Full text of First Quarter 2004 : Text File, USDL 04-2211
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 04-2211
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Media contact: 691-5902 Tuesday, October 26, 2004
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2004
In March 2004, Prince William County, Va., 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. Prince William County ex-
perienced an over-the-year employment gain of 8.0 percent, compared with
national job growth of 0.8 percent. New York County, N.Y., had the largest
over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2004,
with an increase of 13.6 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased
by 3.8 percent over the same time span.
Of the 317 largest counties in the United States, 161 had over-the-year
percentage growth in employment above the national average in March 2004,
and 144 experienced changes below the national average. Average weekly
wages grew faster than the national average in 103 of the largest U.S.
counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the
national average in 203 counties.
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 8.4
million employer reports cover 127.8 million full- and part-time workers.
The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation and for the 317
U.S. counties with employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2003. In addi-
tion, data for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in cal-
culating U.S. averages, or in the analysis in the text. (See Technical
Note.) March 2004 employment and 2004 first-quarter average weekly wages
for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all
states, MSAs, counties, and the nation through the fourth quarter of 2003
are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary
data for the first quarter of 2004 and revised data for 2003 will be
available in October on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
The national employment total in March 2004 was 127.8 million, which
was 0.8 percent higher than in March 2003. The 317 U.S. counties with
75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.6 percent of total U.S. covered
employment and 77.4 percent of total wages. These 317 counties had a net
job gain of 680,700 over the year, comprising 64 percent of the U.S. net
over-the-year employment increase from March 2003. The largest gains in
employment from March 2003 to March 2004 were recorded in the counties of
Orange, Calif. (49,900), Clark, Nev. (40,000), Maricopa, Ariz. (39,500),
Los Angeles, Calif. (29,500), and Riverside, Calif. (29,000). (See
table A.)
- 2 -
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by March 2004 employment, March 2003-04
employment change, and March 2003-04 percent change in employment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment in large counties
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
March 2004 employment | Net change in employment, | Percent change
(thousands) | March 2003-04 | in employment,
| (thousands) | March 2003-04
---------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------
U.S. 127,778.5|U.S. 1,064.1|U.S. 0.8
---------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------
Los Angeles, Calif. 4,054.6|Orange, Calif. 49.9|Prince William, Va. 8.0
Cook, Ill. 2,474.0|Clark, Nev. 40.0|Rutherford, Tenn. 7.3
New York, N.Y. 2,203.0|Maricopa, Ariz. 39.5|Marion, Fla. 6.4
Harris, Texas 1,823.3|Los Angeles, Calif. 29.5|Placer, Calif. 6.3
Maricopa, Ariz. 1,611.2|Riverside, Calif. 29.0|Lee, Fla. 5.8
Orange, Calif. 1,454.3|San Bernardino, Calif. 27.8|Collin, Texas 5.5
Dallas, Texas 1,418.2|Fairfax, Va. 21.7|Loudoun, Va. 5.5
San Diego, Calif. 1,264.0|Hillsborough, Fla. 21.4|Clark, Nev. 5.4
King, Wash. 1,075.7|Orange, Fla. 18.4|Riverside, Calif. 5.4
Miami-Dade, Fla. 982.9|San Diego, Calif. 16.4|Pasco, Fla. 5.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment increased in 222 counties from March 2003 to March 2004.
Prince William County, Va., had the largest over-the-year percentage
increase in employment (8.0 percent). Rutherford County, Tenn., had the
next largest increase, 7.3 percent, followed by the counties of Marion,
Fla. (6.4 percent), Placer, Calif. (6.3 percent), and Lee, Fla. (5.8 per-
cent). (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 80 counties from March 2003 to March 2004. The
largest percentage decline in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio
(-3.2 percent), followed by the counties of St. Louis City, Mo. (-2.9 per-
cent), Oakland, Mich. (-2.5 percent), Wayne, Mich. (-2.4 percent), and San
Mateo, Calif. (-1.9 percent). The largest absolute declines in employment
occurred in Wayne County, Mich. (-19,600), followed by the counties of
Oakland, Mich. (-18,200), Cook, Ill. (-12,600), Middlesex, Mass. (-9,600),
and Alameda, Calif. (-9,100).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2004 was $758,
which was 3.8 percent higher than in the first quarter of 2003. Average
weekly wages were higher than the national average in 107 of the largest
317 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the top position among the
highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,913. Fairfield
County, Conn., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,492, followed by
Suffolk, Mass. ($1,405), Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,338), and Somerset, N.J.
($1,322). (See table B.)
New York County, N.Y., also led the nation in growth in average weekly
wages, with an increase of 13.6 percent from the first quarter of 2003.
Suffolk County, Mass., was second with 12.6 percent growth, followed by
the counties of San Mateo, Calif. (10.8 percent), Olmsted, Minn. (10.4
percent), and Loudoun, Va. (10.1 percent).
- 3 -
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by first quarter 2004 average weekly wages,
first quarter 2003-04 change in average weekly wages, and first quarter
2003-04 percent change in average weekly wages
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weekly wage in large counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
Average weekly wage, | Change in average weekly| Percent change in
first quarter 2004 | wage, first quarter | average weekly wage,
| 2003-04 | first quarter 2003-04
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. $758|U.S. $28|U.S. 3.8
---------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------
New York, N.Y. $1,913|New York, N.Y. $229|New York, N.Y. 13.6
Fairfield, Conn. 1,492|Suffolk, Mass. 157|Suffolk, Mass. 12.6
Suffolk, Mass. 1,405|San Mateo, Calif. 117|San Mateo, Calif. 10.8
Santa Clara, Calif. 1,338|Fairfield, Conn. 114|Olmsted, Minn. 10.4
Somerset, N.J. 1,322|Santa Clara, Calif. 100|Loudoun, Va. 10.1
San Francisco, Calif. 1,312|Arlington, Va. 99|Washington, Ore. 9.7
Arlington, Va. 1,240|Loudoun, Va. 90|Arlington, Va. 8.7
Washington, D.C. 1,221|Hudson, N.J. 89|Hudson, N.J. 8.6
San Mateo, Calif. 1,203|Washington, D.C. 82|Fairfield, Conn. 8.3
Fairfax, Va. 1,156|Olmsted, Minn. 79|Santa Clara, Calif. 8.1
|Washington, Ore. 79|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 210 counties with an average weekly wage below the national
average in the first quarter of 2004. The lowest average weekly wages were
reported in Cameron County, Texas ($445), followed by the counties of Hidalgo,
Texas ($451), Webb, Texas ($473), Horry, S.C. ($484), and Yakima, Wash. ($505).
(See table 1.)
Eleven counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly
wages. Trumbull County, Ohio, had the largest decrease, -3.0 percent,
followed by the counties of Williamson, Texas (-1.6 percent), Chester,
Penn. (-1.4 percent), Snohomish, Wash. (-1.3 percent), and Broome, N.Y.
(-0.8 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2003 employment levels), 6
reported increases in employment, while declines occurred in 4 from March
2003 to March 2004. Orange County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth
in employment among the largest counties, with a 3.5 percent increase. The
largest employment increases were in financial activities (10.3 percent)
and professional and business services (9.2 percent). Orange County showed
employment gains in every industry group except natural resources and
mining, manufacturing, information, and government. (See table 2.) Maricopa
County, Ariz., had the next largest increase in employment, 2.5 percent, fol-
lowed by San Diego, Calif. (1.3 percent). The largest decrease in employment
for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, with a 0.6 percent
decline. The next largest declines in employment were recorded in Cook
County, Ill. (-0.5 percent), and Harris County, Texas (-0.2 percent).
