General Information: (312) 353-1880   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Paul LaPorte           Wednesday, May 23, 2007
               (312) 353-1138
http://www.bls.gov/ro5   


  AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES IN WISCONSIN COUNTIES:  THIRD QUARTER 2006

     The average weekly wage in Brown County increased 2.3 percent
from the third quarter of 2005 to the third quarter of 2006, the
largest advance among Wisconsin's seven counties with employment of
75,000 or more as measured by 2005 annual average employment.
Waukesha County had the second highest wage growth at 1.4 percent,
followed by Dane County at 0.8 percent.  Waukesha County had the
highest average weekly wage level in the State at $790, followed
closely by the counties of Dane ($784) and Milwaukee ($783).  (See
table A.)  Regional Commissioner Jay A. Mousa noted that among
Wisconsin's seven largest counties, two reported wage growth above
the national rate of 0.9 percent and three had wages comparable to or
above the national level of $784.

County Wage levels

     The average weekly wage levels in the counties of Waukesha,
Dane, Milwaukee, and Winnebago placed all four in the top half of the
national ranking among the 325 largest counties in the U.S.  Waukesha
County's wage ranked 107th, Dane's, 112th, Milwaukee's, 114th, and
Winnebago's, 162nd.  While these counties were in the top half of the
national wage rankings, only one (Waukesha) had wages above the
national average of $784.  Dane County's and Milwaukee County's
average weekly wage were near or equal to that of the nation.
     
     At the opposite end of the wage spectrum were Racine County,
which ranked 190th with average weekly wages of $715, and Brown
County, which ranked 207th with average weekly wages of $707.
Outagamie County reported the lowest average weekly wage among the
State's large counties at $680, ranking it 240th among the 325
largest counties nationwide.
     
     Across the country, average weekly wages were higher than the
national average in 111 of the largest 325 counties.  New York
County, N.Y., held the top position with an average weekly wage of
$1,421.  Santa Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage
of $1,414, followed by Arlington, Va. ($1,323); Washington, D.C.
($1,307); and San Mateo, Calif. ($1,278).  Three of the 10 counties
with the highest wages in the U.S. were located in the greater New
York metropolitan area (New York, N.Y.; Somerset, N.J.; and
Fairfield, Conn.), 3 others were located in or around the San
Francisco area (Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo, all in
California), while 3 more were located in or around the Washington
D.C. metropolitan area (Arlington, Va.; Washington, D.C.; and
Fairfax, Va.).  Rounding out the top 10 was Suffolk County, Mass.,
part of the Boston metropolitan area.
     
     Nationwide there were 212 counties with an average weekly wage
below the national average in the third quarter of 2006.  The lowest
average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($493),
followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($514); Horry, S.C.
($517); Webb, Texas ($525); and Yakima, Wash. ($537).
     
Table A.  Covered 1/ employment and wages in the United States and the 7 largest
counties in Wisconsin, third quarter 2006 2/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                         |             |          Average weekly wage 3/          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                  
                         |             |        |           |  Percent  |National
                         | Employment  |Average |National   |  change   | ranking 
      Area               |September2006| weekly |ranking by | third qtr.|by percent
                         | (thousands) |  wage  |level 4/   | 2005-06 5/| change 4/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------						
			 |		  
United States (6)	 |   134,988.9	  $784	      -- 	 0.9	     --
                      	 |               	         		     	  
 Wisconsin	         |     2,800.8	   687        31   	  .1	     42    
			 |		
  Brown, Wis.	         |       149.2	   707       207   	 2.3	     55
  Dane, Wis.	         |       299.4	   784       112   	  .8	    140
  Milwaukee, Wis.        |       497.2	   783       114   	  .4	    173
  Outagamie, Wis.        |       102.5	   680       240   	  .4	    173
  Racine, Wis.	         |        76.9	   715       190   	-2.6	    304
  Waukesha, Wis.	 |       235.8	   790       107   	 1.4	     94
  Winnebago, Wis.        |        89.1	   737       162   	  .0	    203
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------		
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/ Ranking does not include the county of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
5/ Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted 
   for noneconomic county reclassifications.
6/ Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin
   Islands.	

County Wage Changes

     Two of Wisconsin's seven large counties recorded wage growth
above the national increase of 0.9 percent in the third quarter of
2006.  (See table A.)  As previously mentioned, Brown County's 2.3-
percent wage gain was the largest increase in the State, ranking 55th
in the nation.  The average weekly wage in Waukesha County increased
1.4 percent, ranking it 94th in wage growth among the 325 large
counties nationwide.

     Racine County had the State's only wage decline, with a drop of
2.6 percent.  This placed Racine 304th among the nation's largest
counties.  Wages in the State's remaining four counties showed little
or no change from the third quarter of 2005.  (See table A.)  Among
these four was Milwaukee County, the largest county in the State
based on employment, where average weekly wages rose 0.4 percent over
the year, placing it in the bottom half of the national ranking in
173rd place.

