 1.9 115 1,781 5.7 39

Oneida, NY ........................ 5.3 112.4 2.3 80 664 4.7 88

Onondaga, NY ................... 12.7 253.0 -0.1 279 801 4.0 145

Orange, NY ........................ 9.9 132.1 0.9 189 722 2.3 275

Queens, NY ....................... 42.1 497.2 1.9 115 853 3.9 160

Richmond, NY .................... 8.5 94.3 2.7 60 764 3.5 196

Rockland, NY ..................... 9.7 117.1 2.0 104 906 4.0 145

Suffolk, NY ......................... 49.6 628.8 1.1 168 953 6.5 21

Westchester, NY ................ 36.3 425.6 1.1 168 1,211 2.9 241

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Buncombe, NC .................. 7.5 114.7 3.1 44 $691 4.7 88

Catawba, NC ..................... 4.5 89.6 2.4 76 673 5.2 59

Cumberland, NC ................ 6.0 118.3 1.2 163 634 2.3 275

Durham, NC ....................... 6.5 182.2 (7) - 1,072 5.7 39

Forsyth, NC ........................ 8.9 184.6 0.8 199 791 4.6 101

Guilford, NC ....................... 14.1 283.7 2.8 55 765 3.9 160

Mecklenburg, NC ............... 29.7 557.7 4.5 14 973 4.4 108

New Hanover, NC .............. 7.1 102.1 3.3 38 708 4.1 137

Wake, NC .......................... 25.9 440.4 5.1 10 866 4.3 114

Cass, ND ........................... 5.7 96.1 3.5 33 724 4.6 101

Butler, OH .......................... 7.3 146.3 0.8 199 744 0.5 308

Cuyahoga, OH ................... 38.3 755.6 -0.5 292 874 2.1 285

Franklin, OH ....................... 29.4 692.9 0.7 212 835 3.3 212

Hamilton, OH ..................... 24.2 530.3 -0.6 293 915 2.0 289

Lake, OH ............................ 6.9 101.5 0.4 238 720 3.6 183

Lorain, OH ......................... 6.3 100.8 -1.6 310 703 0.3 311

Lucas, OH .......................... 10.9 225.7 -1.1 300 750 2.9 241

Mahoning, OH .................... 6.3 104.8 0.8 199 627 1.8 293

Montgomery, OH ............... 13.0 272.7 -1.9 312 828 6.4 25

Stark, OH ........................... 9.1 162.4 -1.5 309 670 4.0 145

Summit, OH ....................... 14.9 275.4 0.1 266 788 3.1 227

Trumbull, OH ..................... 4.8 83.0 -4.7 319 814 14.0 2

Oklahoma, OK ................... 23.2 426.2 0.9 189 759 6.5 21

Tulsa, OK ........................... 19.3 348.9 2.8 55 776 4.3 114

Clackamas, OR .................. 12.5 149.9 1.8 124 794 4.1 137

Jackson, OR ...................... 6.7 86.5 1.5 141 626 3.8 168

Lane, OR ........................... 10.9 151.9 1.7 131 672 2.6 258

Marion, OR ........................ 9.2 137.1 2.4 76 669 4.9 75

Multnomah, OR .................. 27.0 449.6 2.8 55 868 5.6 46

Washington, OR ................ 15.9 250.7 2.2 87 948 5.1 64

Allegheny, PA .................... 35.1 690.6 0.7 212 912 6.4 25

Berks, PA ........................... 9.1 172.0 2.3 80 774 6.3 28

Bucks, PA .......................... 20.2 266.7 0.8 199 849 4.7 88

Butler, PA ........................... 4.7 78.4 2.6 66 723 5.2 59

Chester, PA ....................... 14.9 239.5 2.0 104 1,107 4.2 123

Cumberland, PA ................ 5.9 127.9 2.0 104 773 2.5 262

Dauphin, PA ....................... 7.3 182.9 2.0 104 827 4.7 88

Delaware, PA ..................... 13.6 212.0 0.5 232 924 3.5 196

Erie, PA .............................. 7.3 128.4 0.4 238 671 3.5 196

Lackawanna, PA ................ 5.8 103.2 1.7 131 662 2.5 262

Lancaster, PA .................... 12.1 231.1 0.7 212 733 3.1 227

Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.7 179.3 2.6 66 860 5.4 51

Luzerne, PA ....................... 7.9 144.2 0.5 232 652 0.3 311

Montgomery, PA ................ 27.5 493.7 0.4 238 1,094 6.5 21

Northampton, PA ............... 6.4 99.2 1.7 131 765 4.7 88

Philadelphia, PA ................ 29.2 638.9 -0.2 286 1,009 4.2 123

Washington, PA ................. 5.3 78.6 1.8 124 725 2.8 248

Westmoreland, PA ............. 9.5 138.2 -0.8 297 665 4.6 101

York, PA ............................. 8.9 177.3 0.9 189 750 -4.3 318

Kent, RI .............................. 5.8 84.8 1.5 141 753 1.9 290

Providence, RI ................... 18.3 292.9 0.8 199 847 4.2 123

Charleston, SC .................. 14.2 208.4 4.6 13 728 3.4 204

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Greenville, SC .................... 14.1 236.2 2.0 104 $748 3.2 220

