Best Cities

Finding the Good in This Bad Time

Michael Shires — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:11:08 -0400

This year's best places rankings held few great surprises. In a nation that shed nearly 6.7 million jobs since 2007, the winners were places that maintained or had limited employment declines. These places typically had high levels of government spending (including major military installation or large blocs of federal jobs) or major educational institutions. Nor was the continued importance of the energy economy surprising in a nation where a gallon of gas is still about $3 a gallon.

Even including part of 2010, only 13 cities (out of 397) showed growth, reflecting the breadth and depth of the downturn. In an economy where the most promising statistic is a “limited” decline in the number of new job losses from month to month, where is the proverbial silver lining?

It is found in two places: (1) areas that show some resilience in this dour economy; and (2) a newly retooled American economy positioned to compete more strongly in the future.

Read how we pick the best cities.

Regions of Current Hope
With disaster as a backdrop, the early signs of buoyancy in the economies of the Intermountain West, the Great Plains, and even parts of the Midwest are quite impressive. Many predicted these areas would mirror the collapse of their larger, high-growth counterparts in California, Florida, Arizona and Nevada. To the contrary, these relatively rural locations are emerging as beacons of hope.

In the big cities, there have been across-the-board declines in most sectors led by the collapse of construction and financial services. Thousands of small businesses have disappeared in addition to huge layoffs by large employers. You see many “For lease” signs now at what were once your favorite shops and watering holes.

In a business climate like this, a lot can be said for slow and steady. Comparatively, slower-growing cities across the middle parts of the country are recovering more easily and more quickly.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that the economies of the future are not all about the "knowledge class" and that “too-good-to-be-true” high wage jobs may be just that. As seen in the dot-com bubble and in this real estate bubble, those fancy, high-wage finance and tech jobs are highly vulnerable to swings in the economy and high-paying construction jobs are only as good as the housing market.

This is simply because markets eventually adjust. In the case of overheated stock and real estate markets, the losses are felt by the knowledge class, financiers and construction workers. In the case of manufacturing, as the price is bid up through labor costs, other places become more competitive.

During volatile times, places with the broad-based growth strategies -- like Texas and Utah -- do best. Cities that are heavily dependent on a narrow set of industries leave themselves vulnerable, paying back the gains of good years in poor years.

Part of the success of Texas is not just energy (as the modest performance of Midland and Odessa shows), but rather to the state’s adjustments to a past crisis, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The state instituted new laws that imposed a range of disciplines on financial markets -- such as limiting home equity lines -- thereby minimizing the damage to the state’s economy as those markets went topsy-turvy.

Regions of Future Hope
There remains hope for the future in the story of this recession. One of the defining aspects of this recession was not just that certain sectors were hit hard, but that it was also broadly distributed across the economy. This pervasiveness extended deeply enough to cause every enterprise in America to seriously reconsider their business model and re-engineer how they served their customers.

Consequently, the American economy is leaner and cleaner than it was three years ago. Businesses are more in touch with what makes them successful. While growth will be slower, it will be focused on areas that will bring about quick increases in productivity across the economy and bring new, real wealth to the local economies.

Where will this happen most quickly? In those places where businesses survived best. Expect the Intermountain West and smaller manufacturing hubs across the United States to lead the charge (because of their lower costs), but large metros like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Minneapolis, and Dallas, with their deep inventories of manufacturers and large labor pools, should see these returns before too long.

Similar stories can be told for nearly every sector although the beneficiaries will be different. Much of the growth in information sector, for example, will continue to take place outside Silicon Valley. Business services will grow most rapidly where there is growth in business overall, initially outside the core hubs. Midsized and small communities will lead this recovery, and the big cities will eventually follow.

Economies open to a wide array of occupations will do better than those that are less diversified. Places like Portland and Atlanta, so deeply focused on attracting high-wage, knowledge-based jobs are likely to miss out on the “basic” job growth that will fuel the first stage of the American recovery. Venture capital is still tight across the nation and capital markets are uncertain, especially with new government regulations up in the air. Consequently, high-end, white collar, and high tech jobs, with their insatiable need for investment capital, will develop more slowly. Even among the high-tech superstars, high profits will not lead to huge surges in hiring.

Why Government Holds the Key
Government’s actions over the next six to 12 months will define potential and the pace of this recovery. With an election looming, all sides will be jockeying for electoral advantages in November. They will cater legislation to many competing constituencies, fostering tremendous uncertainty in the private sector.

One thing is certain, however. The current pace of government spending is unsustainable. Not even the US economy can support ongoing deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion per year. Either government spending must slow or someone must pay a lot more. The only alternative -- high inflation -- will have its own negative effect. One way or another some combination of the three MUST happen.

Additionally, current regulatory initiatives will change the dynamics and employment patterns within some important sectors. Whether it is the complete restructuring of the health care industry (part of one of the only bright spots in the current economy), or the prospective new regulation in the financial services sector, potentially destabilizing change is coming.

And the feds are not the only destabilizing government actors. California’s aggressive climate legislation, for example, and the mixed signals it is sending businesses across the state’s 28 MSAs will certainly shape their near and midterm economic futures.

So what should the federal and state governments be doing at this time? Most importantly, they need to ensure stability: stable capital and lending markets, a consistent and stable tax code, focusing interventions on broad-based, low-shock actions, and developing a plan for moderating and containing the national deficits and mounting national debt. The key to continued prosperity in these times is a growing private job base, not a growing government sector.

Moreover, government needs to learn the lessons of the private sector. Even as private firms retrench, governments at all levels need to reduce their cost structures. This is happening in many localities, at least on a temporary basis, as even unionized local employees are accepting wage and benefit reductions to retain jobs. Localities and states must recognize the true cost of the services they provide. They must either find consistent ways of providing funding for them, or eliminate them to preserve more critical services.

Finally, public and private sectors alike must learn that this has been a transformational recession. Unlike downturns in the past, business and government cannot expect things will return to the way they were. Markets and banks will not be printing imaginary value increases in real property for consumers to spend any time soon and capital markets are cautious about financial good news,,preferring the old tried and true winners to novelties.

Government and government employees are behind the curve understanding this transformation. Wage and benefit concessions given up during this recession are not likely to reappear. The concepts of furlough and unpaid time off are here to stay. Even as the private sector has been forced to reconsider its baseline practices, so, too, the political pressure now will be on government to retain savings obtained during the recession.

Michael Shires, Ph.D. is a professor at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.

The Worst Cities For Jobs

Joel Kotkin — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:54:12 -0400

In this least good year in decades, someone has to sit at the bottom. For the most part, the denizens are made up of "usual suspects" from the long-devastated rust belt region around the Great Lakes. But as in last year's survey, there's also a fair-sized contingent of former hot spots that now seem to resemble something closer to black holes.

Two sectors have particularly suffered worst from the recession, according to a recent study by the New America Foundation: construction, where employment has dropped by nearly 25%, and manufacturing, which has suffered a 15% decline. The decline in construction jobs has hit the Sunbelt states hardest; the manufacturing rollback has pummeled industrial areas such as the Great Lakes as well as large swaths of the more recently industrialized parts of the Southeast.

Read how we pick the best cities.

Then there is California, a state that should be doing much better given its natural advantages and vast human capital but whose regions--with the exception of government-rich Hanford--share various degrees of distress. The bursting of the real estate bubble has hit the Golden State hard, but seeing so many poor performances in my adopted home state is distressing and points to much deeper problems. Rankings author Michael Shires, pointing to the looming prospect of high taxes and expanding regulation, notes that "While California's economy has come roaring back many times before, a resurgence this time will be slowed by the state's increasing willingness to aggressively tax and regulate those who will make it happen."

Rust Belt Ruins

The traditional manufacturing heartland long has suffered, and in this recession industrial jobs have declined rapidly and only now seem to be slowly expanding. Ever since we started these surveys back in the early 2000s, cities and towns along the rust belt have inhabited the bottom rungs.

