Best Cities 2011

Listing the Best Places Lists: Perception Versus Reality

Joel Kotkin and Mark Schill — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:50:00 -0400

Often best places lists reflect as much on what’s being measured, and who is being measured as on the inherent advantages of any locale. Some cities that have grown rapidly in jobs, for example, often do not do as well if the indicator has more to do with perceived “quality” of employment.

Take places like Denver and Seattle. Both do well on what may be considered high-tech measurements – bandwidth, educated migration, entrepreneurial start ups – but have trailed other places in terms of creating jobs. Others, such as Oklahoma City and Raleigh, do better in terms of overall job creation and cost competitiveness.

There are effectively few truly objective criteria, and the Area Development list does tend to weigh a bit heavy on the factors that help more expensive – although not necessarily the most costly – cities. If cost of doing business, or regulatory environments were given more weight, some of the high fliers would not do as well.

We prefer to focus less on atmospherics and more on how people, and businesses, are voting for their feet. San Francisco and New York have generally had slower job growth and greater outmigration, but do well on lists that focus on perceived qualitative factors.

But then there is Austin. Here is one region that has it all, the low costs and favorable regulatory climate of Texas along with the amenities associated with a high-tech region. The area creates a large number of jobs of varying types and is still inexpensive enough to attract young, upwardly mobile families. This gives it a critical advantage over places like Silicon Valley, Los Angeles or New York. Unlike those three centers, Austin performs extraordinarily well in quantitative measurements.

The region that most closely matches Austin in these respects is not Seattle and Denver, but Raleigh Durham. Recently a group of leaders from Raleigh made a visit to Denver to learn what makes that city successful. Speaking to the group, we pointed out that by objective measurement – job growth, educated migration, population growth – Raleigh beat Denver by a long shot, yet it was to Denver the group was looking for inspiration. In fact, over the past three years, Americans have moved to Raleigh at a rate more than three times that of Denver. Perception can be a funny thing which makes a winner feel inferior to a clear runner-up.

Another strange result is that New York and Houston had the same number of mentions. Yet looking at numbers --- from educated migration, job growth, population increase --- Houston slaughters New York. People, from the college educated on down are flocking to Houston while fleeing, in rather large numbers, from New York. One has to wonder where the rankers live and where they are coming from. Houston triumphs on performance, while New York, to a large extent, wins on perception.

Looking simply at job growth over the past ten years for the Leading Locations mentioned on at least five surveys, the 14 regions separate themselves into three groups. The top tier of places – Austin, Raleigh, San Antonio, and Houston – all have seen job growth of more than 12% and seem to be recovering from the recession faster than the others.

Salt Lake City and Charlotte were tracking with the top tier of places until 2007 but have since fallen to the second tier of cities. The remainder of the second tier includes steady growers Dallas and Lincoln, along with Oklahoma City, a region that has seen a boom in jobs since bottoming out in 2003.

The final job growth tier of places includes five regions that have fewer jobs than ten years ago. Seattle drops just below the zero line after being hit particularly hard by the 2001 and 2008 recessions, while New York and Denver finish near the national rate. Pittsburgh and Boston spent most of the decade below their 2000 employment levels, but each seem to be recovering from the recession faster than many of the other Leading Locations cities.

But perhaps the biggest problem with lists has to do with the size of regions. Much of the fastest growth in America, particularly in terms of jobs, has been in small metros, many with fewer than 1 million or 500,000 residents. Smaller dynamic areas such as Anchorage, Alaska; Bismarck, North Dakota; Dubuque, Iowa; or Elizabethtown, Kentucky – all in the top 25 of NewGeography’s Best Cities for Job Growth 2011 Rankings – are too small to show up on some lists yet may be a location of choice for expansion. This reflects not so much their relative desirability but the fact that, unlike larger regions, they simply are not included on many rankings.

Ultimately, a list of lists does tell us much, but perhaps only so much for a specific individual or business. For someone interested in the movie business, for example, Los Angeles – and increasingly places like New Orleans or Albuquerque – are great draws, but perhaps not so much for financial services. The lists of lists are useful to identify hotspots, but for most location decisions, it may be more imperative to drill down to more detailed industry sectors and workforce attributes. And most of all, take the perception factor into account and look instead at the real numbers to tell you where to go.

This piece first appeared at AreaDevelopment.com, as part of its Leading Locations series discussing best cities rankings.

Joel Kotkin is a Distinguished Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in California, an adjunct fellow with the London-based Legatum Institute, and the author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. Mark Schill is Vice President of Research at Praxis Strategy Group, an economic research and community strategy firm. Both are editors at NewGeography.com, a provider of two surveys for Area Development’s Leading Locations list.

Photo by mclcbooks

Is The Information Industry Reviving Economies?

Joel Kotkin — Mon, 16 May 2011 12:53:50 -0400

For nearly a generation, the information sector, which comprises everything from media and data processing to internet-related businesses, has been ballyhooed as a key driver for both national and regional economic growth. In the 1990s economist Michael Mandell predicted cutting-edge industries like high-tech would create 2.8 million new jobs over 10 years. This turned out to be something of a pipe dream. According to a recent 2010 New America Foundation report , the information industry shed 68,000 jobs in the past decade.

Yet this year, information-related employment finally appears to be on the upswing, according to statistics compiled by Pepperdine University economist Michael Shires. The impact of this growth is particularly marked in such long-time tech hot beds as Huntsville, Ala., Madison, Wis., and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif., in the heart of Silicon Valley, all of which have relatively high concentrations of such jobs.

The San Jose area, home of Silicon Valley, arguably has benefited the most from the information job surge. Much of this gain can be traced to the increase in social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, all of which have been incubated in the Valley. Good times among corporations have led many to invest heavily in software productivity tools, while those marketing consumer goods have boosted spending for software and internet-related advertising.

The 5,000 mostly well-paying information jobs added this year was enough to boost San Jose’s standing overall among all big metros 20 places to a healthy No. 27 in our ranking of the best cities for jobs.

But as economists enthuse over the tech surge, we need to note the limitations of information jobs even in the Valley. Software and internet jobs, which have increased 40% over the past decade, have not come close to making up for the region’s large declines in other fields, notably manufacturing, construction, business and financial services. Overall, the region has lost 18% of its jobs in the past decade — about 190,000 — the second-worst performance, after Detroit, among the nation’s largest metros. It still suffers unemployment of close to 10%, well above the national average of 9.0%.