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in
average weekly wages. New York County, N.Y., had the fastest growth in
wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 13.6 percent rate. New York
County's fastest growing supersectors were financial activities, where the
average weekly wage rose by 27.4 percent, and manufacturing, with a 9.5 per-
cent increase. Dallas County, Texas, was second in wage growth, increasing
by 6.3 percent, followed by Cook County, Ill., and Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
where average wages increased by 5.2 percent each. King County, Wash.,
experienced the smallest increase in average weekly wages among the largest
10 counties, rising by only 2.2 percent, primarily due to wage decreases in
the information supersector. This was followed by Orange County, Calif.,
with an increase in average weekly wages of 3.8 percent and by two other
California counties, Los Angeles and San Diego (3.9 percent each).
- 4 -
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows March 2004 employment and the 2004 first-quarter average
weekly wage in the largest county in each state. This table includes two
counties that have employment levels below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont., and
Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in March 2004
ranged from approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to
39,100 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these
counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,913), while the lowest average weekly
wage was in Yellowstone County, Mont. ($568).
- 5 -
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 to-
tal 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 2004 are preliminary and sub-
ject to revision.
For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as having
employment levels of 75,000 or greater. Each year, these large counties
are selected on the basis of the preliminary annual average of employment
for the previous year. The 318 counties discussed in this release were
derived using 2003 preliminary annual averages of employment. These
counties will be included in all 2004 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 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 pro-
cedure, and publication product.
Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in somewhat
different measures of over-the-quarter employment change. It is important
to understand program differences and the intended uses of the program
products. (See table below.) Additional information on each program can
be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table below.
- 6 -
Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| QCEW | BED | CES
-----------|---------------------|----------------------|-----------------------
Source |--Count of UI admini-|--Count of longitudi- |--Sample survey:
| strative records | nally-linked UI ad- | 400,000 employers
| submitted by 8.4 | ministrative records|
| million employers | submitted by 6.4 |
| | million private-sec-|
| | tor employers |
-----------|---------------------|----------------------|-----------------------
Coverage |--UI and UCFE cover- |--UI coverage, exclud-|Nonfarm wage and sal-
| age, including all | ing government, pri-| ary jobs:
| employers subject | vate households, and|--UI coverage, exclud-
| to state and feder-| establishments with | ing agriculture, pri-
| al UI laws | zero employment | vate households, and
| | | self-employed workers
| | |--Other employment, in-
| | | cluding railroads,
| | | religious organiza-
| | | tions, and other non-
| | | UI-covered jobs
-----------|---------------------|----------------------|-----------------------
Publication|--Quarterly |--Quarterly |--Monthly
frequency | -7 months after the| -8 months after the | -Usually first Friday
| end of each quar- | end of each quarter| of following month
| ter | |
-----------|---------------------|----------------------|-----------------------
Use of UI |--Directly summarizes|--Links each new UI |--Uses UI file as a sam-
file | and publishes each | quarter to longitu- | pling frame and annu-
| new quarter of UI | dinal database and | ally realigns (bench-
| data | directly summarizes | marks) sample esti-
| | gross job gains and | mates to first quar-
| | losses | ter UI levels
-----------|---------------------|----------------------|------------------------
Principal |--Provides a quarter-|--Provides quarterly |--Provides current month-
products | ly and annual uni- | employer dynamics | ly estimates of employ-
| verse count of es- | data on establish- | ment, hours, and earn-
| tablishments, em- | ment openings, clos-| ings at the MSA, state,
| ployment, and wages| ings, expansions, | and national level by
| at the county, MSA,| and contractions at | industry
| state, and national| the national level |
| levels by detailed |--Future expansions |
| industry | will include data at|
| | the county, MSA, and|
| | state level by in- |
| | dustry and size of |
| | establishment |
-----------|---------------------|----------------------|--------------------------
Principal |--Major uses include:|--Major uses include: |--Major uses include:
uses | -Detailed locality | -Business cycle | -Principal national
| data | analysis | economic indicator
| -Periodic universe | -Analysis of employ-| -Official time series
| counts for bench- | er dynamics under- | for employment change
| marking sample | lying economic ex- | measures
| survey estimates | pansions and con- | -Input into other ma-
| -Sample frame for | tractions | jor economic indi-
| BLS establishment | -Future: Employment| cators
| surveys | expansion and con- |
| | traction by size of|
| | establishment |
-----------|---------------------|----------------------|--------------------------
Program |--www.bls.gov/cew/ |--www.bls.gov/bdm/ |--www.bls.gov/ces/
Web sites | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 7 -
Coverage
Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI laws and for
federal civilian workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for
Federal Employees (UCFE) program are compiled from quarterly contribution
reports submitted to the SWAs by employers. 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 re-
ports 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 2003, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 127.8 million
jobs. The estimated 122.9 million workers in these jobs (after adjust-
ment for multiple jobholders) represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage
and salary employment. Covered workers received $4.826 trillion in pay,
representing 94.6 percent of the wage and salary component of personal
income and 43.9 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 domes-
tic 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. Effective January 1, 2004, the Washington
Employment Security Department no longer includes as covered wages an em-
ployee's income attributable to the transfer of shares of stock to the em-
ployee. This change in wage coverage pertains to all establishments in
Washington State and contributes significantly to over-the-year changes in
wages in the state in 2004.
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 pro-
duction 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 high-paying and low-
paying occupations. When comparing average weekly wage levels between
industries and/or states, these factors should be taken into consideration.
Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2003
quarterly data as the base data. Final data for 2003 may differ from pre-
liminary data published earlier.
- 8 -
In order to insure the highest possible quality of data, states verify
with employers and update, if necessary, the industry, location, and own-
ership classification of all establishments on a 3-year cycle. Changes
in establishment classification codes resulting from this process are in-
troduced with the data reported for the first quarter of the year. Changes
resulting from improved employer reporting also are introduced in the first
quarter.
These changes in classifications are partially adjusted for in order to im-
prove the measure of economic change over time, as presented in this release.
Some changes in classification reflect economic events, while other changes
are simply the result of corrections and other noneconomic events. Changes
of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county to another or
changing its primary economic activity) are not adjusted for in the over-the-
year change, because these changes are due to an actual event. But to the ex-
tent possible, changes that are not economic in nature (such as a correction
to a previously reported location or industry classification) are adjusted for
in the measures of change presented in this release.
The adjustment is made by reassigning year-ago data for establishments
with noneconomic changes into the classification shown in the current
data. The year-ago totals are then recreated reflecting this reassignment
process. The adjusted year-ago data are then used to calculate the over-
the-year change. The adjusted year-ago data differ to some extent from the
data available on the BLS Web site. This process results in a more accurate
presentation of change in local economic activity than what would result
from the simple comparison of current and year-ago data points.
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 re-
ferred to in this release are defined as census regions.
Additional statistics and other information
An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive infor-
mation by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for
the nation and all states. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2002
is available for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box
2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The 2002 bulletin
is now available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site
at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn02.htm. The 2003 annual bulletin will
be published in late 2004. BLS also will make this bulletin available in
a PDF format on the BLS Web site.
News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are
available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics
and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 202-691-6467;
(http://www.bls.gov/bdm/); (e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov).
