Best Cities

New Geography Top Stories of 2009

Mark Schill — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:28:22 -0500

As we bring to a close our first full calendar year at NewGeography.com, we thought readers may be interested in which articles out of more than 350 published enjoyed the widest readership. It’s been a solid year of growth for the site; visits to the site over the past six months have more than tripled over last year and subscribers have increased by a factor of six. The list of popular articles is based both on.readership online and via RSS.

15. Joel Kotkin’s piece, Numbers Don't Support Migration Exodus to "Cool Cities", makes the case that places considered “cool” by many in media and economic development circles are actually losing net migrants to other U.S. regions. In almost every case, he argues, your local resources are better spent focused on skills upgrades for your local residents or hard and soft infrastructure upgrades for industries already successful in your region. This article originally appeared on Forbes.com

14. The British Labour Party is no example for American Progressives. Legatum Institute Senior Fellow Ryan Streeter’s piece just in time for the 4th of July, View from the UK: The Progressive’s Dilemma, dissects Britain’s high social spending, increasing debt load. Streeter contends that the UK is danger of mortgaging its future.

13. Breaking down Obama’s first year and looking forward. In two equally popular pieces from this fall, Joel Kotkin outlines a five point plan to improve Obama’s presidency (Obama Still Can Save His Presidency which originally appeared in Forbes.com. In the second piece he takes encouragement from signs that the President may be retuning his policy back towards America – “a big, amazingly diverse country with an expanding population” – and away from the “Scandinavian Consensus” model (Is Obama Separating from His Scandinavian Muse?) . This article originally appeared on Politico.com.

12. State of the economy June 2009. Susanne Trimbath says it may be a while before the average citizen will actually see tangible improvements in the economy. As is often the case, Susanne’s predictions have turned out so far to be all too accurate.

11. Questioning the stimulus plan. In February’sStimulus Plan Caters to the Privileged Public Sector, Joel Kotkin calls the stimulus plan “a massive bailout and expansion of the public-sector workforce as well as quasi-government workers in fields like health and education” yet “as little as 5% of the money is going toward making the country more productive in the longer run – toward such things as new roads, bridges, improved rail and significant new electrical generation.” This article originally appeared in Forbes.com

10. Is California’s economic malaise leaking into Oregon? After years of strong migration flows of former Californians heading to Oregon, Joel Kotkin and California Lutheran University economist Bill Watkins point out that the state’s oppressive tax policies and red tape may be leaking into Oregon as well in California Disease: Oregon at Risk of Economic Malady. The article originally appeared in The Portland Oregonian.

9. Tracking housing decline. Wendell Cox broke down the comparative national housing market in two widely read pieces. In the first he points out that the downturn can be broken into two phases, one mirroring the explosive growth in many overvalued markets, and another second phase were markets are declining across the board: Housing Downturn Moves Into Phase II. In the second, Wendell uses his median multiple calculation for the 49 largest metropolitan regions to show that prices in many place still have much farther to fall to reach historic norms: Housing Downturn Update: We May Have Reached Bottom, But Not Everywhere.

8. Public debt is looming. Susanne Trimbath lists public debt levels of the most highly leveraged sovereign nations and explains why this debt and the credit default swaps purchased against it could create a looming public catastrophe: The Next Global Financial Crisis: Public Debt.

7. Washington, DC is flourishing in the recession. NYU Professor and urban commentator Mitchell Moss explains how Washington is the one city benefiting from the government stimulus. He argues this is stimulating the DC economy, from increased lobbyist activity to web designers benefiting from the government’s new interest in digital communications: Washington, DC: The Real Winner in this Recession.

6. Californa’s Decline. Three equally widely read pieces track the drastic shift in California from economic vibrancy to stagnancy: Kotkin’s “Death of the California Dream which ran first in Newsweek and The Decline of Los Angeles from February on Forbes.com. The third piece by economist Bill Watkins examines California’s domestic migration net losses using an old coal mining metaphor: In California, the Canary is Dead.

5. Housing Affordability Rankings. The most read housing piece this year was Wendell Cox’s release of his annual housing affordability rankings based on median multiple calculations (ratio of median housing price to median household income in a given market). “Housing Prices Will Continue to Fall, Especially in California” lists median multiple calculations for each metropolitan region in the U.S. of more than 1,000,000 population.

4. Detroit as a model for urban renewal. In a widely linked piece across the blogosphere, Aaron Renn points out that the decline in Detroit could be a platform for residents to get creative with urban re-development. This piece is full of stunning imagery of formerly dense neighborhoods now full of greenspace that sent me on a two hour Google Earth binge exploring the area. Detroit: Urban Laboratory and the New American Frontier.

3. ”Alternative” Geography. New Geography publisher Delore Zimmerman’s run down of odd and quirky maps that redefine borders of the U.S. proved very popular on social bookmarking sites. “Borderline Reality”: “Sometimes maps can inspire and motivate us by helping to more fully understand the geography of our economic and demographic challenges and opportunities. Perhaps most importantly thematic maps tell a story about places.”

2. Portland isn’t a model for every community. Easily our most widely discussed, shared, and linked piece this year was Aaron Renn’s “The White City.” The piece sparked a fair amount of criticism with some looking to poke holes in the racial breakdowns and others taking the piece as an affront to liberal politics instead of an examination of urban planning policy. Many of the most vehement critics failed to address the central point of the piece: Portland is a unique place with a unique disposition and composition, yet it is held up by many community leaders in other regions as the ultimate in public policy. Instead of holding up Portland as a model, cities and regions need to do a better job of looking at themselves and defining policy based upon local community identity. Be who you are.

1. Best Cities Rankings. Overall, our most read content at New Geography this year was the Best Cities Rankings, released in April with Forbes. Our rankings are purposefully focused just on a combination of measures of one metric, employment change. We leave out all of the more qualitative measures thinking that all contribute to the output of a shifting employment landscape.

Where are the Best Cities for Job Growth? (Summary Piece)
2009 How We Pick the Best Cities for Job Growth
All Cities Rankings - 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

It’s been a good year at New Geography, one of steady growth and, we believe, increased influence. We welcome your comments, participation, and submissions. Thanks for reading.

Austin's Secrets For Economic Success

Joel Kotkin — Tue, 12 May 2009 00:27:17 -0400

Few places have received more accolades in recent years than Austin, the city that ranked first on our list of the best big cities for jobs. Understanding what makes this attractive, fast-growing city tick can tell us much about what urban growth will look like in the coming decades.

Austin's success is not surprising since, in many ways, it starts on third base. Two of its greatest assets result from the luck of the draw; it's both a state capital and home to a major research university.

Our ranking of the best cities for job growth includes many college towns--from Fargo, N.D., (home to North Dakota State) to Athens, Ga., (University of Georgia), Durham-Chapel Hill, N.C., (Duke and University of North Carolina) and College Station, Texas (Texas A&M).

Being a state capital also helps. Baton Rouge, La., home to both the state government and Louisiana State University, ranked seventh on our list of the best medium-sized cities for employment. This confluence of institutions also accounts in large part for the relatively decent rankings of two Midwestern cities, Indianapolis and Columbus, Ohio, in spite of the generally sad situation in that region.

That's because colleges and state governments offer stable employment--since they cannot or will not outsource jobs to India or China. These places also tend to be inhabited by reasonably well-educated people whose stable incomes makes them less vulnerable to contractions in competitive industries like finance, manufacturing, construction or information.

"We're pretty close to recession-proof," suggest Chris Bradford, a local attorney and blogger in Austin. "It's almost anti-cyclical. In bad times, the students want to stay here."

There is a third factor, however, that adds to Austin's special sauce: the fact that it is located in Texas, the one fast-growing mega-state. With low taxes and low regulation at the state level, Austin--no doubt to many locals' consternation--is a great environment not only for public sector employment but also private sector growth.

Its success contrasts dramatically with the relatively poor employment status of capitals in business-unfriendly states (such as Sacramento, Calif., which ranked 60th among large cities) as well as other college towns like Ann Arbor, Mich., home to one of the nation's best public universities, the University of Michigan. (Among medium-sized cities, Ann Arbor came in 93rd.)

Austin, essentially, reaps the benefits of being a deep blue, Democratic island in a red-state sea. The university and state government employ large numbers of people who might want higher taxes and greater regulation--but they can talk the redistributionist's game without feeling any of the pain.

This is not to say that Austin itself--that is, its urban core area--does not try to trot out its blue, and "green," trimmings. Like every college town, Austin likes smart growth, mass transit and high density.

But in reality, Austin is not a dense region. In fact, its metropolitan population per acre puts it in the middle of the nation's largest areas, well behind not only Los Angeles and New York but also Houston and Dallas.

Even central Austin seems rather spread out and suburban compared to traditional East Coast cities. Smaller, older homes--mainly cottages--dominate neighborhoods close to downtown. Recent attempts to go high-rise have not been notably successful, as the auction signs on the sides of some new towers suggest.

Yet the urban center increasingly represents less and less of the area's total employment and houses fewer and fewer of its residences. Today, the city itself is home to well under half the metropolitan population of 1.5 million.

As in many regions, notes blogger Bradford, over the past decade the strongest growth has occurred in Austin's periphery. Even as the city itself has enjoyed strong job and population growth, the biggest increases have taken place in suburban outposts outside city limits, like Williamson, Bastrop and Hays counties, as well as parts of Travis, the county that is home to Austin. In fact, Williamson was the nation's sixth fastest-growing county last year, while Hays ranked 10th.

