For information: (617) 565-2327                                                        

Media contact: Walter Marshall (617) 565-2324

USDL-08-170

For release: Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The average weekly wage in Hillsborough County was $899 in the third quarter of 2007, 4.4 percent higher than a year earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Rockingham County's weekly wage averaged $783, advancing 2.5 percent over the year. Hillsborough and Rockingham were the only large counties in New Hampshire, meaning they had 75,000 or more jobs as measured by 2006 annual average employment. Regional Commissioner Denis McSweeney noted that nationally, the average weekly wage was $818, growing at a 4.3-percent pace over the year. (See table 1.)

The average weekly wage in Hillsborough ranked in the top quarter (61st) among the 328 large counties nationwide in the third quarter of 2007. In Rockingham County, though the weekly wage was below the national average, it still ranked in the top half at 138th. Wages in Hillsborough County grew by 4.4 percent and ranked in the top third nationwide (98th). In contrast, wages in Rockingham County grew by a slower 2.5 percent pace and ranked in the bottom third nationwide (240th).

Employment in Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties combined accounted for more than half of the State's job count in September 2007. Hillsborough County recorded employment growth of 0.4 percent from September 2006 to September 2007, ranking it in the bottom half at 181st among the nation's 328 largest counties. Rockingham County recorded no job growth at 0.0 percent and placed 218th, also in the bottom half. (See table 1.) Rockingham County was among 12 large counties nationally to record no employment growth from September 2006 to September 2007. Nationwide, employment grew by 0.9 percent over the year.

Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 112 of the largest 328 U.S. counties in the third quarter of 2007. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,585. New York County, N.Y., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,544, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,376), Arlington, Va. ($1,364), and San Mateo, Calif. ($1,322). 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, Calif., San Francisco, Calif., and San Mateo, Calif.), while 3 others were located in or around the Washington D.C. metropolitan area (Arlington, Va., Fairfax, Va., and Washington, D.C.). Rounding out the top 10 was Suffolk County, Mass., part of the Boston metropolitan area.

There were 215 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the third quarter of 2007. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($518), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($529), Horry, S.C. ($536), Webb, Texas ($548), and Yakima, Wash. ($568). The average weekly wage in the lowest-paid county, Cameron, was less than one-third of the wage in the highest-paid county, Santa Clara.

Among the largest counties, Clayton County, Ga., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 23.9 percent from the third quarter of 2006. The high average weekly wage growth rate for Clayton County was due to increases in wage disbursements in the trade, transportation, and utilities supersector during the quarter. Muscogee, Ga., was second with growth of 12.1 percent, followed by the counties of Santa Clara, Calif. (11.8 percent), Rock Island, Ill. (11.5 percent), and Davidson, Tenn. (9.1 percent).

Ten large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Among the largest decreases in wages, Trumbull, Ohio, had the greatest decline (-10.6 percent), followed by the counties of Vanderburgh, Ind. (-6.1 percent), Genesee, Mich. (-4.0 percent), Saginaw, Mich. (-3.1 percent), and Montgomery, Ohio (-3.0 percent).

A total of 217 large counties in the United States experienced employment increases from September 2006 to September 2007, but only 130 of these had over-the-year gains above the national average of 0.9 percent. Orleans County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (8.6 percent) followed by Fort Bend, Texas, 7.1 percent. The large employment gains in Orleans County reflected significant recovery from the substantial job losses that occurred in 2005 and 2006, which were related to Hurricane Katrina. Employment declined in 86 counties from September 2006 to September 2007 with the largest percentage decline occurring in Trumbull County, Ohio (-5.7 percent).

The average weekly wage in New Hampshire was $799, $19 below the nationwide figure. Still, New Hampshire had the 18th highest wage among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. (See table 2.) Nationally, 8 of the 15 areas in which the average weekly wage levels surpassed the U.S. average fell in a contiguous band along the east coast stretching from Virginia to Massachusetts. The five highest wage levels in the nation were in the District of Columbia ($1,376), Connecticut ($1,021), New York ($1,009), Massachusetts ($1,002), and New Jersey ($965). Average weekly wages in this group were 18 percent or more above the national average. During this same period, three states had wage levels averaging at or less than 75 percent of national earnings: South Dakota ($598), Mississippi ($607), and Montana ($608).

With wage growth of 3.2 percent from the third quarter of 2006, New Hampshire ranked 42nd among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, equaling Colorado's percentage increase. Washington experienced wage growth of 6.7 percent from the third quarter of 2006 to the third quarter of 2007, higher than any other state. Connecticut was second with 6.6 percent wage growth, followed by New York at 6.1 percent and North Dakota at 5.8 percent. Rounding out the top five were four states all posting wage growth of 5.5 percent: Massachusetts, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Utah. Rhode Island was the only state to record an over-the-year decline (-0.1 percent). Delaware posted the smallest wage gain, up 1.2 percent.

Employment grew in New Hampshire by 0.3 percent from September 2006 to September 2007, below the U.S. average growth rate of 0.9 percent. Across the nation, Utah and Wyoming experienced employment growth of 3.6 percent each, higher than any other state. Texas was third with a 2.9 percent growth rate, followed by Louisiana and Montana (2.7 percent each). Seven states posted job declines over the period. Michigan posted the largest percentage decline (-1.4 percent), followed by Rhode Island (-1.0 percent), Florida (-0.9 percent), Vermont and Ohio (-0.2 percent each), and Wisconsin and Nevada (-0.1 percent each).

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 9.0 million employer reports in third quarter 2007 cover 136.2 million full- and part-time workers. The 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 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.

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2006 edition of this bulletin will contain selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2007 version of the national news release. As with the 2005 edition, this edition will include the data on a CD for enhanced access and usability with the printed booklet containing selected graphic representations of QCEW data; the data tables themselves will be published exclusively in electronic formats as PDFs. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2006 will be available for sale in early 2008 from the United States Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone 866-512-1800, outside Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number is 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512-2104. Also, the 2006 bulletin is available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn06.htm.

QCEW-based news releases issued by other regional offices have been placed at one convenient BLS Web site location, http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.

This information will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (617) 565-2072, Federal Relay Services: 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 New England (Boston) Information Office at 617-565-2327 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.

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.

(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.

(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: June 18, 2008

Sorry for the interruption.

Please help us improve our website by participating in the survey that begins below!

Our Pledge of Privacy
The answers you provide on this survey will be used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to improve the website. Please note:

• Your participation is completely voluntary and anonymous.
• We estimate that it will take an average of two minutes to complete this survey.
• Privacy Act Statement

Click on the yes button below to take the survey after you have finished visiting our website. The survey will be available in the taskbar at the bottom of your screen when you are ready to take it.

 

Back to Top	Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey | Do you have a technical Web site question?	bls.gov
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics New England Information Office Room E-310, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203 http://www.bls.gov/RO1/ | Telephone: (617) 565-2327 | Fax: (617) 565-4182 Do you have a New England Region (R01) data question?