Technical information: (202) 691-6567 USDL 04-599 http://www.bls.gov/cew/ For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT Media contact: 691-5902 Tuesday, April 6, 2004 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: THIRD QUARTER 2003 In September 2003, Manatee County, Fla., had the biggest 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. Manatee County, Fla., experi- enced an over-the-year employment gain of 5.7 percent, compared with a na- tional decline of 0.4 percent. Arapahoe County, Colo., had the biggest over- the-year gain in average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2003, with an increase of 13.0 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.1 per- cent over the same time span. Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 175 had rates of over- the-year employment growth above the national average in September 2003, and 129 experienced declines in employment greater than the national average. Av- erage weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 149 of the larg- est U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 159 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. These 8.3 million employer reports cover 128.5 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables contain data for the nation and for the 315 U.S. coun- ties with employment levels of 75,000 or more. In addition, data for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S averages, or in the analysis in the text. (See Technical Note.) September 2003 em- ployment and 2003 third-quarter average weekly wages for all states are pro- vided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, MSAs, counties, and the nation through the second quarter of 2003 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the third quarter of 2003 and revised data for the first and second quarters of 2003 will be available later in April on the BLS Web site. Large County Employment The national employment total in September 2003 was 128.5 million, which was 0.4 percent lower than in September 2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.3 percent of total U.S. covered employment, 76.3 percent of total wages, and 87.4 percent of the net over- the-year employment decline from September 2002. The biggest gains in em- ployment from September 2002 to September 2003 were recorded in the counties of Clark, Nev. (33,913), Orange, Calif. (23,920), Riverside, Calif. (20,393), San Bernardino, Calif. (17,111), and Maricopa, Ariz. (17,005). (See table A.) - 2 - Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by September 2003 employment, September 2002-03 employment change, and September 2002-03 percent change in employment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | September 2003 employment | Net change in employment, | Percent change (thousands) | September 2002-03 | in employment, | (thousands) | September 2002-03 ---------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------- U.S. 128,546.3|U.S. -494.3|U.S. -0.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles, Calif. 4,007.2|Clark, Nev. 33.9|Manatee, Fla. 5.7 Cook, Ill. 2,529.5|Orange, Calif. 23.9|Lee, Fla. 5.4 New York, N.Y. 2,184.9|Riverside, Calif. 20.4|Loudoun, Va. 5.4 Harris, Texas 1,823.7|San Bernardino, Calif. 17.1|Gloucester, N.J. 4.6 Maricopa, Ariz. 1,571.3|Maricopa, Ariz. 17.0|Clark, Nev. 4.4 Dallas, Texas 1,438.9|San Diego, Calif. 15.1|Okaloosa, Fla. 4.4 Orange, Calif. 1,426.5|Fairfax, Va. 10.6|Placer, Calif. 4.3 San Diego, Calif. 1,256.7|Lee, Fla. 10.0|Hidalgo, Texas 4.0 King, Wash. 1,095.4|Collin, Texas 7.6|Rutherford, Tenn. 3.9 Miami-Dade, Fla. 965.2|Hidalgo, Texas 7.3|Pasco, Fla. 3.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manatee County, Fla., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (5.7 percent), followed by the counties of Lee, Fla., and Loudoun, Va. (5.4 percent each), Gloucester, N.J. (4.6 percent), and Clark, Nev., and Okaloosa, Fla. (4.4 percent each). (See table 1.) Employment declined in 163 counties from September 2002 to September 2003. The largest percentage decline in employment was in Sangamon County, Ill. (-4.9 percent), followed by the counties of San Mateo, Calif. (-4.8 percent), Santa Clara, Calif., and Somerset, N.J. (-4.7 percent each), and Tulsa, Okla. (-4.1 percent). The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-48,520), followed by the counties of Dallas, Texas (-45,675), Los Angeles, Calif. (-45,503), Cook, Ill. (-38,500), and New York, N.Y. (-36,415). Large County Average Weekly Wages The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2003 was $704, which was 3.1 percent higher than in the third quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 120 of the largest 315 U.S. counties. Santa Clara County, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,269. New York County, N.Y., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,239, followed by Somerset, N.J. ($1,152), San Mateo, Calif. ($1,127), and Washington, D.C. ($1,123). (See table B.) Arapahoe County, Colo., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 13.0 percent. Somerset County, N.J., was second with 11.6 percent growth, followed by the counties of Kalamazoo, Mich. (11.5 per- cent), Olmsted, Minn. (10.6 percent), and Ventura, Calif. (9.2 percent). - 3 - Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by third quarter 2003 average weekly wages, third quarter 2002-03 change in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2002-03 percent change in average weekly wages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weekly wage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Average weekly wage, | Change in average weekly | Percent change in third quarter 2003 | wage, third quarter | average weekly wage, | 2002-03 | third quarter 2002-03 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. $704|U.S. $21|U.S. 3.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Santa Clara, Calif. $1,269|Somerset, N.J. $120|Arapahoe, Colo. 13.0 New York, N.Y. 1,239|Arapahoe, Colo. 108|Somerset, N.J. 11.6 Somerset, N.J. 1,152|Santa Clara, Calif. 