Surprisingly, these suburban areas are the places most driving Austin's economic success. Why? Two reasons: affordability and livability. By Texas standards, the city is not cheap. It costs between $350,000 and $400,000 for a nice three- or four-bedroom house in a good school district, say, 20 minutes from downtown. However, a similar place in the 'burbs of Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Boston or Irvine would run at least twice as much.

Local Realtor and blogger Shannan Gonyea-Reimer adds that, a bit further away from town, home prices can drop as low as $150,000. "People come from California, and they are shocked," she says.

This price structure, along with the human capital attracted to the University of Texas, has in turn propelled the rapid expansion of the non-governmental economy in places like Cedar Creek and Round Rock, home to Dell. A recent Brookings study estimates that central Austin employment grew by almost 13% between 1998 and 2006. The number of jobs more than 10 miles from the central business district increased by 77,523, or 62%, according to the study.

Austin has seen remarkable overall employment growth--almost 34%--in the last decade. With that figure, it leaves its major hip tech rivals in the dust. Over the same period, for example, San Jose/Silicon Valley has lost 6% of its jobs; San Francisco, around 1.6%. Boston, Austin's other big high-tech competitor, enjoyed only a 1.2% gain.

Again, this growth stems in part from the unique combination of both an appealing city center and attractive suburbs. The city's lively urban core remains a lure for affluent professionals, young singles and, of course, students. However, unlike places like New York, Boston and San Francisco, the sprawling 'burbs provide an affordable place for people to move to when their hardcore clubbing days are over.

"California might work well for the apartment-dwelling, single-guy lifestyle person, but when you get married, you can't afford Los Gatos," says former Silicon Valley entrepreneur Mike Shultz, the CEO of Infoglide, a software firm headquartered on Austin's outer ring. "In Austin, the same person can grow up, move into a reasonable house and have a reasonable life."

This does much to explain why Austin has enjoyed a migration pattern unlike that of its primary competitors. Its residents may start off hip and cool, but the city also accommodates their often inevitable evolution to Ozzie and Harriet. This allows individuals and companies to plan to stick around. One doesn't have to have the short-term mentality so common in the Bay Area, L.A., Boston or New York.

Ultimately, it is this combination of a "cool" downtown culture--with excellent restaurants as well as great music--and a more sedate, affordable periphery that makes Austin a home run.

"It has a hip cool side to it," Shultz observes, "but it's also a great place to raise kids."

A caveat to all this: We also have to consider scale. With roughly 1.5 million people, Austin simply offers more convenient choices than a megalopolitan behemoth like Los Angeles, New York or the Bay Area. In Austin, nice, single-family homes within walking distance of cool urban streets are not uncommon or absurdly expensive--and even a larger, more affordable house out in the suburbs is usually less than a half an hour from downtown.

Additionally, Texas, unlike its main rival California, is not teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and is instead a stable long-term bet in this recession. Rather than haggling with bankers or public employee unions, it is busy building its future: attracting new comers, investing in its university and building new transportation infrastructure.

"Austin is off the charts livable, but it's in a state that makes it viable," says Shultz, the entrepreneur. "You can't say that about California and many of the other places where our competitors are."

This article originally appeared at Forbes.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

The Worst Cities for Job Growth

Joel Kotkin — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:21:38 -0400

One of the saddest tasks in the annual survey of the best places to do business I conduct with Pepperdine University's Michael Shires is examining the cities at the bottom of the list. Yet even in these nether regions there exists considerable diversity: Some places are likely to come back soon, while others have little immediate hope of moving up. (Please also see "Best Cities For Job Growth" for further analysis.)

The study is based on job growth in 336 regions – called Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provided the data – across the U.S. Our analysis looked not only at job growth in the last year but also at how employment figures have changed since 1996. This is because we are wary of overemphasizing recent data and strive to give a more complete picture of the potential a region has for job-seekers. (For the complete methodology, click here.)

First let's deal with the perennial losers, the sad sacks of the American economy. Mostly cities in the nation's industrial heartland, these places have ranked toward the bottom of our list for much of the past five years. Eleven of the bottom 16 regions on our list are in two states, Ohio and Michigan. In fact, the Wolverine State alone accounts for the bottom four cities: Jackson, Detroit, Saginaw and Flint.

Unfortunately, there's not much in the way of short-term – or perhaps even medium- or long-term – hope for a strong rebound in those places. President Obama seems determined to give the automakers, for whom Michigan is home base, far rougher treatment than what he meted out to ailing companies in the financial sector.

In addition, new environmental regulations may not help auto production, since it necessitates some carbon-spewing and therefore perhaps unacceptable levels of greenhouse gas emission.

However, not all of Michigan's problems stem from Washington or the marketplace. Many of the locations at the bottom of the list remain inhospitable to business. To be sure, housing is cheap – in Detroit, property values are fast plummeting toward zero – but running a business can be surprisingly expensive in these hard-pressed places.

In fact, according to a recent survey by the Tax Foundation, Ohio has an average tax burden roughly similar to New York, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. But while the others are comparatively high-income states, Ohio residents no longer enjoy that level of affluence.

Can these places come back? It is un-American to abandon hope, but there needs to be a radical shift in strategy to focus on creating new middle-class jobs. Some Midwestern cities, like Kalamazoo and Indianapolis, have made some successful efforts to diversify their economies, encouraging start-ups and trying to be business-friendly.

But those are exceptions. Cleveland, one of our worst big cities, could spark a renaissance by revamping its port and nearby industrial hinterland. Once the world economy improves, it could re-emerge – building on the existing knowledge and skills of its production- and design-savvy population – as a hub for manufacturing and exports.

But right now, Cleveland does not seem to be pursuing such opportunities. As Purdue's Ed Morrison has pointed out, local leaders there seem to "confuse real estate development with economic development."

So Cleveland will focus on inanities such as convention business and tourism, believing we all fantasize about a week enjoying the sights along Lake Erie. Yet even high-profile buildings like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, completed in 1986, have not transformed a gritty old industrial town into a beacon for the hip and cool.

Old industrial cities like Cleveland are better off focusing on their locational advantages – access to roads, train lines and water routes – while offering a safe, inexpensive and friendly venue for ambitious young families, immigrants and entrepreneurs.

Meanwhile, cities with formerly robust economies – like Reno, Nev., Las Vegas, Orlando, Fla., Tampa, Fla., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., West Palm Beach, Fla., Jacksonville, Fla., and Phoenix – are more likely to rebound. These areas topped our list for much of the 2000s; their success was driven first by surging population and job growth and later by escalating housing prices.

But the collapse of the housing bubble and a drop in large-scale migration from other regions has weakened, often dramatically, these perennial successes. "We could rely on 1,000 people a week moving into the area," notes one longtime official in central Florida. "These people needed services, houses and bought stuff. Now the growth is a 10th of that."

Instead of waiting for the real estate bubble to return, these areas should choose to focus on boosting employment in fields like medical services, business services and light manufacturing. In much of Florida and Nevada, there's also a need to shift away from a reliance on tourism, an industry that pays poorly on average and is always subject to changes in consumer tastes.

We can even be cautiously optimistic about some of these former superstars. After all, observes Phoenix-based economist Elliot Pollack, the existing reasons for moving to Arizona, Nevada or Florida – warm weather, relatively low taxes and generally pro-business governments – have not disappeared. "There's no change in the fundamentals," he argues. "It's a transition. It's ugly, and there's pain, but it's still a cycle that will turn."

Once the economy stabilizes, Pollack says he expects the flow of people and companies from the Northeast and California to Phoenix and other former hot spots will resume, once again lured by inexpensive real estate, better conditions for business and a generally more up-to-date infrastructure.

The Problem with California

So what about California? The economic well-being of many metropolitan areas in the Golden State has been sinking precipitously since 2006. This year, three California regions – Oakland, Sacramento and San Bernardino-Riverside – have sunk down into the bottom 10 on the large cities list. That's a phenomenon we've never seen before – and never expected to see.

Like other Sun Belt communities, California suffered disproportionately from the housing bubble's bust, which has devastated both employment in construction-related industries as well as much of the finance sector. But some, like economist Esmael Adibi, director of the Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University, where I teach, think a real estate turnaround may be imminent.

Among the first to predict the potential for a real estate bubble back in 2005, these days Adibi is more upbeat, pointing to rising sales of single-family homes, particularly at the lower end of the market. California's inventory of unsold homes is now down to about six months' worth, a figure well below the national average of 9.6 months.

It seems not everyone is ready to abandon the Golden State – but still, recovery in California may prove weaker than in surrounding states. One forecaster, Bill Watkins, even predicts unemployment could reach 15% next year, up from about 11% today. California, most likely, will see only an anemic recovery in 2010 even if growth picks up elsewhere.

Much of the problem lies with the state's notoriously inept government. The enormous budget deficit will almost certainly lead to tax increases, which will fall mostly on the state's vaunted high-income entrepreneurial residents. Stimulus funds won't do much good either, Adibi notes, since "the state is grabbing all of the federal stimulus money" to keep itself afloat.

A draconian regulatory environment also could dim California's prospects for growth. Despite double-digit unemployment, the state seems determined not only to raise taxes but also to tighten its regulatory stranglehold.

This is a stark contrast to what happened in the 1990s during the last deep recession. At that time, leaders from both political parties pulled together to reform the state's regulatory and tax environment. Almost everyone recognized the need to improve the economic climate.

But an even deeper recession, it seems, hardly troubles today's dominant players – public employees, environmental activists and gentry liberals who largely live along the coast. The state has recently passed a draconian Assembly bill aimed to offset global warming by capping greenhouse gas emissions – a measure that seems designed to discourage productive industry.