Starting up from the last place finisher, No. 397 Warren-Troy, Mich., these old industrial cities dominate the nether regions; of the bottom ten finishers overall, six come from the Wolverine State, including long-suffering Detroit, which ranks 394th overall and 65th on the list of large metros (next to its neighbor, Flint, in last place). Other rust belt bottom-dwellers include No. 395 Elkhart and No. 392 Kokomo in nearby Indiana.

Perhaps more disturbingly, many of those at the bottom come from what used to be called "the new South," cities that industrialized late and often benefited from the flow of jobs from the old rust belt. Places such as No. 396 Morristown, Tenn., No. 390 Dalton, Ga., and No. 389 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, N.C., have suffered from a recession that has either forced companies to shut down or move overseas.

Sun Belt Busts

Ever since the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007, we have seen a remarkable turnaround in many Sunbelt regions. Traditionally, these led the list as emerging boomtowns. Now many appear more like bust-towns.

Take a look at the rapid decline of such hot spots as Las Vegas, which now ranks 57th out of the 66 largest metros in the country; Phoenix, now lurking at No. 51; and No. 61 West Palm Beach, No. 56 Fort Lauderdale, No. 54 Tampa and No. 45 Miami, all in Florida. Many of these cities stood proudly near the top of the list as recently as three years ago. Perhaps nothing illustrates the reversal of fortunes than the fall of Reno, once our fastest-growing mid-size region, now No. 92 in the same category.

California: The Great Disaster

No state has suffered a greater reversal of fortunes than California. Five or six years ago California regions generally inhabited the top half or third of our lists. Today they generally have fallen even faster than the other Sunbelt states, even though the state's economy boasts many assets beyond merely real estate speculation.

California now accounts for a remarkable 7 of the bottom 20 regions on our big metro list. The diversity of the disaster spans both the urban centers and the exurbs--witness exurban Riverside-San Bernardino at No. 63 and the city of Oakland at No. 62. Historic high-flyers No. 59 Los Angeles and neighboring Santa Ana-Anaheim Irvine, which checks in at an abysmal No. 60, didn't fare much better.

Perhaps more shocking is the poor performance handed in by the state capital, Sacramento, a former high-flyer now mired at No. 54, and San Diego, a high-tech haven with a near-perfect climate, that resides at No. 48. Even No. 47 San Jose/Silicon Valley has done poorly, despite all the consistent hype about the world class tech center. The likes of Steve Jobs of Apple and Eric Schmidt at Google may be minting money, but the region, paced by declines in construction, manufacturing and business services, now has 130,000 fewer jobs than a decade ago. San Francisco does not do much better, clocking in No. 42, just ahead of its equally celebrated alter-ego Portland, Ore.

Prognosis From the Emergency Room

If this list tells us the current occupants of intensive care, what then are the prognoses for recovery? It seems the story differs for each of our three basic categories. For the rust belt cities, relief will only come when the country decides to reprioritize industry, while allowing for the restructuring of firms and contracts. On the bright side is the recovery of Ford and the potential for a second life for a greatly reduced General Motors and even Chrysler. A modest surge in production of these firms and related industries, such as steel and electronics, could help some selected regions rise up from the bottom.

The recovery of the Sunbelt economies seems likely to take hold first. Despite the giddy predictions of East Coast pundits that places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando and Tampa are doomed to what Leon Trotsky allegedly described as the "dustbin of history," this is not the first time these areas have suffered a setback. They have still not shown much life yet, but I would not count them out for the long term. There is a lot to be said for a sunny climate, greatly enhanced affordability and what many see as a high quality of life.

Ultimately, notes Rob Lang, director of Brookings Mountain West and professor of sociology at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, the assets of these regions have either not changed--pro-business administrations and warm weather--or, in the case of housing affordability, have become more attractive. "Phoenix and Las Vegas will be fine," Lang predicts, noting that Las Vegas is working to reinvent itself beyond gaming to becoming a "convening capital" for the world economy. Similar dynamics could also boost cities in Florida, particularly if they begin focusing beyond tourism and housing.

And then there is California, which by all rights should be leading, not lagging, the current recovery. Statewide unemployment, already 12.6%, has been rising while most states have experienced a slight drop. Silicon Valley companies, Hollywood and the basic agricultural base of the state remain world-beaters. But the problem lies largely in an extremely complex regulatory regime that leads companies to shift much of their new production and staffing to other states as well as foreign countries. The constant prospect of a state bankruptcy, in large part due to soaring public employee pension obligations, does not do much to inspire confidence among either local entrepreneurs or investors.

Hopefully this will be the year when Californians decide that it needs an economy that provides opportunities to people other than software billionaires, movie moguls and their servants. It will have to include much more than the endlessly hyped, highly subsidized "green jobs." More than anything, it will take rolling back some of the draconian regulations--particularly around climate-change legislation--that force companies, and jobs, to go to places that, while not as intrinsically attractive, are friendlier to job-creating businesses.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

Photo: JSFauxtaugraphy

The Best Cities For Jobs

Joel Kotkin — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:30:05 -0400

This year's "best places for jobs" list is easily the most depressing since we began compiling our annual rankings almost a decade ago. In the past--even in bad years--there were always stalwart areas creating lots of new jobs. In 2007's survey 283 out of 393 metros areas showed job growth, and those at the top were often growing employment by at least 5% to 6%. Last year the number dropped to 63. This year's survey, measuring growth from January 2009 to January 2010, found only 13 metros with any growth.

Mike Shires at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, who develops the survey, calls it "an awful year." Making it even worse, the source of new jobs in almost all areas were either government employment or highly tax payer-funded sectors like education and health. This year's best-performing regions were those that suffered the smallest losses in the private economy while bulking up on government steroids.

So far the recovery has favored the government-dominated apparat and those places where public workers congregate.After all, besides Wall Street, public-financed workers have been the big beneficiaries of the stimulus, with state and local governments receiving more than one-third of all funds. Public employment grew by nearly 2% over the past three years, while private employment has dropped by 7%.

Read how we pick the best cities.

Private sector workers have also seen their wages decline, while those working for the various levels of government have held their own. Federal workers now enjoy an average salary roughly 10% higher than their private sector counterparts, while their health, pension and other benefits are as much as four times higher.

Not surprisingly government workers, according to a recent survey, are more likely to see the economy improving than those engaged in the private sector. It's not so pretty a picture on Main Street; personal bankruptcy filings rose 23% in the year ending in March.

Small Is Still Beautiful

Despite these differences, some patterns from previous years still persist. The most prominent is the almost total domination of the top overall rankings by smaller communities. With the exception of Austin, Texas, all the top 10 growers--and all the net gainers--were small communities. Americans have been moving to smaller towns and cities for much of the past decade, as well as jobs, and this recession may end up accelerating the trend.

At the top of the list stands No. 1 Jacksonville, N.C., whose economy grew 1.4%, paced by 3.3% growth in government jobs. Fast growth, however, is not a stranger to this Southern community, whose employment base has grown 22.8% since 1998. The area includes the massive Marine Base at Camp Lejeune, a beehive of activity since the U.S. started waging two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fort Hood-Temple-Fort Hood in Texas came in fourth place overall with Fayetteville, N.C., home to the Army's Fort Bragg, placing sixth and Lawton, Okla., home of Fort Sill, close behind at No. 7. Similar explanations can apply to war economy hot spots Fort Stewart (No. 20 overall) and Warner Robbins (No. 26), both in Georgia.

But perhaps nothing captures the current zeitgeist more than the presence, at No. 23, of Hanford-Corcoran, Calif. A large Air Force base and a state prison have bolstered Hanford-Corcoran's economy, which shows that even in the Golden State--an economic basket case whose unemployment keeps rising--a large concentration of government jobs still guarantees some degree of growth.

Not all our top-ranked small stars got their stimulus from Uncle Sam. Energy-related growth explains strong performances from Bismarck and ag-rich Fargo, N.D., at Nos. 2 and 8, respectively. You can also credit some energy-related growth to the high standing of Morgantown, W.Va., (No. 17) and Anchorage, Alaska, (No. 18), which have benefited from consistently high prices of oil and other sources of energy.