Horry, SC ........................... 9.8 112.5 6.6 6 578 1.9 290

Lexington, SC .................... 6.5 94.7 4.0 22 646 2.9 241

Richland, SC ...................... 10.9 218.5 0.4 238 737 5.1 64

Spartanburg, SC ................ 7.0 119.4 2.6 66 724 3.4 204

Minnehaha, SD .................. 6.3 115.0 1.9 115 705 4.3 114

Davidson, TN ..................... 18.3 455.8 1.4 146 888 5.3 54

Hamilton, TN ...................... 8.5 196.0 0.5 232 765 5.8 35

Knox, TN ............................ 10.8 228.7 3.3 38 762 4.4 108

Rutherford, TN ................... 4.0 100.4 2.2 87 790 7.8 13

Shelby, TN ......................... 20.0 522.4 2.0 104 877 3.4 204

Bell, TX .............................. 4.4 97.6 2.5 71 643 4.7 88

Bexar, TX ........................... 31.3 716.4 3.9 27 760 2.3 275

Brazoria, TX ....................... 4.4 84.8 4.1 20 801 6.5 21

Brazos, TX ......................... 3.7 85.4 1.9 115 615 4.4 108

Cameron, TX ..................... 6.4 123.8 4.2 16 527 4.2 123

Collin, TX ........................... 15.5 274.8 6.5 7 986 2.5 262

Dallas, TX .......................... 67.4 1,490.2 2.9 52 1,069 3.3 212

Denton, TX ......................... 9.8 161.1 (7) - 768 (7) - 

El Paso, TX ........................ 13.1 267.5 1.4 146 602 5.2 59

Fort Bend, TX .................... 7.7 120.7 5.6 9 912 6.8 19

Galveston, TX .................... 5.2 93.5 (7) - 772 (7) - 

Harris, TX ........................... 93.6 1,993.9 4.0 22 1,087 7.2 15

Hidalgo, TX ........................ 10.2 213.2 4.2 16 542 5.7 39

Jefferson, TX ..................... 5.8 124.2 2.1 95 836 2.8 248

Lubbock, TX ....................... 6.6 124.1 2.6 66 644 3.5 196

McLennan, TX ................... 4.8 103.5 1.3 156 677 4.2 123

Montgomery, TX ................ 7.5 114.5 6.3 8 823 5.2 59

Nueces, TX ........................ 8.0 151.1 1.8 124 734 7.3 14

Smith, TX ........................... 5.1 92.1 1.1 168 739 2.6 258

Tarrant, TX ......................... 35.8 755.9 2.9 52 874 5.7 39

Travis, TX .......................... 27.0 562.8 4.8 11 1,038 10.9 4

Webb, TX ........................... 4.6 87.0 3.1 44 571 4.0 145

Williamson, TX ................... 6.4 112.4 7.7 4 819 1.4 299

Davis, UT ........................... 7.2 101.7 4.1 20 709 5.8 35

Salt Lake, UT ..................... 39.4 584.4 4.8 11 803 4.4 108

Utah, UT ............................ 13.2 172.7 6.8 5 680 8.1 9

Weber, UT ......................... 5.8 92.2 2.8 55 650 6.9 17

Chittenden, VT ................... 5.8 96.4 0.6 224 825 4.7 88

Arlington, VA ...................... 7.4 160.7 2.0 104 1,419 4.2 123

Chesterfield, VA ................. 7.1 120.7 2.5 71 776 3.6 183

Fairfax, VA ......................... 32.0 585.5 1.6 136 1,297 4.0 145

Henrico, VA ........................ 8.8 179.3 2.1 95 897 1.4 299

Loudoun, VA ...................... 7.7 127.9 1.0 180 1,064 0.4 310

Prince William, VA ............. 6.6 105.2 1.3 156 766 2.3 275

Alexandria City, VA ............ 6.0 95.6 1.2 163 1,123 4.7 88

Chesapeake City, VA ......... 5.4 101.5 2.3 80 681 3.7 176

Newport News City, VA ..... 3.9 100.7 1.8 124 765 4.2 123

Norfolk City, VA ................. 5.7 144.2 0.3 249 834 3.5 196

Richmond City, VA ............. 7.0 163.2 0.9 189 968 2.8 248

Virginia Beach City, VA ...... 11.4 179.8 1.2 163 689 4.7 88

Clark, WA ........................... 11.7 131.3 1.9 115 765 3.9 160

See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

