Employment rose in Hawaii’s only large county, Honolulu, from March 2010 to March 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 Richard J. Holden noted that employment in Honolulu County advanced 1.5 percent over the year, a rate of increase close to the national rate of 1.3 percent. (See table 1.)

Nationally, employment grew 1.3 percent during this 12-month period, as 256 of the 322 large counties nationwide gained jobs. Elkhart County experienced the largest percentage increase in employment in both the state and nation, up 6.2 percent over the year. Sacramento, Calif. had the largest employment decrease with a loss of 1.6 percent.

Honolulu County employment was 436,511, and accounted for 73.5 of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 322 largest counties made up 70.7 percent of total U.S. employment, which stood at 127.9 million in March 2011.

The average weekly wage in Honolulu County was $821 in the first quarter of 2011, an increase of 3.1 percent from the first quarter of 2010. Nationally, the average weekly wage increased 5.2 percent over the year to $935 in the first quarter of 2011. (See table 1.)

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

Large county wage changes

Honolulu County’s 3.1-percent wage gain placed in the bottom-third of the national ranking for large counties at 226th. Of the 322 largest counties nationwide, 315 had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Peoria, Ill., led the nation in average weekly wage growth with an increase of 18.9 percent from the first quarter of 2010. Santa Clara, Calif., was second with a gain of 12.4 percent, followed by the counties of Macomb, Mich. (12.0 percent), Clayton, Ga. (11.9 percent), and Wayne, Mich. (11.3 percent).

Nationwide, three large counties recorded decreases in average weekly wages over the year. Williamson, Texas, had the largest decrease in wages with a decline of 3.8 percent from the first quarter of 2010. Smaller declines were reported in Hudson, N.J. (-1.5 percent) and Durham, N.C. (-0.5 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Honolulu County’s $821 weekly wage was more than $110 below the U.S. average, placing it in the middle of the national ranking (168th) among the 322 largest counties in the first quarter of 2011. Nationwide, 94 large counties registered weekly wages above the U.S. average of $935 in the first quarter of 2011. New York, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,634. Fairfield, Conn., was second at $1,888, followed by the counties of Somerset, N.J. ($1,867), Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,863), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,723).

More than two-thirds of the largest U.S. counties (228) reported weekly wages below the national average. Horry County, S.C. reported the lowest wage ($534), followed by the counties of Cameron, Texas ($546), Hidalgo, Texas ($556), Lake, Fla. ($586), and Webb, Texas ($590).

Average weekly wages in Hawaii’s smaller counties

For the smaller counties in Hawaii, Maui and Kauai ($711 each) and Hawaii County ($681), all had wages at least $220 below the national average. (See table 2.)

 

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 http://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 2009 edition of this publication, which was published in March 2011, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2010 version of the national news release. This web-only publication has replaced the print version of the annual bulletin, Employment and Wages Annual Averages. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online, 2009 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn09.htm.  The 2010 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available later in 2011.

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 West Information Office in San Francisco at 415-625-2270.

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 covered 127.8 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 BLS 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 one largest county in Hawaii, first quarter 2011 (2)

Area	Employment			Average Weekly Wage (3)
	March 2011 (thousands)	Percent change, March 2010-11 (4)	National ranking by percent change (5)	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level (5)	Percent change, first quarter 2010-11 (4)	National ranking by percent change (5)
United States (6)	127,851.0	1.3	--	$935	--	5.2	--
Hawaii	593.8	1.2	--	790	30	3.1	47
Honolulu, Hawaii	436.5	1.5	106	821	168	3.1	226
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 the county of San Juan, Puerto Rico. (6) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

 

Last Modified Date: November 8, 2011