This dual reality can also be seen in the local real estate industry. Office vacancies may be back in the low single digits in some markets popular with social networking firms, such as Mountain View, but they remain around 14 or higher throughout the region — 40% higher than in 2008. No matter how impressive reporters find a new headquarters for high-fliers like Facebook, the surplus of redundant space, particularly in the southern parts of the Valley, suggest we are still far from a 1990s style boom.

Some observers also warn that the long-term prospects for the Valley may not be as good as local boosters assume. Analyst Tamara Carleton cites many long-term factors — like the financial condition of local cities and diminishing prospects for less skilled workers — that make it tougher on those who live below the higher elevations of the information economy. She also says that a precipitous decline in foreign immigration could slow future innovation.

This dichotomy is even more evident in the other big information gainer among our large cities, Los Angeles. Although it is little known by the media or pundit class, the Big Orange actually boasts the nation’s single largest number of information jobs. Its over 5% growth in information jobs translates to roughly 10,000 new positions over the past year. In LA, the big sector for information jobs is likely not social media but traditional entertainment, one of the area’s core industries.

Yet information growth clearly is not bailing out the overall economy. Other much larger sectors, such as manufacturing and business services, continue to shrink. The area still suffers from an unemployment rate of roughly 12%.

Other information winners among our large metros include Boston and Seattle, both traditional centers for software-related jobs. These areas have not been as hard-hit by the real estate and industrial declines as their California counterparts, so increasing information employment does not constitute the outlier that we see in the Golden State.

Less expected gains were notched by some of our other big information sector winners. One big surprise was New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, whose information sector, including a growing film and television industry, expanded almost 39% in past year. As is the case with its strong overall rankings in our best cities survey, the Big Easy’s comeback from the devastation of Katrina is heartening. But we must curb our enthusiasm by pointing out that total regional employment remains 100,000 less than it was before the hurricane.

Equally intriguing has been the strong performance of Warren-Troy-Farmington, Hills, Mich., and Detroit-Livonia, each of which has benefited from the resurgence of the American auto industry. In these areas, information jobs tend to be tied to the needs of large industrial companies. The state has also waged a major campaign for film and television jobs, as part of an attempt to diversify its economy.

Yet for all the hype that surrounds industries like media and software, it’s critical to point out that overall this is not a huge employment sector. Even in Seattle — home to Microsoft, Amazon and other software based companies — information jobs account for barely 6% of the total. In Los Angeles, it’s 5%, compared with 10% each for manufacturing and hospitality. In media-centric New York, information accounts for barely 4% of jobs, less than half that of financial services and one-third that of the huge business service sector.

In most other areas, including those experiencing strong growth, information jobs constitute an even smaller part of the economy. In New Orleans, Warren, Mich., and Detroit, such jobs account for less than 2% of employment . Still, the growth of this sector is a promising one for economies that have long been dominated, like New Orleans, by the generally low-paying hospitality industry, or in the case of the Michigan cities, the volatile and often chronically hurting manufacturing sector.

The increase in information jobs, however welcome, should not be sold as a universal elixir for creating widespread prosperity. Over time, strong regional economies are those that rely on diverse employment sources rather than one. Growth in high-tech and media jobs can wow impressionable reporters and earn economic developers bragging reights, but they can do only so much to lessen the recession’s impact on the vast majority of workers and the broader regional economy.

Top Cities for Information Job Growth, 2009-2010
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	38.86%
Honolulu, HI	25.11%
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	18.85%
Huntsville, AL	14.71%
Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA	13.33%
Redding, CA	10.53%
Madison, WI	10.20%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	10.01%
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	7.63%
Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA	6.33%

Top Big Cities for Information Job Growth, 2009-2010
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	38.86%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	10.01%
Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA	6.33%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA	5.08%
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI	3.97%
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA	3.54%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	3.46%
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	3.02%
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI	2.48%
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA	1.47%

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

Photo by Angelo Amboldi

Manufacturing Stages A Comeback

Joel Kotkin — Mon, 09 May 2011 13:01:38 -0400

This year’s survey of the best cities for jobs contains one particularly promising piece of news: the revival of the country’s long distressed industrial sector and those regions most dependent on it. Manufacturing has grown consistently over the past 21 months, and now, for the first time in years, according to data mined by Pepperdine University’s Michael Shires, manufacturing regions are beginning to move up on our list of best cities for jobs.

The fastest-growing industrial areas include four long-suffering Rust Belt cities Anderson, Ind. (No. 4), Youngstown, Ohio (No. 5), Lansing, Mich. (No. 9) and Elkhart-Goshen, Ind. (No. 10). The growth in these and other industrial areas influenced, often dramatically, their overall job rankings. Elkhart, for example, rose 137 places, on our best cities for jobs list; and Lansing moved up 155. Other industrial areas showing huge gains include Niles-Benton Harbor, Mich., up 242 places, Holland-Grand Haven, Mich., (up 172), Grand Rapids, Mich., (up 167) Kokomo Ind., (up 177) ; and Sandusky, Ohio, (up 128).

Industrial growth also affected some of the largest metros, whose economies in other areas, such as business services, often depend on customers from the industrial sector. Economist Hank Robison, co-founder of the forecasting firm EMSI, points out that manufacturing jobs — along with those in the information sector — are unique in creating high levels of value and jobs across other sectors in the economy. They constitute a foundation upon which other sectors, like retail and government, depend on.

Take the case of Milwaukee. The Wisconsin city rode a nearly 3% boost in industrial employment to increase its ranking among the best large metros for jobs: It rose from a near-bottom No. 49 (out of 65) to a healthy No. 23. As manufacturing employment surged, others sectors, notably business services, warehousing and hospitality, showed solid increases after years of slow or even negative growth.

Milwaukee’s growth reflects some of the greater trends affecting the industrial sector, whose overall income is up 21% since mid-2009. The Fed’s monetary policy, combined with deficit-related concerns, has certainly helped by depressing the value of the dollar, keeping American prices more competitive with foreign producers. Low prices have helped U.S. industrial exporters gain sales, much as it has boosted agricultural commodity producers to sell their goods to growing countries like China, India and Brazil. Exports now account for 12.8% of all U.S. output, the largest percentage since the Commerce Department starting tracking in 1929.