Ranking by

percent

change

King, WA ............................ 77.4 1,173.0 3.0 50 $1,043 5.8 35

Kitsap, WA ......................... 6.6 84.8 0.7 212 760 3.8 168

Pierce, WA ......................... 20.4 269.8 2.0 104 741 4.2 123

Snohomish, WA ................. 17.4 238.4 3.8 28 850 4.7 88

Spokane, WA ..................... 15.1 208.0 2.7 60 677 5.1 64

Thurston, WA ..................... 6.7 97.6 2.2 87 750 5.9 34

Whatcom, WA .................... 6.9 80.6 1.1 168 646 5.2 59

Yakima, WA ....................... 8.0 91.3 4.2 16 570 3.3 212

Kanawha, WV .................... 6.1 109.2 0.8 199 724 3.7 176

Brown, WI .......................... 6.6 149.5 -0.1 279 759 3.8 168

Dane, WI ............................ 13.7 301.3 -0.6 293 813 6.8 19

Milwaukee, WI ................... 21.0 500.8 0.3 249 866 4.2 123

Outagamie, WI ................... 5.0 103.8 1.3 156 732 1.7 296

Racine, WI ......................... 4.1 77.3 0.2 259 830 6.3 28

Waukesha, WI ................... 13.1 238.0 1.3 156 913 10.4 5

Winnebago, WI .................. 3.7 88.8 0.3 249 796 2.7 255

San Juan, PR ..................... 14.9 310.4 -5.7 (8) 577 6.1 (8) 

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

These 325 U.S. counties comprise 71.0 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,

fourth quarter 20062

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-063

United States5 .................................................... 8,929.5 135,933.2 1.6 $861 4.2

Private industry .............................................. 8,649.9 114,287.7 1.7 866 4.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 125.0 1,723.6 4.2 872 8.9

Construction ............................................... 890.1 7,534.7 1.7 949 6.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 363.7 14,039.7 -1.1 1,036 4.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 1,909.3 27,038.2 1.2 733 3.7

Information ................................................. 145.5 3,068.8 -0.3 1,290 3.4

Financial activities ...................................... 860.9 8,222.7 0.7 1,346 5.1

Professional and business services ........... 1,456.8 17,785.7 3.0 1,093 5.1

Education and health services ................... 806.5 17,228.1 2.8 811 3.7

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 717.2 12,939.4 3.1 368 4.2

Other services ............................................ 1,151.2 4,391.6 1.1 546 4.0

Government ................................................... 279.6 21,645.5 1.1 837 3.7

Los Angeles, CA ................................................ 400.2 4,242.5 0.5 1,011 4.3

Private industry .............................................. 396.5 3,652.2 0.5 1,008 3.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 11.2 8.5 992 8.5

Construction ............................................... 14.3 157.4 1.2 1,033 7.2

Manufacturing ............................................ 15.8 458.5 -2.2 1,019 5.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 56.1 843.8 0.5 828 6.2

Information ................................................. 9.1 213.4 0.5 1,793 1.0

Financial activities ...................................... 25.4 249.8 -0.6 1,486 4.9

Professional and business services ........... 43.9 608.2 1.2 1,185 3.2

Education and health services ................... 28.3 475.9 1.0 925 4.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 27.5 394.2 1.9 821 0.9

