The federal-state cooperative
ES-202 program compiles data from employers whose workers are covered by unemployment
insurance (UI) laws. One report compiled quarterly is of business establishments,
employees and wages by industry for each of Connecticut's eight counties. This
article examines 1997 and 1998 annual average county data.
In 1998, Fairfield County experienced the largest job gain and averaged the highest
wages, while having the largest number of establishments of all the counties in the State.
Fairfield County, the home of almost one third of all businesses in the State, added
10,473 jobs over the year, or nearly a third of the total statewide job gains.
Among the eight counties in Connecticut, Litchfield County had the largest percentage
increase in employment from 1997 to 1998, at 2.9 percent. The 2.6 percent employment gain
in Fairfield County was also above the statewide increase of 2.3 percent.
Only Fairfield County's overall average annual wage, which grew by 6.5 percent to
$53,176, was higher than the statewide average of $40,925 last year. Tolland County
experienced the highest change in average annual wage among the counties, up 7.5 percent
from 1997 to 1998. Average wages in these two counties increased more than the statewide
average wage, which grew by 5.1 percent.
Below are brief county highlights. A table of county data by major industry division is
on page 4.
Fairfield County
Fairfield County experienced the fastest growth in business establishments, at 3.6
percent in 1998. The largest share of establishments belonged to the services sector,
which also added the largest number of new businesses from 1997 to 1998.
One out of every four jobs in Connecticut was located in Fairfield County. Most of the
jobs were concentrated in the services sector, which also added the largest number of
jobs, 5,674, an increase of 4.3 percent. The finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE)
sector added 2,666 jobs, a 7.4 percent growth. The manufacturing and wholesale trade
sectors, however, experienced job losses from a year earlier.
In terms of wages, the FIRE sector's annual average wage per job was the highest
at $114,126, and also grew the fastest at 10.6 percent from 1997 to 1998. In fact,
Fairfield County had the highest wage rates of all the counties in all industries except
government, for which Hartford County had the highest rate.
Hartford County
The number of establishments in Hartford County increased 2.2 percent last year. The
largest number of new establishments was in the services and FIRE sectors. The largest
share of the State's employment was in Hartford County, at almost a third of the
total jobs in the State in 1998. The FIRE sector added the largest number of jobs from
1997, followed by services. The FIRE sector also commanded the highest annual wage rate of
$56,660. Job losing industries over the year were wholesale trade, transportation, public
utilities (TPU), and government.
Litchfield County
Litchfield County added 3.2 percent more business establishments last year. Its
employment growth was the fastest of all the counties at 2.9 percent, mainly from the
surge in the construction sector, with a 12.5 percent increase. All but the government
sector experienced employment growth. The County's overall average wages, however,
grew the slowest at 2.4 percent, mainly from the declines in the services sector by 1.1
percent.
Middlesex County
Even as the manufacturing sector lost some firms, Middlesex County gained 2.3 percent
additional businesses between 1997 and 1998. Employment grew the slowest of all counties
at 0.8 percent in 1998, dragged down mainly by the declines in FIRE and retail trade.
Overall wages rose by 3.5 percent though, boosted by big pay hikes in the construction
sector.
New Haven County
The number of establishments in New Haven County increased 2.9 percent, while
employment rose 2.2 percent over the year. Services and retail trade were major
contributing industries to the job growth. The TPU sector's wages climbed the fastest
at 16.4 percent to $47,495 last year.
New London County
This county experienced the slowest growth in the number of new business establishments
at 1.7 percent. Employment grew even slower at 1.1 percent over the year, with declines in
the FIRE and retail trade sectors. The manufacturing sector's $54,277 was the highest
annual wage of all sectors in New London County last year.
Tolland County
The number of establishments declined in the TPU and FIRE sectors, but rose 3.1 percent
overall in the County. A rapid 12.5 percent employment increase occurred in construction,
while retail trade suffered job losses of 5.4 percent. Tolland County's total average
wage grew the fastest in the State at 7.5 percent last year, with a 13.5 percent increase
in the retail trade sector.
Windham County
The number of establishments in this county rose 3.5 percent, while the job counts
increased by 1.9 percent over the year. Wholesale trade jobs grew 24.3 percent, as the
FIRE sector shed jobs by 2.7 percent. Annual pay grew by 2.5 percent, with the biggest
increase of 5.6 percent in the TPU sector.