These new markets are particularly strategic to regions like Milwaukee and other parts of the Great Lakes. Despite the industry’s massive shrinkage of the past decade, these areas retain significant specialized skills in fields like machine tools, automotive parts and temperature controls, which are all in demand in the developing world as well as at locally based firms, many of which are enjoying high profits. Allen-Edmunds, a high-end shoe maker based in the region, has seen export business surge.

Similarly Peoria, Ill., has benefited from a boom in overseas orders for heavy equipment from Caterpillar, its dominant industrial company. Caterpillar sells the kind of heavy moving and mining machinery now in great demand, particularly in developing countries.

One big driver of industrial growth has come from the source of so much pain in the past: the auto industry. Although production remains 25% below its 2007 peak, the industry, which accounts for roughly one-fifth of the nation’s industrial output, is on the rebound. Ford Motor is achieving its best profits in over a decade, and both Chrysler and General Motors are officially in the black.

Long-depressed industry center Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, Mich., topped our list of manufacturing job-creators, with an impressive 8.2% increase. Second place went to the Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn area, which experienced 3.5% growth. Of course this recent expansion hardly makes up for decades of decline — auto industry employment, for example, is still down over 34% from its 2005 peak. But industrial expansion has clearly improved job prospects across the board; over the past year, for example, Warren experienced healthy growth in its information, business services and wholesale trade sectors.

Of course, not all the big gainers in the industrial sphere are located in Great Lakes. The movement of manufacturing to other parts of the country, particularly to Texas and the Southeast means a better industrial climate helps those regions as well. The list of fastest-growing industrial areas among our big metros includes San Antonio, Texas (No. 3); Atlanta (No. 7); Oklahoma City (No. 8) and Austin-Roundrock, Texas (No. 10) — all of which did very well in our overall jobs survey. Many of these areas are business-friendly, have low housing costs, reasonable taxation and business-friendly regulatory environments that induce industrial expansions.

Another contributing factor to industrial growth in places like Austin is high-tech manufacturing. Covering everything from servers to specialized production equipments, the expansion of this sector accounts for a healthy 1.7% upturn in San Jose, No. 6 among our large metro regions, a welcome turnaround for an area that shed some 17% of its industrial jobs over the past decade.

But some of the best progress took place in smaller communities spread across the country. Take Yakima, Wash., which came out first on our manufacturing job growth list with a heady 19% growth in industrial jobs. Metal fabrication plants companies such as Canam Steel have led the way, with some of the new demand coming from Canadian sources.

Other strong performers included Midland, Texas, which ranked sixth in our industrial rankings — fifth among the smaller cities. Here an expanding oil and gas sector has sparked a strong revival not only in manufacturing but also in business services and finance.

If manufacturing growth has become a new shaper of overall job growth, some regions may need to move beyond the post-industrial mindset that dominates so much of regional e development orthodoxy. Take the coastal areas in California: Los Angeles-Long Beach, which has the nation’s largest industrial base and high unemployment, continues to lose manufacturing jobs – over 28% gone over the past decade — in part due to strict regulatory controls and a basic inattention to this sector by government officials.

In contrast, some hard-hit economic regions like Modesto, in California’s Central Valley, have promoted industrial growth. Last year, a nearly 14% increase in manufacturing jobs — much of it food related — helped the area gain some 92 places on our survey . They have not exactly won a gold medal, but certainly the improvement amount to more than chopped liver.

To be sure, cities can grow without robust manufacturing. Take financial centers like New York, university towns or Washington, D.C., where paper-pushing remains the core competency. But for many areas, particularly those beyond the urban “glamour zone,” getting down and dirty at the factory represents a solid economic strategy. In fact, it may be one of the best way to nurture your region back to health.

Top Cities for Manufacturing Job Growth, 2009-2010
Yakima, WA	19.0%
Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL	17.4%
Palm Coast, FL	16.7%
Anderson, IN	14.3%
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	13.2%
Midland, TX	13.0%
Modesto, CA	12.0%
Yuma, AZ	9.8%
Lansing-East Lansing, MI	9.3%
Elkhart-Goshen, IN	9.3%

Top Big Cities for Manufacturing Job Growth, 2009-2010
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI	8.2%
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI	3.5%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	3.2%
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	2.9%
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	2.0%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	1.7%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	1.7%
Oklahoma City, OK	1.6%
Pittsburgh, PA	1.6%
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	1.5%

This piece originally appeared in Forbes.com

Photo by bobengland

The Best Cities for Jobs 2011

Joel Kotkin and Michael Shires — Mon, 02 May 2011 11:01:25 -0400

These may be far from the best of times, but they are no longer the worst. Last year’s annual “Best Cities for Jobs” list was by far the most dismal since we began compiling our rankings almost five years ago. Between 2009 and 2010, only 13 of 397 metropolitan areas experienced any growth at all. For this year’s list, which measured job growth in the period between January 2010 and January 2011, most of the best-performing areas experienced actual employment increases — even if they were modest.

For Forbes’ list of the best cities for jobs, we ranked all 398 current metropolitan statistical areas, based on employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported from November 1999 to January 2011. Rankings are based on recent growth trends, mid-term growth and long-term growth and momentum. We also broke down rankings by size — small, medium and large — since regional economies differ markedly due to their scale.

Reflecting the importance of the war effort in stimulating local economies, command of this year’s best place for jobs was handed to the Army from the Marines. Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, Texas, shot up to No. 1 from No. 4, while Jacksonville, N.C., last year’s first-place winner and home to Camp Lejeune, dropped to 19th place.

Read about how we selected the 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

Once again the best places for jobs tended to be smaller communities where incremental improvements can have a relatively large impact. Eighteen of the top 20 cities on our list were either small (under 150,000 nonfarm jobs) or mid-sized areas (less than 450,000 jobs).

But no place displayed more vibrancy than Texas. The Lone Star State dominated the three size categories, with the No. 1 mid-sized city, El Paso (No. 3 overall, up 22 places from last year) and No.1 large metropolitan area Austin (No. 6 overall), joining Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood (the No. 1 small city) atop their respective lists.