Other services ............................................ 175.3 239.9 0.6 440 4.5

Government ................................................... 3.7 590.3 0.8 1,032 7.5

Cook, IL .............................................................. 136.4 2,569.9 0.9 1,051 5.1

Private industry .............................................. 135.2 2,258.7 1.1 1,059 5.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.1 1.4 0.6 1,127 8.0

Construction ............................................... 11.9 94.5 2.2 1,323 6.6

Manufacturing ............................................ 7.2 245.6 -1.6 1,072 4.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 27.5 496.7 0.1 826 3.4

Information ................................................. 2.5 59.1 -2.5 1,412 5.1

Financial activities ...................................... 15.7 219.9 -0.2 1,748 6.5

Professional and business services ........... 27.9 445.1 2.8 1,395 5.0

Education and health services ................... 13.3 366.4 1.6 902 6.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 11.4 230.3 3.3 421 3.7

Other services ............................................ 13.5 95.1 -0.5 722 4.0

Government ................................................... 1.2 (6) (6) (6) (6) 

New York, NY ..................................................... 116.4 2,359.8 1.9 1,781 5.7

Private industry .............................................. 116.2 1,909.3 2.3 1,959 6.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.0 0.1 -5.0 1,442 -62.8

Construction ............................................... 2.2 32.3 6.0 1,783 9.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.0 38.0 -7.1 1,386 0.0

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.3 257.0 1.1 1,277 3.8

Information ................................................. 4.1 132.0 -0.8 2,062 6.1

Financial activities ...................................... 17.8 374.0 2.8 3,922 7.5

Professional and business services ........... 23.3 478.7 3.0 2,017 5.6

Education and health services ................... 8.3 289.1 1.5 1,021 2.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 10.7 208.2 3.2 935 13.1

Other services ............................................ 16.9 87.1 0.5 997 5.8

Government ................................................... 0.2 450.5 0.1 1,025 (6) 

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

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-063

Harris, TX ........................................................... 93.6 1,993.9 4.0 $1,087 7.2

Private industry .............................................. 93.1 1,740.9 4.4 1,117 7.4

Natural resources and mining .................... 1.4 76.1 12.2 2,722 1.2

Construction ............................................... 6.4 144.7 6.8 1,094 12.8

Manufacturing ............................................ 4.6 180.1 5.5 1,357 8.1

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 21.2 425.6 2.1 953 7.4

Information ................................................. 1.3 32.8 3.5 1,220 2.3

Financial activities ...................................... 10.1 118.5 1.1 1,390 4.7

Professional and business services ........... 18.3 325.3 4.7 1,335 10.0

Education and health services ................... 9.7 206.3 3.7 901 3.4

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.0 169.9 5.1 377 3.6

Other services ............................................ 10.8 56.3 2.1 612 5.7

Government ................................................... 0.4 253.0 1.1 887 5.6

Maricopa, AZ ...................................................... 94.1 1,854.5 3.8 856 4.6

Private industry .............................................. 93.5 1,636.8 4.0 858 4.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 9.5 5.8 776 10.2

Construction ............................................... 9.9 171.0 -0.5 924 7.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.4 136.0 0.8 1,229 11.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 20.1 386.1 4.3 786 2.7

Information ................................................. 1.6 33.0 0.3 1,058 12.4

Financial activities ...................................... 11.8 152.5 2.0 1,105 1.8

Professional and business services ........... 20.6 321.9 5.9 870 2.8

Education and health services ................... 9.1 193.2 6.8 931 4.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.7 179.6 4.7 405 6.0

Other services ............................................ 6.7 49.1 5.3 565 0.7

Government ................................................... 0.6 217.7 2.3 842 5.5

Orange, CA ........................................................ 96.6 1,519.1 0.7 994 2.7

Private industry .............................................. 95.3 1,388.4 0.9 998 2.5

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.2 4.9 -13.4 650 6.7

Construction ............................................... 7.2 106.5 -0.2 1,122 7.5

Manufacturing ............................................ 5.6 182.7 0.2 1,178 5.3

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 18.0 286.5 0.6 893 4.7

Information ................................................. 1.4 31.2 -1.8 1,364 9.6

Financial activities ...................................... 11.6 136.9 -6.4 1,594 -2.9

