Employment gains were experienced in five of South Carolina’s six large counties from September 2010 to September 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2010 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Janet S. Rankin noted that Charleston and Greenville posted the largest employment growth among South Carolina’s largest counties, increasing 3.3 and 3.2 percent, respectively. (See table 1.)

Nationally, employment increased 1.6 percent during the 12-month period as 271 of the 322 largest U.S. counties gained jobs. Williamson, Tenn., posted the largest increase, with a gain of 5.4 percent, while Fredrick, Md., experienced the largest employment decline at 2.6 percent.

Among the six largest counties in South Carolina, employment was highest in Greenville County (231,500) in September 2011. Two other counties–Charleston and Richland–had employment levels exceeding 200,000. Together, South Carolina’s large counties accounted for 53.7 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 322 largest counties made up 70.5 percent of total U.S. employment, which stood at 130.5 million in September 2011.

The average weekly wage in Greenville County rose 6.1 percent from the third quarter of 2010 to the third quarter of 2011, the largest increase among South Carolina’s six large counties. Charleston County had the second-highest rate at 5.5 percent. Richland County had the highest average weekly wage among the state’s largest counties at $813, followed by Greenville County at $806 and Charleston County at $805. (See table 1.) Nationally, the average weekly wage advanced 5.3 percent over the year to $916 in the third quarter of 2011.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 40 counties in South Carolina with employment below 75,000. One of these smaller counties, Aiken ($923), had average weekly wages above the national average. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Two large counties in South Carolina recorded above-average wage growth from the third quarter of 2010 to the third quarter of 2011. Greenville County’s 6.1-percent wage growth ranked 75th among the 322 largest counties in the nation and Charleston County’s 5.5-percent increase ranked 109th. The state’s remaining four large counties recorded wage advances in the 4.8 to 3.7 percent range, all below the national increase of 5.3 percent. (See table 1.)

Nationwide, 315 large counties experienced growth in average weekly wages. Lake, Ohio, ranked first with an increase of 17.1 percent from the third quarter of 2010 to the third quarter of 2011. Santa Clara, Calif., ranked second with a gain of 11.7 percent, followed by the counties of Oklahoma, Okla. (11.5 percent), Williamson, Texas (10.2 percent), and Sacramento, Calif. (9.8 percent).

Among the 322 largest counties, 3 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Clay, Mo., had the largest decrease in the nation (-2.3 percent), followed by the counties of Alachua, Fla. (-0.8 percent) and Leon, Fla. (-0.1 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Richland County’s average weekly wage of $813 placed in the middle third of the national ranking at 208th. Average weekly wages in South Carolina’s five other large counties placed in the bottom third of the national ranking. Horry County ($561) had the lowest average weekly wage among the 322 large U.S. counties. (See table 1.)

Nationally, average weekly wages were higher than average in 109 of the 322 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., recorded the highest average weekly wage at $1,857. New York, N.Y., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,647, followed by Arlington, Va. ($1,550), Washington, D.C. ($1,527), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,457).

There were 212 large counties with an average weekly wage below the U.S. average in the third quarter of 2011. Horry, S.C. ($561), reported the lowest wage, followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($591), Hidalgo, Texas ($602), Yakima, Wash. ($619), and Webb, Texas ($629).

Average weekly wages in South Carolina’s smaller counties

Among the 40 counties in South Carolina with employment below 75,000, all but 1 had average weekly wages below the national average of $923. The lone exception was Aiken at $923. (See table 2.) Saluda reported the lowest weekly wage among all the counties in the state, averaging $516 in the third quarter of 2011. (See table 2.)

When all 46 counties in South Carolina were considered, 9 reported average weekly wages under $600, 22 reported wages from $600-$699, 9 had wages from $700-$799, and 6 had wages above $800. (See chart 1.)

Additional statistics and other information

Quarterly data for states have been included in this release in table 3. For additional information about quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note or visit the QCEW Web site at www.bls.gov/cew/.

An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2010 edition of this bulletin, which was published in November 2011, contains selected data produced by the Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2011 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from the Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2010 Bulletin are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn10.htm. The 2011 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in 2012.

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 Southeast Information Office in Atlanta at 404-893-4222.

Technical Note

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 summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The 9.1 million employer reports cover 130.5 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 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 www.bls.gov/cew/; however, data in QCEW press releases have been revised and may not match the data contained on the Bureau’s Web site.

QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are simply the sums of individual establishment records reflecting the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic events, others reflecting administrative changes.

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. These potential differences result from the states’ 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.

Last Modified Date: April 19, 2012