Industry |
Establishments |
Employment |
Avg Wage |
1997 |
1998 |
1997 |
1998 |
1997 |
1998 |
Total |
102,212 |
106,227 |
1,587,882 |
1,623,697 |
$38,930 |
$40,925 |
Total Private |
98,586 |
102,565 |
1,389,107 |
1,423,797 |
$38,995 |
$41,097 |
Agriculture |
2,507 |
2,622 |
15,535 |
16,367 |
$23,046 |
$24,423 |
Mining |
67 |
68 |
735 |
782 |
$49,662 |
$51,577 |
Construction |
9,785 |
10,122 |
56,165 |
58,725 |
$40,068 |
$41,151 |
Manufacturing |
5,860 |
5,973 |
274,749 |
276,588 |
$50,818 |
$53,322 |
TPU* |
3,301 |
3,391 |
72,491 |
73,554 |
$42,734 |
$46,888 |
Wholesale |
9,600 |
10,097 |
82,619 |
83,231 |
$53,814 |
$55,998 |
Retail |
19,166 |
19,593 |
268,162 |
271,918 |
$18,504 |
$19,509 |
FIRE** |
8,959 |
9,275 |
129,350 |
136,295 |
$65,129 |
$69,918 |
Services |
38,907 |
40,770 |
488,006 |
505,302 |
$33,968 |
$35,446 |
Total Govt. |
3,626 |
3,662 |
198,773 |
199,901 |
$39,677 |
$40,836 |
Federal |
492 |
559 |
22,394 |
22,237 |
$41,824 |
$41,613 |
State |
842 |
808 |
58,486 |
57,877 |
$40,236 |
$43,270 |
Local |
2,292 |
2,295 |
117,893 |
119,787 |
$36,972 |
$37,624 |
Industry |
Establishments |
Employment |
Avg Wage |
1997 |
1998 |
1997 |
1998 |
1997 |
1998 |
Fairfield County |
Total |
30,781 |
31,885 |
409,680 |
420,153 |
$49,928 |
$53,176 |
Total Private |
30,201 |
31,300 |
369,010 |
378,672 |
$50,921 |
$54,570 |
Agriculture |
850 |
881 |
4,143 |
4,347 |
$25,913 |
$27,912 |
Construction |
2,567 |
2,649 |
13,072 |
13,678 |
$41,575 |
$43,060 |
Manufacturing |
1,385 |
1,408 |
75,281 |
74,939 |
$65,686 |
$69,713 |
TPU* |
998 |
1,032 |
17,769 |
18,564 |
$52,013 |
$56,351 |
Wholesale |
2,657 |
2,691 |
22,412 |
22,035 |
$70,845 |
$71,945 |
Retail |
5,163 |
5,327 |
69,100 |
69,493 |
$22,302 |
$23,771 |
FIRE** |
3,185 |
3,310 |
35,898 |
38,564 |
$103,168 |
$114,126 |
Services |
13,292 |
13,876 |
130,912 |
136,586 |
$41,376 |
$44,052 |
Total Govt. |
580 |
585 |
40,671 |
41,482 |
$38,360 |
$42,245 |
Federal |
77 |
89 |
4,500 |
4,502 |
$43,547 |
$43,085 |
State |
106 |
99 |
5,497 |
5,627 |
$40,858 |
$44,268 |
Local |
397 |
397 |
30,674 |
31,353 |
$30,674 |
$39,383 |
Litchfield County |
Total |
5,617 |
5,797 |
63,131 |
64,954 |
$30,820 |
$31,557 |
Total Private |
5,253 |
5,426 |
55,455 |
57,334 |
$30,460 |
$31,053 |
Agriculture |
215 |
218 |
1,006 |
1,048 |
$20,184 |
$22,739 |
Construction |
739 |
789 |
3,643 |
4,099 |
$37,728 |
$39,934 |
Manufacturing |
456 |
464 |
17,477 |
17,497 |
$39,566 |
$39,802 |
TPU* |
147 |
150 |
2,001 |
2,159 |
$29,143 |
$29,373 |
Wholesale |
326 |
339 |
1,647 |
1,797 |
$45,504 |
$47,488 |
Retail |
1,094 |
1,113 |
11,535 |
11,810 |
$16,928 |
$17,958 |
FIRE** |
330 |
330 |
1,813 |
1,817 |
$33,620 |
$37,204 |
Services |
1,919 |
2,000 |
16,166 |
16,973 |
$27,498 |