91|Kalamazoo, Mich. 11.5 San Mateo, Calif. 1,127|San Mateo, Calif. 79|Olmsted, Minn. 10.6 Washington, D.C. 1,123|Kalamazoo, Mich. 76|Ventura, Calif. 9.2 Arlington, Va. 1,109|Olmsted, Minn. 76|Rock Island, Ill. 7.7 Suffolk, Mass. 1,081|Ventura, Calif. 65|Santa Clara, Calif. 7.7 Fairfield, Conn. 1,066|Hudson, N.J. 60|San Mateo, Calif. 7.5 San Francisco, Calif. 1,065|Washington, D.C. 60|Okaloosa, Fla. 7.3 Fairfax, Va. 1,038|Fairfax, Va. 57|Hudson, N.J. 6.9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There were 194 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($448), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($455), Horry, S.C. ($476), Yakima, Wash. ($478), and Pasco, Fla. ($501). (See table 1.) Three counties experienced declines in average weekly wages. Hamilton County, Ind., had the largest decrease, -3.3 percent, followed by the coun- ties of Broome, N.Y. (-1.2 percent), and Vanderburgh, Ind. (-0.5 percent). Additionally, the average weekly wage in Brazoria County, Texas, was unchanged, while the average weekly wage in Onondaga County, N.Y., grew by 0.1 percent. Ten Largest U.S. Counties Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 employment levels), 4 re- ported increases in employment, while declines occurred in 6 from September 2002 to September 2003. Maricopa County, Ariz., and Orange County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a 1.1 percent increase each. Orange County showed employment gains in every private industry supersector except in manufacturing, information, and na- tural resources and mining. Maricopa County had a similar experience except that it also reported a decline in the other services supersector. Govern- ment employment in Maricopa County increased by 0.3 percent, whereas govern- ment employment in Orange County declined by 5.3 percent. (See table 2.) San Diego County, Calif., had the next largest increase, 0.9 percent. The larg- est decline in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, -2.4 percent. The next largest declines in employment were recorded in New York County, N.Y., and Harris County, Texas, -1.6 percent each. Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. King County, Wash., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 5.4 percent rate. King County's fastest growing supersectors were natural resources and mining, where the average weekly wage rose by 25.2 percent, and information with a 16.8 per- cent increase. Orange County, Calif., was second in wage growth, increasing by 5.3 percent, followed by San Diego County, Calif., where the average wage increased by 4.2 percent. Two Texas counties, Dallas and Harris, experienced the smallest increases in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, rising by only 2.4 percent each. This was followed by Cook County, Ill., with an increase in its average weekly wage of 2.7 percent. - 4 - Largest County by State Table 3 shows the September 2003 employment and the 2003 third-quarter average weekly wage in the largest county in each state. This table in- cludes two counties that have employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in September 2003 ranged from approximately 4 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,400 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,239), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($551). - 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 Employment Security Agencies (SESAs). 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 2003 are preliminary and subject to revision. 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 8.3 | 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 | | |--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 | traction by size | jor economic indi- | BLS establishment | of establishment | cators | survey | | -----------|---------------------|----------------------|-------------------------- 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 SESAs 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 wages 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 2002, UI and UCFE programs covered workers in 128.2 million jobs. The estimated 123.4 million workers in these jobs (after adjust- ment for multiple jobholders) represented 99.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $4.713 trillion in pay, representing 94.3 percent of the wage and salary component of personal income and 45.1 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. 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 from unrounded employment and wage values so the average wage values that can be calculated from data from this database may differ from the averages reported, due to rounding. 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 the final 2002 quarterly data as the base data. Final data for 2002 may differ from preliminary data published earlier. - 8 - In order to insure the highest possible quality of data, SESAs 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 the verification 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. For these reasons, some data, especi- ally at more detailed industry levels, may not be strictly comparable with earlier years. The 2002 third quarter data used to calculate the over-the- year changes presented in this release were adjusted for changes in county classification to make them comparable with data for the third quarter of 2003. As a result, the adjusted 2002 third quarter data differ to some extent from the data available on the BLS Web site. 