Texas also produced three other of the top 10 smallest regions, including energy-dominated No. 4 Midland, which gained 41 places overall, and No. 10 Odessa, whose economy jumped a remarkable 57 places. It also added two other mid-size cities to its belt: No. 2 Corpus Christi and No. 4 McAllen-Edinburgh-Mission.

Whatever they are drinking in Texas, other states may want to imbibe. California–which boasted zero regions in the top 150–is a prime example. Indeed, a group of California officials, led by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, recently trekked to the Lone Star State to learn possible lessons about what drives job creation. Gov. Jerry Brown and others in California’s hierarchy may not be ready to listen, despite the fact that the city Brown formerly ran, Oakland, ranked absolute last, No. 65, among the big metros in our survey, two places behind perennial also-ran No. 63 Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, Mich.

One lesson that green-centric California may have trouble learning is that, however attractive the long-term promise of alternative energy, fossil fuels pay the bills and create strong economies, at least for now. Even outside of Texas, oil capitals did well across the board, not surprising given the surging price of gas. Our No. 2 small metro, Bismarck, N.D., which also No. 2 overall, is the emerging capital of the expanding Dakota energy belt. Also faring well are Alaska’s two oil-fire cities, Fairbanks (No. 10 on our small list) and Anchorage (No. 3 on the medium-sized list).

There were some intriguing surprises as well. Most welcome are signs of revival from New Orleans-Metarie, La., which moved up a stunning 46 places to capture the No. 2 slot among our large metros. The region lost 11% of its population and nearly 16% of its jobs during the last decade. But now the Big Easy seems to be finding its place again among America’s great cities. Jobs, up 3.5% since 2006, have been created by rebuilding, a resurgence of tourism and a growing immigrant population – the region’s Hispanic population grew by 35,000 over the past decade.

There were other inspirational improvements this year. Sparked by a revival in manufacturing, a host of former sad sacks in parts of the Midwest are showing signs of definite improvement. Niles-Benton Harbor, Mich., a long-time denizen at the bottom of our list, shot up a remarkable 242 places this year to a respectable No. 121. Another old industrial city, Kokomo, Ind., ascended 177 places to No. 215, while Holland-Grand Haven, Mich. improved by 172 places to No. 221 and Grand Rapids, Mich., rose 167 places to No. 183. Milwaukee, a long-time loser among our largest metros, moved up by a healthy 163 places overall to a better-than-average No. 143.

The Northeast Corridor has also made strong progress. Here the likely explanation can be found in the fruits of Obamanomics. The stimulus has been particularly good for the vibrant economies surrounding the ever-expanding federal leviathan. Among the large metros, Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, Va., did best of all the cities outside the South, repeating its No. 6 ranking among large metro areas. Right behind, at No. 7 on the large city list, sits the primarily suburban Northern Virginia metro area, while Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, Md., ranks 12th.

The other big East Coast winners are the financial and university-oriented economies, which have reaped huge benefits from the TARP bailout and the Obama Administration’s college-centric stimulus plan. After the Texas cities and the imperial center, most of the best performing big metros are located in financial and university centers, including No. 9 New York City, No. 10 Philadelphia, No. 11 Pittsburgh, No. 13 Boston and No. 15 Raleigh-Cary, N.C.

So who’s losing? Outside of Oakland and the big Southern California metros — including No. 60 Los Angeles, No. 59 Sacramento, No. 58 Riverside-San Bernardino and No. 50 Santa Ana-Anaheim- Irvine — the bottom tier consisted of a motley crew of mid-South cities like Memphis (#64 on the big city list) and still-struggling, former big Sunbelt boomtowns Las Vegas (No. 62), West Palm Beach-Boynton Beach-Boca Raton, Fla. (No. 56), Ft. Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Boynton Beach, Fla. (No. 54), Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, Ariz. (No. 53), Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta Ga. (No. 52) and Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla. (No. 51).

For the most part, these areas rose with the housing bubble and will not fully recover until the economy diversifies beyond real estate speculation. Already some of the bubble victims are showing signs of life, including No. 155 Merced, Calif., up 134 places, and No. 167 Orlando, Fla., which rode a revived interest in tourism to jump 89 places since last year.

While energy, America’s three wars, the recovering financial markets and real estate problems have played the lead role in setting the stage for the best places to do business, the Intermountain West has shown resilience with Salt Lake City, at No. 20 among large cities; Provo-Orem, Utah, Ogden-Clearfield, Utah, and Boulder, Colo. at Nos. 10, 25 and 26, respectively, among mid-sized cities; and Logan, Utah, and Fort Collins, Colo. at Nos. 9 and 38 among small cities.

As America struggles with a weak economic recovery, opportunities abound across the geography of the states—even in places where it seems bleakest like California, Nevada and Florida. If old industrial areas can stage the glimmers of a comeback, along with over-taxed and over-regulated Gotham, and greater New Orleans can rise from the near dead, these areas, with generally newer infrastructure and attractive climates, might be next to experience a resurgence of their own.

Read about how we selected the 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

This piece originally appeared in Forbes.com

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

Photo by Bas Lammers

2011 How We Pick the Best Cities For Job Growth

Mon, 02 May 2011 10:47:33 -0400

The methodology for the 2011 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 2011.

"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. This year’s rankings reflect the current size of each MSA’s employment, unlike last year when some were “held over” in size categories to facilitate comparisons.

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 small MSA (Manhattan, KS) in this year’s rankings for a total of 398 regions. Generally, this year's rankings can be directly compared to the 2010 rankings for MSAs for the large and midsize categories, although there are eight MSAs that are reported in the Small size category that were Medium last year and one (Honolulu, HI) that was large that is now reported as medium-sized. In instances where the analysis refers to changes in ranking order, these adjustments are made accordingly, reporting the changes in ranking as if they had been categorized in their current category last year.

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 2005-2010 growth rate (two points); 3) long-term trend and momentum: the sum of the 2005-2010 and 1999-2004 employment growth rates multiplied by the ratio of the 1999-2004 growth rate over the 2005-2010 growth rate (two points); and 4) current year growth (one point).

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.

