Employment in Vermont’s only large county, Chittenden, increased 3.0 percent from December 2010 to December 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 Deborah A. Brown noted that the employment gain in Chittenden ranked 28th among the 322 large counties in the nation, and exceeded the national increase of 1.4 percent.

Nationally, employment increased in 266 of the 322 largest counties from December 2010 to December 2011. Kern, Calif., experienced the largest percentage increase with a gain of 5.3 percent over the year. Benton, Wash., posted the largest over-the-year decrease in employment with a loss of 3.4 percent.

Employment in Chittenden County was 98,431 in December 2011, accounting for 32.4 percent of employment statewide. Nationwide, the 322 largest counties accounted for 70.7 percent of total U.S. employment.

The average weekly wage in Chittenden County fell 1.8 percent from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the fourth quarter of 2011 to $943. (See table 1.) Nationally, the average weekly wage decreased 1.7 percent over the year to $955.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 13 counties in Vermont with employment below 75,000. All 13 smaller counties in Vermont had average weekly wages below the national average. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Chittenden County’s 1.8-percent wage decrease from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the fourth quarter of 2011 placed 157th nationally. (See table 1.) Nationwide, 282 of the 322 largest counties had over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages from the fourth quarter of 2010. Olmsted, Minn., had the largest wage loss in the nation, down 21.3 percent.

Of the 322 largest counties, 36 experienced over-the year increases in average weekly wages. Tulsa, Okla., had the largest average weekly wage increase with a gain of 8.6 percent. Harford, Md., had the second largest increase in average weekly wages, followed by Lake, Ohio; Snohomish, Wash.; and Westmoreland, Pa.

Large county average weekly wages

The average weekly wage in Chittenden County placed 110th among the 322 largest U.S. counties in the fourth quarter of 2011. The county’s $943 average weekly wage was $12 below the national average.

Among the highest-paid large U.S. counties, New York, N.Y., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $1,889. Santa Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,836, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,668), and Suffolk, Mass. ($1,599).

Horry, S.C. ($569) reported the lowest wage nationwide, followed by the counties of Cameron and Hidalgo, Texas ($597 and $601, respectively). Wages in the lowest-ranked county, Horry, were less than one third of the average weekly wage reported for the highest-ranked county, New York, N.Y.

Average weekly wages in Vermont's smaller counties

The 13 counties in Vermont with employment below 75,000 had average weekly wages lower than the national average of $955. Among these smaller counties, Washington had the highest wage ($851) followed by Franklin ($789). Grand Isle reported the lowest weekly wage, averaging $583 in the fourth quarter of 2011.

When all 14 counties in Vermont are considered, 5 reported average weekly wages under $699, 7 had wages from $700 to $799, and 2 had wages of $800 or more. The lowest paid counties, those with wages below $699, were generally located in the northeastern part of the state. (See chart 1.)

Additional statistics and other Information

QCEW data for states has 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/.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2010 edition of this publication, which was published in November 2011, contains selected data produced by 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 Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2010 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.

This release is available in PDF and HTML format on the New England BLS Web site at www.bls.gov/ro1/vtqcew.htm.

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 9.2 million employer reports cover 131.3 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.