"This is becoming a horrible place to produce anything," says Watkins, who is executive director of the Economic Forecast Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

California's lawyers, though, might stay busy. Attorney General Jerry Brown has threatened to sue anyone who grows their business in unapproved, environment-threatening ways. To be sure, this promise may have relatively little impact on the more affluent, aging coastal communities – but it could wreak havoc on younger, less tony areas in the state's interior. Many of the local economies there still rely on resource-dependent industries like oil, manufacturing and agriculture.

It's sad because California has the capacity to recover more quickly than the rest of the country if the state moderates its spending and stops regulating itself into oblivion. This current round of legislation is so dangerous precisely because it could eviscerate the heart of the economy by slowing down entrepreneurial growth, the state's greatest asset.

Even in hard times, there are people with innovative ideas trying to bring them to market – and not just in Hollywood- and Silicon Valley-based industries but in a broad range of fields, from garments to agriculture, aerospace and processed foods. The desire to increase regulation reflects a peculiar narcissism and arrogance of the state's ruling elites, who believe the genius of San Francisco's venture capitalists and Los Angeles' image-makers alone are enough to spark a powerful recovery.

This is delusional. True, California still has a lead in everything from farm products to films to high-tech manufacturers. But it has been slowly losing ground – to both other states and overseas competitors. CEOs and top management might stay in the Golden State, but they increasingly send outside its borders all jobs that don't require access to the local market, genius scientists or talented entertainers.

"There's a feeling in California that we will come back, no matter what, because we are California," Watkins says. "The leadership is swallowing Panglossian Kool-aid. Some very smart people, a beautiful climate and nice beaches is not enough to guarantee a strong recovery."

This article originally appeared at Forbes.

Big Movers – Up and Down the 2009 Best Cities Rankings

DeloreZ — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:50:54 -0400

In a year when modest – if not negligible – growth could nudge a city toward the top of the Best Cities for Jobs rankings you would suspect there to be little opportunity for big leaps up the scale. On the other hand, one could easily expect that there would be some places whose economic fortunes would resemble a vertigo-inducing fall.

A look at the 2009 rankings confirms that there are many cities whose job-creating engines have sputtered.

Among 336 cities in the rankings 46 cities fell more than 100 places compared to their position in 2008. Below are seven places that took the biggest fall and plummeted more than 200 places compared to 2008.

Seven Falling Stars: Ranking Fell More than 200 Places 2008-2009
City	2008	2009	Rank Change
Port St. Lucie, FL	88	290	-202
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	98	302	-204
Reno-Sparks, NV	104	314	-210
Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	10	230	-220
Prescott, AZ	26	252	-226
Winchester, VA-WV	73	299	-226
Yuma, AZ	33	266	-233

The Big Downstroke
Yuma, Arizona’s precipitous decline of 233 places is partly the result of its once envious position among the top ten percent of cities in 2008. It appears they came late to the economic wake that hit some towns with the collapse of the housing bubble in Arizona, Florida and Nevada as early as 2007 . In many communities in these states 2008 reflected things getting worse as commercial and industrial construction activity also dropped off.

The good news for Yuma, according to Paul Shedal of Yumastats.com is that the “biggest economic pillars,” agriculture and government, have remained relatively unscathed by the recession providing a fallback point that other markets don't have. This means that our worst case scenario for recession "harm" would be returning to our pre-boom level of economic sustainability rather than some depression abyss.”

Another falling star, Winchester, Virginia, fell 226 places in the rankings, experiencing what some in northern Virginia have described as a dramatic turnaround. Manufacturing in this part of the Northern Shenandoah Valley is linked to housing and vehicles, two industries hard hit lately. American Woodmark, the third-largest kitchen and cabinetmaker in the U.S. scaled back production as sales to homebuilders continue to fall. The services sector, once a bright spot for the region, has been shedding jobs in the midst of the recession. And major retailers like Linens N’ Things and Circuit City recently closed.

One bright spot in the Winchester area’s economy is the increase of jobs in the federal government sector, an advantage of its 75 mile proximity to the nation’s capitol. In 2008, the federal government added 400 jobs to the local economy at the Federal Emergency Management Agency offices in Stephenson and the FBI training and recruitment center in Winchester.

Rising Stars
Even in a troubled economy one expects that some places will thrive simply through determination and bold leadership moves, the foresight to have done the right things, or the luck of the draw. Everyone shares a hopeful optimism that a meteoric rise can offer a glimpse of things to come and perhaps offer a roadmap to a more prosperous future.

Rising Stars: Top Five Rankings Climbers 2008-2009
City	2008	2009	Rank Change
Lafayette, IN	287	85	202
Champaign-Urbana, IL	267	83	184
Sioux City, IA-NE.-SD	253	80	173
Lubbock, TX	242	74	168
Wheeling, WV-OH	305	138	167

This year’s rising star is without doubt Lafayette, Indiana with an astounding – and surprising given its Midwestern location – 202-place charge up the rankings from 2008. Like three of the other top five rising stars Lafayette came from a slightly above average position in 2008 to a respectable position in the top 100. These are by no means this year’s best places but their economies are defying the pervasive decline in the national economy.

A visit to the Lafayette Commerce website succinctly tells the tale. “Greater Lafayette wrapped up 2008 with a strong showing.” For Lafayette 2008 was a good year with new capital investments of $600 million, new employment in life sciences industries associated with the Purdue Research Park, and a second new hospital on the way as Greater Lafayette expands its regional healthcare base.

Equally important, Lafayette, like many university and college towns, benefits from the stabilizing presence of Purdue University, the area’s largest employer, which also serves as a force creating new economic opportunities through research, development and access to an educated workforce.

The annual report from Lafayette Commerce concludes by focusing on two key elements of their success. “In Greater Lafayette, we’re choosing not to participate in the national recession by using this opportunity for workforce development and innovation. That’s not to say we have been immune to the troubles of the national economy, but on the whole our community is growing, it’s thriving and improving every day.”

The Impending Future of Boom and Gloom

Science fiction author William Gibson’s famous quip that “the future is already here – it’s just not equally distributed” could have some credence in this year’s rankings –both up and down the scale.

The fastest rising cities boast stable employers in government and universities. They are leveraging this edge to create new opportunities in manufacturing, production agriculture and advanced producer services serving diverse sectors. Growth in health care services to the mixture, until recently one of the few remaining generators of new jobs, has also played a role.

Rising stars like Lafayette have made significant investments in infrastructure and advanced infrasystems, enabling them to create jobs in higher-value, innovation-generating economic activities.

This year’s cities that fell the furthest portend a return to pre-bubble growth patterns. As in the case of Yuma many places will refocus back on their historically strong core industries, like agriculture, and the economic activities that made them viable centers in the first place.

For all cities the ability to innovate locally and take advantage of demonstrated areas of competence represent two key ingredients of success – for building on existing momentum or hitting the reset button for a more prosperous future.

Delore Zimmerman is president and CEO of Praxis Strategy Group and publisher of Newgeography.com

Where are the Best Cities for Job Growth?

Joel Kotkin — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:08:29 -0400

Over the past five years, Michael Shires, associate professor in public policy at Pepperdine University, and I have been compiling a list of the best places to do business. The list, based on job growth in regions across the U.S. over the long, middle and short term, has changed over the years--but the employment landscape has never looked like this.

In past iterations, we saw many fast-growing economies--some adding jobs at annual rates of 3% to 5%. Meanwhile, some grew more slowly, and others actually lost jobs. This year, however, you can barely find a fast-growing economy anywhere in this vast, diverse country. In 2008, 2% growth made a city a veritable boom town, and anything approaching 1% growth is, oddly, better than merely respectable.

So this year perhaps we should call the rankings not the "best" places for jobs, but the "least worst." But the least worst economies in America today largely mirror those that topped the list last year, even if these regions have recently experienced less growth than in prior years. Our No.1-ranked big city, Austin, for example, enjoyed growth of 1% in 2008--less than a third of its average since 2003.

The study is based on job growth in 333 regions--called Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provided the data--across the U.S. Our analysis looked not only at job growth in the last year but also at how employment figures have changed since 1996. This is because we are wary of overemphasizing recent data and strive to give a more complete picture of the potential a region has for job-seekers. (For the complete methodology, click here.)

The top of the complete ranking--which, for ease, we have broken down into the two smaller lists, of the best big and small cities for jobs--is dominated by one state: Texas. The Lone Star State may have lost a powerful advocate in Washington, but it's home to a remarkable eight of the top 20 cities on our list--including No. 1-ranked Odessa, a small city in the state's northwestern region. Further, the top five large metropolitan areas for job growth--Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Ft. Worth and Dallas--are all in Texas' "urban triangle."

The reasons for the state's relative success are varied. A healthy energy industry is certainly one cause. Many Texas high-fliers, including Odessa, Longview, Dallas and Houston, are home to energy companies that employ hordes of people--and usually at fairly high salaries for both blue- and white-collar workers. In some places, these spurts represent a huge reversal from the late 1990s. Take Odessa's remarkable 5.5% job growth in 2008, which followed a period of growth well under 1% from 1998 to 2002.

Of course, not all the nation's energy jobs are located in Texas, even if the state does play host to most of our major oil companies. The surge in energy prices in 2007 also boosted the performance of several other top-ranked locales such as Grand Junction, Colo., Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodoux, La., Tulsa, Okla., Lafayette, La., and Bismarck, N.D.