     Among the largest counties in the nation, Kent, R.I., led the
nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 18.4
percent from the third quarter of 2005.  Over the year Orleans, La.,
was second with 16.2 percent growth, followed by the counties of
Trumbull, Ohio (12.3 percent), and Jefferson, La., and Jefferson,
Texas (10.5 percent each).  The high average weekly wage growth rate
for Orleans County was related to the disproportionate job losses in
lower-paid industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina.  That
is, the loss of low paid jobs due to the storm boosted average wages
in Orleans County.

     Over the year, 112 large counties experienced declines in
average weekly wages.  The largest decreases were in Passaic, N.J. (-
10.2 percent) and Williamson, Texas (-5.7 percent), followed by Fort
Bend, Texas (-5.0 percent); Loudoun, Va. (-4.2 percent); and Ventura,
Calif. (-4.0 percent).

State Average Weekly Wages

     At the state level, the average weekly wage in Wisconsin was
$687, $97 below the nationwide figure, ranking 31st highest among the
50 states and the District of Columbia.  (See table 1.)  The five
highest wage levels in the nation were in the District of Columbia
($1,307), Connecticut ($957), Massachusetts and New York ($950 each),
and New Jersey ($931).  Average weekly wages in these jurisdictions
were at least 18.8 percent higher than that for the nation, and wages
in Washington, D.C. were 66.7 percent above the national level.  At
the other end of the scale, three states had average earnings of less
than 80 percent of the national average:  South Dakota ($571),
Montana ($581), and Mississippi ($585).

     Wisconsin experienced wage growth of 0.1 percent from the third
quarter of 2005 to the third quarter of 2006, ranking 42nd among the
50 states and District of Columbia.  Among the five states in the
East North Central region, Wisconsin's percentage gain placed fourth,
behind Illinois (0.7 percent), Michigan and Ohio (0.3 percent each),
but ahead of Indiana (-0.3 percent).  (See table 1.)  The highest
over-the-year wage gains in the third quarter of 2006 were recorded
by Wyoming (10.0 percent), Louisiana (7.1 percent) and New Mexico
(4.0 percent).  Four states had wage losses with Connecticut (-0.9
percent) experiencing the largest decline.  Notably, this decline did
not change Connecticut's high wage level standing among the 50 states
and the District of Columbia.  Its ranking was second in the third
quarter of 2005 and, as mentioned earlier, it still ranked second in
the third quarter of 2006.
     
     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 employers subject to state and federal unemployment insurance (UI)
laws.  The 8.8 million employer reports cover 135.0 million full- and
part-time workers.  The average weekly values are calculated by
dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly
employment levels of those covered by UI programs.  The result is
then divided by 13, the number of weeks in a quarter.  It is to be
noted, therefore, that over-the-year wage changes for geographic
areas may reflect shifts in the composition of employment by
industry, occupation, and such other factors as hours of work.  Thus,
wages may vary among counties, metropolitan areas, or states for
reasons other than changes in the average wage level.  Data for all
states, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), counties, and the
nation are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/;
however, data in QCEW press releases have been revised (see Technical
Note below) and may not match the data contained on the Bureau's Web
site.

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
will also be the first to include the data on a CD for enhanced
access and usability.  As a result of this change, the printed
booklet will contain only selected graphic representation of QCEW
data; the data tables themselves will be published exclusively in
electronic formats as PDF and fixed-width text files.  Employment and
Wages Annual Averages, 2005 is now available for sale from the United
States Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents.  On-
line ordering information is available at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/.
The 2005 bulletin is available in a portable document format (PDF) on
the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn05.htm.
     
     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.

     For personal assistance or further information on the Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages Program, as well as other Bureau
programs, contact the Midwest Information Office in Chicago at (312)
353-1880 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. CT     
        
---------------------------------------------------------------------
                          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 reflected in the September
QCEW employment counts and 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 third quarter of 2006.  For more information, see the QCEW
section of the Katrina coverage on the BLS Web site
(http://www.bls.gov/katrina/qcewquestions.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------                                  
                                  
                                  
                           TECHNICAL NOTE

     QCEW data are the sums of individual establishment records
reflecting the number of establishments that exist in a county or
industry at a point in time.  For this reason, county and industry
data are not designed to be used as a time series.

     The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ
from data released by the individual states as well as from the data
presented on the BLS Web site.  The potential differences result from
several causes.  Differences between BLS and state published data may
be due to the continuing receipt, review and editing of UI data over
time.  On the other hand, differences between data in this release
and the data found on the BLS Web site are the result of adjustments
made to improve over-the-year comparisons.  Specifically, these
adjustments account for administrative (noneconomic) changes such as
a correction to a previously reported location or industry
classification.  Adjusting for these administrative changes allows
users to more accurately assess changes of an economic nature (such
as a firm moving from one county to another or changing its primary
economic activity) over a 12-month period.  Currently, adjusted data
are available only from BLS press releases.
 