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. Change in industry classification systems Beginning with the release of data for 2001 in 2002, publications pre- senting data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program use the 2002 version of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as the basis for the assignment and tabulation of economic data by industry. NAICS is the product of a cooperative effort on the part of the statistical agencies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The NAICS structure is significantly different from that of the 1987 Standard Indus- trial Classification (SIC) system, which had been used for industry classification purposes until 2002. Due to the differences in NAICS and SIC structures, industry data for 2001 are not comparable with the SIC- based data for earlier years. NAICS uses a production-oriented approach to categorize economic units. Units with similar production processes are classified in the same industry. NAICS focuses on how products and services are created, as opposed to the SIC focus on what is produced. This approach yields significantly different industry groupings than those produced by the SIC approach. Data users will be able to work with new NAICS industrial groupings that better reflect the workings of the U.S. economy. For example, a new industry sector called information brings together units which turn infor- mation into a commodity with units which distribute that commodity. Infor- mation's major components are publishing, broadcasting, telecommunications, information services, and data processing. Under the SIC system, these units were spread across the manufacturing, communications, business services, and amusement services groups. Another new sector of interest is professional and technical services. This sector is comprised of establishments engaged in activities where human capital is the major input. - 9 - Users interested in more information about NAICS can access the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web page (http://www.bls.gov/bls/naics.htm) and the U.S. Census Bureau Web page (http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html). The NAICS 2002 manual is available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Web page (http://www.ntis.gov/). 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 bulletin is now available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn02.htm. News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 202-691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/); (e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov). Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339. Table 1. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties, third quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wage(5) Establishments, third quarter Percent Percent County(3) 2003 September change, Ranking Average change, Ranking (thousands) 2003 September by weekly third by (thousands) 2002-03 percent wage quarter percent (4) change 2002-03 change (4) United States(6)......... 8,291.0 128,546.3 -0.4 - $704 3.1 - Jefferson, AL............ 18.2 368.9 -0.4 176 712 2.3 220 Madison, AL.............. 7.6 160.8 3.6 13 753 3.4 125 Mobile, AL............... 9.5 161.8 -0.4 176 585 2.3 220 Montgomery, AL........... 6.4 129.6 0.2 136 606 3.6 109 Tuscaloosa, AL........... 4.0 76.0 -0.4 176 599 2.2 228 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.6 143.4 1.9 48 775 3.2 145 Maricopa, AZ............. 80.4 1,571.3 1.1 77 699 3.4 125 Pima, AZ................. 17.5 329.0 0.8 100 615 3.9 84 Benton, AR............... 4.0 82.5 2.1 40 651 3.3 140 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.1 240.5 1.0 82 635 3.1 151 Washington, AR........... 4.8 85.3 0.9 91 562 4.3 62 Alameda, CA.............. 47.9 679.0 -2.7 302 934 4.5 57 Contra Costa, CA......... 27.5 334.8 -1.7 267 874 3.6 109 Fresno, CA............... 28.7 349.4 -2.2 283 570 4.0 79 Kern, CA................. 15.6 257.6 0.5 116 602 4.7 47 Los Angeles, CA.......... 349.2 4,007.2 -0.6 190 792 3.7 100 Marin, CA................ 11.8 110.3 -0.8 210 870 3.6 109 Monterey, CA............. 11.7 176.0 -0.7 198 616 2.3 220 Orange, CA............... 88.1 1,426.5 1.1 77 812 5.3 23 Placer, CA............... 9.1 125.6 4.3 7 708 2.9 170 Riverside, CA............ 36.2 534.4 2.9 21 602 3.6 109 Sacramento, CA........... 45.5 599.6 0.3 131 799 3.8 90 San Bernardino, CA....... 39.9 573.0 2.6 27 627 3.3 140 San Diego, CA............ 84.4 1,256.7 0.9 91 761 4.2 66 San Francisco, CA........ 43.5 534.6 -1.6 257 1,065 0.5 309 San Joaquin, CA.......... 15.3 218.6 0.9 91 628 3.8 90 San Luis Obispo, CA...... 8.6 100.6 0.6 110 585 3.2 145 San Mateo, CA............ 22.9 325.4 -4.8 314 1,127 7.5 8 Santa Barbara, CA........ 13.0 178.6 -0.3 170 679 5.8 15 Santa Clara, CA.......... 51.4 848.7 -4.7 312 1,269 7.7 6 Santa Cruz, CA........... 8.3 101.1 -0.8 210 682 5.2 25 Solano, CA............... 9.2 127.3 -0.6 190 675 5.3 23 Sonoma, CA............... 17.0 189.3 -3.8 308 713 2.7 186 Stanislaus, CA........... 12.9 174.1 -1.1 235 610 4.5 57 Tulare, CA............... 8.8 140.2 0.2 136 505 5.0 31 Ventura, CA.............. 20.3 299.5 0.5 116 769 9.2 5 Yolo, CA................. 5.0 97.8 (7) - 696 3.3 140 Adams, CO................ 8.6 141.2 -3.0 305 686 1.5 272 Arapahoe, CO............. 18.9 270.5 -1.9 274 941 13.0 1 Boulder, CO.............. 11.8 151.2 -2.5 290 863 4.6 53 Denver, CO............... 24.3 424.6 -3.1 306 863 4.1 72 El Paso, CO.............. 15.6 234.5 -0.6 190 678 2.9 170 Jefferson, CO............ 18.0 203.2 -1.8 270 741 3.6 109 Larimer, CO.............. 9.1 121.9 -1.3 244 668 3.2 145 Fairfield, CT............ 31.8 411.5 -0.3 170 1,066 4.3 62 Hartford, CT............. 24.2 479.5 -1.5 252 857 2.0 242 New Haven, CT............ 21.9 354.3 -2.4 288 782 3.7 100 New London, CT........... 6.6 129.7 1.0 82 730 1.5 272 New Castle, DE........... 17.8 278.7 0.7 106 839 4.1 72 Washington, DC........... 29.7 650.1 -0.4 176 1,123 5.6 19 Alachua, FL.............. 5.7 122.4 2.2 36 537 4.1 72 Brevard, FL.............. 12.1 187.1 2.5 29 669 4.2 66 Broward, FL.............. 56.1 679.8 0.9 91 669 5.2 25 Collier, FL.............. 10.1 111.9 2.8 23 621 4.9 38 Duval, FL................ 21.6 426.5 1.2 73 691 5.7 18 Escambia, FL............. 7.1 121.8 3.0 17 566 3.7 100 Hillsborough, FL......... 30.3 594.4 1.3 71 670 5.0 31 Lee, FL.................. 14.4 183.7 5.4 2 598 4.7 47 Leon, FL................. 7.1 141.4 1.5 62 607 3.4 125 Manatee, FL.............. 6.6 113.3 5.7 1 545 2.3 220 Marion, FL............... 6.1 86.3 3.7 11 522 3.4 125 Miami-Dade, FL........... 79.9 965.2 0.1 151 682 (7) - Okaloosa, FL............. 4.9 81.0 4.4 5 556 7.3 