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired
individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; TDD message referral
phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
first quarter 2004(2)
Employment Average weekly wage(5)
Establishments,
first quarter Percent
County(3) 2004 March Percent Ranking Average change, Ranking
(thousands) 2004 change, by weekly first by
(thousands) March percent wage quarter percent
2003-04(4) change 2003-04 change
(4)
United States(6)......... 8,367.2 127,778.5 0.8 - $758 3.8 -
Jefferson, AL............ 18.4 368.7 0.2 212 766 3.2 140
Madison, AL.............. 7.8 161.4 2.1 77 760 0.1 302
Mobile, AL............... 9.6 160.0 -1.6 307 592 1.9 240
Montgomery, AL........... 6.5 130.7 1.5 103 618 2.8 170
Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.1 77.2 -0.4 252 587 0.7 290
Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.8 138.1 1.0 145 780 4.8 66
Maricopa, AZ............. 80.9 1,611.2 2.5 67 733 5.0 53
Pima, AZ................. 17.6 335.2 1.8 90 626 1.8 248
Benton, AR............... 4.3 83.2 3.4 36 775 3.2 140
Pulaski, AR.............. 13.2 239.2 1.0 145 669 5.0 53
Washington, AR........... 5.0 85.1 3.1 46 566 4.2 86
Alameda, CA.............. 48.9 678.0 -1.3 293 979 5.0 53
Contra Costa, CA......... 28.3 337.9 -0.3 248 972 6.0 34
Fresno, CA............... 29.6 316.5 2.0 80 591 1.5 267
Kern, CA................. 16.2 241.4 3.2 40 649 2.5 192
Los Angeles, CA.......... 364.7 4,054.6 0.7 172 846 3.9 97
Marin, CA................ 12.0 107.8 0.0 224 985 5.0 53
Monterey, CA............. 12.2 156.6 -0.4 252 679 2.1 225
Orange, CA............... 90.8 1,454.3 3.5 31 872 3.8 105
Placer, CA............... 9.5 130.3 6.3 4 721 3.6 116
Riverside, CA............ 38.4 563.4 5.4 8 645 4.4 78
Sacramento, CA........... 47.1 602.0 1.0 145 833 1.7 253
San Bernardino, CA....... 42.3 600.1 4.9 12 645 2.5 192
San Diego, CA............ 87.0 1,264.0 1.3 119 806 3.9 97
San Francisco, CA........ 44.0 518.4 -1.4 302 1,312 6.1 32
San Joaquin, CA.......... 16.1 212.1 0.7 172 643 3.4 127
San Luis Obispo, CA...... 8.8 99.6 0.3 201 607 1.5 267
San Mateo, CA............ 23.3 328.2 -1.9 311 1,203 10.8 3
Santa Barbara, CA........ 13.4 179.1 1.4 110 706 3.1 147
Santa Clara, CA.......... 52.8 846.5 -1.1 287 1,338 8.1 10
Santa Cruz, CA........... 8.5 91.9 0.7 172 735 3.8 105
Solano, CA............... 9.6 125.1 0.2 212 716 6.7 21
Sonoma, CA............... 17.4 189.8 1.2 124 706 0.6 291
Stanislaus, CA........... 13.4 164.2 1.4 110 $624 1.6 259
Tulare, CA............... 8.9 130.3 1.1 133 524 3.6 116
Ventura, CA.............. 20.9 308.6 1.7 93 824 6.6 24
Yolo, CA................. 5.1 94.5 0.4 197 674 3.7 114
Adams, CO................ 8.5 138.5 -0.8 272 710 4.9 61
Arapahoe, CO............. 18.6 264.6 -0.7 268 928 1.2 282
Boulder, CO.............. 11.6 149.0 0.3 201 923 6.0 34
Denver, CO............... 24.0 418.0 -1.1 287 948 7.7 12
El Paso, CO.............. 15.7 231.3 0.8 163 687 1.9 240
Jefferson, CO............ 17.7 199.7 0.1 221 770 2.3 206
Larimer, CO.............. 9.1 118.9 2.0 80 661 2.8 170
Fairfield, CT............ 31.8 407.1 0.1 221 1,492 8.3 9
Hartford, CT............. 24.2 474.1 -0.1 236 1,006 7.5 13
New Haven, CT............ 21.9 357.2 0.3 201 807 3.5 121
New London, CT........... 6.6 125.6 -0.5 256 792 5.2 49
New Castle, DE........... 18.6 277.3 1.9 87 957 2.2 215
Washington, DC........... 30.2 654.7 0.8 163 1,221 7.2 15
Alachua, FL.............. 5.9 123.6 2.3 75 550 3.8 105
Brevard, FL.............. 12.6 194.6 4.8 13 705 6.5 25
Broward, FL.............. 57.9 693.7 0.8 163 707 5.8 39
Collier, FL.............. 10.5 126.3 3.3 38 636 5.0 53
Duval, FL................ 22.8 433.8 1.4 110 745 3.9 97
Escambia, FL............. 7.4 126.0 3.6 29 571 2.1 225
Hillsborough, FL......... 31.7 612.8 3.6 29 721 4.9 61
Lee, FL.................. 15.2 198.9 5.8 5 613 4.8 66
Leon, FL................. 7.4 144.8 1.8 90 616 4.1 89
Manatee, FL.............. 7.1 118.6 5.1 11 559 1.8 248
Marion, FL............... 6.5 91.0 6.4 3 530 2.9 161
Miami-Dade, FL........... 81.6 982.9 0.9 154 729 5.2 49
Okaloosa, FL............. 5.3 78.2 -1.7 310 575 6.1 32
Orange, FL............... 30.1 621.1 3.1 46 688 5.0 53
Palm Beach, FL........... 43.6 524.3 2.0 80 728 2.2 215
Pasco, FL................ 7.5 84.5 5.2 10 510 3.9 97
Pinellas, FL............. 28.7 437.3 3.5 31 641 2.7 176
Polk, FL................. 10.6 193.7 2.8 58 567 2.2 215
Sarasota, FL............. 13.2 155.8 4.8 13 $606 4.8 66
Seminole, FL............. 12.2 150.3 3.2 40 656 3.1 147
Volusia, FL.............. 12.0 156.7 4.1 20 530 2.3 206
Bibb, GA................. 4.8 87.1 3.0 54 614 2.3 206
Chatham, GA.............. 7.1 126.9 2.5 67 622 2.5 192
Clayton, GA.............. 4.4 106.7 (7) - 784 1.6 259
Cobb, GA................. 20.0 299.9 1.4 110 821 1.7 253
De Kalb, GA.............. 17.1 288.8 -0.8 272 828 1.3 276
Fulton, GA............... 37.4 722.0 0.6 180 1,043 2.5 192
Gwinnett, GA............. 21.4 303.4 3.3 38 791 0.4 294
Muscogee, GA............. 4.8 97.1 0.8 163 598 1.5 267
Richmond, GA............. 4.8 104.5 1.5 103 609 1.5 267
Honolulu, HI............. 24.6 422.7 1.2 124 681 3.2 140
Ada, ID.................. 12.9 183.5 2.4 72 656 1.1 285
Champaign, IL............ 3.9 89.2 0.1 221 618 2.3 206
Cook, IL................. 126.5 2,474.0 -0.5 256 953 5.2 49
Du Page, IL.............. 32.4 561.0 -0.5 256 888 3.6 116
Kane, IL................. 10.9 193.2 0.3 201 678 2.6 184
Lake, IL................. 18.9 311.3 0.0 224 932 3.2 140
McHenry, IL.............. 7.4 92.0 3.1 46 652 2.7 176
McLean, IL............... 3.3 83.3 -1.3 293 733 3.5 121
Madison, IL.............. 5.6 93.7 0.2 212 618 4.9 61
Peoria, IL............... 4.5 96.1 1.3 119 714 6.7 21
Rock Island, IL.......... 3.4 76.1 -1.3 293 676 2.6 184