Midsized Cities Rankings - 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

Mark Schill — Sun, 01 May 2011 17:07:56 -0400

Read about how we selected the 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

2011 Size Ranking	Area	2011 Weighted INDEX	2010 Nonfarm Empl (1000s)	2010 Size Rank	Size Movement from 2010
1	El Paso, TX	92.5	281.2	5	4
2	Corpus Christi, TX	82.5	179.1	7	5
3	Anchorage, AK	79.8	170.7	3	0
4	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	78.7	223.4	6	2
5	Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	71.4	201.9	13	8
6	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	68.3	338.8	15	9
7	Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	67.5	176.7	12	5
8	Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC	67.1	283.8	25	17
9	Knoxville, TN	66.5	325.5	43	34
10	Provo-Orem, UT	65.9	180.3	30	20
11	Lincoln, NE	65.3	171.5	10	-1
12	Lexington-Fayette, KY	64.8	247.5	14	2
13	Honolulu, HI	64.7	441.2		3
14	York-Hanover, PA	64.6	176.0	46	32
15	Madison, WI	64.5	344.7	33	18
16	Green Bay, WI	63.5	165.7	56	40
17	Huntsville, AL	63.4	207.7	4	-13
18	Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	63.3	159.7	38	20
19	Lansing-East Lansing, MI	62.5	219.2	68	49
20	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	62.1	333.6	26	6
21	Ann Arbor, MI	62.0	198.0	50	29
22	Durham-Chapel Hill, NC	60.8	280.6	1	-21
23	Worcester, MA-CT NECTA	60.3	240.7	59	36
24	Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA	59.3	254.2	28	4
25	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	59.2	191.2	19	-6
26	Boulder, CO	59.1	159.5	35	9
27	Peoria, IL	59.0	178.8	65	38
28	Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA	58.8	187.8	41	13
29	Reading, PA	58.4	167.6	55	26
30	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY	57.8	248.1	29	-1
31	Asheville, NC	57.6	167.2	60	29
32	Springfield, MO	57.5	191.2	24	-8
33	Mobile, AL	56.4	175.0	63	30
34	Trenton-Ewing, NJ	56.1	237.0	11	-23
35	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	56.0	158.2	45	10
36	Syracuse, NY	55.8	314.7	18	-18
37	Evansville, IN-KY	55.5	172.8	57	20
38	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	55.3	313.5	9	-29
39	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	55.1	209.5	22	-17
40	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	54.7	366.9	86	46
41	Jackson, MS	52.7	250.9	27	-14
42	Lancaster, PA	52.6	226.7	62	20
43	Bakersfield-Delano, CA	51.6	225.5	36	-7
44	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA	51.3	398.7	54	10
45	Baton Rouge, LA	51.0	363.5	2	-43
46	Tallahassee, FL	50.5	170.1	16	-30
47	Chattanooga, TN-GA	50.1	230.7	82	35
48	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	49.8	317.1	21	-27
49	Calvert-Charles-Prince George's, MD	49.4	377.4	48	-1
50	Framingham, MA NECTA Division	49.2	153.3	53	3
51	New Haven, CT NECTA	47.6	266.4	44	-7
52	Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division	47.6	264.5	39	-13
53	Springfield, MA-CT NECTA	47.6	285.4	77	24
54	Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC	47.6	296.2	74	20
55	Tulsa, OK	47.6	408.0	37	-18
56	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL	47.3	179.0	69	13
57	Kansas City, KS	45.2	421.2	32	-25
58	Colorado Springs, CO	45.1	245.1	49	-9
59	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	44.8	433.1	17	-42
60	Baltimore City, MD	42.3	349.1	73	13
61	Spokane, WA	42.1	204.7	31	-30
62	Columbia, SC	39.1	342.0	42	-20
63	Toledo, OH	39.1	299.9	95	32
64	Albuquerque, NM	39.1	370.5	20	-44
65	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	38.3	274.0	80	15
66	Wichita, KS	37.8	283.5	64	-2
67	Akron, OH	36.4	318.9	87	20
68	Fort Wayne, IN	35.5	201.2	79	11
69	Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division	35.3	371.2	71	2
70	Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA	34.9	161.2	66	-4
71	Boise City-Nampa, ID	34.3	250.0	61	-10
72	Fresno, CA	34.2	279.6	67	-5
73	Roanoke, VA	33.6	153.6	51	-22
74	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	32.4	220.5	93	19
75	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	31.5	194.5	70	-5
76	Gary, IN Metropolitan Division	30.7	262.2	76	0
77	Tucson, AZ	29.9	354.1	58	-19
78	Dayton, OH	29.4	370.8	90	12
79	Canton-Massillon, OH	29.3	159.2	94	15
80	Montgomery, AL	29.3	166.7	52	-28
81	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	24.4	192.0	75	-6
82	North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL	24.0	239.9	89	7
83	Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA	23.9	170.3	88	5
84	Winston-Salem, NC	23.6	203.4	47	-37
85	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	22.9	153.4	83	-2
86	Stockton, CA	21.8	187.7	78	-8
87	Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division	21.3	328.1	72	-15
88	Reno-Sparks, NV	20.1	189.8	92	4
89	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	17.2	194.9	91	2
90	Greensboro-High Point, NC	15.0	337.5	85	-5

All Cities Rankings - 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

Mark Schill — Sun, 01 May 2011 03:12:43 -0400

Read about how we selected the 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