9 Orange, FL............... 28.7 602.4 1.3 71 647 3.0 156 Palm Beach, FL........... 42.1 500.1 0.4 123 696 1.6 267 Pasco, FL................ 7.2 81.3 3.8 10 501 4.8 41 Pinellas, FL............. 27.8 427.2 2.7 25 618 2.7 186 Polk, FL................. 10.0 178.5 -0.2 164 577 4.2 66 Sarasota, FL............. 12.5 147.5 -0.9 216 584 6.6 11 Seminole, FL............. 11.6 147.2 1.0 82 625 1.6 267 Volusia, FL.............. 11.4 150.4 2.4 32 521 3.4 125 Bibb, GA................. 4.8 85.8 1.1 77 595 1.0 293 Chatham, GA.............. 7.0 125.2 2.0 43 604 2.2 228 Clayton, GA.............. 4.4 109.2 -3.1 306 766 4.6 53 Cobb, GA................. 19.8 299.1 0.7 106 778 3.7 100 De Kalb, GA.............. 17.1 294.4 -0.4 176 773 4.3 62 Fulton, GA............... 37.7 725.3 -0.9 216 913 1.8 257 Gwinnett, GA............. 21.3 294.6 1.5 62 766 3.5 121 Muscogee, GA............. 4.8 96.3 1.8 52 571 2.3 220 Richmond, GA............. 4.8 105.2 2.2 36 602 4.5 57 Honolulu, HI............. 24.3 414.3 0.8 100 673 3.4 125 Ada, ID.................. 12.9 183.7 0.5 116 646 1.9 252 Champaign, IL............ 4.0 90.2 -1.0 226 624 1.1 290 Cook, IL................. 126.0 2,529.5 -1.2 240 835 2.7 186 Du Page, IL.............. 32.2 564.6 -0.9 216 836 2.6 197 Kane, IL................. 10.7 198.9 0.9 91 664 2.0 242 Lake, IL................. 18.6 324.0 0.4 123 839 1.8 257 McHenry, IL.............. 7.2 93.8 0.1 151 648 3.5 121 McLean, IL............... 3.3 85.4 -1.0 226 691 2.7 186 Madison, IL.............. 5.6 95.4 -1.0 226 583 2.5 201 Peoria, IL............... 4.5 96.6 -2.5 290 659 2.5 201 Rock Island, IL.......... 3.4 78.5 -2.0 277 701 7.7 6 St. Clair, IL............ 5.0 93.0 1.9 48 576 2.1 238 Sangamon, IL............. 5.1 135.6 -4.9 315 729 1.5 272 Will, IL................. 10.3 156.2 2.5 29 679 3.0 156 Winnebago, IL............ 6.6 137.2 -0.9 216 625 2.5 201 Allen, IN................ 8.6 178.2 -2.1 278 642 2.6 197 Elkhart, IN.............. 4.8 118.0 1.0 82 623 1.5 272 Hamilton, IN............. 5.9 86.0 3.2 15 722 -3.3 314 Lake, IN................. 9.8 193.6 0.2 136 642 3.9 84 Marion, IN............... 23.6 572.0 -0.7 198 738 2.8 176 St. Joseph, IN........... 6.0 123.0 -1.0 226 613 2.0 242 Vanderburgh, IN.......... 4.8 109.0 0.3 131 595 -0.5 312 Linn, IA................. 5.9 115.1 -1.2 240 684 4.1 72 Polk, IA................. 13.7 261.5 0.2 136 709 3.5 121 Scott, IA................ 5.0 84.5 -0.2 164 588 2.4 211 Johnson, KS.............. 18.7 290.6 0.0 153 736 3.4 125 Sedgwick, KS............. 11.7 238.5 -1.6 257 648 0.6 307 Shawnee, KS.............. 4.8 96.7 -1.7 267 600 2.0 242 Wyandotte, KS............ 3.2 75.5 -3.9 310 715 3.0 156 Fayette, KY.............. 8.7 165.3 -0.4 176 657 2.5 201 Jefferson, KY............ 21.3 416.9 -0.9 216 685 3.6 109 Caddo, LA................ 7.2 119.7 0.2 136 580 2.5 201 Calcasieu, LA............ 4.6 80.2 -2.5 290 578 2.5 201 East Baton Rouge, LA..... 13.3 244.0 1.9 48 608 2.4 211 Jefferson, LA............ 14.2 211.0 0.2 136 585 2.3 220 Lafayette, LA............ 7.5 118.8 0.2 136 628 2.8 176 Orleans, LA.............. 13.0 248.7 0.2 136 673 5.5 21 Cumberland, ME........... 11.1 169.1 0.5 116 636 2.7 186 Anne Arundel, MD......... 13.0 207.4 0.9 91 738 3.7 100 Baltimore, MD............ 19.8 357.0 -0.2 164 739 5.9 13 Frederick, MD............ 5.2 87.1 3.0 17 668 3.7 100 Howard, MD............... 7.5 136.5 2.4 32 802 1.9 252 Montgomery, MD........... 30.5 450.6 0.2 136 897 5.0 31 Prince Georges, MD....... 14.5 313.4 0.9 91 774 2.2 228 Baltimore City, MD....... 13.9 366.2 -0.9 216 813 3.8 90 Barnstable, MA........... 9.1 99.5 1.6 58 607 4.5 57 Bristol, MA.............. 14.8 219.5 0.0 153 632 2.3 220 Essex, MA................ 20.3 295.8 -2.1 278 777 5.1 29 Hampden, MA.............. 13.5 200.1 -2.5 290 663 3.4 125 Middlesex, MA............ 47.2 787.0 -2.7 302 996 4.1 72 Norfolk, MA.............. 21.5 317.9 -1.6 257 872 4.7 47 Plymouth, MA............. 13.2 172.0 0.2 136 688 3.6 109 Suffolk, MA.............. 22.1 560.7 -2.9 304 1,081 3.9 84 Worcester, MA............ 19.9 317.3 -0.6 190 738 3.5 121 Genesee, MI.............. 8.6 153.9 -2.6 297 697 0.9 296 Ingham, MI............... 7.1 171.4 -1.6 257 (7) (7) - Kalamazoo, MI............ 5.5 116.3 -1.2 240 738 11.5 3 Kent, MI................. 14.4 329.6 -2.6 297 689 4.1 72 Macomb, MI............... 18.0 322.5 -1.0 226 783 1.3 286 Oakland, MI.............. 41.5 723.7 -2.2 283 861 1.4 278 Ottawa, MI............... 5.7 111.7 -2.6 297 646 3.0 156 Saginaw, MI.............. 4.6 91.6 -1.8 270 674 2.0 242 Washtenaw, MI............ 8.1 192.8 -1.4 249 826 3.8 90 Wayne, MI................ 35.3 805.9 -1.5 252 825 2.0 242 Anoka, MN................ 7.4 111.9 0.8 100 700 1.9 252 Dakota, MN............... 9.6 165.4 1.4 65 719 3.8 90 Hennepin, MN............. 41.3 820.5 -1.3 244 911 5.6 19 Olmsted, MN.............. 3.3 86.9 1.5 62 791 10.6 4 Ramsey, MN............... 15.1 328.1 -0.6 190 795 2.7 186 St. Louis, MN............ 5.7 93.0 -2.3 285 620 2.8 176 Stearns, MN.............. 4.1 76.5 -1.3 244 575 1.2 289 Harrison, MS............. 4.5 90.4 2.6 27 521 2.2 228 Hinds, MS................ 6.6 131.4 0.0 153 626 3.8 90 Boone, MO................ 4.2 76.3 -0.9 216 569 2.5 201 Clay, MO................. 4.8 86.2 -0.6 190 666 3.7 100 Greene, MO............... 7.9 145.1 1.2 73 567 2.0 242 Jackson, MO.............. 18.7 365.5 -2.6 297 724 1.7 264 St. Charles, MO.......... 7.0 107.6 1.9 48 614 3.4 125 St. Louis, MO............ 33.8 620.7 -1.8 270 768 4.1 72 St. Louis City, MO....... 8.4 230.2 -2.6 297 782 2.8 176 Douglas, NE.............. 14.9 310.4 -0.9 216 679 3.8 90 Lancaster, NE............ 7.4 149.6 0.0 153 597 1.5 272 Clark, NV................ 35.5 766.1 4.4 5 670 4.9 38 Washoe, NV............... 11.9 199.6 2.9 21 694 4.0 79 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.1 192.4 2.0 43 779 4.0 79 Rockingham, NH........... 10.5 132.5 -0.4 176 682 1.0 293 Atlantic, NJ............. 6.4 147.3 2.0 43 648 3.7 100 Bergen, NJ............... 34.0 448.6 0.4 123 884 4.0 79 Burlington, NJ........... 11.0 195.7 2.4 32 760 2.0 242 Camden, NJ............... 13.2 205.1 1.8 52 720 3.6 109 Essex, NJ................ 21.2 356.7 -0.7 