Looking at the energy sector's hotbeds, however, doesn't tell the whole story. Another major factor behind a city's job offerings is how severely it experienced the housing crisis. There's a "zone of sanity" across the middle of the country, including Kansas City, Mo., that largely avoided the real estate bubble and the subsequent foreclosure crisis.

Still other factors correlating with job growth--as evidenced by Shires' and my current and past studies--are lower costs and taxes. For example, the area around Kennewick, Wash., is far less expensive than coastal communities in that same state, and residents and businesses there also enjoy cheap hydroelectric power. Compared with high-tech centers in California and the Northeast, such as San José and Boston, places like Austin offer both tax and housing-cost bargains, as do Fargo, N.D. and Durham-Chapel Hill, N.C.

College towns also did well on our list, particularly those in states that are both less expensive and outside the Great Lakes. Although universities--and their endowments--are feeling the recession's pinch, they continue to attract students. In fact, colleges saw a bumper crop of applicants this year, as members of the huge millennial generation, encompassing those born after 1983, reach that stage of life. More recently, college towns have emerged as incubators for new companies and as attractive places for retirees.

Specifically, the college town winners include not only well-known places like Austin and Chapel Hill, but also less-hyped places like Athens, Ga., home of the University of Georgia; College Station, Texas, where 48,000-student Texas A&M University is located; Morgantown, W.Va., site of the University of West Virginia; and Fargo, the hub of North Dakota State University.

Democratic states are glaringly absent from the top of the list. You don't get to a traditionally blue state--in a departure from past years, Obama won North Carolina--until you get to Olympia, Wash., and Seattle, which ranked No. 6 among the large cities.

But political changes afoot could affect the trajectory of many of our fast-growing communities--and not always in positive ways. It's possible that the Obama administration's new energy policies, which may discourage domestic fossil fuel production,could put a considerable damper on the still-robust parts of Texas and elsewhere where coal, oil and natural gas industries are still cornerstones of economic success.

By contrast, the wind- and solar-power industries seem to be, as of now, relatively small job generators, and with energy prices low, endeavors in these areas are sustainable only with massive subsidies from Washington. But still, if these sectors grow in size and profitability, other locales that have not typically been seen as energy hubs over the past few decades may benefit--notably parts of California, although Texas and the Great Plains also seem positioned to profit from these developments.

Another critical concern for some communities is the potential for major cutbacks on big-ticket defense spending. This would be of particular interest to communities in places like Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia where new aircraft are currently assembled. Over the years, blue states like California have seen their defense industry shrivel as the once-potent Texas Congressional delegation and the two Bushes tilted toward Lone Star State contractors.

These days it's big-city mayors and big blue-state governors who are looking for financial support from Obama. Northeast boosters are convinced more money on mass transit, inter-city rail lines and scientific research will rev up their economies. Boston--No. 16 on the list of large cities and a leading medical and scientific research center--could be a beneficiary of the new federal spending.

The most obvious winner from the recent power shift should be Washington, D.C. The Obama-led stimulus, including the massive Treasury bailout, has transformed the town from merely the political capital into the de facto center of regular capital as well. Watch for D.C. and its environs to move up our list over the next year or two. Already the area boasts one of the few strong apartment markets among the big metropolitan areas in the country, which will only improve as job-seekers flock to the new Rome.

Yet Washington is an anomaly, because most of the places that stand to benefit from this unforgiving economy are ones that are affordable and therefore friendly to business, reinforcing a key trend of the last decade. It also helps regions to have ties to core industries like energy and agriculture, a sector that has remained relatively strong and will strengthen again when global demand for food increases.

Some areas have attracted new residents readily and continue to do so, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. Over time this migration could be good news for a handful of metropolitan areas like Salt Lake City, which ranks seventh among the big cities for job growth, and Raleigh-Cary, N.C., which was No. 1 among large cities last year and No. 8 this year. Over the last few years, these places have consistently appeared at the top of our rankings and are emerging as preferred sites for cutting-edge technology and manufacturing firms.

Below these winners are a cluster of other promising places that have already managed to withstand the current downturn in decent shape and seem certain to rebound along with the overall economy. These include the largely suburban area around Kansas City, Kan., perennial high-flyer Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and Greeley, Colo.--in part due to their ability to attract workers and businesses from bigger metropolitan centers nearby--as well as Huntsville, Ala., which has a strong concentration of workers in the government and high-tech sectors.

In the end, most of the cities at the top of the lists--whether they are small, medium or large--have shown they have what it takes to survive in tough times. Less-stressed local governments will be able to construct needed infrastructure and attract new investors so that job growth can rise to the levels of past years. If better days are in the offing, these areas seem best positioned to be the next drivers of the economic expansion this nation sorely needs.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.

All Cities Rankings - 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

Michael Shires — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:12:54 -0400

Read how we pick the best cities.

