U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Western Information Office

Employment rose in the two large counties in Arizona from June 2011 to June 2012 the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2011 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Richard J. Holden noted that Maricopa County and Pima County experienced job growth, up 2.8 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively, over the year. Both counties registered employment gains that exceeded the national average of 1.8 percent.

Nationally, employment increased in 287 of the 328 largest U.S. counties from June 2011 to June 2012. Yakima, Wash., posted the largest increase, with a gain of 8.2 percent over the year. Madison, Ill., St. Clair, Ill., and Clay, Mo., had the largest over-the-year decreases in employment with losses of 2.0 percent each.

Employment in Maricopa County was 1,635,400 in June 2012 and accounted for 68.3 percent of total employment within the state. Employment in Pima County was 343,500 during the same period, accounting for 14.3 percent of total employment. Nationwide, the 328 large counties made up 70.9 percent of total U.S. employment. (See table 1).

The average weekly wage in Maricopa County was $905 in the second quarter of 2012, 2.6 percent higher than one year ago. (See table 1.) Nationally, the average weekly wage rose 1.3 percent over the year to $903 in the second quarter of 2012.

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

Large county wage changes

Maricopa’s County’s 2.6-percent wage growth from the second quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2012 ranked 74th nationally. Average weekly wages in Pima County edged up 0.4 percent over the past 12 months and ranked 211th nationally. (See table 1.) Among the 328 largest counties in the U.S., 233 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2012. Washington, Ore., ranked first in average weekly wage growth with an increase of 8.5 percent. Williamson, Texas, had the largest wage decline with a loss of 17.0 percent over the year.

Large county average weekly wages

Maricopa County’s $905 average weekly wage placed in the top third among the 328 large counties, ranking 107th. Nationally, weekly wages were higher than average in 109 of the 328 largest U.S. counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,754. New York, N.Y., was second at $1,646, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,544) and San Mateo, Calif. ($1,515). Among the 219 large counties with an average weekly wage below the U.S. average in the second quarter of 2012, Horry, S.C. ($532) reported the lowest wage.

Average weekly wages in Arizona’s smaller counties

Of the 13 counties in Arizona with employment below 75,000, only one county—Greenlee ($1,022)—had an average wage above the national average of $903. La Paz County reported the lowest wage in the state with an average of $604 in the second quarter of 2012. (See table 2.)

When all 15 counties in Arizona were considered, all but two had wages below the national average. Six reported average weekly wages under $700, five had wages from $700 to $799, two reported wages from $800 to $899, and two had wages of $900 or more. (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/.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2011 edition of this publication, which was published in October 2012, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2012 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2011 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn11.htm. The 2012 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in 2013.

Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; Federal Relay Service: 1-800-877-8339.

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 132.9 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: February 27, 2013