Texas at the Top of Big Cities

Our list of best places among big cities is dominated this year, as last, by Texas, with the Lone Star State producing fully half of our top 10. This year, like last, the No. 1 big city (those with a more than 450,000 non-farm jobs) was Austin, Texas, which enjoys the benefits of being both the state capital and the home to the University of Texas, as well as a large, and growing, tech sector.

But the Texas story also includes places that do not enjoy Austin's often overwrought "hip and cool" image. Broad-based economies, partly in energy, have paced the growth of No. 2 San Antonio, No. 3 Houston, No. 5 Dallas and No. 7 Fort Worth. Other consistent big-city Southern performers include No. 8 big metro Raleigh-Cary, N.C., as well as two ascendant Great Plains metropolises, No. 9 Omaha and No. 11 Oklahoma City. None of these places were too hard-hit by the mortgage meltdown, and they all have retained reputations as business-friendly areas.

The other big winner among the large areas is an obvious one: No. 6 ranked greater Washington, D.C. While most American communities suffer, our putative Moscow on the Potomac has emerged as the big winner under Barack Obama and the congressional centralizers. Remarkably, federal employment in the area has grown at a smart pace throughout the recession. One partial result: Washington office space is now--for the first time ever--more expensive than that in Manhattan. Northern Virginia, home to many beltway bandit companies, ranks No. 4 on our list.

The Eds and Meds Economy

With the productive economy outside energy only now getting its footing, the biggest relative winners have been what could be called the "eds and meds" economies. This includes de-industrialized places such as Pittsburgh (ranked a surprising No. 13), Rochester, N.Y., (ranked No. 17) and Buffalo, N.Y. (No. 20). If you have few more factory jobs to lose, little in-migration and a huge collection of institutions relatively immune to the economic turndown, you have a better chance to look good in bad times. The stimulus tilted more toward education and health than to construction and infrastructure, something that has worked to the favor of these cities.

We can see this in New York City, whose huge and growing concentration of colleges and hospitals helped propel it to No. 10 among the big regions, its best ranking ever, despite losing almost 130,000 jobs. This is all the more remarkable since the Big Apple was the epicenter of the financial collapse, although that also made it the prime beneficiary of the federal bailout and Wall Street's boom. Soaring salaries for hedge fund managers and new hires at financial firms could be pacing new growth in the city's elaborate service industry, from toenail painters, restaurateurs and psychologists to dog walkers and yoga instructors.

The health of the eds and meds economy, however, has even been enough to lift some traditional bottom-dwelling sad sacks, such as No. 14's Philadelphia, to unfamiliar, if rather relative, heights. With private-sector growth weak everywhere, cities with lots of big hospitals, universities and nonprofit foundations look better for the time being than they have in a generation.

The Road Ahead

We expect our list to change next year, but how it will do so will depend as much on politics as economics. The current policy approaches--with healthy increases in government employment and strong support for education--have worked relatively well for taxpayer-financed economies including those with a strong "eds and meds" sectors. State universities, now confronted with the real pain of the recession felt by state taxpayers, are already crying for heavy increases in federal support.

But if Congress takes a turn to the center, or even right, after November, the advantageous position of the favored government-supported sectors may erode. Particularly vulnerable will be state workers, whose current federally sanctioned reprieve could be terminated if voters force legislators to start addressing concerns over the huge governmental deficits both locally and nationally. Given D.C.'s unique ability to print money, Washington and its environs will likely continue to expand, as they did under the spendthrift Bush regime, but many state and local governments may be forced onto a stringent diet.

On the other hand, a welcome return to basic growth in overall economy would further boost those relatively low-cost areas--notably in Texas, the Great Plains and the Intermountain West--that have in recent years enjoyed the strongest trajectory in the non-government related sectors, including natural resource-based industries . These places have pro-business regulatory and tax regimes, lots of available land and affordable housing, which will attract new businesses and workers to their areas.

This change could also benefit some places, such as Silicon Valley, parts of Southern California and the Pacific Northwest, which despite high costs still retain globally competitive, tech-related sectors. A resurgent job market in these areas would erase the current apparent advantage enjoyed by "eds and meds" based economies in favor of those places that will serve as the real incubators for a revived private sector economy. With the resumption growth, hopefully, our economy next year will begin resembling the more capitalist, competitive one we have enjoyed in the past.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

Photo: kiril106

2010 How We Pick the Best Cities For Job Growth

Michael Shires — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:09:47 -0400

By Michael Shires

The methodology for the 2010 rankings largely corresponds to that used last year, which emphasizes the robustness of a region's growth both recently and over time. It allows the rankings to include all of the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) 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 1999 to January 2010.

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. Because of the significant declines in employment across the nation which caused some MSAs to drop below the 450,000 and 150,000 job thresholds, the size category for each MSA in the 2010 ranking is kept the same as it was in 2009 to maximize comparability between the rankings.

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. Because of the expanded availability of data since last year, we were able to include another 61 small MSAs in this year’s rankings for a total of 397 regions. As a result, this year's rankings can be directly compared to the 2009 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 are made accordingly.

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 2004-2009 growth rate (two points); 3) long-term trend and momentum: the sum of the 2004-2009 and 1999-2003 employment growth rates multiplied by the ratio of the 1999-2003 growth rate over the 2004-2009 growth rate (two points); and 4) current year growth (one point).

Small Cities Rankings - 2010 Best Cities for Job Growth

Michael Shires — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:05:17 -0400

Read how we pick the best cities.