Professional and business services ........... 19.6 280.4 4.2 1,096 2.3

Education and health services ................... 9.9 139.3 4.0 919 2.5

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 7.1 172.0 3.6 386 1.8

Other services ............................................ 14.6 48.0 -2.8 583 2.8

Government ................................................... 1.4 130.7 -1.4 961 6.1

Dallas, TX ........................................................... 67.4 1,490.2 2.9 1,069 3.3

Private industry .............................................. 67.0 1,328.5 3.1 1,088 2.9

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.6 7.5 2.1 3,254 2.9

Construction ............................................... 4.3 80.4 4.4 1,012 5.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.2 146.9 0.3 1,145 3.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 315.6 1.6 971 -0.1

Information ................................................. 1.7 52.9 -0.9 1,371 4.1

Financial activities ...................................... 8.6 143.4 3.5 1,491 9.1

Professional and business services ........... 14.1 269.5 4.2 1,287 1.7

Education and health services ................... 6.4 142.5 5.5 994 1.8

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.2 126.7 4.0 483 2.5

Other services ............................................ 6.4 39.5 1.5 669 4.9

Government ................................................... 0.4 161.7 1.7 911 5.3

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

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County by NAICS supersector

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage4

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-063

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-063

San Diego, CA ................................................... 93.8 1,335.2 0.8 $922 3.6

Private industry .............................................. 92.3 1,110.5 0.5 910 3.2

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.8 10.1 -9.1 591 4.2

Construction ............................................... 7.4 90.5 -2.8 1,020 6.1

Manufacturing ............................................ 3.3 102.9 -0.6 1,211 4.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 14.8 232.8 0.7 725 5.1

Information ................................................. 1.3 37.7 0.5 1,696 -14.6

Financial activities ...................................... 10.2 83.7 -2.0 1,167 -4.1

Professional and business services ........... 16.8 215.1 0.3 1,184 9.8

Education and health services ................... 8.1 125.4 2.2 898 5.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.9 155.8 3.5 396 4.2

Other services ............................................ 22.8 56.3 1.2 492 4.2

Government ................................................... 1.5 224.8 2.2 978 5.2

King, WA ............................................................ 77.4 1,173.0 3.0 1,043 5.8

Private industry .............................................. 76.9 1,020.8 3.5 1,054 5.8

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.4 2.7 -6.8 1,275 4.6

Construction ............................................... 6.8 68.7 9.4 1,032 6.4

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.5 112.6 3.7 1,371 6.6

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 15.0 229.5 2.4 907 5.7

Information ................................................. 1.8 74.8 7.4 1,872 4.2

Financial activities ...................................... 6.9 76.0 -1.0 1,351 9.3

Professional and business services ........... 12.8 184.2 5.4 1,235 4.7

Education and health services ................... 6.4 119.4 2.9 817 4.3

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 6.0 108.8 2.7 427 3.4

Other services ............................................ 18.3 44.1 -1.8 561 5.3

Government ................................................... 0.5 152.2 0.0 968 4.5

Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. 84.9 1,032.7 1.3 898 8.1

Private industry .............................................. 84.6 880.0 1.6 888 9.0

Natural resources and mining .................... 0.5 10.5 6.5 477 2.1

Construction ............................................... 5.9 54.1 13.3 922 2.7

Manufacturing ............................................ 2.6 47.3 -2.6 805 7.9

Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. 22.9 257.8 1.8 816 7.8

Information ................................................. 1.6 21.7 -3.4 1,194 1.2

Financial activities ...................................... 10.3 72.4 2.8 1,331 9.0

Professional and business services ........... 17.2 141.2 -5.5 1,207 18.7

Education and health services ................... 8.7 134.9 4.4 854 6.2

Leisure and hospitality ............................... 5.6 101.7 1.7 482 7.6

Other services ............................................ 7.6 35.3 2.4 519 7.2

Government ................................................... 0.3 152.7 -0.2 959 3.7