St. Clair, IL............ 5.0 91.7 0.2 212 581 3.6 116
Sangamon, IL............. 5.1 128.6 (7) - 727 (7) -
Will, IL................. 10.7 154.1 3.4 36 683 1.5 267
Winnebago, IL............ 6.6 133.9 0.3 201 643 0.6 291
Allen, IN................ 8.8 176.2 -0.1 236 660 0.3 297
Elkhart, IN.............. 4.9 119.1 4.6 16 625 1.3 276
Hamilton, IN............. 6.2 84.6 3.0 54 812 4.0 94
Lake, IN................. 9.9 188.3 -1.1 287 659 3.8 105
Marion, IN............... 23.8 567.9 0.2 212 810 5.6 43
St. Joseph, IN........... 6.0 121.7 0.2 212 633 1.6 259
Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.8 107.0 -0.9 277 $632 2.8 170
Linn, IA................. 6.0 114.3 0.4 197 709 4.3 82
Polk, IA................. 14.0 255.4 2.0 80 781 4.7 70
Scott, IA................ 5.1 83.1 0.3 201 596 3.3 137
Johnson, KS.............. 18.4 289.0 1.3 119 816 3.0 153
Sedgwick, KS............. 11.6 237.3 -1.0 280 677 2.0 231
Shawnee, KS.............. 4.7 95.3 -1.3 293 625 3.0 153
Fayette, KY.............. 8.7 164.2 0.9 154 699 4.2 86
Jefferson, KY............ 21.4 411.0 -0.5 256 750 5.6 43
Caddo, LA................ 6.9 118.6 1.0 145 607 3.8 105
Calcasieu, LA............ 4.6 81.8 -1.0 280 618 6.9 16
East Baton Rouge, LA..... 12.9 246.4 3.2 40 636 2.6 184
Jefferson, LA............ 13.8 212.6 0.0 224 604 3.4 127
Lafayette, LA............ 7.5 118.3 -0.5 256 625 1.5 267
Orleans, LA.............. 12.4 250.0 0.5 187 724 6.3 29
Cumberland, ME........... 11.4 165.0 1.7 93 696 5.0 53
Anne Arundel, MD......... 13.3 211.7 3.5 31 775 5.3 47
Baltimore, MD............ 20.4 360.5 1.2 124 787 6.9 16
Frederick, MD............ 5.4 88.9 4.2 18 743 6.8 19
Howard, MD............... 7.8 137.1 0.9 154 850 3.3 137
Montgomery, MD........... 31.0 446.5 0.5 187 1,014 7.8 11
Prince Georges, MD....... 14.7 310.5 2.0 80 787 2.7 176
Baltimore City, MD....... 13.9 353.4 -1.4 302 885 6.9 16
Barnstable, MA........... 9.1 83.5 1.5 103 652 3.0 153
Bristol, MA.............. 15.0 215.6 0.7 172 648 1.3 276
Essex, MA................ 20.5 289.1 -1.4 302 790 1.8 248
Hampden, MA.............. 13.8 196.2 0.0 224 708 2.2 215
Middlesex, MA............ 47.6 772.2 -1.2 292 1,072 6.8 19
Norfolk, MA.............. 21.7 312.7 -0.8 272 916 3.2 140
Plymouth, MA............. 13.4 166.7 0.9 154 704 2.0 231
Suffolk, MA.............. 22.2 552.4 -1.4 302 1,405 12.6 2
Worcester, MA............ 20.1 311.9 0.0 224 748 2.3 206
Genesee, MI.............. 8.6 152.7 -0.4 252 716 -0.3 309
Ingham, MI............... 7.0 166.0 -1.3 293 718 -0.7 311
Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.5 114.3 -0.2 241 742 4.1 89
Kent, MI................. 14.5 328.3 0.7 172 $682 0.0 304
Macomb, MI............... 18.1 317.6 0.5 187 828 -0.6 310
Oakland, MI.............. 41.5 702.8 -2.5 313 923 0.2 300
Ottawa, MI............... 5.7 108.3 0.5 187 654 2.3 206
Saginaw, MI.............. 4.6 88.1 -1.1 287 677 (7) -
Washtenaw, MI............ 8.2 193.0 -0.2 241 868 4.7 70
Wayne, MI................ 35.2 785.5 -2.4 312 893 2.9 161
Anoka, MN................ 7.4 108.7 1.2 124 710 2.9 161
Dakota, MN............... 9.6 163.1 1.1 133 752 2.2 215
Hennepin, MN............. 40.6 806.7 -0.7 268 983 6.5 25
Olmsted, MN.............. 3.3 85.9 1.4 110 837 10.4 4
Ramsey, MN............... 14.9 319.5 -0.9 277 881 5.9 36
St. Louis, MN............ 5.7 90.9 -1.3 293 637 3.7 114
Stearns, MN.............. 4.2 75.8 1.1 133 579 2.8 170
Harrison, MS............. 4.5 88.7 0.6 180 538 0.2 300
Hinds, MS................ 6.5 129.9 0.3 201 646 2.9 161
Boone, MO................ 4.2 76.4 0.8 163 566 3.9 97
Clay, MO................. 4.9 84.9 -1.0 280 682 2.7 176
Greene, MO............... 8.0 144.1 0.3 201 560 2.8 170
Jackson, MO.............. 18.7 360.0 -1.0 280 764 2.3 206
St. Charles, MO.......... 7.2 109.5 3.8 26 642 1.7 253
St. Louis, MO............ 33.8 609.2 -1.3 293 813 3.8 105
St. Louis City, MO....... 8.3 223.0 -2.9 314 905 4.9 61
Douglas, NE.............. 14.6 303.1 -0.3 248 712 2.6 184
Lancaster, NE............ 7.4 148.6 1.3 119 609 3.0 153
Clark, NV................ 37.9 784.0 5.4 8 693 5.8 39
Washoe, NV............... 12.5 198.2 3.1 46 693 2.8 170
Hillsborough, NH......... 12.2 191.6 2.1 77 806 2.9 161
Rockingham, NH........... 10.6 130.2 2.7 64 762 4.7 70
Atlantic, NJ............. 6.5 139.6 0.8 163 667 2.1 225
Bergen, NJ............... 34.1 444.9 0.8 163 966 3.0 153
Burlington, NJ........... 11.1 195.9 1.5 103 798 2.7 176
Camden, NJ............... 13.3 204.8 2.8 58 764 1.5 267
Essex, NJ................ 21.3 358.1 0.2 212 1,036 5.4 46
Gloucester, NJ........... 6.0 97.1 3.7 28 $674 3.9 97
Hudson, NJ............... 13.8 231.5 -1.3 293 1,121 8.6 8
Mercer, NJ............... 10.6 212.1 1.1 133 987 1.9 240
Middlesex, NJ............ 20.5 390.5 1.4 110 1,019 3.5 121
Monmouth, NJ............. 19.8 247.9 3.2 40 824 1.7 253
Morris, NJ............... 17.6 277.3 0.9 154 1,145 3.4 127
Ocean, NJ................ 11.4 139.3 3.2 40 638 1.3 276
Passaic, NJ.............. 12.4 176.6 2.3 75 794 1.9 240
Somerset, NJ............. 9.9 166.4 -1.6 307 1,322 1.9 240
Union, NJ................ 15.0 236.8 0.0 224 964 3.2 140
Bernalillo, NM........... 16.8 310.6 1.4 110 644 2.4 201
Albany, NY............... 9.5 226.6 0.6 180 778 2.2 215
Bronx, NY................ 15.3 211.8 -1.6 307 686 1.9 240
Broome, NY............... 4.4 93.9 -1.0 280 589 -0.8 312
Dutchess, NY............. 7.7 115.8 1.2 124 769 1.9 240
Erie, NY................. 23.2 453.1 1.1 133 671 2.1 225
Kings, NY................ 41.7 441.6 0.5 187 665 5.6 43
Monroe, NY............... 17.6 375.8 -0.5 256 755 3.6 116
Nassau, NY............... 50.3 593.3 1.1 133 831 4.4 78
New York, NY............. 112.3 2,203.0 -0.1 236 1,913 13.6 1
Oneida, NY............... 5.3 106.5 -0.2 241 581 2.7 176
Onondaga, NY............. 12.6 243.7 0.4 197 693 1.2 282