Size Rank 2010	Area	2010 Weighted INDEX	2009 Nonfarm Emplmnt (1000s)	Size Rank Change 2010
1	Jacksonville, NC	99.8	48.2
2	Bismarck, ND	95.1	62.0	12
3	College Station-Bryan, TX	94.8	98.2	9
4	Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX	92.7	125.9	2
5	St. Joseph, MO-KS	92.0	59.1	33
6	Fayetteville, NC	91.9	129.7	17
7	Lawton, OK	91.2	43.9
8	Fargo, ND-MN	90.8	121.5	4
9	Yakima, WA	84.9	77.3	70
10	Bloomington, IN	84.9	84.8	96
11	Hattiesburg, MS	83.6	59.5	50
12	Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA	82.1	95.9	-2
13	Morgantown, WV	81.7	63.5	-2
14	Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA	81.0	19.5
15	Great Falls, MT	80.9	35.0
16	Hanford-Corcoran, CA	80.0	36.8
17	Ithaca, NY	79.9	64.7	42
18	Warner Robins, GA	79.8	58.8	20
19	Iowa City, IA	79.0	90.2	18
20	State College, PA	78.6	74.2	47
21	Pascagoula, MS	77.8	57.3	39
22	Brownsville-Harlingen, TX	77.7	124.1	24
23	Columbia, MO	77.5	91.5	11
24	Las Cruces, NM	77.2	67.9	1
25	Pueblo, CO	77.2	56.9	26
26	Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA	76.9	38.3
27	Grand Forks, ND-MN	76.4	53.7	21
28	Lubbock, TX	76.1	129.3	21
29	Kankakee-Bradley, IL	76.1	43.5
30	Waco, TX	76.0	106.1	37
31	Fairbanks, AK	75.9	36.7
32	Jonesboro, AR	75.8	48.7
33	Cheyenne, WY	75.6	43.7	-9
34	Cedar Rapids, IA	75.3	135.9	20
35	Glens Falls, NY	75.2	52.6	55
36	Sioux Falls, SD	75.0	132.4	-10
37	Greenville, NC	74.5	74.9	-4
38	Rapid City, SD	73.8	58.9	5
39	Amarillo, TX	73.6	109.7	5
40	Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL	72.5	44.5
41	Lawrence, KS	72.4	51.9
42	Springfield, IL	72.2	109.7	39
43	Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA	72.2	53.6	51
44	Billings, MT	72.0	78.4	7
45	Midland, TX	71.7	64.6	-8
46	Alexandria, LA	71.5	64.3	-21
47	Abilene, TX	71.4	65.2	15
48	Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH NECTA Division	71.3	75.4	63
49	Tyler, TX	70.7	92.7	-19
50	Fort Collins-Loveland, CO	70.3	131.9	-14
51	Harrisonburg, VA	70.2	62.0	85
52	Olympia, WA	69.8	99.1	-25
53	Rochester, MN	69.6	103.0	21
54	St. Cloud, MN	69.5	98.6	13
55	Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR	69.1	56.1	-21
56	Madera-Chowchilla, CA	68.8	33.7
57	Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL	68.7	54.5	35
58	Auburn-Opelika, AL	68.6	52.2	-18
59	Wheeling, WV-OH	67.8	66.6	31
60	Utica-Rome, NY	67.8	131.0	42
61	Jefferson City, MO	67.7	77.8	30
62	Charlottesville, VA	67.6	98.0	3
63	San Angelo, TX	67.5	43.8
64	Bloomington-Normal, IL	67.4	88.5	16
65	Odessa, TX	67.2	57.7	-51
66	Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA	67.1	88.0	18
67	Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL	66.7	71.0	32
68	Dubuque, IA	66.6	53.7	-24
69	Athens-Clarke County, GA	66.6	80.8	-49
70	Laredo, TX	66.6	86.8	-51
71	Manchester, NH NECTA	66.5	98.5	15
72	Ames, IA	66.4	47.0
73	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA	66.1	91.6	-55
74	Sioux City, IA-NE-SD	65.8	73.1	-13
75	Flagstaff, AZ	65.8	61.8	3
76	Wilmington, NC	65.4	136.6	-26
77	Elizabethtown, KY	65.3	46.1
78	Joplin, MO	65.1	77.7	-42
79	Lebanon, PA	65.0	48.1
80	Coeur d'Alene, ID	64.7	53.0	-52
81	Logan, UT-ID	64.5	52.5
82	Barnstable Town, MA NECTA	64.3	92.0	54
83	Altoona, PA	64.1	60.3	72
84	Bangor, ME NECTA	63.6	64.9	30
85	Bremerton-Silverdale, WA	63.4	82.9	54
86	Clarksville, TN-KY	63.2	81.0	64
87	Tuscaloosa, AL	62.9	93.1	-5
88	Cumberland, MD-WV	62.7	38.7
89	Johnstown, PA	62.6	59.7	16
90	Ocean City, NJ	62.3	35.8
91	El Centro, CA	61.6	44.6
92	New Bedford, MA NECTA	61.5	63.7	43
93	Topeka, KS	61.2	107.8	-12
94	Longview, TX	61.0	93.3	-71
95	Columbus, GA-AL	60.4	116.8	38
96	Oshkosh-Neenah, WI	59.9	90.0	-18
97	Owensboro, KY	59.5	49.1
98	Idaho Falls, ID	58.5	48.3
99	Binghamton, NY	57.6	109.8	14
100	Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA	57.4	130.4	36
101	Lynchburg, VA	57.4	104.5	-49
102	Goldsboro, NC	57.0	43.2
103	La Crosse, WI-MN	56.9	71.8	-14
104	Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH	56.7	115.5	8
105	Missoula, MT	56.7	54.1	60
106	Sherman-Denison, TX	56.3	42.2
107	Hot Springs, AR	56.2	36.5
108	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA	56.1	68.8	-1
109	Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL	55.8	78.0	61
110	Kingston, NY	55.8	60.5	59
111	Dover, DE	55.8	62.6	31
112	Gainesville, FL	55.3	128.3	-13
113	Palm Coast, FL	55.2	17.9
114	Monroe, LA	55.0	75.7	33
115	Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA	54.9	55.5	-51
116	Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ	54.7	60.0	17
117	Eau Claire, WI	54.4	78.2	-15
118	Champaign-Urbana, IL	54.1	109.0	-43
119	Mankato-North Mankato, MN	53.9	51.5
120	Anderson, IN	53.8	40.8
121	Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA	53.5	47.2
122	Lewiston, ID-WA	53.2	25.9
123	Santa Fe, NM	53.1	60.6	-54
124	Gulfport-Biloxi, MS	52.9	106.2	45
125	Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA	52.6	109.9	61
126	Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH	52.1	70.0	6
127	Casper, WY	51.9	37.9
128	Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	51.9	108.4	19
129	Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Division	51.6	85.7	53
130	Greeley, CO	51.4	77.0	-81
131	Williamsport, PA	51.4	51.8	52
132	Sandusky, OH	51.0	34.2
133	Lake Charles, LA	50.9	88.6	-33
134	Appleton, WI	50.7	113.3	16
135	Albany, GA	50.3	61.5	28
136	Pine Bluff, AR	49.7	37.4
137	Elmira, NY	49.2	39.1
138	Duluth, MN-WI	49.1	125.8	-9
139	Visalia-Porterville, CA	49.0	106.3	-30
140	Bellingham, WA	48.8	79.2	-62
141	Victoria, TX	48.4	48.1
142	Peabody, MA NECTA Division	48.4	97.4	25
143	Chico, CA	47.3	70.3	27
144	Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Division	47.3	112.8	11
145	Lafayette, IN	47.0	91.1	-60
146	Grand Junction, CO	46.9	59.6	-109
147	Rome, GA	46.7	39.7
148	Gainesville, GA	46.0	71.2	-85
149	Valdosta, GA	45.8	52.8	-65
150	Winchester, VA-WV	45.8	53.2	41
151	Pocatello, ID	45.2	36.3
152	Salinas, CA	44.5	120.5	-16
153	Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV	44.2	95.9	7
154	Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Division	44.0	126.0	-24
155	Springfield, OH	43.9	49.8	8
156	Anniston-Oxford, AL	43.8	49.6	-8
157	Fort Smith, AR-OK	43.7	115.9	-68
158	Bowling Green, KY	43.2	57.6	-64
159	Yuba City, CA	43.1	37.6
160	Johnson City, TN	43.1	76.8	-14
161	Decatur, IL	43.0	51.9	-35
162	Salisbury, MD	42.7	52.2	3
163	Napa, CA	42.7	59.5	-24
164	St. George, UT	42.6	46.4	-54
165	Macon, GA	41.8	96.2	-43
166	Corvallis, OR	41.7	36.7
167	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA	41.2	96.5	-34
168	Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA	40.3	43.4
169	Pittsfield, MA NECTA	40.1	34.4
170	Longview, WA	39.7	35.1
171	Brunswick, GA	39.5	41.8
172	Battle Creek, MI	39.1	55.7	41
173	Florence, SC	39.0	82.8	-34
174	Merced, CA	38.9	54.3	-28
175	Cleveland, TN	38.9	38.9
176	Farmington, NM	38.5	48.2
177	Terre Haute, IN	38.2	69.9	15
178	Danville, IL	37.9	29.4
179	Punta Gorda, FL	36.5	39.3
180	Erie, PA	36.3	125.1	-48
181	Vallejo-Fairfield, CA	35.9	117.1	19
182	Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA	35.8	115.3	-37
183	Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	35.3	87.7	1
184	Bend, OR	34.8	60.5	-45
185	Kalamazoo-Portage, MI	34.6	136.8	19
186	Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI	33.8	83.3	33
187	Michigan City-La Porte, IN	33.7	43.2
188	Columbus, IN	33.5	41.5
189	Redding, CA	33.1	57.9	27
190	Prescott, AZ	32.7	55.9	-13
191	Port St. Lucie, FL	31.0	118.7	8
192	Wichita Falls, TX	30.3	57.6	-37
193	Medford, OR	29.9	75.7	-20
194	Dothan, AL	29.8	57.6	-5
195	Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ	29.7	136.0	12
196	Rocky Mount, NC	29.0	60.2	12
197	Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ	28.0	46.5	13
198	Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL	27.4	43.5
199	Decatur, AL	26.7	53.3	-40
200	Gadsden, AL	26.6	35.1
201	Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA NECTA	26.1	47.1
202	Carson City, NV	26.0	29.2
203	Bay City, MI	25.5	35.8
204	Yuma, AZ	25.4	49.4	-14
205	Jackson, TN	25.4	57.1	-41
206	Lima, OH	25.2	51.7	8
207	Muncie, IN	23.4	49.1	-4
208	Danbury, CT NECTA	22.4	64.6	-13
209	Burlington, NC	22.1	55.6	-9
210	Wausau, WI	21.3	65.7	-13
211	Danville, VA	21.3	39.2
212	Mansfield, OH	21.0	52.9	-9
213	Niles-Benton Harbor, MI	20.8	58.5	-29
214	Spartanburg, SC	20.5	116.3	-90
215	Ocala, FL	20.5	90.8	-48
216	Sheboygan, WI	20.0	58.3	-56
217	Fond du Lac, WI	17.7	43.9
218	Flint, MI	17.4	133.7	9
219	Naples-Marco Island, FL	16.8	109.8	-9
220	Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI	16.2	57.8	2
221	Racine, WI	15.7	73.3	-35
222	Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV	15.6	43.9
223	Monroe, MI	13.4	37.0
224	South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI	12.6	130.8	-32
225	Sumter, SC	11.3	35.1
226	Anderson, SC	10.8	58.0	-3
227	Jackson, MI	10.6	53.2	5
228	Waterbury, CT NECTA	8.9	61.2	-6
229	Dalton, GA	7.6	66.0	-1
230	Janesville, WI	7.5	60.3	-9
231	Kokomo, IN	6.0	39.4
232	Holland-Grand Haven, MI	4.7	100.7	-7
233	Elkhart-Goshen, IN	2.5	97.8	-5
234	Morristown, TN	1.5	44.5