Overall Rank 2009	Area	2009 Weighted INDEX	2008 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)	Size 2009	Overall Rank Movement	2009 Size Rank
1	Odessa, TX	100.0	64.8	S	3	1
2	Grand Junction, CO	92.4	66.5	S	9	2
3	Longview, TX	90.0	98.4	S	10	3
4	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA	88.0	97.8	S	26	4
5	Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX	87.9	128.4	S	63	5
6	Austin-Round Rock, TX	87.7	778.5	L	13	1
7	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	87.6	221.1	M	13	1
8	Laredo, TX	87.1	91.3	S	51	6
9	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	85.4	2,609.6	L	19	2
10	Tulsa, OK	85.1	436.6	M	131	2
11	Athens-Clarke County, GA	85.0	86.2	S	64	7
12	Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA	84.7	93.7	S	11	8
13	Morgantown, WV	84.5	63.4	S	8	9
14	Lafayette, LA	84.1	151.2	M	28	3
15	Fargo, ND-MN	83.9	122.4	S	31	10
16	College Station-Bryan, TX	83.5	96.3	S	147	11
17	Coeur d'Alene, ID	83.0	55.8	S	-14	12
18	Bismarck, ND	82.8	61.0	S	34	13
19	Durham-Chapel Hill, NC	82.3	291.0	M	24	4
20	San Antonio, TX	82.0	849.8	L	28	3
21	Alexandria, LA	81.7	67.0	S	97	14
22	Kansas City, KS	81.1	446.4	M	47	5
23	Corpus Christi, TX	80.8	182.8	M	105	6
24	Cheyenne, WY	80.8	44.9	S	5	15
25	Olympia, WA	80.1	103.3	S	2	16
26	Sioux Falls, SD	79.9	135.6	S	25	17
27	Baton Rouge, LA	79.2	377.4	M	44	7
28	Greeley, CO	78.8	82.5	S	-3	18
29	Tyler, TX	78.7	96.3	S	66	19
30	Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division	78.3	877.5	L	20	4
31	Las Cruces, NM	78.0	69.4	S	47	20
32	Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division	78.0	2,102.1	L	25	5
33	Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	77.6	180.1	M	51	8
34	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Division	77.2	1,457.8	L	20	6
35	Anchorage, AK	76.7	169.7	M	149	9
36	Salt Lake City, UT	76.5	640.2	L	-14	7
37	Mobile, AL	74.7	183.3	M	121	10
38	Raleigh-Cary, NC	74.6	513.5	L	-30	8
39	El Paso, TX	74.6	278.8	M	57	11
40	Huntsville, AL	74.6	211.6	M	-8	12
41	Joplin, MO	73.1	80.9	S	50	21
42	Fayetteville, NC	73.1	129.0	S	20	22
43	Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR	73.0	58.4	S	118	23
44	Oklahoma City, OK	72.9	576.8	L	111	9
45	Greenville, NC	72.4	77.2	S	-33	24
46	Fort Collins-Loveland, CO	72.3	136.6	S	7	25
47	Midland, TX	72.0	71.3	S	-46	26
48	Gainesville, GA	71.1	76.9	S	-31	27
49	Auburn-Opelika, AL	71.1	54.3	S	-44	28
50	Bakersfield, CA	71.1	237.5	M	-12	13
51	Columbia, MO	70.7	93.4	S	66	29
52	Lynchburg, VA	70.5	109.3	S	14	30
53	Dubuque, IA	70.4	55.4	S	57	31
54	Provo-Orem, UT	70.1	188.2	M	-47	14
55	Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA	70.0	1,020.8	L	1	10
56	Iowa City, IA	69.8	90.9	S	18	32
57	Warner Robins, GA	69.4	58.0	S	-33	33
58	Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC	69.4	295.5	M	-23	15
59	Rapid City, SD	69.4	60.3	S	118	34
60	Amarillo, TX	69.4	113.2	S	59	35
61	Wilmington, NC	69.1	142.7	S	-55	36
62	Framingham, MA NECTA Division	68.7	159.5	M	116	16
63	St. Joseph, MO-KS	68.5	58.9	S	-29	37
64	Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA	68.2	58.5	S	23	38
65	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	68.2	321.9	M	2	17
66	Santa Fe, NM	68.2	65.0	S	11	39
67	Billings, MT	68.0	79.3	S	-36	40
68	Brownsville-Harlingen, TX	67.8	125.3	S	66	41
69	Peoria, IL	67.6	189.8	M	14	18
70	Grand Forks, ND-MN	67.2	54.8	S	31	42
71	Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	67.1	207.0	M	10	19
72	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	66.8	468.2	L	99	11
73	Savannah, GA	66.8	157.6	M	-58	20
74	Lubbock, TX	66.7	131.1	S	168	43
75	Bellingham, WA	66.6	84.1	S	-57	44
76	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division	66.6	2,424.3	L	38	12
77	Cedar Rapids, IA	66.4	138.7	S	76	45
78	Pueblo, CO	66.2	58.4	S	-8	46
79	Boulder, CO	65.9	166.9	M	42	21
80	Sioux City, IA-NE-SD	65.8	76.5	S	173	47
81	Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division	65.8	277.6	M	-67	22
82	Valdosta, GA	65.6	56.5	S	27	48
83	Champaign-Urbana, IL	65.6	116.3	S	184	49
84	Northern Virginia, VA	65.0	1,305.5	L	8	13
85	Lafayette, IN	64.9	96.6	S	202	50
86	Abilene, TX	64.7	68.1	S	19	51
87	Fort Smith, AR-OK	64.2	124.3	S	12	52
88	Wichita, KS	63.8	311.0	M	5	23
89	Charlottesville, VA	63.8	100.5	S	-49	53
90	Ithaca, NY	63.8	64.7	S	77	54
91	Spokane, WA	63.7	215.9	M	-36	24
92	York-Hanover, PA	63.7	182.9	M	-3	25
93	Pascagoula, MS	63.0	58.6	S	-29	55
94	Albuquerque, NM	63.0	393.5	M	35	26
95	New York City, NY	62.3	3,760.2	L	35	14
96	St. Cloud, MN	61.8	102.0	S	-10	56
97	Bowling Green, KY	61.8	61.4	S	-81	57
98	Oshkosh-Neenah, WI	61.5	93.9	S	161	58
99	Hattiesburg, MS	61.4	60.6	S	-34	59
100	Salem, OR	61.4	150.1	M	-6	27
101	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	61.1	198.0	M	-64	28
102	Springfield, MO	60.9	197.6	M	-55	29
103	Waco, TX	60.4	107.6	S	-21	60
104	Topeka, KS	60.1	111.7	S	158	61
105	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL	60.0	189.3	M	128	30
106	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	59.7	344.5	M	-3	31
107	Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC	59.4	314.7	M	-35	32
108	State College, PA	59.3	74.2	S	46	62
109	Lincoln, NE	58.9	172.4	M	61	33
110	Rochester, MN	58.8	106.0	S	52	63
111	Flagstaff, AZ	58.8	63.5	S	9	64
112	Tuscaloosa, AL	58.8	96.8	S	-22	65
113	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	58.5	1,228.0	L	-5	15
114	Charleston, WV	57.5	151.5	M	166	34
115	La Crosse, WI-MN	57.2	74.7	S	119	66
116	Columbia, SC	56.6	362.1	M	-37	35
117	Bloomington-Normal, IL	56.5	91.8	S	120	67
118	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division	56.1	1,696.4	L	77	16
119	Lake Charles, LA	55.9	92.8	S	54	68
120	Spartanburg, SC	55.8	128.0	S	136	69
121	Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY	55.7	579.9	L	48	17
122	Springfield, IL	55.6	111.9	S	159	70
123	Montgomery, AL	55.6	176.9	M	-16	36
124	Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA	55.6	90.0	S	83	71
125	Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC	55.5	841.5	L	-84	18
126	St. George, UT	55.3	50.7	S	-124	72
127	Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	55.2	163.1	M	23	37
128	Manchester, NH NECTA	55.1	101.6	S	37	73
129	Syracuse, NY	54.6	325.0	M	121	38
130	Trenton-Ewing, NJ	54.4	238.4	M	78	39
131	Gainesville, FL	54.1	134.9	S	-7	74
132	Honolulu, HI	54.0	451.5	L	-52	19
133	Visalia-Porterville, CA	53.7	112.0	S	-1	75
134	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	53.6	902.9	L	47	20
135	Eau Claire, WI	53.3	82.3	S	-8	76
136	Yakima, WA	53.3	77.5	S	10	77
137	Rochester, NY	53.2	518.1	L	156	21
138	Wheeling, WV-OH	53.2	68.2	S	167	78
139	Jefferson City, MO	53.1	79.5	S	29	79
140	Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL	52.9	56.0	S	-140	80
141	Glens Falls, NY	52.7	52.8	S	-18	81
142	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	52.5	894.9	L	-93	22
143	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA	52.3	71.9	S	163	82
144	San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division	51.6	982.3	L	5	23
145	Bethesda-Frederick-Rockville, MD Metropolitan Division	51.5	573.0	L	102	24
146	Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA	51.5	54.5	S	-24	83
147	Macon, GA	51.4	101.3	S	154	84
148	Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division	51.1	394.5	M	84	40
149	Erie, PA	50.6	132.2	S	99	85
150	Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL	50.6	73.1	S	-111	86
151	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	50.5	340.8	M	61	41
152	Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA	50.1	171.9	M	45	42
153	Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN	50.1	748.6	L	-56	25
154	Orlando-Kissimmee, FL	49.8	1,056.8	L	-109	26
155	Johnstown, PA	49.7	61.5	S	65	87
156	Decatur, IL	49.5	54.8	S	58	88
157	Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH	49.4	119.6	S	18	89
158	Madison, WI	49.2	343.6	M	70	43
159	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	48.7	327.1	M	85	44
160	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	48.5	760.9	L	33	27
161	Fresno, CA	48.4	297.9	M	-2	45
162	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY	48.4	254.8	M	116	46
163	Utica-Rome, NY	48.4	132.6	S	105	90
164	Kansas City, MO	48.3	564.1	L	30	28
165	Binghamton, NY	48.2	114.1	S	78	91
166	New Haven, CT NECTA	48.0	277.2	M	95	47
167	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	47.9	214.0	M	49	48
168	Asheville, NC	47.6	172.3	M	-132	49
169	Pittsburgh, PA	47.6	1,138.9	L	91	29
170	Bend, OR	47.6	66.3	S	-161	92
171	Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Division	47.5	132.5	S	39	93
172	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA	47.4	102.2	S	-25	94
173	Duluth, MN-WI	47.4	131.3	S	25	95
174	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	47.1	548.3	L	117	30
175	Florence, SC	47.0	87.5	S	-117	96
176	Philadelphia City, PA	46.6	661.4	L	132	31
177	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	46.5	446.9	M	99	50
178	Columbus, OH	46.4	933.5	L	21	32
179	St. Louis, MO-IL	46.3	1,341.9	L	78	33
180	Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division	46.2	1,255.5	L	22	34
181	Bangor, ME NECTA	46.1	66.2	S	89	97
182	Lancaster, PA	46.1	235.2	M	22	51
183	Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA	45.9	121.7	S	106	98
184	Jackson, MS	45.7	258.9	M	-10	52
185	Salinas, CA	45.6	126.9	S	34	99
186	Gary, IN Metropolitan Division	45.4	279.0	M	53	53
187	Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH NECTA Division	45.3	76.6	S	68	100
188	Chattanooga, TN-GA	45.3	244.3	M	21	54
189	Napa, CA	45.3	62.4	S	-6	101
190	Colorado Springs, CO	45.1	254.2	M	-39	55
191	Boise City-Nampa, ID	44.8	261.6	M	-147	56
192	Winston-Salem, NC	44.8	214.7	M	-66	57
193	Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH	44.8	72.8	S	-4	102
194	Lexington-Fayette, KY	44.8	253.6	M	-42	58
195	Knoxville, TN	44.6	330.1	M	-53	59
196	Roanoke, VA	44.5	160.9	M	73	60
197	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	44.3	898.5	L	-64	35
198	Merced, CA	44.2	57.2	S	-63	103
199	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA	44.2	552.7	L	1	36
200	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	44.1	205.7	M	-20	61
201	Bloomington, IN	43.4	83.5	S	20	104
202	Tallahassee, FL	42.9	175.3	M	-63	62
203	Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA	42.8	259.2	M	49	63
204	Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	42.7	611.0	L	-64	37
205	Sheboygan, WI	42.6	62.5	S	67	105
206	Eugene-Springfield, OR	42.6	151.7	M	-75	64
207	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	42.5	1,028.6	L	38	38
208	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	42.4	1,283.4	L	16	39
209	Wichita Falls, TX	42.4	61.2	S	-17	106
210	Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ	42.4	61.7	S	92	107
211	Johnson City, TN	42.4	80.4	S	6	108
212	Green Bay, WI	42.0	166.8	M	37	65
213	Decatur, AL	41.7	57.4	S	-113	109
214	Jackson, TN	41.7	60.6	S	-38	110
215	Anniston-Oxford, AL	41.7	52.1	S	-33	111
216	Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division	41.6	1,039.3	L	-71	40
217	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	41.6	2,374.1	L	-132	41
218	Richmond, VA	41.6	616.9	L	-81	42
219	Reading, PA	41.5	171.8	M	21	66
220	Ocala, FL	41.5	101.2	S	-157	112
221	Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA	41.4	192.4	M	6	67
222	Tucson, AZ	41.4	374.1	M	-62	68
223	Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ	41.4	1,813.1	L	-162	43
224	Columbus, GA-AL	41.2	120.0	S	66	113
225	Akron, OH	41.2	334.0	M	-7	69
226	Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA	41.2	133.6	S	28	114
227	Jacksonville, FL	40.9	609.9	L	-125	44
228	Worcester, MA-CT NECTA	40.7	245.4	M	49	70
229	New Bedford, MA NECTA	40.6	65.4	S	78	115
230	Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	40.6	112.5	S	-220	116
231	Dover, DE	40.5	64.1	S	-106	117
232	Appleton, WI	39.9	116.1	S	-1	118
233	Stockton, CA	39.6	204.8	M	-127	71
234	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	39.5	528.9	L	-174	45
235	Fort Wayne, IN	39.5	213.4	M	60	72
236	Calvert-Charles-Prince George's, MD	39.5	388.1	M	-49	73
237	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	39.2	628.4	L	-41	46
238	Barnstable Town, MA NECTA	39.1	93.7	S	59	119
239	Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Division	39.0	117.3	S	36	120
240	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA	39.0	412.8	M	-27	74
241	Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division	38.5	1,024.2	L	38	47
242	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	38.3	1,754.4	L	-6	48
243	Monroe, LA	38.2	78.3	S	70	121
244	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	37.9	518.7	L	-38	49
245	Springfield, MA-CT NECTA	37.9	293.2	M	58	75
246	Bremerton-Silverdale, WA	37.9	83.8	S	-131	122
247	Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV	37.6	100.1	S	11	123
248	Medford, OR	37.6	81.4	S	-172	124
249	Harrisonburg, VA	37.5	62.8	S	-136	125
250	Springfield, OH	37.5	52.0	S	79	126
251	Salisbury, MD	37.5	54.2	S	-103	127
252	Prescott, AZ	37.3	58.7	S	-226	128
253	Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	37.2	759.8	L	-109	50
254	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	37.0	837.3	L	9	51
255	Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division	37.0	3,778.8	L	-14	52
256	Baltimore City, MD	36.8	364.0	M	63	76
257	Niles-Benton Harbor, MI	36.5	63.0	S	7	129
258	Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ	36.5	897.2	L	24	53
259	Racine, WI	36.4	79.0	S	45	130
260	Albany, GA	36.2	63.4	S	24	131
261	Peabody, MA NECTA Division	36.1	99.8	S	54	132
262	Rockford, IL	36.1	156.4	M	-98	77
263	Clarksville, TN-KY	36.0	82.3	S	-125	133
264	South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI	35.2	142.1	S	28	134
265	Chico, CA	34.9	73.5	S	-80	135
266	Yuma, AZ	34.9	52.1	S	-233	136
267	Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	34.8	91.8	S	-156	137
268	Altoona, PA	34.8	61.1	S	-30	138
269	Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division	34.4	1,010.1	L	-43	54
270	Gulfport-Biloxi, MS	34.3	107.6	S	-154	139
271	Dothan, AL	34.3	61.0	S	-159	140
272	Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division	34.3	345.4	M	-49	78
273	Lansing-East Lansing, MI	34.2	223.0	M	43	79
274	Modesto, CA	34.1	153.6	M	-28	80
275	Danbury, CT NECTA	33.9	68.6	S	-45	141
276	Missoula, MT	33.9	54.7	S	-110	142
277	Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division	32.9	526.7	L	-55	55
278	Wausau, WI	32.8	70.9	S	-12	143
279	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division	32.6	4,008.1	L	-5	56
280	Evansville, IN-KY	32.5	174.2	M	3	81
281	Kingston, NY	32.4	62.3	S	5	144
282	Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL	31.9	80.6	S	-103	145
283	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	31.5	1,189.6	L	-147	57
284	Canton-Massillon, OH	31.3	169.8	M	33	82
285	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	31.2	1,206.6	L	-80	58
286	Burlington, NC	30.9	59.3	S	-143	146
287	Terre Haute, IN	30.8	72.7	S	37	147
288	Mansfield, OH	30.5	56.5	S	42	148
289	Muncie, IN	30.3	52.9	S	34	149
290	Port St. Lucie, FL	30.2	124.8	S	-202	150
291	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	29.8	208.0	M	-134	83
292	Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Division	29.4	87.1	S	-41	151
293	Williamsport, PA	29.4	52.7	S	3	152
294	Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division	29.4	1,093.9	L	26	59
295	Vallejo-Fairfield, CA	29.1	122.5	S	4	153
296	Greensboro-High Point, NC	28.9	358.0	M	-105	84
297	Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA	28.8	863.2	L	-111	60
298	Naples-Marco Island, FL	28.5	124.0	S	-83	154
299	Winchester, VA-WV	28.5	54.8	S	-226	155
300	Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA	28.2	111.2	S	-29	156
301	West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	28.2	539.4	L	-100	61
302	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	27.3	164.6	M	-204	85
303	Kalamazoo-Portage, MI	27.3	141.6	S	-9	157
304	Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division	27.1	1,011.6	L	-19	62
305	Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ	26.9	144.3	S	13	158
306	Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division	26.2	1,453.0	L	-41	63
307	Rocky Mount, NC	25.0	63.4	S	-82	159
308	Lima, OH	24.4	54.0	S	19	160
309	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	24.4	1,033.7	L	5	64
310	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	24.3	376.2	M	-12	86
311	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	23.9	283.8	M	-11	87
312	Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA	23.9	182.2	M	-101	88
313	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	23.4	162.8	M	-125	89
314	Reno-Sparks, NV	23.4	206.4	M	-210	90
315	Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ	23.3	48.9	S	-159	161
316	Janesville, WI	22.2	66.3	S	-144	162
317	Waterbury, CT NECTA	22.0	66.2	S	-29	163
318	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA	21.7	557.5	L	-7	65
319	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	21.4	202.2	M	-84	91
320	Anderson, SC	21.2	61.2	S	-47	164
321	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	20.7	230.5	M	4	92
322	Ann Arbor, MI	20.5	193.1	M	6	93
323	Dayton, OH	20.1	388.8	M	8	94
324	Holland-Grand Haven, MI	20.1	107.8	S	-3	165
325	Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL	19.6	262.4	M	-96	95
326	Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI	18.9	61.9	S	-17	166
327	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC	17.0	154.6	M	-17	96
328	Redding, CA	16.9	60.6	S	-125	167
329	Elkhart-Goshen, IN	16.3	111.7	S	-139	168
330	Dalton, GA	14.1	71.6	S	-18	169
331	Battle Creek, MI	12.2	56.6	S	3	170
332	Toledo, OH	11.8	309.5	M	-10	97
333	Flint, MI	10.4	139.3	S	-1	171
334	Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI	9.5	85.2	S	-1	172
335	Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division	8.9	739.7	L	0	66
336	Jackson, MI	4.7	55.9	S	-10	173