Orange, NY............... 9.1 124.5 1.4 110 623 3.0 153
Queens, NY............... 39.8 468.4 -0.5 256 749 3.0 153
Richmond, NY............. 8.0 87.2 0.5 187 659 4.9 61
Rockland, NY............. 9.2 109.8 1.0 145 800 4.0 94
Suffolk, NY.............. 47.2 587.9 1.0 145 783 2.5 192
Westchester, NY.......... 35.0 403.6 0.6 180 1,065 7.4 14
Buncombe, NC............. 6.8 104.3 1.2 124 562 1.4 274
Catawba, NC.............. 4.3 86.8 -0.7 268 560 1.6 259
Cumberland, NC........... 5.6 109.8 1.1 133 547 1.1 285
Durham, NC............... 6.1 166.9 1.5 103 1,052 6.4 28
Forsyth, NC.............. 8.3 173.5 0.2 212 732 2.4 201
Guilford, NC............. 13.6 264.3 0.0 224 676 1.3 276
Mecklenburg, NC.......... 27.1 498.6 -0.2 241 991 5.7 42
New Hanover, NC.......... 6.3 88.4 2.4 72 $587 3.5 121
Wake, NC................. 23.0 383.4 2.7 64 760 2.7 176
Cass, ND................. 5.3 85.5 3.0 54 605 3.8 105
Butler, OH............... 6.9 132.4 3.9 24 653 0.5 293
Cuyahoga, OH............. 38.5 746.2 -0.6 264 790 3.1 147
Franklin, OH............. 29.6 672.9 -0.2 241 762 2.7 176
Hamilton, OH............. 24.8 534.0 -0.8 272 830 3.5 121
Lake, OH................. 6.7 97.0 1.1 133 630 -0.2 307
Lorain, OH............... 6.3 100.2 1.2 124 639 3.4 127
Lucas, OH................ 11.0 223.1 -0.4 252 680 -0.1 306
Mahoning, OH............. 6.5 103.3 0.4 197 564 2.4 201
Montgomery, OH........... 13.3 281.3 -1.1 287 705 1.6 259
Stark, OH................ 9.1 163.6 -0.7 268 593 1.0 288
Summit, OH............... 14.8 260.2 0.5 187 713 1.4 274
Trumbull, OH............. 4.9 83.1 -3.2 315 654 -3.0 316
Oklahoma, OK............. 21.7 398.9 0.5 187 645 4.2 86
Tulsa, OK................ 18.3 317.2 -1.0 280 676 4.3 82
Clackamas, OR............ 11.6 134.9 2.8 58 684 4.1 89
Jackson, OR.............. 6.2 77.2 3.2 40 555 2.2 215
Lane, OR................. 10.5 137.6 1.1 133 573 2.3 206
Marion, OR............... 8.5 125.1 1.6 99 588 2.4 201
Multnomah, OR............ 25.7 414.8 0.0 224 764 2.1 225
Washington, OR........... 14.5 218.7 -0.1 236 890 9.7 6
Allegheny, PA............ 37.0 684.7 -0.1 236 804 4.6 75
Berks, PA................ 9.0 159.9 1.9 87 651 -0.2 307
Bucks, PA................ 19.9 250.0 1.7 93 715 3.2 140
Chester, PA.............. 14.8 220.3 1.6 99 938 -1.4 314
Cumberland, PA........... 5.7 125.0 1.2 124 704 2.2 215
Dauphin, PA.............. 7.0 171.9 0.7 172 759 4.1 89
Delaware, PA............. 13.9 209.1 0.9 154 808 4.8 66
Erie, PA................. 7.2 123.7 1.0 145 578 2.5 192
Lackawanna, PA........... 5.8 97.3 1.5 103 567 0.4 294
Lancaster, PA............ 11.7 221.4 2.0 80 633 0.3 297
Lehigh, PA............... 8.4 170.2 1.7 93 741 2.9 161
Luzerne, PA.............. 8.1 139.2 0.5 187 $595 3.1 147
Montgomery, PA........... 27.7 473.8 0.0 224 1,004 6.7 21
Northampton, PA.......... 6.2 91.4 1.5 103 646 2.9 161
Philadelphia, PA......... 28.3 629.6 (7) - 891 5.9 36
Westmoreland, PA......... 9.5 132.4 2.6 66 580 1.6 259
York, PA................. 8.7 166.2 3.1 46 668 1.8 248
Kent, RI................. 5.5 79.5 2.5 67 678 5.9 36
Providence, RI........... 17.5 281.2 -0.6 264 755 1.2 282
Charleston, SC........... 11.3 189.4 2.5 67 608 2.0 231
Greenville, SC........... 11.8 224.3 -0.9 277 670 0.1 302
Horry, SC................ 7.5 100.4 3.1 46 484 0.8 289
Lexington, SC............ 5.3 85.0 0.8 163 550 3.4 127
Richland, SC............. 9.1 203.9 0.0 224 632 2.1 225
Spartanburg, SC.......... 6.0 109.7 -0.3 248 629 1.3 276
Minnehaha, SD............ 5.9 106.3 1.1 133 612 2.9 161
Davidson, TN............. 17.9 425.1 0.7 172 746 3.5 121
Hamilton, TN............. 8.3 188.9 0.9 154 626 2.5 192
Knox, TN................. 10.3 213.4 2.5 67 632 3.4 127
Rutherford, TN........... 3.6 87.7 7.3 2 651 2.0 231
Shelby, TN............... 19.9 491.9 -0.2 241 757 3.4 127
Bell, TX................. 4.2 90.1 1.8 90 542 0.4 294
Bexar, TX................ 29.5 656.7 0.6 180 670 5.0 53
Brazoria, TX............. 4.1 75.7 -0.5 256 749 6.5 25
Brazos, TX............... 3.5 78.0 1.0 145 520 3.4 127
Cameron, TX.............. 6.1 116.1 0.6 180 445 1.6 259
Collin, TX............... 12.5 202.8 5.5 6 844 4.3 82
Dallas, TX............... 67.7 1,418.2 -0.6 264 947 6.3 29
Denton, TX............... 8.4 131.8 3.1 46 621 2.0 231
El Paso, TX.............. 12.5 251.7 0.2 212 514 2.4 201
Fort Bend, TX............ 6.3 99.3 2.0 80 773 4.3 82
Galveston, TX............ 4.8 87.5 -1.0 280 652 2.0 231
Harris, TX............... 89.4 1,823.3 -0.2 241 898 4.4 78
Hidalgo, TX.............. 9.3 187.6 3.9 24 451 1.6 259
Jefferson, TX............ 5.9 117.4 1.0 145 672 4.7 70
Lubbock, TX.............. 6.4 114.8 -0.8 272 $549 2.0 231
McLennan, TX............. 4.7 98.3 1.7 93 571 1.8 248
Montgomery, TX........... 6.3 89.8 4.7 15 641 3.1 147
Nueces, TX............... 8.0 143.6 0.9 154 601 2.6 184
Potter, TX............... 3.9 77.4 2.9 57 562 3.1 147
Smith, TX................ 4.9 85.5 1.3 119 622 5.2 49
Tarrant, TX.............. 33.7 689.6 0.3 201 770 3.9 97
Travis, TX............... 24.8 509.6 1.2 124 836 2.6 184
Webb, TX................. 4.3 78.0 3.1 46 473 1.7 253
Williamson, TX........... 5.0 84.4 3.5 31 795 -1.6 315
Davis, UT................ 6.1 90.0 3.5 31 603 1.9 240
Salt Lake, UT............ 33.3 512.5 1.1 133 671 3.4 127
Utah, UT................. 10.6 145.4 4.1 20 544 0.0 304
Weber, UT................ 5.2 86.8 1.6 99 537 2.5 192
Chittenden, VT........... 5.7 92.7 1.1 133 730 1.7 253
Arlington, VA............ 6.9 151.6 2.8 58 1,240 8.7 7
Chesterfield, VA......... 6.6 111.5 2.8 58 667 4.1 89
Fairfax, VA.............. 29.7 533.9 4.2 18 1,156 5.3 47
Henrico, VA.............. 8.2 164.3 0.0 224 824 4.7 70
Loudoun, VA.............. 6.2 109.8 5.5 6 979 10.1 5
Prince William, VA....... 5.8 92.9 8.0 1 637 2.2 215
Alexandria City, VA...... 5.7 91.6 0.5 187 924 3.0 153