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, fourth quarter 20062

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

United States6 .......................... 8,929.5 135,933.2 1.6 $861 4.2

Jefferson, AL ............................ 18.8 378.1 1.0 868 4.1

Anchorage Borough, AK ........... 8.1 145.2 1.0 879 4.9

Maricopa, AZ ............................ 94.1 1,854.5 3.8 856 4.6

Pulaski, AR ............................... 14.4 249.5 0.7 782 4.3

Los Angeles, CA ....................... 400.2 4,242.5 0.5 1,011 4.3

Denver, CO .............................. 25.4 439.7 2.2 1,069 6.3

Hartford, CT .............................. 25.1 507.6 2.7 1,045 1.2

New Castle, DE ........................ 19.6 289.1 0.3 1,004 -5.7

Washington, DC ....................... 32.7 675.0 0.4 1,424 5.0

Miami-Dade, FL ........................ 84.9 1,032.7 1.3 898 8.1

Fulton, GA ................................ 40.2 790.0 1.8 1,120 -2.0

Honolulu, HI .............................. 24.1 460.2 1.6 787 3.1

Ada, ID ..................................... 15.1 211.7 3.6 818 8.9

Cook, IL .................................... 136.4 2,569.9 0.9 1,051 5.1

Marion, IN ................................. 23.6 589.6 1.1 867 3.6

Polk, IA ..................................... 14.6 274.6 2.9 853 3.1

Johnson, KS ............................. 20.1 315.1 3.6 881 3.6

Jefferson, KY ............................ 22.8 439.0 2.1 830 4.0

East Baton Rouge, LA .............. 14.0 263.4 0.7 771 8.1

Cumberland, ME ...................... 12.1 175.1 0.6 769 2.5

Montgomery, MD ...................... 32.7 472.8 1.4 1,136 2.4

Middlesex, MA .......................... 47.1 815.6 1.4 1,209 4.3

Wayne, MI ................................ 33.9 771.4 -3.1 969 1.8

Hennepin, MN .......................... 42.4 851.5 0.1 1,052 3.8

Hinds, MS ................................. 6.5 129.4 0.6 759 3.3

St. Louis, MO ............................ 34.1 635.1 1.4 907 2.4

Yellowstone, MT ....................... 5.5 75.1 1.8 688 6.2

Douglas, NE ............................. 15.6 318.4 1.2 814 3.0

Clark, NV .................................. 47.6 921.1 2.7 815 5.6

Hillsborough, NH ...................... 12.6 200.8 -0.1 994 4.7

Bergen, NJ ............................... 35.1 460.7 1.1 1,114 4.0

Bernalillo, NM ........................... 17.3 335.7 2.7 760 4.0

New York, NY ........................... 116.4 2,359.8 1.9 1,781 5.7

Mecklenburg, NC ...................... 29.7 557.7 4.5 973 4.4

Cass, ND .................................. 5.7 96.1 3.5 724 4.6

Cuyahoga, OH .......................... 38.3 755.6 -0.5 874 2.1

Oklahoma, OK .......................... 23.2 426.2 0.9 759 6.5

Multnomah, OR ........................ 27.0 449.6 2.8 868 5.6

Allegheny, PA ........................... 35.1 690.6 0.7 912 6.4

Providence, RI .......................... 18.3 292.9 0.8 847 4.2

Greenville, SC .......................... 14.1 236.2 2.0 748 3.2

Minnehaha, SD ......................... 6.3 115.0 1.9 705 4.3

Shelby, TN ................................ 20.0 522.4 2.0 877 3.4

Harris, TX ................................. 93.6 1,993.9 4.0 1,087 7.2

Salt Lake, UT ............................ 39.4 584.4 4.8 803 4.4

Chittenden, VT ......................... 5.8 96.4 0.6 825 4.7

Fairfax, VA ................................ 32.0 585.5 1.6 1,297 4.0

King, WA .................................. 77.4 1,173.0 3.0 1,043 5.8

Kanawha, WV ........................... 6.1 109.2 0.8 724 3.7

Milwaukee, WI .......................... 21.0 500.8 0.3 866 4.2

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

state, fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

County3

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage5

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-064

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-064

Laramie, WY ............................. 3.1 42.2 2.3 $682 5.4

San Juan, PR ........................... 14.9 310.4 -5.7 577 6.1

St. Thomas, VI .......................... 1.8 23.5 0.9 682 8.8

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.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, 