2009 How We Pick the Best Cities for Job Growth

Michael Shires — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:10:56 -0400

By Michael Shires

This year's rankings continue the methodology used last year, which emphasizes the robustness of a region's growth and allows the rankings to include all of the metropolitan statistical areas for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports monthly employment data. They are derived from three-month rolling averages of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics "state and area" unadjusted employment data reported from November 1998 to January 2009.

The data reflect the North American Industry Classification System categories, including total nonfarm employment, manufacturing, financial services, business and professional services, educational and health services, information, retail and wholesale trade, transportation and utilities, leisure and hospitality, and government.

"Large" areas include those with a current nonfarm employment base of at least 450,000 jobs. "Midsize" areas range from 150,000 to 450,000 jobs. "Small" areas have as many as 150,000 jobs. One community in last year's top small MSA group grew enough that they are now considered a midsize MSA: Charleston, WV.

This year's rankings use four measures of growth to rank all areas for which full data sets were available from the past 10 years -- 336 regions in total. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, no longer reports employment detail for MSAs with employment levels less than 30,000 in its monthly models, resulting in shifts as MSAs were dropped. As a result, this year's rankings can be directly compared to the 2008 rankings for MSAs for the large and midsize categories, but there are some adjustments needed for year-to-year comparisons in small MSA category. In instances where the analysis refers to changes in ranking order, these adjustments have been taken into account.

The index is calculated from a normalized, weighted summary of: 1) recent growth trend: the current and prior year's employment growth rates, with the current year emphasized (two points); 2) mid-term growth: the average annual 2003-2008 growth rate (two points); 3) long-term trend: the sum of the 2003-2008 and 1998-2002 employment growth rates multiplied by the ratio of the 1998-2002 growth rate over the 2003-2008 growth rate (two points); and 4) current year growth (one point).

Large Cities Ranking - 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

Michael Shires — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:44:46 -0400

Read how we pick the best cities.