Chesapeake City, VA...... 4.8 91.6 4.1 20 571 4.0 94
Newport News City, VA.... 3.7 96.5 2.1 77 652 2.0 231
Norfolk City, VA......... 5.6 144.6 0.6 180 720 3.4 127
Richmond City, VA........ 6.9 157.5 -0.3 248 905 3.9 97
Virginia Beach City, VA.. 10.6 167.2 3.8 26 566 2.5 192
Clark, WA................ 10.0 117.6 4.0 23 663 2.6 184
King, WA................. 75.2 1,075.7 0.3 201 940 2.2 215
Kitsap, WA............... 6.0 79.1 4.3 17 686 3.8 105
Pierce, WA............... 19.0 244.7 1.9 87 667 4.4 78
Snohomish, WA............ 15.6 207.5 0.8 163 736 -1.3 313
Spokane, WA.............. 14.1 189.1 0.9 154 598 2.6 184
Thurston, WA............. 6.1 90.7 1.6 99 661 2.3 206
Yakima, WA............... 8.0 88.0 0.3 201 505 3.3 137
Kanawha, WV.............. 6.2 107.3 -0.6 264 $646 1.1 285
Brown, WI................ 6.8 143.2 2.4 72 661 2.0 231
Dane, WI................. 13.8 283.9 1.4 110 728 4.6 75
Milwaukee, WI............ 22.3 491.1 -1.3 293 770 4.6 75
Outagamie, WI............ 5.0 97.3 2.8 58 660 3.8 105
Racine, WI............... 4.3 74.3 0.0 224 672 2.9 161
Waukesha, WI............. 13.4 220.6 0.7 172 739 0.3 297
Winnebago, WI............ 4.0 84.7 -1.4 302 744 5.8 39
San Juan, PR............. 12.9 322.8 1.7 93 487 6.3 29
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs. These 317 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.
Table 2. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 2004(2)
Employment Average weekly
wage(4)
Establishments,
first quarter
County by NAICS supersector 2004 Percent Percent
(thousands) March change, Average change,
2004 March weekly first
(thousands) 2003-04(3) wage quarter
2003-04(3)
United States(5)............................. 8,367.2 127,778.5 0.8 $758 3.8
Private industry........................... 8,095.7 106,575.5 1.0 758 4.1
Natural resources and mining............. 123.0 1,557.3 2.0 720 6.7
Construction............................. 811.5 6,506.1 3.5 732 1.4
Manufacturing............................ 373.7 14,177.7 -2.9 916 3.7
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 1,858.2 24,814.5 0.6 647 2.2
Information.............................. 145.0 3,120.6 -2.8 1,231 6.9
Financial activities..................... 778.9 7,818.2 0.9 1,413 11.7
Professional and business services....... 1,335.2 15,994.0 2.4 907 4.9
Education and health services............ 740.9 16,005.0 2.1 656 3.0
Leisure and hospitality.................. 675.1 12,031.7 2.6 311 2.6
Other services........................... 1,081.5 4,261.8 0.4 468 2.2
Government................................. 271.5 21,203.0 0.0 758 2.6
Los Angeles, CA.............................. 364.7 4,054.6 0.7 846 3.9
Private industry........................... 360.9 3,466.8 1.2 825 4.0
Natural resources and mining............. 0.6 11.4 -0.9 1,388 47.3
Construction............................. 13.0 133.7 2.5 796 1.4
Manufacturing............................ 17.7 485.6 -5.1 854 4.3
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 54.5 760.6 0.3 689 1.3
Information.............................. 9.3 213.9 0.4 1,456 4.6
Financial activities..................... 23.3 236.6 1.3 1,479 15.3
Professional and business services....... 41.2 573.1 4.0 944 1.5
Education and health services............ 27.1 460.3 2.9 718 3.9
Leisure and hospitality.................. 26.2 367.2 4.2 475 5.1
Other services........................... 147.6 223.8 4.7 391 -3.9
Government................................. 3.8 587.8 -2.1 968 4.2
Cook, IL..................................... 126.5 2,474.0 -0.5 953 5.2
Private industry........................... 125.2 2,152.9 -0.3 961 5.4
Natural resources and mining............. 0.1 1.2 -9.8 949 7.6
Construction............................. 10.4 88.2 0.2 1,082 3.3
Manufacturing............................ 7.6 256.8 -4.0 915 2.8
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 26.5 470.7 -0.3 725 1.1
Information.............................. 2.5 63.1 -4.6 1,418 9.4
Financial activities..................... 13.9 215.0 -0.1 2,099 15.6
Professional and business services....... 25.9 396.0 -0.6 1,196 5.8
Education and health services............ 12.3 351.2 2.0 699 1.6
Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.5 211.0 2.9 $355 1.1
Other services........................... 12.7 94.4 -1.1 620 0.8
Government................................. 1.2 321.1 -2.2 895 3.1
New York, NY................................. 112.3 2,203.0 -0.1 1,913 13.6
Private industry........................... 112.1 1,756.7 0.0 2,154 15.6
Natural resources and mining............. 0.0 0.1 1.0 1,639 -6.1
Construction............................. 2.1 28.1 -3.2 1,293 -1.4
Manufacturing............................ 3.4 46.3 -3.3 1,155 9.5
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 21.9 228.5 -0.3 1,045 3.3
Information.............................. 4.3 126.3 -5.2 2,130 8.1
Financial activities..................... 16.8 346.4 -0.8 5,680 27.4
Professional and business services....... 22.4 432.0 1.6 1,799 7.3
Education and health services............ 7.9 273.3 0.9 855 2.5
Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.1 184.6 1.6 676 7.0
Other services........................... 16.1 81.3 -1.3 809 6.3
Government................................. 0.2 446.3 -0.5 970 -1.6
Harris, TX................................... 89.4 1,823.3 -0.2 898 4.4
Private industry........................... 89.0 1,576.9 -0.5 920 4.9
Natural resources and mining............. 1.2 62.4 2.8 2,516 12.7
Construction............................. 6.4 134.8 -5.8 832 3.7
Manufacturing............................ 4.6 162.4 -2.5 1,133 4.2
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 21.1 385.5 -0.7 847 3.7
Information.............................. 1.4 33.5 -4.1 1,123 2.6