198 908 3.8 90 Gloucester, NJ........... 5.9 97.3 4.6 4 643 1.1 290 Hudson, NJ............... 13.7 233.6 -1.4 249 931 6.9 10 Mercer, NJ............... 10.4 219.5 2.5 29 921 1.0 293 Middlesex, NJ............ 20.4 391.1 -1.0 226 911 4.2 66 Monmouth, NJ............. 19.6 248.4 2.0 43 756 0.9 296 Morris, NJ............... 17.5 279.4 0.6 110 1,007 3.8 90 Ocean, NJ................ 11.4 144.8 1.7 55 602 3.3 140 Passaic, NJ.............. 12.4 174.7 -0.4 176 757 1.7 264 Somerset, NJ............. 9.8 164.4 -4.7 312 1,152 11.6 2 Union, NJ................ 14.9 240.5 2.7 25 890 2.1 238 Bernalillo, NM........... 16.6 312.2 0.2 136 646 2.5 201 Albany, NY............... 9.4 227.3 -0.5 186 754 4.0 79 Bronx, NY................ 15.2 212.4 -1.6 257 707 2.9 170 Broome, NY............... 4.4 94.6 -2.5 290 579 -1.2 313 Dutchess, NY............. 7.5 113.9 -0.3 170 733 5.0 31 Erie, NY................. 23.2 453.7 -0.2 164 631 3.4 125 Kings, NY................ 41.3 437.1 -0.2 164 643 3.2 145 Monroe, NY............... 17.6 383.0 -0.4 176 713 0.6 307 Nassau, NY............... 49.9 594.5 0.8 100 785 3.6 109 New York, NY............. 111.7 2,184.9 -1.6 257 1,239 3.2 145 Oneida, NY............... 5.3 107.7 -0.5 186 560 3.3 140 Onondaga, NY............. 12.5 246.0 -1.1 235 669 0.1 310 Orange, NY............... 9.0 124.9 0.3 131 606 4.7 47 Queens, NY............... 39.6 471.7 -1.0 226 735 2.9 170 Richmond, NY............. 7.8 86.6 0.0 153 666 1.4 278 Rockland, NY............. 9.1 110.0 -0.1 160 744 1.4 278 Suffolk, NY.............. 46.6 591.7 0.6 110 763 3.0 156 Westchester, NY.......... 34.7 402.1 -0.2 164 897 4.7 47 Buncombe, NC............. 6.7 105.8 2.1 40 562 2.0 242 Catawba, NC.............. 4.3 85.7 -3.8 308 548 1.3 286 Cumberland, NC........... 5.6 109.0 1.6 58 554 1.8 257 Durham, NC............... 6.1 162.0 -0.3 170 928 3.7 100 Forsyth, NC.............. 8.3 175.3 -0.7 198 708 5.0 31 Guilford, NC............. 13.6 264.7 -0.7 198 656 2.8 176 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 27.1 502.6 -1.3 244 824 5.0 31 New Hanover, NC.......... 6.2 89.0 0.8 100 570 2.7 186 Wake, NC................. 22.8 383.7 1.4 65 712 0.8 300 Cass, ND................. 5.1 86.6 1.6 58 587 4.6 53 Butler, OH............... 6.9 129.5 0.2 136 640 2.2 228 Cuyahoga, OH............. 39.0 764.8 -1.1 235 739 3.4 125 Franklin, OH............. 29.9 687.1 -1.1 235 714 1.4 278 Hamilton, OH............. 25.4 547.5 0.3 131 764 0.7 305 Lake, OH................. 6.8 98.0 0.2 136 611 0.7 305 Lorain, OH............... 6.3 101.6 0.7 106 616 1.1 290 Lucas, OH................ 11.0 225.3 -1.9 274 662 2.0 242 Mahoning, OH............. 6.6 105.7 -0.7 198 553 1.8 257 Montgomery, OH........... 13.4 286.9 -1.6 257 681 2.4 211 Stark, OH................ 9.1 167.2 -2.5 290 576 1.4 278 Summit, OH............... 14.9 263.2 -0.7 198 680 3.8 90 Trumbull, OH............. 4.9 86.7 -1.9 274 643 2.6 197 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.5 400.4 -1.8 270 625 5.0 31 Tulsa, OK................ 18.0 315.6 -4.1 311 634 2.8 176 Clackamas, OR............ 11.0 132.9 -0.9 216 671 4.2 66 Lane, OR................. 10.2 137.7 -2.1 278 579 3.0 156 Marion, OR............... 8.3 133.1 0.4 123 572 3.6 109 Multnomah, OR............ 25.4 418.9 -2.3 285 733 2.4 211 Washington, OR........... 14.0 220.2 -1.0 226 830 4.8 41 Allegheny, PA............ 36.0 692.1 -1.6 257 746 2.9 170 Berks, PA................ 8.8 161.3 -1.4 249 646 2.4 211 Bucks, PA................ 19.6 249.8 0.6 110 679 2.1 238 Chester, PA.............. 14.2 217.6 2.0 43 856 3.1 151 Cumberland, PA........... 5.5 124.1 -0.6 190 685 3.9 84 Dauphin, PA.............. 6.9 174.5 -0.7 198 700 2.2 228 Delaware, PA............. 13.9 206.8 -2.1 278 769 5.9 13 Erie, PA................. 7.1 125.7 -1.7 267 570 1.8 257 Lackawanna, PA........... 5.6 97.6 1.4 65 562 1.6 267 Lancaster, PA............ 11.5 221.6 0.3 131 628 3.1 151 Lehigh, PA............... 8.1 170.5 0.6 110 706 3.1 151 Luzerne, PA.............. 7.8 141.2 0.4 123 576 0.9 296 Montgomery, PA........... 27.3 475.5 -0.7 198 863 5.2 25 Northampton, PA.......... 5.9 91.9 0.9 91 631 2.3 220 Philadelphia, PA......... 27.5 649.2 -1.0 226 825 4.3 62 Westmoreland, PA......... 9.3 132.3 -1.5 252 576 2.7 186 York, PA................. 8.4 164.1 -0.5 186 641 3.4 125 Kent, RI................. 5.4 80.5 2.8 23 656 5.8 15 Providence, RI........... 17.3 289.2 0.4 123 695 3.0 156 Charleston, SC........... 13.1 186.9 1.4 65 600 3.4 125 Greenville, SC........... 13.4 221.0 -0.1 160 641 1.4 278 Horry, SC................ 8.7 104.0 3.0 17 476 1.9 252 Lexington, SC............ 6.1 83.0 0.9 91 551 3.0 156 Richland, SC............. 10.5 205.1 0.0 153 617 3.2 145 Spartanburg, SC.......... 7.0 116.7 1.0 82 625 1.3 286 Minnehaha, SD............ 5.9 108.1 0.5 116 591 2.8 176 Davidson, TN............. 17.9 428.6 1.4 65 707 3.4 125 Hamilton, TN............. 8.3 187.9 0.5 116 624 5.1 29 Knox, TN................. 10.2 210.4 1.1 77 616 4.8 41 Rutherford, TN........... 3.5 84.1 3.9 9 639 6.0 12 Shelby, TN............... 19.9 494.8 1.0 82 737 4.8 41 Bell, TX................. 4.1 88.6 -0.8 210 549 2.8 176 Bexar, TX................ 29.1 655.1 -0.7 198 619 4.9 38 Brazoria, TX............. 4.0 75.9 -0.6 190 680 0.0 311 Brazos, TX............... 3.4 77.6 0.5 116 521 4.2 66 Cameron, TX.............. 6.0 114.3 -0.9 216 448 3.0 156 Collin, TX............... 11.6 194.6 2.2 36 784 2.2 228 Dallas, TX............... 67.4 1,438.9 -2.4 288 861 2.4 211 Denton, TX............... 7.9 127.8 1.2 73 615 2.5 201 El Paso, TX.............. 12.4 253.4 -1.2 240 510 0.8 300 Fort Bend, TX............ 6.0 97.0 -0.3 170 713 0.8 300 Galveston, TX............ 4.7 88.7 1.0 82 619 4.4 61 Harris, TX............... 88.3 1,823.7 -1.6 257 824 2.4 211 Hidalgo, TX.............. 9.0 177.8 4.0 8 455 1.8 257 Jefferson, TX............ 5.8 118.0 1.1 77 649 4.7 47 Lubbock, TX.............. 6.4 114.9 -0.8 210 552 2.6 197 McLennan, TX............. 4.6 97.3 -0.8 210 572 4.8 41 Montgomery, TX........... 6.0 85.9 3.7 11 636 1.8 257 Nueces, TX............... 8.0 142.4 -0.7 198 582 3.0 156 Smith, TX................ 4.8 84.7 0.2 136 610 2.2 228 Tarrant, TX.............. 33.2 689.9 -1.5 