Midsized Cities Rankings - 2010 Best Cities for Job Growth

Michael Shires — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:46:02 -0400

Read how we pick the best cities.

Size Rank 2010	Area	2010 Weighted INDEX	2009 Nonfarm Emplmnt (1000s)	Size Rank Change 2010
1	Durham-Chapel Hill, NC	86.6	283.2	3
2	Baton Rouge, LA	83.2	367.5	5
3	Anchorage, AK	81.1	168.0	6
4	Huntsville, AL	81.1	207.9	8
5	El Paso, TX	79.8	271.9	6
6	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	78.7	219.0	-5
7	Corpus Christi, TX	76.2	175.8	-1
8	Lafayette, LA	75.6	145.4	-5
9	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	74.5	313.9	8
10	Lincoln, NE	71.2	170.1	23
11	Trenton-Ewing, NJ	69.7	235.2	28
12	Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	69.5	174.3	-4
13	Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	69.5	199.6	6
14	Lexington-Fayette, KY	66.7	247.4	44
15	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	66.6	335.0	16
16	Tallahassee, FL	65.3	171.4	46
17	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	64.9	438.9	33
18	Syracuse, NY	64.2	315.6	20
19	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	64.2	191.7	9
20	Albuquerque, NM	64.2	377.5	6
21	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	64.0	318.1	23
22	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	63.0	209.2	26
23	Salem, OR	62.8	144.7	4
24	Springfield, MO	62.6	190.6	5
25	Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC	61.6	282.7	-10
26	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	60.9	329.6	15
27	Jackson, MS	60.3	251.4	25
28	Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA	59.8	252.5	35
29	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY	59.8	247.4	17
30	Provo-Orem, UT	59.7	179.8	-16
31	Spokane, WA	59.5	207.6	-7
32	Kansas City, KS	59.2	424.1	-27
33	Madison, WI	58.6	335.1	10
34	Charleston, WV	58.6	146.3	0
35	Boulder, CO	57.8	159.1	-14
36	Bakersfield-Delano, CA	57.2	225.4	-23
37	Tulsa, OK	56.9	406.9	-35
38	Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	55.9	156.1	-1
39	Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division	55.5	265.1	-17
40	Savannah, GA	55.1	150.2	-20
41	Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA	54.5	186.2	26
42	Columbia, SC	54.2	345.8	-7
43	Knoxville, TN	53.9	319.9	16
44	New Haven, CT NECTA	52.0	266.4	3
45	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	51.9	158.4	40
46	York-Hanover, PA	51.6	173.3	-21
47	Winston-Salem, NC	51.4	207.5	10
48	Calvert-Charles-Prince George's, MD	51.1	375.9	25
49	Colorado Springs, CO	50.8	244.4	6
50	Ann Arbor, MI	50.7	192.8	43
51	Roanoke, VA	50.4	154.2	9
52	Montgomery, AL	49.6	167.7	-16
53	Framingham, MA NECTA Division	49.1	150.9	-37
54	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA	48.5	397.6	20
55	Reading, PA	48.0	164.6	11
56	Green Bay, WI	47.8	160.6	9
57	Evansville, IN-KY	47.4	169.2	24
58	Tucson, AZ	46.2	359.8	10
59	Worcester, MA-CT NECTA	46.0	235.1	11
60	Asheville, NC	46.0	164.5	-11
61	Boise City-Nampa, ID	45.9	250.4	-5
62	Lancaster, PA	45.9	224.5	-11
63	Mobile, AL	45.3	171.7	-53
64	Wichita, KS	44.8	286.0	-41
65	Peoria, IL	43.4	174.9	-47
66	Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA	41.5	161.8	-24
67	Fresno, CA	41.1	281.1	-22
68	Lansing-East Lansing, MI	41.0	215.9	11
69	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL	40.5	176.7	-39
70	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	40.3	195.2	-9
71	Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division	39.4	372.4	-31
72	Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division	38.9	333.3	6
73	Baltimore City, MD	37.6	345.6	3
74	Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC	36.9	292.7	-42
75	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	34.8	193.9	16
76	Gary, IN Metropolitan Division	34.7	262.7	-23
77	Springfield, MA-CT NECTA	33.6	280.2	-2
78	Stockton, CA	33.2	191.8	-7
79	Fort Wayne, IN	33.0	200.4	-7
80	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	31.1	271.2	7
81	Modesto, CA	29.6	143.6	-1
82	Chattanooga, TN-GA	29.2	225.3	-28
83	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	27.8	154.4	6
84	Eugene-Springfield, OR	26.0	141.5	-20
85	Greensboro-High Point, NC	25.5	340.8	-1
86	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	24.2	360.2	0
87	Akron, OH	21.8	313.2	-18
88	Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA	20.7	169.1	0
89	North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL	20.4	245.6	6
90	Dayton, OH	20.3	368.4	4
91	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	19.8	195.9	-8
92	Reno-Sparks, NV	19.4	190.6	-2
93	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	17.7	217.1	-1
94	Canton-Massillon, OH	14.6	157.6	-12
95	Toledo, OH	14.4	294.6	2
96	Rockford, IL	12.8	140.9	-19
97	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC	8.8	142.2	-1

Large Cities Rankings - 2010 Best Cities for Job Growth

Michael Shires — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:36:57 -0400

Read how we pick the best cities.