Financial activities..................... 9.7 113.0 2.3 1,269 6.3
Professional and business services....... 17.2 280.0 -0.5 961 4.2
Education and health services............ 8.9 187.9 1.9 730 3.3
Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.6 157.6 1.6 326 4.2
Other services........................... 10.4 56.2 -1.7 521 3.2
Government................................. 0.4 246.4 1.2 754 0.5
Maricopa, AZ................................. 80.9 1,611.2 2.5 733 5.0
Private industry........................... 80.4 1,393.1 2.8 737 5.6
Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 9.4 4.3 540 0.7
Construction............................. 8.4 131.7 7.2 712 1.6
Manufacturing............................ 3.2 127.6 -1.5 1,074 7.1
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 18.5 324.4 2.8 721 5.4
Information.............................. 1.6 35.7 -5.5 $909 8.1
Financial activities..................... 9.6 132.5 0.0 988 5.7
Professional and business services....... 17.8 259.2 2.9 740 8.3
Education and health services............ 7.7 163.3 6.1 739 6.6
Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.6 160.2 2.8 353 4.7
Other services........................... 5.7 45.3 1.5 480 2.8
Government................................. 0.5 218.0 0.6 705 1.6
Dallas, TX................................... 67.7 1,418.2 -0.6 947 6.3
Private industry........................... 67.2 1,261.5 -0.6 967 6.9
Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 6.2 1.1 2,308 4.7
Construction............................. 4.4 73.3 -0.2 795 4.9
Manufacturing............................ 3.4 143.6 -1.7 1,096 8.3
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 15.6 305.7 -1.6 905 4.7
Information.............................. 1.8 61.7 -6.1 1,466 11.7
Financial activities..................... 8.6 138.4 0.7 1,409 10.9
Professional and business services....... 13.9 236.1 0.9 1,016 6.2
Education and health services............ 6.1 128.8 0.9 815 4.0
Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.1 123.8 -0.3 457 6.0
Other services........................... 6.7 41.6 -3.5 557 1.8
Government................................. 0.4 156.7 -0.4 790 1.5
Orange, CA................................... 90.8 1,454.3 3.5 872 3.8
Private industry........................... 89.4 1,303.6 4.2 860 4.6
Natural resources and mining............. 0.2 7.8 -12.9 535 15.1
Construction............................. 6.5 87.5 5.7 882 2.2
Manufacturing............................ 6.0 183.1 -1.8 1,015 8.0
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 17.4 261.7 1.3 820 3.9
Information.............................. 1.5 34.2 -3.4 1,286 7.0
Financial activities..................... 10.0 133.6 10.3 1,448 7.9
Professional and business services....... 18.0 258.1 9.2 872 -0.2
Education and health services............ 9.3 129.1 4.9 744 6.1
Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.8 162.1 5.5 346 0.9
Other services........................... 13.4 46.1 4.4 501 3.1
Government................................. 1.4 150.6 -2.1 983 -0.1
San Diego, CA................................ 87.0 1,264.0 1.3 806 3.9
Private industry........................... 85.6 1,044.7 2.2 791 4.9
Natural resources and mining............. 0.9 11.6 3.3 $472 6.1
Construction............................. 6.5 82.6 8.8 800 2.8
Manufacturing............................ 3.6 104.1 -2.9 1,082 8.9
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 14.3 208.5 3.0 649 0.8
Information.............................. 1.4 36.1 -4.1 1,738 32.1
Financial activities..................... 9.0 81.3 4.8 1,167 4.9
Professional and business services....... 15.4 208.9 3.8 936 1.3
Education and health services............ 7.6 120.4 1.2 695 5.1
Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.6 139.7 0.2 346 3.3
Other services........................... 20.1 51.3 2.3 425 -0.7
Government................................. 1.4 219.3 -2.8 875 0.2
King, WA..................................... 75.2 1,075.7 0.3 940 2.2
Private industry........................... 74.6 922.2 0.3 953 1.9
Natural resources and mining............. 0.4 3.2 -3.9 1,221 5.2
Construction............................. 6.1 54.0 4.3 871 0.3
Manufacturing............................ 2.6 101.5 -4.1 1,131 -3.2
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 14.6 212.1 -0.2 817 4.2
Information.............................. 1.5 64.9 -3.8 1,977 -6.3
Financial activities..................... 6.1 76.1 0.7 1,309 10.6
Professional and business services....... 11.8 155.2 2.7 1,127 8.1
Education and health services............ 5.9 109.6 2.4 689 3.0
Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.4 99.4 3.8 395 1.8
Other services........................... 20.1 46.2 -5.8 466 6.2
Government................................. 0.6 153.4 0.1 863 3.7
Miami-Dade, FL............................... 81.6 982.9 0.9 729 5.2
Private industry........................... 81.3 829.7 0.9 713 5.3
Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 11.3 -1.4 362 4.6
Construction............................. 5.0 40.9 3.2 717 1.7
Manufacturing............................ 2.8 50.9 -4.2 666 6.1
Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 23.7 238.8 -0.7 671 1.5
Information.............................. 1.7 27.1 -2.2 1,048 2.3
Financial activities..................... 8.6 66.2 2.4 1,173 9.8
Professional and business services....... 16.2 134.4 2.5 832 6.8
Education and health services............ 8.0 123.9 1.8 724 7.7
Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.4 97.7 2.7 402 9.2
Other services........................... 7.7 35.2 0.1 430 2.1
Government................................. 0.3 153.1 0.4 $816 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.