2009 Size Rank	Area	2009 Weighted INDEX	2008 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)	Size 2009	Size Movement	Overall Rank 2009
1	Austin-Round Rock, TX	87.7	778.5	L	1	6
2	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	85.4	2,609.6	L	2	9
3	San Antonio, TX	82.0	849.8	L	4	20
4	Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division	78.3	877.5	L	5	30
5	Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division	78.0	2,102.1	L	7	32
6	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Division	77.2	1,457.8	L	4	34
7	Salt Lake City, UT	76.5	640.2	L	-4	36
8	Raleigh-Cary, NC	74.6	513.5	L	-7	38
9	Oklahoma City, OK	72.9	576.8	L	21	44
10	Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA	70.0	1,020.8	L	1	55
11	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	66.8	468.2	L	21	72
12	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division	66.6	2,424.3	L	9	76
13	Northern Virginia, VA	65.0	1,305.5	L	4	84
14	New York City, NY	62.3	3,760.2	L	8	95
15	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	58.5	1,228.0	L	5	113
16	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division	56.1	1,696.4	L	21	118
17	Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY	55.7	579.9	L	14	121
18	Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC	55.5	841.5	L	-13	125
19	Honolulu, HI	54.0	451.5	L	-4	132
20	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	53.6	902.9	L	13	134
21	Rochester, NY	53.2	518.1	L	40	137
22	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	52.5	894.9	L	-14	142
23	San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division	51.6	982.3	L	6	144
24	Bethesda-Frederick-Rockville, MD Metropolitan Division	51.5	573.0	L	27	145
25	Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN	50.1	748.6	L	-7	153
26	Orlando-Kissimmee, FL	49.8	1,056.8	L	-20	154
27	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	48.5	760.9	L	8	160
28	Kansas City, MO	48.3	564.1	L	8	164
29	Pittsburgh, PA	47.6	1,138.9	L	24	169
30	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	47.1	548.3	L	30	174
31	Philadelphia City, PA	46.6	661.4	L	31	176
32	Columbus, OH	46.4	933.5	L	7	178
33	St. Louis, MO-IL	46.3	1,341.9	L	19	179
34	Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division	46.2	1,255.5	L	8	180
35	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	44.3	898.5	L	-12	197
36	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA	44.2	552.7	L	4	199
37	Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	42.7	611.0	L	-11	204
38	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	42.5	1,028.6	L	12	207
39	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	42.4	1,283.4	L	7	208
40	Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division	41.6	1,039.3	L	-12	216
41	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	41.6	2,374.1	L	-25	217
42	Richmond, VA	41.6	616.9	L	-17	218
43	Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ	41.4	1,813.1	L	-29	223
44	Jacksonville, FL	40.9	609.9	L	-25	227
45	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	39.5	528.9	L	-32	234
46	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	39.2	628.4	L	-8	237
47	Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division	38.5	1,024.2	L	10	241
48	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	38.3	1,754.4	L	0	242
49	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	37.9	518.7	L	-5	244
50	Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	37.2	759.8	L	-23	253
51	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	37.0	837.3	L	3	254
52	Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division	37.0	3,778.8	L	-3	255
53	Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ	36.5	897.2	L	5	258
54	Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division	34.4	1,010.1	L	-7	269
55	Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division	32.9	526.7	L	-10	277
56	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division	32.6	4,008.1	L	0	279
57	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	31.5	1,189.6	L	-33	283
58	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	31.2	1,206.6	L	-15	285
59	Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division	29.4	1,093.9	L	6	294
60	Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA	28.8	863.2	L	-26	297
61	West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	28.2	539.4	L	-20	301
62	Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division	27.1	1,011.6	L	-3	304
63	Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division	26.2	1,453.0	L	-8	306
64	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	24.4	1,033.7	L	0	309
65	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA	21.7	557.5	L	-2	318
66	Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division	8.9	739.7	L	0	335

Medium Cities Ranking - 2009 New Geography Best Cities For Job Growth

Michael Shires — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:34:43 -0400

Read how we pick the best cities.

2009 Size Rank	Area	2009 Weighted INDEX	2008 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)	Size 2009	Size Movement	Overall Rank 2009
1	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	87.6	221.1	M	3	7
2	Tulsa, OK	85.1	436.6	M	36	10
3	Lafayette, LA	84.1	151.2	M	7	14
4	Durham-Chapel Hill, NC	82.3	291.0	M	7	19
5	Kansas City, KS	81.1	446.4	M	11	22
6	Corpus Christi, TX	80.8	182.8	M	28	23
7	Baton Rouge, LA	79.2	377.4	M	10	27
8	Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	77.6	180.1	M	14	33
9	Anchorage, AK	76.7	169.7	M	43	35
10	Mobile, AL	74.7	183.3	M	34	37
11	El Paso, TX	74.6	278.8	M	15	39
12	Huntsville, AL	74.6	211.6	M	-7	40
13	Bakersfield, CA	71.1	237.5	M	-4	50
14	Provo-Orem, UT	70.1	188.2	M	-13	54
15	Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC	69.4	295.5	M	-9	58
16	Framingham, MA NECTA Division	68.7	159.5	M	34	62
17	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	68.2	321.9	M	-2	65
18	Peoria, IL	67.6	189.8	M	3	69
19	Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	67.1	207.0	M	1	71
20	Savannah, GA	66.8	157.6	M	-17	73
21	Boulder, CO	65.9	166.9	M	11	79
22	Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division	65.8	277.6	M	-20	81
23	Wichita, KS	63.8	311.0	M	1	88
24	Spokane, WA	63.7	215.9	M	-10	91
25	York-Hanover, PA	63.7	182.9	M	-2	92
26	Albuquerque, NM	63.0	393.5	M	9	94
27	Salem, OR	61.4	150.1	M	-2	100
28	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	61.1	198.0	M	-20	101
29	Springfield, MO	60.9	197.6	M	-16	102
30	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL	60.0	189.3	M	40	105
31	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	59.7	344.5	M	-3	106
32	Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC	59.4	314.7	M	-14	107
33	Lincoln, NE	58.9	172.4	M	15	109
34	Charleston, WV	57.5	151.5	M	106	114
35	Columbia, SC	56.6	362.1	M	-16	116
36	Montgomery, AL	55.6	176.9	M	-5	123
37	Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	55.2	163.1	M	3	127
38	Syracuse, NY	54.6	325.0	M	39	129
39	Trenton-Ewing, NJ	54.4	238.4	M	19	130
40	Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division	51.1	394.5	M	29	148
41	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	50.5	340.8	M	20	151
42	Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA	50.1	171.9	M	14	152
43	Madison, WI	49.2	343.6	M	24	158
44	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	48.7	327.1	M	30	159
45	Fresno, CA	48.4	297.9	M	0	161
46	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY	48.4	254.8	M	37	162
47	New Haven, CT NECTA	48.0	277.2	M	32	166
48	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	47.9	214.0	M	15	167
49	Asheville, NC	47.6	172.3	M	-42	168
50	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	46.5	446.9	M	31	177
51	Lancaster, PA	46.1	235.2	M	6	182
52	Jackson, MS	45.7	258.9	M	-3	184
53	Gary, IN Metropolitan Division	45.4	279.0	M	19	186
54	Chattanooga, TN-GA	45.3	244.3	M	5	188
55	Colorado Springs, CO	45.1	254.2	M	-14	190
56	Boise City-Nampa, ID	44.8	261.6	M	-44	191
57	Winston-Salem, NC	44.8	214.7	M	-24	192
58	Lexington-Fayette, KY	44.8	253.6	M	-16	194
59	Knoxville, TN	44.6	330.1	M	-20	195
60	Roanoke, VA	44.5	160.9	M	20	196
61	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	44.1	205.7	M	-10	200
62	Tallahassee, FL	42.9	175.3	M	-25	202
63	Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA	42.8	259.2	M	15	203
64	Eugene-Springfield, OR	42.6	151.7	M	-28	206
65	Green Bay, WI	42.0	166.8	M	11	212
66	Reading, PA	41.5	171.8	M	7	219
67	Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA	41.4	192.4	M	-1	221
68	Tucson, AZ	41.4	374.1	M	-22	222
69	Akron, OH	41.2	334.0	M	-5	225
70	Worcester, MA-CT NECTA	40.7	245.4	M	12	228
71	Stockton, CA	39.6	204.8	M	-41	233
72	Fort Wayne, IN	39.5	213.4	M	13	235
73	Calvert-Charles-Prince George's, MD	39.5	388.1	M	-20	236
74	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA	39.0	412.8	M	-12	240
75	Springfield, MA-CT NECTA	37.9	293.2	M	13	245
76	Baltimore City, MD	36.8	364.0	M	16	256
77	Rockford, IL	36.1	156.4	M	-30	262
78	Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division	34.3	345.4	M	-13	272
79	Lansing-East Lansing, MI	34.2	223.0	M	11	273
80	Modesto, CA	34.1	153.6	M	-5	274
81	Evansville, IN-KY	32.5	174.2	M	3	280
82	Canton-Massillon, OH	31.3	169.8	M	9	284
83	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	29.8	208.0	M	-40	291
84	Greensboro-High Point, NC	28.9	358.0	M	-29	296
85	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	27.3	164.6	M	-58	302
86	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	24.3	376.2	M	0	310
87	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	23.9	283.8	M	0	311
88	Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA	23.9	182.2	M	-28	312
89	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	23.4	162.8	M	-35	313
90	Reno-Sparks, NV	23.4	206.4	M	-61	314
91	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	21.4	202.2	M	-20	319
92	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	20.7	230.5	M	2	321
93	Ann Arbor, MI	20.5	193.1	M	2	322
94	Dayton, OH	20.1	388.8	M	2	323
95	Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL	19.6	262.4	M	-27	325
96	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC	17.0	154.6	M	-7	327
97	Toledo, OH	11.8	309.5	M	-4	332

Small Cities Rankings - 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

Michael Shires — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:35:44 -0400

Read how we pick the best cities.