Size Rank 2010	Area	2010 Weighted INDEX	2009 Nonfarm Emplmnt (1000s)	Size Rank Change 2010
1	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	88.9	756.8	0
2	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	84.9	827.2	1
3	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	81.0	2,513.6	-1
4	Northern Virginia, VA	77.1	1,291.4	9
5	Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division	75.7	2,006.9	0
6	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division	75.3	2,380.0	6
7	Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division	75.2	844.9	-3
8	Raleigh-Cary, NC	74.4	496.9	0
9	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	68.5	453.6	2
10	New York City, NY	66.7	3,655.7	4
11	Oklahoma City, OK	65.1	555.3	-2
12	Salt Lake City, UT	64.9	606.9	-5
13	Pittsburgh, PA	64.5	1,112.7	16
14	Philadelphia City, PA	64.4	647.2	17
15	Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division	64.3	556.1	9
16	Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division	63.7	1,225.2	18
17	Rochester, NY	63.6	502.8	4
18	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA	61.9	536.9	18
19	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division	61.7	1,644.2	-3
20	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	61.6	536.3	10
21	Kansas City, MO	61.2	544.0	7
22	Honolulu, HI	60.9	437.2	-3
23	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	55.2	729.7	4
24	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	54.3	1,178.7	-9
25	Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	54.3	591.5	12
26	Columbus, OH	52.6	898.2	6
27	St. Louis, MO-IL	50.5	1,286.5	6
28	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Division	50.3	1,374.6	-22
29	Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division	49.7	512.1	26
30	Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN	49.7	719.2	-5
31	Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	48.6	802.5	-13
32	Richmond, VA	47.8	595.6	10
33	Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY	46.0	548.5	-16
34	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	45.6	859.4	1
35	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	45.2	984.7	3
36	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	43.8	998.4	-10
37	Jacksonville, FL	43.3	581.8	7
38	Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ	42.7	865.0	15
39	Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division	42.6	966.4	15
40	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	42.3	1,677.2	8
41	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	42.2	959.1	-31
42	San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division	42.1	926.1	-19
43	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	42.1	2,259.3	-2
44	Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division	39.8	970.5	3
45	Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division	38.8	981.9	-5
46	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	38.3	519.2	-1
47	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	37.6	841.9	-27
48	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	37.4	1,213.2	-9
49	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	35.0	796.3	2
50	Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL Metropolitan Division	33.7	3,583.0	2
51	Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ	32.6	1,701.0	-8
52	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	31.7	591.7	-6
53	Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA	31.5	818.2	7
54	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	30.6	1,122.8	4
55	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA	27.2	530.2	10
56	Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	26.9	703.5	-6
57	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	26.7	806.3	-35
58	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	24.4	983.2	6
59	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division	22.8	3,778.6	-3
60	Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division	22.8	1,347.1	3
61	West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	22.4	498.9	0
62	Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division	21.9	948.4	0
63	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	21.4	1,108.7	-6
64	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	20.8	485.1	-15
65	Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division	4.1	689.6	1
66	Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division	1.1	1,019.3	-7

All Cities Rankings - 2010 Best Cities for Job Growth

Michael Shires — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:22:10 -0400

Read how we pick the best cities.