2011 Overall Ranking	Area	2011 Weighted INDEX	2010 Nonfarm Empl (1000s)	Overall Rank 2010	Overal Movement
1	Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX	93.8	129.0	4	3
2	Bismarck, ND	92.8	63.0	2	0
3	El Paso, TX	92.5	281.2	25	22
4	College Station-Bryan, TX	92.3	98.5	3	-1
5	Midland, TX	90.8	69.2	62	57
6	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	89.1	769.3	9	3
7	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	88.9	522.6	294	287
8	Dubuque, IA	88.6	56.6	93	85
9	Manhattan, KS	88.3	57.0
10	Pascagoula, MS	85.4	58.7	30	20
11	Odessa, TX	84.1	61.8	87	76
12	Corpus Christi, TX	82.5	179.1	38	26
13	Logan, UT-ID	82.2	54.4	110	97
14	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	82.1	2552.3	21	7
15	Fairbanks, AK	81.0	37.7	42	27
16	Elizabethtown, KY	81.0	47.6	103	87
17	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	80.7	841.3	12	-5
18	Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division	80.6	2043.4	44	26
19	Jacksonville, NC	80.5	47.2	1	-18
20	Lawton, OK	80.5	44.0	7	-13
21	Lebanon, PA	80.5	50.1	106	85
22	Anchorage, AK	79.8	170.7	18	-4
23	Longview, TX	79.4	97.0	140	117
24	Joplin, MO	79.1	79.8	105	81
25	Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA	79.0	99.2	16	-9
26	Gulfport-Biloxi, MS	78.9	105.3	192	166
27	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	78.7	223.4	28	1
28	Brownsville-Harlingen, TX	77.9	127.2	31	3
29	Columbia, MO	77.2	93.4	32	3
30	Auburn-Opelika, AL	77.0	53.3	79	49
31	Clarksville, TN-KY	76.6	83.4	124	93
32	San Angelo, TX	76.4	44.9	85	53
33	Morgantown, WV	76.4	65.4	17	-16
34	Wheeling, WV-OH	76.2	67.9	81	47
35	Ithaca, NY	76.1	65.6	24	-11
36	Jonesboro, AR	75.9	49.2	43	7
37	Springfield, IL	74.6	111.7	59	22
38	Fargo, ND-MN	74.6	122.4	8	-30
39	Grand Forks, ND-MN	74.4	54.0	37	-2
40	Corvallis, OR	74.2	38.1	274	234
41	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division	74.1	2412.6	47	6
42	Cumberland, MD-WV	73.8	39.9	128	86
43	Northern Virginia, VA	73.8	1306.5	35	-8
44	Oshkosh-Neenah, WI	73.5	92.7	145	101
45	Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA	73.5	53.7	60	15
46	Warner Robins, GA	73.3	59.7	26	-20
47	Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA	73.2	38.6	36	-11
48	Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN	73.1	742.9	217	169
49	Waco, TX	73.0	105.8	41	-8
50	Fort Collins-Loveland, CO	72.9	133.6	68	18
51	Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	72.7	110.8	199	148
52	New York City, NY	72.6	3731.4	89	37
53	Harrisonburg, VA	72.6	62.7	69	16
54	Iowa City, IA	72.6	90.5	27	-27
55	Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH NECTA Division	72.3	76.5	65	10
56	Las Cruces, NM	72.3	69.1	33	-23
57	Johnstown, PA	71.9	60.7	129	72
58	Philadelphia City, PA	71.9	661.8	112	54
59	Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR	71.9	56.9	76	17
60	Eau Claire, WI	71.7	80.4	181	121
61	Pittsburgh, PA	71.7	1129.8	111	50
62	Bowling Green, KY	71.6	59.7	260	198
63	Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	71.4	201.9	75	12
64	Great Falls, MT	71.3	35.6	22	-42
65	State College, PA	71.2	74.4	29	-36
66	Yakima, WA	71.2	76.5	11	-55
67	Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA	71.1	19.5	20	-47
68	Gainesville, GA	71.1	72.8	241	173
69	Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA	70.7	113.1	193	124
70	Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division	70.7	565.3	114	44
71	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division	70.4	1679.0	133	62
72	St. Cloud, MN	69.9	99.0	74	2
73	Williamsport, PA	69.8	52.6	203	130
74	Laredo, TX	69.7	88.4	95	21
75	New Bedford, MA NECTA	69.4	64.9	137	62
76	Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Division	69.3	87.7	200	124
77	Glens Falls, NY	69.1	53.0	50	-27
78	Sandusky, OH	68.9	35.5	206	128
79	Ocean City, NJ	68.6	36.3	131	52
80	Hattiesburg, MS	68.6	59.3	14	-66
81	Cedar Rapids, IA	68.6	137.5	48	-33
82	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	68.3	338.8	92	10
83	Raleigh-Cary, NC	67.8	500.0	54	-29
84	Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division	67.8	850.0	49	-35
85	Tyler, TX	67.7	93.3	67	-18
86	Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	67.5	176.7	73	-13
87	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA	67.3	94.1	98	11
88	Owensboro, KY	67.3	49.8	149	61
89	Amarillo, TX	67.2	110.8	56	-33
90	Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC	67.1	283.8	136	46
91	Elmira, NY	67.1	40.1	219	128
92	Rochester, NY	66.7	506.9	122	30
93	Altoona, PA	66.7	60.5	118	25
94	Knoxville, TN	66.5	325.5	187	93
95	Barnstable Town, MA NECTA	66.4	92.2	113	18
96	Sioux Falls, SD	66.3	133.0	51	-45
97	Rapid City, SD	65.9	59.3	55	-42
98	Provo-Orem, UT	65.9	180.3	148	50
99	Pueblo, CO	65.7	57.1	34	-65
100	Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division	65.5	1232.2	120	20
101	Lincoln, NE	65.3	171.5	66	-35
102	Lubbock, TX	65.1	129.5	39	-63
103	Lexington-Fayette, KY	64.8	247.5	90	-13
104	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	64.7	541.0	135	31
105	Honolulu, HI	64.7	441.2	141	36
106	York-Hanover, PA	64.6	176.0	201	95
107	Madison, WI	64.5	344.7	152	45
108	Columbus, OH	64.3	912.1	194	86
109	Dover, DE	64.3	63.4	171	62
110	Salt Lake City, UT	64.2	613.9	107	-3
111	Flagstaff, AZ	63.6	61.5	100	-11
112	Green Bay, WI	63.5	165.7	229	117
113	Huntsville, AL	63.4	207.7	19	-94
114	Ames, IA	63.3	47.5	97	-17
115	Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	63.3	159.7	168	53
116	Charlottesville, VA	63.2	98.7	84	-32
117	Appleton, WI	63.2	116.0	210	93
118	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	63.1	456.9	80	-38
119	Jefferson City, MO	63.0	77.7	83	-36
120	Pittsfield, MA NECTA	62.8	35.4	282	162
121	Niles-Benton Harbor, MI	62.7	60.3	363	242
122	Greenville, NC	62.5	75.0	52	-70
123	Lansing-East Lansing, MI	62.5	219.2	278	155