2009 Size Rank	Area	2009 Weighted INDEX	2008 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)	Size 2009	Size Movement	Overall Rank 2009
1	Odessa, TX	100.0	64.8	S	3	1
2	Grand Junction, CO	92.4	66.5	S	7	2
3	Longview, TX	90.0	98.4	S	8	3
4	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA	88.0	97.8	S	18	4
5	Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX	87.9	128.4	S	34	5
6	Laredo, TX	87.1	91.3	S	27	8
7	Athens-Clarke County, GA	85.0	86.2	S	36	11
8	Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA	84.7	93.7	S	8	12
9	Morgantown, WV	84.5	63.4	S	6	13
10	Fargo, ND-MN	83.9	122.4	S	18	15
11	College Station-Bryan, TX	83.5	96.3	S	76	16
12	Coeur d'Alene, ID	83.0	55.8	S	-9	17
13	Bismarck, ND	82.8	61.0	S	17	18
14	Alexandria, LA	81.7	67.0	S	52	21
15	Cheyenne, WY	80.8	44.9	S	6	24
16	Olympia, WA	80.1	103.3	S	4	25
17	Sioux Falls, SD	79.9	135.6	S	12	26
18	Greeley, CO	78.8	82.5	S	0	28
19	Tyler, TX	78.7	96.3	S	34	29
20	Las Cruces, NM	78.0	69.4	S	26	31
21	Joplin, MO	73.1	80.9	S	31	41
22	Fayetteville, NC	73.1	129.0	S	12	42
23	Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR	73.0	58.4	S	62	43
24	Greenville, NC	72.4	77.2	S	-14	45
25	Fort Collins-Loveland, CO	72.3	136.6	S	6	46
26	Midland, TX	72.0	71.3	S	-25	47
27	Gainesville, GA	71.1	76.9	S	-14	48
28	Auburn-Opelika, AL	71.1	54.3	S	-23	49
29	Columbia, MO	70.7	93.4	S	36	51
30	Lynchburg, VA	70.5	109.3	S	8	52
31	Dubuque, IA	70.4	55.4	S	28	53
32	Iowa City, IA	69.8	90.9	S	10	56
33	Warner Robins, GA	69.4	58.0	S	-16	57
34	Rapid City, SD	69.4	60.3	S	62	59
35	Amarillo, TX	69.4	113.2	S	32	60
36	Wilmington, NC	69.1	142.7	S	-30	61
37	St. Joseph, MO-KS	68.5	58.9	S	-12	63
38	Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA	68.2	58.5	S	11	64
39	Santa Fe, NM	68.2	65.0	S	6	66
40	Billings, MT	68.0	79.3	S	-17	67
41	Brownsville-Harlingen, TX	67.8	125.3	S	34	68
42	Grand Forks, ND-MN	67.2	54.8	S	14	70
43	Lubbock, TX	66.7	131.1	S	77	74
44	Bellingham, WA	66.6	84.1	S	-30	75
45	Cedar Rapids, IA	66.4	138.7	S	37	77
46	Pueblo, CO	66.2	58.4	S	-6	78
47	Sioux City, IA-NE-SD	65.8	76.5	S	77	80
48	Valdosta, GA	65.6	56.5	S	10	82
49	Champaign-Urbana, IL	65.6	116.3	S	84	83
50	Lafayette, IN	64.9	96.6	S	94	85
51	Abilene, TX	64.7	68.1	S	6	86
52	Fort Smith, AR-OK	64.2	124.3	S	2	87
53	Charlottesville, VA	63.8	100.5	S	-26	89
54	Ithaca, NY	63.8	64.7	S	36	90
55	Pascagoula, MS	63.0	58.6	S	-19	93
56	St. Cloud, MN	61.8	102.0	S	-8	96
57	Bowling Green, KY	61.8	61.4	S	-45	97
58	Oshkosh-Neenah, WI	61.5	93.9	S	71	98
59	Hattiesburg, MS	61.4	60.6	S	-22	99
60	Waco, TX	60.4	107.6	S	-13	103
61	Topeka, KS	60.1	111.7	S	69	104
62	State College, PA	59.3	74.2	S	21	108
63	Rochester, MN	58.8	106.0	S	23	110
64	Flagstaff, AZ	58.8	63.5	S	4	111
65	Tuscaloosa, AL	58.8	96.8	S	-14	112
66	La Crosse, WI-MN	57.2	74.7	S	51	115
67	Bloomington-Normal, IL	56.5	91.8	S	51	117
68	Lake Charles, LA	55.9	92.8	S	25	119
69	Spartanburg, SC	55.8	128.0	S	58	120
70	Springfield, IL	55.6	111.9	S	71	122
71	Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA	55.6	90.0	S	35	124
72	St. George, UT	55.3	50.7	S	-70	126
73	Manchester, NH NECTA	55.1	101.6	S	15	128
74	Gainesville, FL	54.1	134.9	S	-3	131
75	Visalia-Porterville, CA	53.7	112.0	S	-1	133
76	Eau Claire, WI	53.3	82.3	S	-3	135
77	Yakima, WA	53.3	77.5	S	2	136
78	Wheeling, WV-OH	53.2	68.2	S	78	138
79	Jefferson City, MO	53.1	79.5	S	12	139
80	Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL	52.9	56.0	S	-80	140
81	Glens Falls, NY	52.7	52.8	S	-11	141
82	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA	52.3	71.9	S	75	143
83	Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA	51.5	54.5	S	-14	146
84	Macon, GA	51.4	101.3	S	69	147
85	Erie, PA	50.6	132.2	S	37	149
86	Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL	50.6	73.1	S	-60	150
87	Johnstown, PA	49.7	61.5	S	25	155
88	Decatur, IL	49.5	54.8	S	20	156
89	Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH	49.4	119.6	S	5	157
90	Utica-Rome, NY	48.4	132.6	S	44	163
91	Binghamton, NY	48.2	114.1	S	30	165
92	Bend, OR	47.6	66.3	S	-85	170
93	Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Division	47.5	132.5	S	14	171
94	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA	47.4	102.2	S	-14	172
95	Duluth, MN-WI	47.4	131.3	S	9	173
96	Florence, SC	47.0	87.5	S	-64	175
97	Bangor, ME NECTA	46.1	66.2	S	38	181
98	Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA	45.9	121.7	S	48	183
99	Salinas, CA	45.6	126.9	S	12	185
100	Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH NECTA Division	45.3	76.6	S	26	187
101	Napa, CA	45.3	62.4	S	-2	189
102	Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH	44.8	72.8	S	-1	193
103	Merced, CA	44.2	57.2	S	-27	198
104	Bloomington, IN	43.4	83.5	S	9	201
105	Sheboygan, WI	42.6	62.5	S	32	205
106	Wichita Falls, TX	42.4	61.2	S	-3	209
107	Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ	42.4	61.7	S	47	210
108	Johnson City, TN	42.4	80.4	S	2	211
109	Decatur, AL	41.7	57.4	S	-54	213
110	Jackson, TN	41.7	60.6	S	-15	214
111	Anniston-Oxford, AL	41.7	52.1	S	-13	215
112	Ocala, FL	41.5	101.2	S	-77	220
113	Columbus, GA-AL	41.2	120.0	S	34	224
114	Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA	41.2	133.6	S	11	226
115	New Bedford, MA NECTA	40.6	65.4	S	43	229
116	Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	40.6	112.5	S	-108	230
117	Dover, DE	40.5	64.1	S	-45	231
118	Appleton, WI	39.9	116.1	S	-2	232
119	Barnstable Town, MA NECTA	39.1	93.7	S	32	238
120	Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Division	39.0	117.3	S	19	239
121	Monroe, LA	38.2	78.3	S	40	243
122	Bremerton-Silverdale, WA	37.9	83.8	S	-59	246
123	Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV	37.6	100.1	S	5	247
124	Medford, OR	37.6	81.4	S	-80	248
125	Harrisonburg, VA	37.5	62.8	S	-63	249
126	Springfield, OH	37.5	52.0	S	43	250
127	Salisbury, MD	37.5	54.2	S	-46	251
128	Prescott, AZ	37.3	58.7	S	-109	252
129	Niles-Benton Harbor, MI	36.5	63.0	S	2	257
130	Racine, WI	36.4	79.0	S	25	259
131	Albany, GA	36.2	63.4	S	11	260
132	Peabody, MA NECTA Division	36.1	99.8	S	30	261
133	Clarksville, TN-KY	36.0	82.3	S	-56	263
134	South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI	35.2	142.1	S	14	264
135	Chico, CA	34.9	73.5	S	-35	265
136	Yuma, AZ	34.9	52.1	S	-112	266
137	Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	34.8	91.8	S	-77	267
138	Altoona, PA	34.8	61.1	S	-19	268
139	Gulfport-Biloxi, MS	34.3	107.6	S	-75	270
140	Dothan, AL	34.3	61.0	S	-79	271
141	Danbury, CT NECTA	33.9	68.6	S	-26	275
142	Missoula, MT	33.9	54.7	S	-53	276
143	Wausau, WI	32.8	70.9	S	-11	278
144	Kingston, NY	32.4	62.3	S	-1	281
145	Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL	31.9	80.6	S	-48	282
146	Burlington, NC	30.9	59.3	S	-68	286
147	Terre Haute, IN	30.8	72.7	S	19	287
148	Mansfield, OH	30.5	56.5	S	22	288
149	Muncie, IN	30.3	52.9	S	16	289
150	Port St. Lucie, FL	30.2	124.8	S	-100	290
151	Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Division	29.4	87.1	S	-28	292
152	Williamsport, PA	29.4	52.7	S	-2	293
153	Vallejo-Fairfield, CA	29.1	122.5	S	-1	295
154	Naples-Marco Island, FL	28.5	124.0	S	-45	298
155	Winchester, VA-WV	28.5	54.8	S	-114	299
156	Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA	28.2	111.2	S	-20	300
157	Kalamazoo-Portage, MI	27.3	141.6	S	-8	303
158	Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ	26.9	144.3	S	5	305
159	Rocky Mount, NC	25.0	63.4	S	-45	307
160	Lima, OH	24.4	54.0	S	8	308
161	Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ	23.3	48.9	S	-77	315
162	Janesville, WI	22.2	66.3	S	-70	316
163	Waterbury, CT NECTA	22.0	66.2	S	-18	317
164	Anderson, SC	21.2	61.2	S	-26	320
165	Holland-Grand Haven, MI	20.1	107.8	S	-1	324
166	Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI	18.9	61.9	S	-7	326
167	Redding, CA	16.9	60.6	S	-62	328
168	Elkhart-Goshen, IN	16.3	111.7	S	-66	329
169	Dalton, GA	14.1	71.6	S	-9	330
170	Battle Creek, MI	12.2	56.6	S	3	331
171	Flint, MI	10.4	139.3	S	0	333
172	Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI	9.5	85.2	S	0	334
173	Jackson, MI	4.7	55.9	S	-6	336