fourth quarter 20062

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-06

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-06

United States4 .................... 8,929.5 135,933.2 1.6 $861 4.2

Alabama ............................. 118.3 1,948.9 1.0 737 4.4

Alaska ................................ 21.0 296.2 1.7 837 5.3

Arizona ............................... 152.9 2,693.3 3.5 805 4.7

Arkansas ............................ 82.1 1,179.3 1.0 652 2.8

California ............................ 1,300.2 15,672.1 1.1 987 4.4

Colorado ............................ 175.8 2,283.3 2.2 877 5.0

Connecticut ........................ 112.1 1,706.3 2.0 1,101 2.0

Delaware ............................ 30.2 427.5 0.5 896 -4.1

District of Columbia ............ 32.7 675.0 0.4 1,424 5.0

Florida ................................ 593.5 8,126.2 1.7 788 4.6

Georgia .............................. 267.7 4,090.4 2.2 812 2.1

Hawaii ................................ 37.5 632.3 1.9 762 3.5

Idaho .................................. 56.2 649.8 4.0 672 7.0

Illinois ................................. 353.6 5,899.5 1.3 928 4.6

Indiana ............................... 155.4 2,924.3 0.6 723 2.6

Iowa ................................... 93.3 1,486.3 1.4 697 3.7

Kansas ............................... 85.6 1,358.9 2.6 725 6.5

Kentucky ............................ 112.1 1,815.4 1.7 708 3.8

Louisiana ........................... 123.7 1,855.1 4.3 748 5.1

Maine ................................. 49.6 603.4 0.7 679 2.7

Maryland ............................ 163.2 2,570.5 1.2 941 3.4

Massachusetts ................... 209.3 3,244.5 1.1 1,072 4.5

Michigan ............................ 265.4 4,242.5 -1.9 852 2.2

Minnesota .......................... 167.0 2,683.1 -0.2 840 4.0

Mississippi ......................... 69.4 1,140.3 2.3 630 2.6

Missouri ............................. 174.0 2,737.5 1.4 741 2.3

Montana ............................. 41.5 431.6 3.0 625 5.8

Nebraska ........................... 58.3 912.2 1.3 687 3.6

Nevada .............................. 74.2 1,285.8 2.6 817 5.4

New Hampshire ................. 49.2 636.9 0.6 917 8.1

New Jersey ........................ 283.1 4,023.6 0.9 1,055 4.4

New Mexico ....................... 53.3 823.2 3.7 705 7.1

New York ........................... 573.2 8,643.1 1.3 1,104 5.3

North Carolina .................... 251.5 4,054.0 3.2 751 4.6

North Dakota ...................... 24.6 341.0 2.5 643 4.7

Ohio ................................... 292.5 5,346.2 -0.3 774 3.1

Oklahoma .......................... 98.0 1,536.4 2.0 679 5.8

Oregon ............................... 129.3 1,723.9 2.3 763 4.8

Pennsylvania ..................... 336.1 5,680.8 1.1 837 4.4

Rhode Island ...................... 36.1 488.4 1.0 817 3.8

South Carolina ................... 135.6 1,886.8 3.0 688 3.3

South Dakota ..................... 29.9 387.1 2.2 614 4.2

Tennessee ......................... 137.8 2,785.2 1.7 773 4.6

Texas ................................. 540.5 10,164.2 3.5 871 5.8

Utah ................................... 88.4 1,208.0 5.1 725 5.5

Vermont ............................. 24.8 308.7 0.2 707 3.4

Virginia ............................... 220.5 3,682.9 1.3 887 3.7

Washington ........................ 219.2 2,863.7 2.5 846 5.2

West Virginia ...................... 48.2 714.3 1.4 656 4.6

Wisconsin .......................... 157.9 2,792.4 0.6 746 4.5

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

fourth quarter 20062 — Continued

State

Establishments,

fourth quarter

2006

(thousands)

Employment Average weekly wage3

December

2006

(thousands)

Percent

change,

December

2005-06

Average

weekly

wage

Percent

change,

fourth quarter

2005-06

Wyoming ............................ 24.0 270.9 5.4 $759 11.3

Puerto Rico ........................ 61.5 1,062.8 -3.0 494 4.7

Virgin Islands ..................... 3.5 45.5 1.2 711 7.2

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.
Larg

Note: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 2005

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

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

Source

July 20

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

December 2005-06 (U.S. Average = 1.6%)
Larg

Note: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 2005

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

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

Source

July 200

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

employees or more, fourth quarter 2005-06 (U.S. Average = 4.2%)