124	Oklahoma City, OK	62.4	559.6	104	-20
125	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	62.1	333.6	142	17
126	Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA	62.0	88.6	88	-38
127	Kankakee-Bradley, IL	62.0	42.9	40	-87
128	Ann Arbor, MI	62.0	198.0	209	81
129	Springfield, OH	61.8	49.9	254	125
130	Erie, PA	61.7	128.5	302	172
131	Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL	61.7	54.8	78	-53
132	Athens-Clarke County, GA	61.6	81.0	94	-38
133	Palm Coast, FL	61.5	18.2	175	42
134	Tuscaloosa, AL	60.9	94.1	126	-8
135	Bloomington, IN	60.9	82.6	13	-122
136	Durham-Chapel Hill, NC	60.8	280.6	10	-126
137	Billings, MT	60.8	78.4	61	-76
138	Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA	60.6	55.9	178	40
139	Winchester, VA-WV	60.4	54.4	245	106
140	Victoria, TX	60.4	49.2	226	86
141	Worcester, MA-CT NECTA	60.3	240.7	239	98
142	Bloomington-Normal, IL	60.2	90.3	86	-56
143	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	60.0	814.8	306	163
144	Fayetteville, NC	59.9	128.2	6	-138
145	Cheyenne, WY	59.8	43.4	45	-100
146	Hot Springs, AR	59.8	37.1	166	20
147	Coeur d'Alene, ID	59.5	52.6	109	-38
148	Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA	59.3	254.2	146	-2
149	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	59.2	191.2	116	-33
150	Boulder, CO	59.1	159.5	155	5
151	Peoria, IL	59.0	178.8	258	107
152	Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA	58.8	187.8	180	28
153	Reading, PA	58.4	167.6	228	75
154	Johnson City, TN	58.1	78.4	262	108
155	Merced, CA	58.0	55.6	289	134
156	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY	57.8	248.1	147	-9
157	Lafayette, IN	57.7	93.2	234	77
158	Asheville, NC	57.6	167.2	240	82
159	St. Joseph, MO-KS	57.6	57.3	5	-154
160	Abilene, TX	57.5	65.2	64	-96
161	Springfield, MO	57.5	191.2	130	-31
162	Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL	57.2	70.7	91	-71
163	La Crosse, WI-MN	57.2	73.1	162	-1
164	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	56.9	1191.0	182	18
165	Mobile, AL	56.4	175.0	247	82
166	Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA	56.3	47.9	189	23
167	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	56.3	1010.7	256	89
168	Mankato-North Mankato, MN	56.1	52.1	186	18
169	Lafayette, LA	56.1	148.0	46	-123
170	Trenton-Ewing, NJ	56.1	237.0	71	-99
171	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	56.0	158.2	197	26
172	Syracuse, NY	55.8	314.7	115	-57
173	Duluth, MN-WI	55.7	127.8	220	47
174	Alexandria, LA	55.6	64.0	63	-111
175	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA	55.5	536.3	132	-43
176	Evansville, IN-KY	55.5	172.8	231	55
177	Utica-Rome, NY	55.4	129.7	82	-95
178	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	55.3	313.5	53	-125
179	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	55.1	209.5	125	-54
180	Manchester, NH NECTA	55.0	97.5	96	-84
181	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	54.9	859.7	297	116
182	Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA NECTA	54.8	48.5	341	159
183	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	54.7	366.9	350	167
184	Sherman-Denison, TX	54.6	42.3	165	-19
185	Topeka, KS	54.6	107.9	138	-47
186	Casper, WY	53.4	38.3	198	12
187	Kingston, NY	53.4	60.7	170	-17
188	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	53.4	870.5	246	58
189	Decatur, IL	52.7	52.6	263	74
190	Jackson, MS	52.7	250.9	144	-46
191	Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Division	52.7	114.7	233	42
192	Lancaster, PA	52.6	226.7	243	51
193	Greeley, CO	52.4	77.9	202	9
194	Bakersfield-Delano, CA	51.6	225.5	159	-35
195	Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY	51.4	554.2	238	43
196	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA	51.3	398.7	225	29
197	Charleston, WV	51.2	147.1	153	-44
198	Baton Rouge, LA	51.0	363.5	15	-183
199	Columbus, GA-AL	50.7	117.2	143	-56
200	Savannah, GA	50.6	149.5	176	-24
201	Tallahassee, FL	50.5	170.1	102	-99
202	Rochester, MN	50.2	101.7	72	-130
203	Chattanooga, TN-GA	50.1	230.7	331	128
204	Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	50.0	803.4	224	20
205	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	49.8	317.1	119	-86
206	St. Louis, MO-IL	49.7	1291.0	211	5
207	Battle Creek, MI	49.6	56.0	287	80
208	Sioux City, IA-NE-SD	49.5	73.1	99	-109
209	Calvert-Charles-Prince George's, MD	49.4	377.4	205	-4
210	Framingham, MA NECTA Division	49.2	153.3	221	11
211	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Division	49.2	1378.0	214	3
212	Anderson, SC	49.1	60.0	386	174
213	Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA	48.9	43.8	281	68
214	Wilmington, NC	48.7	135.2	101	-113
215	Kokomo, IN	48.4	41.1	392	177
216	Idaho Falls, ID	48.3	48.2	154	-62
217	Hanford-Corcoran, CA	48.3	35.2	23	-194
218	San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division	47.9	936.1	271	53
219	Champaign-Urbana, IL	47.7	109.4	185	-34
220	Terre Haute, IN	47.7	70.9	295	75
221	Holland-Grand Haven, MI	47.6	104.6	393	172
222	New Haven, CT NECTA	47.6	266.4	196	-26
223	Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division	47.6	264.5	172	-51
224	Springfield, MA-CT NECTA	47.6	285.4	314	90
225	Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC	47.6	296.2	300	75
226	Tulsa, OK	47.6	408.0	161	-65
227	Santa Fe, NM	47.5	60.4	191	-36
228	Binghamton, NY	47.4	109.5	156	-72
229	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL	47.3	179.0	279	50
230	Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	47.0	590.7	183	-47
231	Spartanburg, SC	46.8	118.9	366	135
232	Grand Junction, CO	46.7	58.8	235	3
233	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	46.2	969.9	270	37
234	Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division	46.2	989.6	292	58
235	Columbus, IN	46.2	42.4	315	80
236	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	46.1	1227.6	299	63
237	Lynchburg, VA	46.1	104.1	158	-79