Overall Rank 2010	Area	2010 Weighted INDEX	2009 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)	Overall Rank 2009	Overall Rank Change
1	Jacksonville, NC	99.8	48.2
2	Bismarck, ND	95.1	62.0	18	17
3	College Station-Bryan, TX	94.8	98.2	16	14
4	Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX	92.7	125.9	5	2
5	St. Joseph, MO-KS	92.0	59.1	63	59
6	Fayetteville, NC	91.9	129.7	42	37
7	Lawton, OK	91.2	43.9
8	Fargo, ND-MN	90.8	121.5	15	9
9	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	88.9	756.8	6	-1
10	Durham-Chapel Hill, NC	86.6	283.2	19	11
11	Yakima, WA	84.9	77.3	136	127
12	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	84.9	827.2	20	10
13	Bloomington, IN	84.9	84.8	201	190
14	Hattiesburg, MS	83.6	59.5	99	87
15	Baton Rouge, LA	83.2	367.5	27	14
16	Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA	82.1	95.9	12	-2
17	Morgantown, WV	81.7	63.5	13	-2
18	Anchorage, AK	81.1	168.0	35	19
19	Huntsville, AL	81.1	207.9	40	23
20	Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA	81.0	19.5
21	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	81.0	2,513.6	9	-9
22	Great Falls, MT	80.9	35.0
23	Hanford-Corcoran, CA	80.0	36.8
24	Ithaca, NY	79.9	64.7	90	71
25	El Paso, TX	79.8	271.9	39	19
26	Warner Robins, GA	79.8	58.8	57	36
27	Iowa City, IA	79.0	90.2	56	34
28	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	78.7	219.0	7	-16
29	State College, PA	78.6	74.2	108	84
30	Pascagoula, MS	77.8	57.3	93	68
31	Brownsville-Harlingen, TX	77.7	124.1	68	42
32	Columbia, MO	77.5	91.5	51	24
33	Las Cruces, NM	77.2	67.9	31	3
34	Pueblo, CO	77.2	56.9	78	49
35	Northern Virginia, VA	77.1	1,291.4	84	54
36	Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA	76.9	38.3
37	Grand Forks, ND-MN	76.4	53.7	70	39
38	Corpus Christi, TX	76.2	175.8	23	-9
39	Lubbock, TX	76.1	129.3	74	41
40	Kankakee-Bradley, IL	76.1	43.5
41	Waco, TX	76.0	106.1	103	69
42	Fairbanks, AK	75.9	36.7
43	Jonesboro, AR	75.8	48.7
44	Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division	75.7	2,006.9	32	-3
45	Cheyenne, WY	75.6	43.7	24	-12
46	Lafayette, LA	75.6	145.4	14	-23
47	Washtn-Artn-Alexdria, DC-VA-MD-WV Mt Dv	75.3	2,380.0	76	38
48	Cedar Rapids, IA	75.3	135.9	77	38
49	Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division	75.2	844.9	30	-10
50	Glens Falls, NY	75.2	52.6	141	100
51	Sioux Falls, SD	75.0	132.4	26	-16
52	Greenville, NC	74.5	74.9	45	2
53	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	74.5	313.9	65	21
54	Raleigh-Cary, NC	74.4	496.9	38	-7
55	Rapid City, SD	73.8	58.9	59	13
56	Amarillo, TX	73.6	109.7	60	13
57	Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL	72.5	44.5
58	Lawrence, KS	72.4	51.9
59	Springfield, IL	72.2	109.7	122	74
60	Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA	72.2	53.6	146	97
61	Billings, MT	72.0	78.4	67	17
62	Midland, TX	71.7	64.6	47	-4
63	Alexandria, LA	71.5	64.3	21	-31
64	Abilene, TX	71.4	65.2	86	33
65	Haverhill-North Andvr-Ambry, MA-NH NECTA Div	71.3	75.4	187	133
66	Lincoln, NE	71.2	170.1	109	54
67	Tyler, TX	70.7	92.7	29	-27
68	Fort Collins-Loveland, CO	70.3	131.9	46	-11
69	Harrisonburg, VA	70.2	62.0	249	191
70	Olympia, WA	69.8	99.1	25	-34
71	Trenton-Ewing, NJ	69.7	235.2	130	70
72	Rochester, MN	69.6	103.0	110	49
73	Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	69.5	174.3	33	-29
74	St. Cloud, MN	69.5	98.6	96	33
75	Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	69.5	199.6	71	7
76	Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR	69.1	56.1	43	-22
77	Madera-Chowchilla, CA	68.8	33.7
78	Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL	68.7	54.5	140	74
79	Auburn-Opelika, AL	68.6	52.2	49	-18
80	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	68.5	453.6	72	4
81	Wheeling, WV-OH	67.8	66.6	138	69
82	Utica-Rome, NY	67.8	131.0	163	93
83	Jefferson City, MO	67.7	77.8	139	68
84	Charlottesville, VA	67.6	98.0	89	17
85	San Angelo, TX	67.5	43.8
86	Bloomington-Normal, IL	67.4	88.5	117	44
87	Odessa, TX	67.2	57.7	1	-73
88	Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA	67.1	88.0	124	49
89	New York City, NY	66.7	3,655.7	95	19
90	Lexington-Fayette, KY	66.7	247.4	194	117
91	Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL	66.7	71.0	150	72
92	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	66.6	335.0	106	27
93	Dubuque, IA	66.6	53.7	53	-27
94	Athens-Clarke County, GA	66.6	80.8	11	-70
95	Laredo, TX	66.6	86.8	8	-74
96	Manchester, NH NECTA	66.5	98.5	128	45
97	Ames, IA	66.4	47.0
98	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA	66.1	91.6	4	-80
99	Sioux City, IA-NE-SD	65.8	73.1	80	-5
100	Flagstaff, AZ	65.8	61.8	111	25
101	Wilmington, NC	65.4	136.6	61	-26
102	Tallahassee, FL	65.3	171.4	202	114
103	Elizabethtown, KY	65.3	46.1
104	Oklahoma City, OK	65.1	555.3	44	-45
105	Joplin, MO	65.1	77.7	41	-49
106	Lebanon, PA	65.0	48.1
107	Salt Lake City, UT	64.9	606.9	36	-55
108	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	64.9	438.9	177	85
109	Coeur d'Alene, ID	64.7	53.0	17	-76
110	Logan, UT-ID	64.5	52.5
111	Pittsburgh, PA	64.5	1,112.7	169	75
112	Philadelphia City, PA	64.4	647.2	176	81
113	Barnstable Town, MA NECTA	64.3	92.0	238	142
114	Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD Metr Div	64.3	556.1	145	48
115	Syracuse, NY	64.2	315.6	129	31
116	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	64.2	191.7	101	2
117	Albuquerque, NM	64.2	377.5	94	-6
118	Altoona, PA	64.1	60.3	268	167
119	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	64.0	318.1	159	57
120	Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division	63.7	1,225.2	180	77
121	Bangor, ME NECTA	63.6	64.9	181	77
122	Rochester, NY	63.6	502.8	137	32
123	Bremerton-Silverdale, WA	63.4	82.9	246	140
124	Clarksville, TN-KY	63.2	81.0	263	156
125	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	63.0	209.2	167	59
126	Tuscaloosa, AL	62.9	93.1	112	3
127	Salem, OR	62.8	144.7	100	-10
128	Cumberland, MD-WV	62.7	38.7
129	Johnstown, PA	62.6	59.7	155	44
130	Springfield, MO	62.6	190.6	102	-10
131	Ocean City, NJ	62.3	35.8
132	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA	61.9	536.9	199	86
133	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division	61.7	1,644.2	118	4
134	El Centro, CA	61.6	44.6
135	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	61.6	536.3	174	59
136	Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC	61.6	282.7	58	-58
137	New Bedford, MA NECTA	61.5	63.7	229	112
138	Topeka, KS	61.2	107.8	104	-14
139	Kansas City, MO	61.2	544.0	164	45
140	Longview, TX	61.0	93.3	3	-117
141	Honolulu, HI	60.9	437.2	132	11
142	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	60.9	329.6	151	29
143	Columbus, GA-AL	60.4	116.8	224	101
144	Jackson, MS	60.3	251.4	184	60
145	Oshkosh-Neenah, WI	59.9	90.0	98	-27
146	Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA	59.8	252.5	203	77
147	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY	59.8	247.4	162	35
148	Provo-Orem, UT	59.7	179.8	54	-74
149	Owensboro, KY	59.5	49.1
150	Spokane, WA	59.5	207.6	91	-38
151	Kansas City, KS	59.2	424.1	22	-108
152	Madison, WI	58.6	335.1	158	27
153	Charleston, WV	58.6	146.3	114	-18
154	Idaho Falls, ID	58.5	48.3
155	Boulder, CO	57.8	159.1	79	-54
156	Binghamton, NY	57.6	109.8	165	31
157	Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA	57.4	130.4	226	91
158	Lynchburg, VA	57.4	104.5	52	-84
159	Bakersfield-Delano, CA	57.2	225.4	50	-87
160	Goldsboro, NC	57.0	43.2
161	Tulsa, OK	56.9	406.9	10	-128
162	La Crosse, WI-MN	56.9	71.8	115	-24
163	Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH	56.7	115.5	157	17
164	Missoula, MT	56.7	54.1	276	135
165	Sherman-Denison, TX	56.3	42.2
166	Hot Springs, AR	56.2	36.5
167	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA	56.1	68.8	143	1
168	Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	55.9	156.1	127	-16
169	Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL	55.8	78.0	282	138
170	Kingston, NY	55.8	60.5	281	136
171	Dover, DE	55.8	62.6	231	85
172	Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division	55.5	265.1	81	-66
173	Gainesville, FL	55.3	128.3	131	-17
174	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	55.2	729.7	160	11
175	Palm Coast, FL	55.2	17.9
176	Savannah, GA	55.1	150.2	73	-77
177	Monroe, LA	55.0	75.7	243	92
178	Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA	54.9	55.5	64	-88
179	Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ	54.7	60.0	210	57
180	Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA	54.5	186.2	221	67
181	Eau Claire, WI	54.4	78.2	135	-20
182	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	54.3	1,178.7	113	-43
183	Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	54.3	591.5	204	47
184	Columbia, SC	54.2	345.8	116	-42
185	Champaign-Urbana, IL	54.1	109.0	83	-76
186	Mankato-North Mankato, MN	53.9	51.5
187	Knoxville, TN	53.9	319.9	195	35
188	Anderson, IN	53.8	40.8
189	Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA	53.5	47.2
190	Lewiston, ID-WA	53.2	25.9
191	Santa Fe, NM	53.1	60.6	66	-95
192	Gulfport-Biloxi, MS	52.9	106.2	270	108
193	Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA	52.6	109.9	300	137
194	Columbus, OH	52.6	898.2	178	14
195	Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH	52.1	70.0	193	28
196	New Haven, CT NECTA	52.0	266.4	166	0
197	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	51.9	158.4	302	135
198	Casper, WY	51.9	37.9
199	Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	51.9	108.4	230	62
200	Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Div	51.6	85.7	292	123
201	York-Hanover, PA	51.6	173.3	92	-78
202	Greeley, CO	51.4	77.0	28	-143
203	Williamsport, PA	51.4	51.8	293	121
204	Winston-Salem, NC	51.4	207.5	192	19
205	Calvert-Charles-Prince George's, MD	51.1	375.9	236	62
206	Sandusky, OH	51.0	34.2
207	Lake Charles, LA	50.9	88.6	119	-56
208	Colorado Springs, CO	50.8	244.4	190	14