252 722 1.4 278 Travis, TX............... 24.2 507.0 -1.6 257 802 3.0 156 Williamson, TX........... 4.7 83.6 3.0 17 744 2.5 201 Davis, UT................ 5.9 90.4 0.8 100 597 3.6 109 Salt Lake, UT............ 33.3 514.4 -0.3 170 647 2.7 186 Utah, UT................. 10.2 143.7 0.7 106 550 1.5 272 Weber, UT................ 5.1 85.5 -0.4 176 548 2.4 211 Chittenden, VT........... 5.6 95.1 0.0 153 688 2.2 228 Arlington, VA............ 6.8 150.9 -0.1 160 1,109 2.8 176 Chesterfield, VA......... 6.5 110.4 1.6 58 638 0.9 296 Fairfax, VA.............. 29.6 534.7 1.7 55 1,038 5.8 15 Henrico, VA.............. 8.0 166.7 -0.1 160 731 1.4 278 Loudoun, VA.............. 5.8 105.5 5.4 2 888 0.8 300 Prince William, VA....... 5.6 89.5 3.6 13 636 4.6 53 Alexandria City, VA...... 5.5 91.3 1.2 73 910 1.7 264 Chesapeake City, VA...... 4.6 90.8 3.2 15 553 2.2 228 Newport News City, VA.... 3.6 95.6 0.6 110 640 2.1 238 Norfolk City, VA......... 5.5 145.0 -0.8 210 695 3.6 109 Richmond City, VA........ 7.0 157.1 -2.3 285 799 3.0 156 Virginia Beach City, VA.. 10.3 167.0 1.0 82 551 4.8 41 Clark, WA................ 11.4 117.8 2.2 36 663 3.1 151 King, WA................. 88.3 1,095.4 -0.7 198 962 5.4 22 Kitsap, WA............... 6.7 77.7 1.4 65 683 1.6 267 Pierce, WA............... 21.8 248.4 2.1 40 638 2.9 170 Snohomish, WA............ 17.5 206.3 -0.5 186 744 3.0 156 Spokane, WA.............. 16.0 191.8 0.4 123 589 2.4 211 Thurston, WA............. 6.9 88.6 2.3 35 664 2.8 176 Yakima, WA............... 9.7 104.0 0.2 136 478 3.0 156 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.1 108.4 -1.3 244 600 1.9 252 Brown, WI................ 6.7 145.4 1.7 55 635 1.6 267 Dane, WI................. 13.5 285.1 1.0 82 686 3.9 84 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.5 498.3 -1.1 235 712 3.9 84 Outagamie, WI............ 4.9 98.0 1.8 52 618 0.8 300 Racine, WI............... 4.3 75.0 -2.1 278 669 3.4 125 Waukesha, WI............. 13.2 224.9 0.4 123 722 2.7 186 Winnebago, WI............ 3.9 87.8 -2.5 290 674 2.7 186 San Juan, PR............. 11.4 306.1 -1.5 252 466 5.2 25 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.3 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, third quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wage(4) Establishments, County by NAICS supersector third quarter Percent Percent 2003 September change, Average change, (thousands) 2003 September weekly third (thousands) 2002-03 wage quarter (3) 2002-03 (3) United States(5)............................. 8,291.0 128,546.3 -0.4 $704 3.1 Private industry........................... 8,025.1 107,849.8 -0.5 696 3.1 Natural resources and mining............. 124.5 1,764.8 -0.9 607 2.4 Construction............................. 808.3 6,925.2 0.2 744 1.5 Manufacturing............................ 379.4 14,401.2 -5.1 854 3.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 1,860.9 25,023.5 -0.7 623 2.5 Information.............................. 146.3 3,137.8 -4.7 1,100 6.0 Financial activities..................... 762.7 7,865.6 1.9 999 6.7 Professional and business services....... 1,325.5 16,008.4 -0.4 823 3.0 Education and health services............ 729.3 15,777.6 2.3 674 3.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 668.9 12,436.1 1.2 305 2.3 Other services........................... 1,070.2 4,264.2 -0.2 462 2.2 Government................................. 265.9 20,696.5 0.1 750 3.3 Los Angeles, CA.............................. 349.2 4,007.2 -0.6 792 3.7 Private industry........................... 345.3 3,445.6 -0.5 773 3.3 Natural resources and mining............. 0.6 12.2 1.2 809 10.1 Construction............................. 12.9 135.2 -0.1 795 1.4 Manufacturing............................ 17.9 489.9 -7.8 810 4.5 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 53.9 769.8 -0.7 682 2.7 Information.............................. 9.2 190.6 -5.3 1,337 3.1 Financial activities..................... 22.9 235.7 1.0 1,190 7.0 Professional and business services....... 39.9 568.7 1.0 873 3.3 Education and health services............ 26.4 449.5 2.0 729 2.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 25.2 373.2 3.9 463 5.9 Other services........................... 136.3 220.1 4.7 394 2.6 Government................................. 3.9 561.6 -1.2 915 6.1 Cook, IL..................................... 126.0 2,529.5 -1.2 835 2.7 Private industry........................... 124.9 2,209.1 -1.4 826 2.1 Natural resources and mining............. 0.1 1.5 0.7 916 3.4 Construction............................. 10.4 102.8 1.3 1,032 -0.2 Manufacturing............................ 7.9 266.1 -5.9 850 1.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 26.7 479.7 -1.3 695 0.0 Information.............................. 2.5 65.3 -5.9 1,175 5.6 Financial activities..................... 13.7 220.1 0.3 1,252 5.1 Professional and business services....... 25.9 404.2 -3.1 1,010 1.9 Education and health services............ 12.2 347.3 1.1 736 4.4 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.5 222.5 2.7 362 1.7 Other services........................... 12.6 95.2 -2.1 615 1.3 Government................................. 1.2 320.4 -0.2 (6) (6) New York, NY................................. 111.7 2,184.9 -1.6 1,239 3.2 Private industry........................... 111.5 1,747.2 -1.3 1,305 2.8 Natural resources and mining............. 0.0 0.1 15.0 971 -11.4 Construction............................. 2.2 31.5 -2.1 1,300 4.6 Manufacturing............................ 3.5 47.1 -8.9 956 1.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 22.3 234.2 0.0 960 2.6 Information.............................. 4.4 128.8 -5.5 1,588 5.5 Financial activities..................... 16.8 348.8 -2.7 2,099 2.7 Professional and business services....... 22.7 426.3 -1.5 1,438 1.8 Education and health services............ 7.8 263.8 1.3 897 7.7 Leisure and hospitality.................. 10.0 177.5 1.0 624 4.9 Other services........................... 15.9 80.2 0.2 751 4.0 Government................................. 0.2 437.7 -2.7 975 4.8 Harris, TX................................... 88.3 1,823.7 -1.6 824 2.4 Private industry........................... 