$27,207 |
Total Govt. |
364 |
371 |
7,677 |
7,621 |
$37,094 |
$38,839 |
Federal |
48 |
56 |
384 |
388 |
$40,106 |
$38,911 |
State |
52 |
51 |
1,218 |
1,189 |
$39,367 |
$44,242 |
Local |
264 |
264 |
6,075 |
6,044 |
$31,809 |
$33,365 |
New Haven County |
Total |
21,380 |
22,003 |
353,296 |
361,191 |
$33,982 |
$35,198 |
Total Private |
20,711 |
21,335 |
308,486 |
316,211 |
$33,581 |
$34,805 |
Agriculture |
397 |
408 |
1,904 |
2,007 |
$21,180 |
$22,585 |
Construction |
2,069 |
2,153 |
12,962 |
13,699 |
$38,868 |
$40,691 |
Manufacturing |
1,574 |
1,616 |
59,957 |
60,228 |
$44,200 |
$45,938 |
TPU* |
681 |
694 |
18,447 |
18,839 |
$40,794 |
$47,495 |
Wholesale |
1,778 |
1,823 |
18,126 |
19,047 |
$44,631 |
$47,097 |
Retail |
4,464 |
4,558 |
61,186 |
62,348 |
$17,341 |
$18,378 |
FIRE** |
1,738 |
1,777 |
17,929 |
18,114 |
$41,826 |
$42,759 |
Services |
7,957 |
8,248 |
117,649 |
121,610 |
$32,124 |
$32,137 |
Total Govt. |
669 |
668 |
44,811 |
44,980 |
$38,166 |
$39,077 |
Federal |
78 |
90 |
6,636 |
6,560 |
$41,255 |
$41,281 |
State |
169 |
163 |
10,406 |
10,489 |
$38,077 |
$39,246 |
Local |
422 |
415 |
27,769 |
27,931 |
$35,167 |
$36,703 |
Tolland County |
Total |
2,671 |
2,753 |
35,552 |
35,859 |
$28,937 |
$31,114 |
Total Private |
2,453 |
2,531 |
24,609 |
24,739 |
$25,377 |
$27,212 |
Agriculture |
90 |
98 |
632 |
648 |
$19,626 |
$21,449 |
Construction |
336 |
358 |
1,574 |
1,771 |
$35,860 |
$36,633 |
Manufacturing |
141 |
141 |
4,000 |
4,067 |
$36,766 |
$39,926 |
TPU* |
80 |
76 |
700 |
712 |
$24,055 |
$24,911 |
Wholesale |
153 |
158 |
780 |
792 |
$44,456 |
$46,367 |
Retail |
540 |
549 |
7,541 |
7,136 |
$14,296 |
$16,220 |
FIRE** |
200 |
196 |
1,118 |
1,125 |
$30,529 |
$30,533 |
Services |
903 |
944 |
8,190 |
8,415 |
$25,908 |
$26,662 |
Total Govt. |
218 |
222 |
10,943 |
11,120 |
$37,450 |
$39,232 |
Federal |
27 |
30 |
204 |
209 |
$39,805 |
$40,053 |
State |
44 |
43 |
6,432 |
6,522 |
$39,383 |
$43,771 |
Local |
147 |
149 |
4,307 |
4,389 |
$33,163 |
$33,872 |
Establishments |
Employment |
Avg Wage |
1997 |
1998 |
1997 |
1998 |
1997 |
1998 |
Hartford County |
24,129 |
24,660 |
483,182 |
490,726 |
$37,568 |
$39,466 |
23,309 |
23,828 |
419,336 |
427,211 |
$37,186 |
$39,073 |
553 |
591 |
4,392 |
4,671 |
$23,867 |
$24,330 |
2,309 |
2,328 |
15,993 |
16,090 |
$40,457 |
$41,375 |
1,556 |
1,583 |
75,360 |
77,232 |
$47,747 |
$49,724 |
768 |
765 |
23,975 |
23,206 |
$38,968 |
$41,703 |
2,008 |
2,039 |
27,632 |
26,566 |
$46,432 |
$48,940 |
4,739 |
4,797 |
76,387 |
76,496 |
$17,911 |
$18,757 |
2,342 |
2,402 |
60,226 |
64,088 |
$54,664 |
$56,660 |
8,986 |
9,271 |
135,165 |
138,710 |
$32,244 |
$34,125 |
820 |
832 |
63,845 |
63,515 |
$41,049 |
$42,576 |
121 |
140 |
7,411 |
7,404 |
$43,634 |
$43,161 |