209	Ann Arbor, MI	50.7	192.8	322	145
210	Appleton, WI	50.7	113.3	232	54
211	St. Louis, MO-IL	50.5	1,286.5	179	0
212	Roanoke, VA	50.4	154.2	196	16
213	Albany, GA	50.3	61.5	260	79
214	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metr Div	50.3	1,374.6	34	-148
215	Pine Bluff, AR	49.7	37.4
216	Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division	49.7	512.1	277	94
217	Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN	49.7	719.2	153	-31
218	Montgomery, AL	49.6	167.7	123	-62
219	Elmira, NY	49.2	39.1
220	Duluth, MN-WI	49.1	125.8	173	-13
221	Framingham, MA NECTA Division	49.1	150.9	62	-125
222	Visalia-Porterville, CA	49.0	106.3	133	-55
223	Bellingham, WA	48.8	79.2	75	-114
224	Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	48.6	802.5	125	-65
225	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA	48.5	397.6	240	49
226	Victoria, TX	48.4	48.1
227	Peabody, MA NECTA Division	48.4	97.4	261	69
228	Reading, PA	48.0	164.6	219	26
229	Green Bay, WI	47.8	160.6	212	18
230	Richmond, VA	47.8	595.6	218	23
231	Evansville, IN-KY	47.4	169.2	280	84
232	Chico, CA	47.3	70.3	265	68
233	Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Div	47.3	112.8	239	41
234	Lafayette, IN	47.0	91.1	85	-114
235	Grand Junction, CO	46.9	59.6	2	-198
236	Rome, GA	46.7	39.7
237	Tucson, AZ	46.2	359.8	222	21
238	Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY	46.0	548.5	121	-81
239	Worcester, MA-CT NECTA	46.0	235.1	228	25
240	Asheville, NC	46.0	164.5	168	-36
241	Gainesville, GA	46.0	71.2	48	-157
242	Boise City-Nampa, ID	45.9	250.4	191	-15
243	Lancaster, PA	45.9	224.5	182	-25
244	Valdosta, GA	45.8	52.8	82	-126
245	Winchester, VA-WV	45.8	53.2	299	90
246	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	45.6	859.4	197	-13
247	Mobile, AL	45.3	171.7	37	-174
248	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	45.2	984.7	207	-5
249	Pocatello, ID	45.2	36.3
250	Wichita, KS	44.8	286.0	88	-125
251	Salinas, CA	44.5	120.5	185	-29
252	Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV	44.2	95.9	247	32
253	Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Division	44.0	126.0	171	-45
254	Springfield, OH	43.9	49.8	250	33
255	Anniston-Oxford, AL	43.8	49.6	215	-3
256	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	43.8	998.4	154	-65
257	Fort Smith, AR-OK	43.7	115.9	87	-133
258	Peoria, IL	43.4	174.9	69	-152
259	Jacksonville, FL	43.3	581.8	227	5
260	Bowling Green, KY	43.2	57.6	97	-126
261	Yuba City, CA	43.1	37.6
262	Johnson City, TN	43.1	76.8	211	-13
263	Decatur, IL	43.0	51.9	156	-69
264	Salisbury, MD	42.7	52.2	251	25
265	Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ	42.7	865.0	258	31
266	Napa, CA	42.7	59.5	189	-39
267	St. George, UT	42.6	46.4	126	-103
268	Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division	42.6	966.4	269	39
269	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	42.3	1,677.2	242	11
270	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	42.2	959.1	55	-177
271	San Fran-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metr Div	42.1	926.1	144	-89
272	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	42.1	2,259.3	217	-17
273	Macon, GA	41.8	96.2	147	-88
274	Corvallis, OR	41.7	36.7
275	Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA	41.5	161.8	152	-84
276	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA	41.2	96.5	172	-65
277	Fresno, CA	41.1	281.1	161	-77
278	Lansing-East Lansing, MI	41.0	215.9	273	34
279	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL	40.5	176.7	105	-135
280	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	40.3	195.2	200	-41
281	Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA	40.3	43.4
282	Pittsfield, MA NECTA	40.1	34.4
283	Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division	39.8	970.5	241	-1
284	Longview, WA	39.7	35.1
285	Brunswick, GA	39.5	41.8
286	Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metr Div	39.4	372.4	148	-95
287	Battle Creek, MI	39.1	55.7	331	87
288	Florence, SC	39.0	82.8	175	-70
289	Merced, CA	38.9	54.3	198	-48
290	Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division	38.9	333.3	272	25
291	Cleveland, TN	38.9	38.9
292	Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metr Div	38.8	981.9	216	-32
293	Farmington, NM	38.5	48.2
294	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	38.3	519.2	234	-15
295	Terre Haute, IN	38.2	69.9	287	37
296	Danville, IL	37.9	29.4
297	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	37.6	841.9	134	-117
298	Baltimore City, MD	37.6	345.6	256	4
299	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	37.4	1,213.2	208	-45
300	Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC	36.9	292.7	107	-147
301	Punta Gorda, FL	36.5	39.3
302	Erie, PA	36.3	125.1	149	-106
303	Vallejo-Fairfield, CA	35.9	117.1	295	39
304	Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA	35.8	115.3	183	-74
305	Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	35.3	87.7	267	9
306	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	35.0	796.3	254	-5
307	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	34.8	193.9	319	59
308	Bend, OR	34.8	60.5	170	-91
309	Gary, IN Metropolitan Division	34.7	262.7	186	-76
310	Kalamazoo-Portage, MI	34.6	136.8	303	40
311	Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI	33.8	83.3	334	70
312	Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL Metropolitan Division	33.7	3,583.0	255	-10
313	Michigan City-La Porte, IN	33.7	43.2
314	Springfield, MA-CT NECTA	33.6	280.2	245	-21
315	Columbus, IN	33.5	41.5
316	Stockton, CA	33.2	191.8	233	-34
317	Redding, CA	33.1	57.9	328	60
318	Fort Wayne, IN	33.0	200.4	235	-34
319	Prescott, AZ	32.7	55.9	252	-18
320	Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ	32.6	1,701.0	223	-48
321	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	31.7	591.7	237	-35
322	Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA	31.5	818.2	297	24
323	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	31.1	271.2	311	37
324	Port St. Lucie, FL	31.0	118.7	290	15
325	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	30.6	1,122.8	285	9
326	Wichita Falls, TX	30.3	57.6	209	-68
327	Medford, OR	29.9	75.7	248	-30
328	Dothan, AL	29.8	57.6	271	-8
329	Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ	29.7	136.0	305	25
330	Modesto, CA	29.6	143.6	274	-7
331	Chattanooga, TN-GA	29.2	225.3	188	-94
332	Rocky Mount, NC	29.0	60.2	307	24
333	Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ	28.0	46.5	315	31
334	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	27.8	154.4	313	28
335	Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL	27.4	43.5
336	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA	27.2	530.2	318	32
337	Fort Lauderdale-Pomp Bch-Deerfield Bch, FL Metr Div	26.9	703.5	253	-34
338	Decatur, AL	26.7	53.3	213	-75
339	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	26.7	806.3	142	-147
340	Gadsden, AL	26.6	35.1
341	Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA NECTA	26.1	47.1
342	Carson City, NV	26.0	29.2
343	Eugene-Springfield, OR	26.0	141.5	206	-84
344	Bay City, MI	25.5	35.8
345	Greensboro-High Point, NC	25.5	340.8	296	5
346	Yuma, AZ	25.4	49.4	266	-26
347	Jackson, TN	25.4	57.1	214	-79
348	Lima, OH	25.2	51.7	308	14
349	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	24.4	983.2	309	14
350	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	24.2	360.2	310	14
351	Muncie, IN	23.4	49.1	289	-8
352	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metr Div	22.8	3,778.6	279	-19
353	Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division	22.8	1,347.1	306	7
354	West Palm Bch-Boca Raton-Btn Beach, FL Metr Div	22.4	498.9	301	1
355	Danbury, CT NECTA	22.4	64.6	275	-26
356	Burlington, NC	22.1	55.6	286	-16
357	Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division	21.9	948.4	304	1
358	Akron, OH	21.8	313.2	225	-79
359	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	21.4	1,108.7	283	-22
360	Wausau, WI	21.3	65.7	278	-28
361	Danville, VA	21.3	39.2
362	Mansfield, OH	21.0	52.9	288	-19
363	Niles-Benton Harbor, MI	20.8	58.5	257	-51
364	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	20.8	485.1	244	-65
365	Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA	20.7	169.1	312	2
366	Spartanburg, SC	20.5	116.3	120	-191
367	Ocala, FL	20.5	90.8	220	-92
368	North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL	20.4	245.6	325	12
369	Dayton, OH	20.3	368.4	323	9
370	Sheboygan, WI	20.0	58.3	205	-110
371	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	19.8	195.9	291	-25
372	Reno-Sparks, NV	19.4	190.6	314	-3
373	Fond du Lac, WI	17.7	43.9
374	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	17.7	217.1	321	3
375	Flint, MI	17.4	133.7	333	14
376	Naples-Marco Island, FL	16.8	109.8	298	-22
377	Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI	16.2	57.8	326	5
378	Racine, WI	15.7	73.3	259	-63
379	Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV	15.6	43.9
380	Canton-Massillon, OH	14.6	157.6	284	-39
381	Toledo, OH	14.4	294.6	332	8
382	Monroe, MI	13.4	37.0
383	Rockford, IL	12.8	140.9	262	-63
384	South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI	12.6	130.8	264	-62
385	Sumter, SC	11.3	35.1
386	Anderson, SC	10.8	58.0	320	-7
387	Jackson, MI	10.6	53.2	336	8
388	Waterbury, CT NECTA	8.9	61.2	317	-12
389	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC	8.8	142.2	327	-3
390	Dalton, GA	7.6	66.0	330	-1
391	Janesville, WI	7.5	60.3	316	-16
392	Kokomo, IN	6.0	39.4
393	Holland-Grand Haven, MI	4.7	100.7	324	-9
394	Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division	4.1	689.6	335	1
395	Elkhart-Goshen, IN	2.5	97.8	329	-6
396	Morristown, TN	1.5	44.5
397	Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division	1.1	1,019.3	294	-42

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.