87.9 1,584.2 -1.9 828 1.8 Natural resources and mining............. 1.2 61.2 (6) 1,811 (6) Construction............................. 6.4 140.6 -3.5 791 0.5 Manufacturing............................ 4.7 165.2 -6.0 1,011 3.7 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 20.9 389.5 -3.1 761 0.8 Information.............................. 1.4 34.0 -4.3 1,022 2.1 Financial activities..................... 9.3 112.1 1.5 1,038 6.7 Professional and business services....... 16.9 277.3 -3.4 913 2.4 Education and health services............ 8.7 187.1 1.1 758 2.3 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.5 156.6 0.6 318 -1.2 Other services........................... 10.4 56.8 -3.7 503 1.0 Government................................. 0.4 239.5 0.9 794 6.1 Maricopa, AZ................................. 80.4 1,571.3 1.1 699 3.4 Private industry........................... 79.9 1,357.4 1.3 696 3.1 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 7.6 -3.3 499 0.6 Construction............................. 8.4 131.1 3.4 692 1.6 Manufacturing............................ 3.3 125.2 -6.5 999 4.0 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 18.6 316.0 0.0 683 2.7 Information.............................. 1.6 36.3 -3.1 826 -0.6 Financial activities..................... 9.3 132.3 3.8 878 7.9 Professional and business services....... 17.9 254.6 2.1 677 3.2 Education and health services............ 7.5 157.6 6.6 742 4.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.6 149.4 1.4 341 3.0 Other services........................... 5.7 44.2 -2.7 480 1.7 Government................................. 0.5 213.9 0.3 716 4.5 Dallas, TX................................... 67.4 1,438.9 -2.4 861 2.4 Private industry........................... 66.9 1,281.6 -2.8 868 2.7 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 6.5 (6) 2,365 (6) Construction............................. 4.5 76.1 -1.8 776 2.2 Manufacturing............................ 3.5 145.2 -6.0 964 2.0 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 15.5 316.8 -4.1 851 4.2 Information.............................. 1.8 63.8 -6.8 1,185 0.9 Financial activities..................... 8.4 139.6 0.8 1,099 6.5 Professional and business services....... 13.8 232.6 -4.3 937 1.4 Education and health services............ 6.1 131.2 3.2 817 2.8 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.0 126.7 -0.9 399 3.6 Other services........................... 6.7 40.6 -3.3 553 -2.6 Government................................. 0.4 157.3 1.5 (6) (6) Orange, CA................................... 88.1 1,426.5 1.1 812 5.3 Private industry........................... 86.7 1,289.3 1.9 807 5.2 Natural resources and mining............. 0.3 6.0 -20.1 563 15.8 Construction............................. 6.4 85.0 2.7 872 4.6 Manufacturing............................ 6.1 180.0 -4.9 940 8.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 17.4 266.4 1.1 755 3.3 Information.............................. 1.5 34.1 -3.6 1,089 2.6 Financial activities..................... 9.6 127.0 12.3 1,354 11.4 Professional and business services....... 17.4 258.7 2.7 821 0.4 Education and health services............ 9.1 125.9 7.6 736 1.1 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.6 160.7 0.4 356 5.3 Other services........................... 12.3 45.4 2.2 491 1.9 Government................................. 1.4 137.2 -5.3 859 7.5 San Diego, CA................................ 84.4 1,256.7 0.9 761 4.2 Private industry........................... 83.0 1,045.4 1.6 739 4.2 Natural resources and mining............. 0.9 11.8 -2.7 462 1.1 Construction............................. 6.4 82.1 5.5 778 1.6 Manufacturing............................ 3.6 105.3 -5.9 986 5.3 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 14.2 208.2 1.5 639 2.9 Information.............................. 1.4 36.8 1.0 1,500 29.5 Financial activities..................... 8.8 81.5 6.7 993 6.4 Professional and business services....... 14.8 203.0 0.4 864 1.5 Education and health services............ 7.5 121.1 2.8 687 3.5 Leisure and hospitality.................. 6.5 143.0 2.9 348 3.9 Other services........................... 18.9 52.3 5.4 431 0.2 Government................................. 1.4 211.3 -2.4 870 4.1 King, WA..................................... 88.3 1,095.4 -0.7 962 5.4 Private industry........................... 87.7 943.7 -0.8 977 5.5 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 3.5 -5.4 1,047 25.2 Construction............................. 7.1 56.9 -1.9 864 -0.3 Manufacturing............................ 2.8 103.7 -8.3 1,115 -4.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 16.1 217.1 -0.9 780 4.3 Information.............................. 1.7 68.6 0.0 2,979 16.8 Financial activities..................... 6.4 77.8 3.7 1,097 10.4 Professional and business services....... 13.0 158.5 -0.4 996 5.7 Education and health services............ 6.1 107.3 1.8 704 4.0 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.8 102.1 1.7 396 2.1 Other services........................... 28.2 48.3 -0.6 450 1.1 Government................................. 0.6 151.8 -0.3 869 4.4 Miami-Dade, FL............................... 79.9 965.2 0.1 682 (6) Private industry........................... 79.6 814.6 0.1 670 3.6 Natural resources and mining............. 0.5 7.8 2.2 430 2.6 Construction............................. 4.9 41.5 5.4 694 2.4 Manufacturing............................ 2.9 51.2 -6.3 613 2.9 Trade, transportation, and utilities..... 23.5 240.1 -2.0 637 2.9 Information.............................. 1.7 27.6 -7.5 923 1.7 Financial activities..................... 8.2 65.2 1.4 972 8.6 Professional and business services....... 15.9 131.6 1.6 776 1.2 Education and health services............ 7.9 122.9 2.2 716 6.2 Leisure and hospitality.................. 5.3 89.6 2.7 387 5.4 Other services........................... 7.5 34.2 -2.0 428 2.4 Government................................. 0.3 150.7 0.4 748 (6) 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. