The four largest counties in Iowa reported employment growth from June 2012 to June 2013, 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 2012 annual average employment.) Polk County had the largest increase, up 2.7 percent, followed by Johnson County, up 2.0 percent. Regional Commissioner Charlene Peiffer noted that these two large counties experienced over-the-year employment increases greater than the national increase of 1.6 percent. (See table 1.)

Among the four largest counties in Iowa, employment was highest in Polk County (281,800) in June 2013. Collectively, Iowa’s four large counties accounted for 38.2 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 334 largest counties made up 71.4 percent of total U.S. employment, which stood at 135.1 million in June 2013.

The average weekly wage in Linn County rose 3.5 percent from the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013, the largest increase among Iowa’s large counties. Polk County had the highest average weekly wage in the state at $897, followed by Linn ($876). (See table 1.) Nationally, the average weekly wage rose 2.1 percent over the year to $921 in the second quarter of 2013.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 95 counties in Iowa with employment below 75,000. All of these smaller counties had average weekly wages below the national average. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Two of Iowa’s large counties recorded wage growth above the national increase of 2.1 percent from the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013. (See table 1.) As noted, Linn County experienced the state’s largest average weekly wage increase of 3.5 percent, ranking 34th among the 334 largest U.S. counties. This was followed by Johnson County (2.5 percent), which placed 85th nationwide.

Among the 334 largest counties in the U.S., 304 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2013. Union, N.J., had the largest wage increase (8.1 percent). Eighteen large counties experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Davidson, Tenn., had the largest wage decrease (-2.2 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Average weekly wages in all four large Iowa counties were below the national average of $921 in the second quarter of 2013. As noted, Polk County ($897) had the highest average weekly wage in the state and ranked 130th among the 334 largest counties in the United States. Scott ($750) reported the lowest average weekly wage of Iowa’s large counties and ranked 282nd nationwide.

Nationally, Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among the 334 large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,810. New York, N.Y., was second at $1,675, followed by San Mateo, Calif. ($1,632) and Washington, D.C. ($1,575).

Average weekly wages in Iowa's smaller counties

All 95 counties in Iowa with employment below 75,000 had average weekly wages below the national average of $921. Among these smaller counties, Dallas County had the highest average weekly wage at $851 and Decatur County had the lowest at $523. (See table 2.)

When all 99 counties in Iowa were considered, none had wages above the national average. Nineteen reported average weekly wages of $599 or less, 32 reported wages from $600 to $649, 28 had wages from $650 to $699, and 20 had wages of $700 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 2012 edition of this publication contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2013 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2012 are now available online at https://www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2012/home.htm. The 2013 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in September 2014.

Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (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 135.1 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.

Table 1. Covered (1) employment and wages in the United States and the 4 largest counties in Iowa, second quarter 2013 (2)

Area	Employment			Average weekly wage (3)
	June 2013 (thousands)	Percent change, June 2012-13 (4)	National ranking by percent change (5)	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level (5)	Percent change, second quarter 2012-13 (4)	National ranking by percent change (5)
United States (6)	135,094.0	1.6	--	$921	--	2.1	--
Iowa	1,523.9	1.3	--	757	43	2.0	21
Johnson, Iowa	79.7	2	114	848	167	2.5	85
Linn, Iowa	129.7	0.5	244	876	149	3.5	34
Polk, Iowa	281.8	2.7	62	897	130	1.5	197
Scott, Iowa	90.2	0.5	244	750	282	1.8	159
Footnotes: (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) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. (5) Ranking does not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. (6) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.