258 |
245 |
25,351 |
24,376 |
$41,233 |
$44,682 |
441 |
447 |
31,083 |
31,735 |
$38,279 |
$39,885 |
Middlesex County |
4,427 |
4,529 |
63,842 |
64,326 |
$34,169 |
$35,362 |
4,151 |
4,249 |
55,070 |
55,501 |
$33,366 |
$34,660 |
131 |
137 |
944 |
986 |
$19,632 |
$20,955 |
462 |
472 |
2,037 |
2,244 |
$35,936 |
$38,578 |
306 |
299 |
13,003 |
13,052 |
$43,850 |
$46,593 |
146 |
146 |
1,914 |
2,074 |
$40,928 |
$41,109 |
346 |
357 |
2,356 |
2,526 |
$39,848 |
$41,257 |
943 |
949 |
11,046 |
10,941 |
$16,395 |
$17,253 |
283 |
283 |
6,677 |
6,142 |
$49,655 |
$50,012 |
1,525 |
1,595 |
17,031 |
17,450 |
$28,650 |
$29,783 |
276 |
280 |
8,772 |
8,826 |
$40,599 |
$40,543 |
32 |
38 |
331 |
324 |
$41,692 |
$40,209 |
45 |
44 |
3,493 |
3,471 |
$45,545 |
$45,921 |
199 |
198 |
4,948 |
5,031 |
$34,561 |
$35,498 |
New London County |
6,264 |
6,369 |
119,156 |
120,520 |
$33,117 |
$34,624 |
5,812 |
5,916 |
103,159 |
104,312 |
$32,669 |
$34,167 |
184 |
190 |
1,887 |
1,920 |
$21,824 |
$23,018 |
620 |
628 |
3,885 |
3,953 |
$43,517 |
$40,569 |
238 |
240 |
20,334 |
20,344 |
$50,334 |
$54,277 |
247 |
249 |
6,046 |
6,264 |
$45,522 |
$48,543 |
314 |
320 |
2,136 |
2,195 |
$39,607 |
$40,927 |
1,522 |
1,535 |
20,128 |
19,988 |
$16,077 |
$17,006 |
439 |
444 |
3,077 |
3,047 |
$33,178 |
$34,202 |
2,240 |
2,299 |
45,613 |
46,559 |
$29,582 |
$30,414 |
452 |
453 |
15,997 |
16,208 |
$36,290 |
$38,232 |
62 |
66 |
2,706 |
2,635 |
$36,146 |
$36,599 |
108 |
105 |
4,093 |
4,203 |
$37,356 |
$42,459 |
282 |
282 |
9,198 |
9,370 |
$35,369 |
$35,638 |
Windham County |
2,415 |
2,500 |
35,626 |
36,302 |
$27,652 |
$28,349 |
2,174 |
2,253 |
29,567 |
30,152 |
$26,592 |
$27,335 |
66 |
67 |
404 |
414 |
$16,024 |
$16,691 |
256 |
263 |
1,084 |
1,126 |
$33,461 |
$33,518 |
198 |
210 |
9,159 |
9,088 |
$35,494 |
$37,035 |
87 |
88 |
1,007 |
1,007 |
$33,270 |
$35,134 |
136 |
151 |
986 |
1,226 |
$31,272 |
$30,946 |
518 |
536 |
7,362 |
7,368 |
$16,021 |
$16,297 |
158 |
151 |
982 |
955 |
$28,068 |
$29,134 |
745 |
778 |
8,531 |
8,916 |
$24,210 |
$24,642 |
241 |
247 |
6,059 |
6,149 |
$35,029 |
$35,540 |
41 |
46 |
222 |
215 |
$37,715 |
$37,259 |
60 |
58 |
1,996 |
1,999 |
$37,001 |
$39,275 |
140 |
143 |
3,841 |
3,935 |
$30,370 |
$30,087 |
* Transportation & Public Utilities
** Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate |
Among the four competitive strengths of the
"inner city" according to Harvard Business School Professor Michael Porter is
"unmet local demand." Porter explains: "The consumer market of inner-city
residents represents the most immediate opportunity for inner-city-based entrepreneurs and
businesses. Despite low average incomes, high population density translates into a large
local market with substantial purchasing power."