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by state, third quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wage(5) Establishments, third quarter County(3) 2003 Percent Percent (thousands) September change, Average change, 2003 September weekly third (thousands) 2002-03(4) wage quarter 2002-03(4) United States(6)......... 8,291.0 128,546.3 -0.4 $704 3.1 Jefferson, AL............ 18.2 368.9 -0.4 712 2.3 Anchorage Borough, AK.... 7.6 143.4 1.9 775 3.2 Maricopa, AZ............. 80.4 1,571.3 1.1 699 3.4 Pulaski, AR.............. 13.1 240.5 1.0 635 3.1 Los Angeles, CA.......... 349.2 4,007.2 -0.6 792 3.7 Denver, CO............... 24.3 424.6 -3.1 863 4.1 Hartford, CT............. 24.2 479.5 -1.5 857 2.0 New Castle, DE........... 17.8 278.7 0.7 839 4.1 Washington, DC........... 29.7 650.1 -0.4 1,123 5.6 Miami-Dade, FL........... 79.9 965.2 0.1 682 (7) Fulton, GA............... 37.7 725.3 -0.9 913 1.8 Honolulu, HI............. 24.3 414.3 0.8 673 3.4 Ada, ID.................. 12.9 183.7 0.5 646 1.9 Cook, IL................. 126.0 2,529.5 -1.2 835 2.7 Marion, IN............... 23.6 572.0 -0.7 738 2.8 Polk, IA................. 13.7 261.5 0.2 709 3.5 Johnson, KS.............. 18.7 290.6 0.0 736 3.4 Jefferson, KY............ 21.3 416.9 -0.9 685 3.6 Orleans, LA.............. 13.0 248.7 0.2 673 5.5 Cumberland, ME........... 11.1 169.1 0.5 636 2.7 Montgomery, MD........... 30.5 450.6 0.2 897 5.0 Middlesex, MA............ 47.2 787.0 -2.7 996 4.1 Wayne, MI................ 35.3 805.9 -1.5 825 2.0 Hennepin, MN............. 41.3 820.5 -1.3 911 5.6 Hinds, MS................ 6.6 131.4 0.0 626 3.8 St. Louis, MO............ 33.8 620.7 -1.8 768 4.1 Yellowstone, MT.......... 5.7 69.7 1.3 551 3.4 Douglas, NE.............. 14.9 310.4 -0.9 679 3.8 Clark, NV................ 35.5 766.1 4.4 670 4.9 Hillsborough, NH......... 12.1 192.4 2.0 779 4.0 Bergen, NJ............... 34.0 448.6 0.4 884 4.0 Bernalillo, NM........... 16.6 312.2 0.2 646 2.5 New York, NY............. 111.7 2,184.9 -1.6 1,239 3.2 Mecklenburg, NC.......... 27.1 502.6 -1.3 $824 5.0 Cass, ND................. 5.1 86.6 1.6 587 4.6 Cuyahoga, OH............. 39.0 764.8 -1.1 739 3.4 Oklahoma, OK............. 21.5 400.4 -1.8 625 5.0 Multnomah, OR............ 25.4 418.9 -2.3 733 2.4 Allegheny, PA............ 36.0 692.1 -1.6 746 2.9 Providence, RI........... 17.3 289.2 0.4 695 3.0 Greenville, SC........... 13.4 221.0 -0.1 641 1.4 Minnehaha, SD............ 5.9 108.1 0.5 591 2.8 Shelby, TN............... 19.9 494.8 1.0 737 4.8 Harris, TX............... 88.3 1,823.7 -1.6 824 2.4 Salt Lake, UT............ 33.3 514.4 -0.3 647 2.7 Chittenden, VT........... 5.6 95.1 0.0 688 2.2 Fairfax, VA.............. 29.6 534.7 1.7 1,038 5.8 King, WA................. 88.3 1,095.4 -0.7 962 5.4 Kanawha, WV.............. 6.1 108.4 -1.3 600 1.9 Milwaukee, WI............ 22.5 498.3 -1.1 712 3.9 Laramie, WY.............. 2.8 39.4 1.8 573 4.4 San Juan, PR............. 11.4 306.1 -1.5 466 5.2 St. Thomas, VI........... 1.7 22.6 -1.4 539 1.7 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. Table 4. Covered(1) establishments, employment, and wages by state, third quarter 2003(2) Employment Average weekly wage(3) Establishments, third quarter State 2003 Percent Percent (thousands) September change, Average change, 2003 September weekly third (thousands) 2002-03 wage quarter 2002-03 United States(4)......... 8,291.0 128,546.3 -0.4 $704 3.1 Alabama.................. 111.6 1,825.3 -0.6 607 3.1 Alaska................... 19.7 308.4 1.5 730 3.1 Arizona.................. 125.9 2,269.0 1.3 659 3.5 Arkansas................. 75.0 1,130.5 -0.3 541 2.9 California............... 1,166.8 14,923.9 -0.3 797 3.9 Colorado................. 161.1 2,124.4 -1.6 744 4.5 Connecticut.............. 108.9 1,627.4 -1.4 869 3.1 Delaware................. 26.8 406.1 -0.3 753 3.9 District of Columbia..... 29.7 650.1 -0.4 1,123 5.6 Florida.................. 499.3 7,234.3 1.5 627 3.6 Georgia.................. 245.6 3,811.1 -0.2 684 2.5 Hawaii................... 37.2 567.3 1.3 648 3.5 Idaho.................... 48.2 590.4 0.5 547 2.1 Illinois................. 324.8 5,738.7 -1.2 751 2.6 Indiana.................. 151.5 2,848.1 -0.7 627 2.1 Iowa..................... 90.1 1,414.4 -0.4 580 3.4 Kansas................... 82.6 1,287.9 -1.5 594 2.6 Kentucky................. 105.6 1,727.7 0.1 594 3.1 Louisiana................ 117.1 1,853.4 0.1 579 2.8 Maine.................... 47.0 603.7 0.2 577 2.9 Maryland................. 149.2 2,448.6 0.4 763 4.1 Massachusetts............ 205.2 3,163.9 -1.8 860 3.6 Michigan................. 251.6 4,349.2 -2.0 730 2.4 Minnesota................ 158.3 2,597.8 -0.7 730 4.3 Mississippi.............. 65.5 1,102.5 -0.9 521 3.6 Missouri................. 165.9 2,633.8 -0.6 636 2.6 Montana.................. 42.3 401.9 0.9 507 3.5 Nebraska................. 55.0 876.8 0.0 580 3.0 Nevada................... 58.7 1,096.9 3.7 675 4.5 New Hampshire............ 46.6 612.1 0.3 689 2.8 New Jersey............... 262.9 3,883.2 0.3 852 3.5 New Mexico............... 50.2 754.6 0.9 565 2.7 New York................. 548.9 8,224.3 -0.7 846 2.9 North Carolina........... 226.0 3,743.5 -0.8 629 2.6 North Dakota............. 23.8 320.6 1.1 527 4.8 Ohio..................... 293.6 5,310.6 -1.1 658 1.7 Oklahoma................. 91.3 1,410.9 -2.3 560 3.9 Oregon................... 117.9 1,588.5 -0.9 653 3.2 Pennsylvania............. 326.5 5,495.6 -0.7 692 3.1 Rhode Island............. 34.6 481.9 1.2 677 3.7 South Carolina........... 124.7 1,773.4 -0.2 580 2.5 South Dakota............. 27.9 368.1 0.2 512 2.2 Tennessee................ 128.1 2,617.6 -0.1 631 3.8 Texas.................... 500.5 9,222.7 -0.7 693 2.2 Utah..................... 72.5 1,048.6 0.2 588 2.3 Vermont.................. 24.0 297.8 0.1 598 2.7 Virginia................. 201.0 3,429.9 0.3 724 3.6 Washington............... 238.2 2,705.8 0.4 753 3.7 West Virginia............ 47.0 683.3 -0.8 533 2.3 Wisconsin................ 156.4 2,710.0 -0.3 624 3.1 Wyoming.................. 22.0 249.9 1.4 562 3.5 Puerto Rico.............. 43.5 971.0 -1.1 410 5.1 Virgin Islands........... 3.2 41.2 -1.6 563 -0.5 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.