Table 3. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 2004(2)
Employment Average weekly
wage(5)
Establishments,
first quarter
County(3) 2004 Percent Percent
(thousands) March change, Average change,
2004 March weekly first
(thousands) 2003-04(4) wage quarter
2003-04(4)
United States(6)......... 8,367.2 127,778.5 0.8 $758 3.8
Jefferson, AL............ 18.4 368.7 0.2 766 3.2
Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.8 138.1 1.0 780 4.8
Maricopa, AZ............. 80.9 1,611.2 2.5 733 5.0
Pulaski, AR.............. 13.2 239.2 1.0 669 5.0
Los Angeles, CA.......... 364.7 4,054.6 0.7 846 3.9
Denver, CO............... 24.0 418.0 -1.1 948 7.7
Hartford, CT............. 24.2 474.1 -0.1 1,006 7.5
New Castle, DE........... 18.6 277.3 1.9 957 2.2
Washington, DC........... 30.2 654.7 0.8 1,221 7.2
Miami-Dade, FL........... 81.6 982.9 0.9 729 5.2
Fulton, GA............... 37.4 722.0 0.6 1,043 2.5
Honolulu, HI............. 24.6 422.7 1.2 681 3.2
Ada, ID.................. 12.9 183.5 2.4 656 1.1
Cook, IL................. 126.5 2,474.0 -0.5 953 5.2
Marion, IN............... 23.8 567.9 0.2 810 5.6
Polk, IA................. 14.0 255.4 2.0 781 4.7
Johnson, KS.............. 18.4 289.0 1.3 816 3.0
Jefferson, KY............ 21.4 411.0 -0.5 750 5.6
Orleans, LA.............. 12.4 250.0 0.5 724 6.3
Cumberland, ME........... 11.4 165.0 1.7 696 5.0
Montgomery, MD........... 31.0 446.5 0.5 1,014 7.8
Middlesex, MA............ 47.6 772.2 -1.2 1,072 6.8
Wayne, MI................ 35.2 785.5 -2.4 893 2.9
Hennepin, MN............. 40.6 806.7 -0.7 983 6.5
Hinds, MS................ 6.5 129.9 0.3 646 2.9
St. Louis, MO............ 33.8 609.2 -1.3 813 3.8
Yellowstone, MT.......... 5.7 68.6 2.8 568 6.6
Douglas, NE.............. 14.6 303.1 -0.3 712 2.6
Clark, NV................ 37.9 784.0 5.4 693 5.8
Hillsborough, NH......... 12.2 191.6 2.1 806 2.9
Bergen, NJ............... 34.1 444.9 0.8 966 3.0
Bernalillo, NM........... 16.8 310.6 1.4 644 2.4
New York, NY............. 112.3 2,203.0 -0.1 1,913 13.6
Mecklenburg, NC.......... 27.1 498.6 -0.2 $991 5.7
Cass, ND................. 5.3 85.5 3.0 605 3.8
Cuyahoga, OH............. 38.5 746.2 -0.6 790 3.1
Oklahoma, OK............. 21.7 398.9 0.5 645 4.2
Multnomah, OR............ 25.7 414.8 0.0 764 2.1
Allegheny, PA............ 37.0 684.7 -0.1 804 4.6
Providence, RI........... 17.5 281.2 -0.6 755 1.2
Greenville, SC........... 11.8 224.3 -0.9 670 0.1
Minnehaha, SD............ 5.9 106.3 1.1 612 2.9
Shelby, TN............... 19.9 491.9 -0.2 757 3.4
Harris, TX............... 89.4 1,823.3 -0.2 898 4.4
Salt Lake, UT............ 33.3 512.5 1.1 671 3.4
Chittenden, VT........... 5.7 92.7 1.1 730 1.7
Fairfax, VA.............. 29.7 533.9 4.2 1,156 5.3
King, WA................. 75.2 1,075.7 0.3 940 2.2
Kanawha, WV.............. 6.2 107.3 -0.6 646 1.1
Milwaukee, WI............ 22.3 491.1 -1.3 770 4.6
Laramie, WY.............. 2.8 39.1 2.8 586 4.5
San Juan, PR............. 12.9 322.8 1.7 487 6.3
St. Thomas, VI........... 1.7 23.2 -0.7 559 -1.1
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. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2004(2)
Employment Average weekly
wage(3)
Establishments,
first quarter
State 2004 Percent Percent
(thousands) March change, Average change,
2004 March weekly first
(thousands) 2003-04 wage quarter
2003-04
United States(4)......... 8,367.2 127,778.5 0.8 $758 3.8
Alabama.................. 113.0 1,835.1 0.9 626 2.3
Alaska................... 20.0 285.1 1.0 732 3.5
Arizona.................. 127.4 2,340.1 2.5 682 4.3
Arkansas................. 75.7 1,128.5 1.4 563 3.3
California............... 1,214.0 14,873.5 1.1 854 4.4
Colorado................. 160.4 2,109.0 0.5 772 3.9
Connecticut.............. 109.3 1,614.6 0.1 1,042 6.4
Delaware................. 28.1 401.2 2.2 844 2.4
District of Columbia..... 30.2 654.7 0.8 1,221 7.2
Florida.................. 518.9 7,478.3 2.4 657 4.3
Georgia.................. 249.2 3,831.5 1.8 728 1.8
Hawaii................... 37.8 578.7 1.7 656 3.1
Idaho.................... 48.3 570.2 1.8 552 2.2
Illinois................. 326.3 5,614.6 -0.4 823 4.0
Indiana.................. 153.4 2,806.2 0.6 661 3.0
Iowa..................... 91.3 1,391.8 0.9 606 3.9
Kansas................... 81.4 1,280.5 0.2 621 2.3
Kentucky................. 105.8 1,711.9 0.8 623 3.1
Louisiana................ 115.0 1,862.1 0.9 602 3.6
Maine.................... 47.8 575.9 1.0 605 2.9
Maryland................. 151.7 2,431.7 1.3 816 5.3
Massachusetts............ 207.6 3,084.8 -0.6 954 6.0
Michigan................. 254.5 4,235.3 -0.8 771 1.2
Minnesota................ 157.3 2,526.8 -0.2 777 5.0
Mississippi.............. 65.9 1,100.0 0.9 533 2.1
Missouri................. 167.4 2,601.4 0.0 665 2.6
Montana.................. 42.1 392.2 2.0 515 4.7
Nebraska................. 54.8 866.9 0.6 595 2.8
Nevada................... 62.1 1,112.9 4.7 695 5.0
New Hampshire............ 46.6 602.2 1.7 725 3.7
New Jersey............... 265.1 3,843.8 1.1 945 3.3
New Mexico............... 50.8 749.6 1.8 584 3.4
New York................. 552.9 8,186.5 0.2 1,056 8.0
North Carolina........... 228.1 3,721.9 0.7 $670 2.9
North Dakota............. 24.0 312.2 1.6 541 4.2
Ohio..................... 291.4 5,211.6 0.1 691 1.6
Oklahoma................. 92.6 1,413.1 0.2 582 3.4
Oregon................... 120.9 1,560.1 1.1 675 3.5
Pennsylvania............. 333.3 5,439.2 0.4 736 3.2
Rhode Island............. 34.9 463.7 0.6 728 2.1
South Carolina........... 108.0 1,768.3 0.3 596 1.9
South Dakota............. 28.1 358.0 1.0 531 3.3
Tennessee................ 129.3 2,622.3 1.6 651 3.0
Texas.................... 506.8 9,244.0 0.6 737 3.9
Utah..................... 73.8 1,051.7 2.4 599 2.4
Vermont.................. 24.1 294.7 1.0 615 2.7
Virginia................. 204.9 3,443.9 2.3 772 4.6
Washington............... 206.5 2,633.1 1.3 757 2.0
West Virginia............ 47.6 675.9 1.2 569 1.4
Wisconsin................ 158.8 2,647.8 0.5 657 3.0
Wyoming.................. 22.1 239.3 3.4 583 4.1
Puerto Rico.............. 50.5 1,036.8 1.5 422 5.0
Virgin Islands........... 3.1 42.8 1.3 576 -1.9
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.