Examples of inner-city retail opportunity are
numerous. Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Houston, as well as the Bronx and
Harlem are all cited as examples. These are places where inner city retail benefits from
high density, proximity to customers, and recognition of and adaptation to the fact that
inner cities are distinct markets that demand uniquely tailored product configurations.
Supermarkets, facing saturation in the suburbs, are launching successful new openings in
many under-served inner cities. Even banks are increasingly making new investments in
inner cities.
Porter's subsidiary - Initiative for a
Competitive Inner City (ICIC) - is working collaboratively with research teams and
State and local officials to define and identify inner city opportunities in Bridgeport,
Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, and Waterbury. Connecticut is the first in the nation to
simultaneously study the economic development potential of five cities statewide.
Commissioner James F.
Abromaitis of the Connecticut
Department of Economic and
Community Development announced
that Connecticut communities
authorized 1,230 new
housing units in June 1999, a 2.2
percent increase compared to
June of 1998 when 1,203 were
authorized.
The Department further indicated
that the 1,230 units permitted
in June 1999 represent an
increase of 38.8 percent from the
886 units permitted in May 1999.
The year-to-date permits are up
3.8 percent, from 5,313 through
June 1998, to 5,514 through June
1999.
"The 1999 permit figures
continue to point to a robust
housing market," Commissioner
Abromaitis said. "What is most
impressive is the fact that, half
way through 1999, year-to-date
totals are solidly ahead of 1998 -
the strongest year of the decade."
Reports from municipal officials
throughout the state indicate that
New Haven County with 78.8
percent showed the greatest
percentage increase in June
compared to the same month a
year ago. Litchfield County followed
with a 70.0 percent increase.
New Haven County documented
the largest number of new,
authorized units in June with 320.
Hartford County followed with 269
units and Fairfield County had
218 units. North Haven led all
Connecticut communities with 102
units, followed by Hamden with 73
and Avon with 61.
The Connecticut leading and
coincident employment
indexes have marked time
throughout 1999, drifting with no
obvious trend. The Connecticut
coincident index dropped slightly
with the release of the (preliminary)
May data and currently lies
just above its December 1998
level. The Connecticut leading
index also fell slightly with the
release of the May data but lies
just below its December 1998
level.
The coincident index, a gauge
of current employment activity, did
rise at a significant pace from early
1996 through late 1998, after
lackluster growth in the early part
of the current expansion. Whether
the current breather is to be
followed by future advances or
declines only time will tell. Recent
movements in the leading index,
however, do not provide much of a
clue about this issue.
The leading index, a barometer
of future employment activity, has
bounced around considerably
during the last few years. On
several occasions, this column
posed the question of whether the
leading index had begun to head
south, signaling the future pullback
of the Connecticut economy.
So far, the movement in the
leading index has only raised
concerns about the future of the
Connecticut economy. But, it has
not yet given the dramatic changes
necessary to call a reversal in the
economy's most recent upward
trend, which would signal a future
retrenchment.
Just what factors will limit
further increases in the coincident
index? The insured and total
unemployment rates may have
difficulty falling much below their
current 2.05 and 3.4 percent
values, although they were somewhat
lower at the last peak (i.e.,
1.30 and 3.0 percent in early
1989). Thus, nonfarm jobs and
total employment represent the
possible sources of further increases
in the coincident index.
But as noted in this column
before, the sluggish growth of the
labor force may restrain upward
movements in nonfarm jobs and
total employment.
In summary, the coincident
employment index rose from 95.7
in May 1998 to 99.2 in May 1999.
Two components of the index point
in a positive direction on a yearover-
year basis with higher nonfarm
employment and higher total
employment. One component
points in a negative direction on a
year-over-year basis with a higher
insured unemployment rate.
Finally, the fourth component, the
total unemployment rate, remains
unchanged on a year-over-year
basis.
The leading employment index
fell from 92.0 in May 1998 to 89.9
in May 1999. All five index components
sent negative signals on a
year-over-year basis with a lower
average work week of manufacturing
production workers, higher
initial claims for unemployment
insurance, lower Hartford help
wanted advertising, a higher shortduration
(less than 15 weeks)
unemployment rate, and lower
total housing permits.
SOURCE: Connecticut Center for or Economic Analysis, University of Connecticut. Developed by Pami Dua [Economic Cycle
Research Institute; NY,NY] and Stephen M. Miller [(860) 486-3853, Storrs Campus]. Kathryn E. Parr and Hulya Varol [(860) 486-0485, Storrs Campus] provided research support.
Return to Top
|