 Table 1.  Covered 1/ employment and wages by state, third quarter 2006 2/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
                         |              |          Average weekly wage 3/          
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                  
                         |              |        |           | Percent   |National
                         |  Employment  |Average |National   |  change   | ranking 
      Area               |September 2006| weekly |ranking by |third qtr. |by percent
                         | (thousands)  |  wage  |level 4/   | 2005-06   | change 4/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------					
United States (4)	 |  134,988.90	|   $784        -	  0.9        -
			 |		|
 Alabama	         |     1,938.9	|    682       34	  1.9	     13
 Alaska	                 |       324.8	|    798       13	   .1	     42
 Arizona	         |     2,629.0	|    753       20	  1.1	     21
 Arkansas	         |     1,183.9	|    603       46	   .7	     26
 California	         |    15,655.0	|    892        6	   .6	     31
 Colorado	         |     2,260.1	|    819       11	  1.4	     16
 Connecticut	         |     1,680.7	|    957        2	  -.9	     51
 Delaware	         |       424.6	|    850        8	  3.4	      6
 District of Columbia	 |       674.2	|  1,307        1	  3.6	      5
 Florida	         |     7,941.7	|    713       26	   .7	     26
 Georgia	         |     4,039.3	|    752       21	   .5	     34
 Hawaii	                 |       621.2	|    722       24	  1.1	     21
 Idaho	                 |       661.2	|    613       45	  1.3	     19
 Illinois	         |     5,883.6	|    831        9	   .7	     26
 Indiana	         |     2,922.7	|    687       31	  -.3	     49
 Iowa	                 |     1,480.7	|    641       41	   .0	     44
 Kansas	                 |     1,347.3	|    662       36	   .6	     31
 Kentucky	         |     1,795.1	|    656       38	   .6	     31
 Louisiana	         |     1,835.7  |    683       33	  7.1	      2
 Maine	                 |       610.2	|    636       42	   .8	     25
 Maryland	         |     2,545.0	|    858        7	   .5	     34
 Massachusetts	         |     3,228.1  |    950        3	   .3	     37
 Michigan	         |     4,278.9  |    790       14	   .3	     37
 Minnesota	         |     2,685.1	|    784       16	  -.6	     50
 Mississippi	         |     1,134.3	|    585       49	  2.1	     11
 Missouri	         |     2,725.1	|    691       30	   .0	     44
 Montana	         |       434.4	|    581       50	  3.0	      8
 Nebraska	         |       906.9	|    633       43	   .0	     44
 Nevada	                 |     1,287.6	|    751       22	   .0	     44
 New Hampshire	         |       634.9	|    774       17	   .3	     37
 New Jersey	         |     3,984.7	|    931        5	   .3	     37
 New Mexico	         |       826.1	|    654       39	  4.0	      3
 New York	         |     8,471.7	|    950        3	  1.1	     21
 North Carolina	         |     3,982.6	|    700       28	  1.6	     15
 North Dakota	         |       342.2	|    589       48	  1.4	     16
 Ohio	                 |     5,350.9	|    725       23	   .3	     37
 Oklahoma	         |     1,517.6	|    633       43	  3.3	      7
 Oregon	                 |     1,729.2	|    719       25	   .7	     26
 Pennsylvania	         |     5,644.8	|    768       18	   .5	     34
 Rhode Island	         |       490.8	|    763       19	  3.7	      4
 South Carolina	         |     1,866.0	|    642       40	  1.1	     21
 South Dakota	         |       389.6	|    571       51	   .7	     26
 Tennessee	         |     2,761.1	|    698       29	  1.2	     20
 Texas	                 |    10,019.0	|    786       15	  2.5	     10
 Utah	                 |     1,188.7	|    660       37	  2.0	     12
 Vermont	         |       305.8	|    672       35	  1.4	     16
 Virginia	         |     3,649.5	|    815       12	  -.1	     48
 Washington	         |     2,911.9	|    823       10	  2.7	      9
 West Virginia	         |       711.8	|    599       47	  1.7	     14
 Wisconsin	         |     2,800.8	|    687       31	   .1	     42
 Wyoming	         |       274.1	|    706       27	 10.0	      1
 Puerto Rico	         |     1,020.9	|    439      (5)	  1.2	    (5)
 Virgin Islands	         |        43.2	|    692      (5)	 12.5	    (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment
    Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.					
(2) Data are preliminary.
(3) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
(4) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin 
    Islands.
(5) Data not included in the national ranking.					
				

Last Modified Date: May 23, 2007