238	Punta Gorda, FL	45.9	40.7	301	63
239	Chico, CA	45.7	70.2	232	-7
240	Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL	45.4	43.6	57	-183
241	Modesto, CA	45.2	145.6	330	89
242	Kansas City, KS	45.2	421.2	151	-91
243	Colorado Springs, CO	45.1	245.1	208	-35
244	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	45.0	727.4	174	-70
245	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	44.8	433.1	108	-137
246	Richmond, VA	44.1	598.6	230	-16
247	Peabody, MA NECTA Division	43.9	98.5	227	-20
248	Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV	43.8	96.9	252	4
249	Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division	43.6	974.0	268	19
250	Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL Metropolitan Division	43.4	3624.2	312	62
251	El Centro, CA	43.2	44.3	134	-117
252	Missoula, MT	43.1	54.4	164	-88
253	Jacksonville, FL	43.1	583.4	259	6
254	Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ	43.0	868.7	265	11
255	Fort Smith, AR-OK	42.9	116.5	257	2
256	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA	42.9	542.0	336	80
257	Gainesville, FL	42.6	127.7	173	-84
258	Elkhart-Goshen, IN	42.6	105.0	395	137
259	Baltimore City, MD	42.3	349.1	298	39
260	Sumter, SC	42.3	37.0	385	125
261	Spokane, WA	42.1	204.7	150	-111
262	Burlington, NC	41.9	55.8	356	94
263	Olympia, WA	41.7	96.6	70	-193
264	Danbury, CT NECTA	41.6	65.8	355	91
265	Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA	41.6	116.9	304	39
266	Decatur, AL	41.6	53.7	338	72
267	Lake Charles, LA	40.8	88.7	207	-60
268	Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA	40.6	128.8	157	-111
269	Salem, OR	39.8	142.0	127	-142
270	Lawrence, KS	39.8	49.9	58	-212
271	Bangor, ME NECTA	39.5	63.9	121	-150
272	Farmington, NM	39.5	48.3	293	21
273	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA	39.4	67.9	167	-106
274	Wichita Falls, TX	39.3	58.2	326	52
275	Salisbury, MD	39.2	52.2	264	-11
276	Columbia, SC	39.1	342.0	184	-92
277	Toledo, OH	39.1	299.9	381	104
278	Albuquerque, NM	39.1	370.5	117	-161
279	Macon, GA	39.0	95.9	273	-6
280	Madera-Chowchilla, CA	38.9	32.5	77	-203
281	Florence, SC	38.8	82.5	288	7
282	Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI	38.7	83.4	311	29
283	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	38.3	274.0	323	40
284	Anderson, IN	38.3	40.4	188	-96
285	Cleveland, TN	37.9	39.2	291	6
286	Bremerton-Silverdale, WA	37.9	81.8	123	-163
287	Goldsboro, NC	37.8	42.3	160	-127
288	Wichita, KS	37.8	283.5	250	-38
289	Monroe, LA	37.6	75.4	177	-112
290	Kansas City, MO	37.5	536.2	139	-151
291	Gadsden, AL	37.4	35.7	340	49
292	Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH	37.3	113.7	163	-129
293	Port St. Lucie, FL	36.9	120.7	324	31
294	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	36.8	1688.1	269	-25
295	Valdosta, GA	36.8	52.3	244	-51
296	Racine, WI	36.8	74.8	378	82
297	Jackson, TN	36.6	57.9	347	50
298	Akron, OH	36.4	318.9	358	60
299	Danville, VA	35.8	39.7	361	62
300	Kalamazoo-Portage, MI	35.7	137.3	310	10
301	Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division	35.6	506.6	216	-85
302	Fond du Lac, WI	35.5	44.9	373	71
303	Fort Wayne, IN	35.5	201.2	318	15
304	Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division	35.3	371.2	286	-18
305	Lewiston, ID-WA	35.1	25.6	190	-115
306	Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA	34.9	161.2	275	-31
307	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	34.7	992.9	349	42
308	Rockford, IL	34.5	144.0	383	75
309	Boise City-Nampa, ID	34.3	250.0	242	-67
310	Fresno, CA	34.2	279.6	277	-33
311	Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL	34.1	76.2	169	-142
312	Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Division	33.9	125.1	253	-59
313	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	33.9	980.6	248	-65
314	Muncie, IN	33.8	49.3	351	37
315	Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH	33.7	68.8	195	-120
316	Roanoke, VA	33.6	153.6	212	-104
317	Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division	32.5	1359.6	353	36
318	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	32.4	220.5	374	56
319	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA	32.3	95.9	276	-43
320	Visalia-Porterville, CA	32.1	104.8	222	-98
321	Medford, OR	32.1	75.3	327	6
322	Vallejo-Fairfield, CA	31.7	117.9	303	-19
323	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	31.5	194.5	280	-43
324	St. George, UT	31.5	45.6	267	-57
325	Rocky Mount, NC	31.1	60.6	332	7
326	Lima, OH	30.8	52.2	348	22
327	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	30.7	1117.4	325	-2
328	Gary, IN Metropolitan Division	30.7	262.2	309	-19
329	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	30.5	2247.7	272	-57
330	Waterbury, CT NECTA	30.3	62.7	388	58
331	Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ	30.1	58.2	179	-152
332	Tucson, AZ	29.9	354.1	237	-95
333	Bellingham, WA	29.9	77.7	223	-110
334	Bay City, MI	29.7	36.2	344	10
335	Salinas, CA	29.6	119.5	251	-84
336	Dayton, OH	29.4	370.8	369	33
337	Canton-Massillon, OH	29.3	159.2	380	43
338	Montgomery, AL	29.3	166.7	218	-120
339	Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ	29.3	1701.2	320	-19
340	Albany, GA	29.2	60.9	213	-127
341	Pocatello, ID	28.7	35.6	249	-92
342	Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	28.5	705.4	337	-5
343	Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division	27.7	962.8	283	-60
344	Napa, CA	27.6	58.0	266	-78
345	South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI	26.3	132.3	384	39
346	West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	26.3	503.0	354	8
347	Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	26.2	85.9	305	-42
348	Longview, WA	26.1	34.9	284	-64
349	Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ	25.9	135.3	329	-20
350	Michigan City-La Porte, IN	24.6	42.4	313	-37
351	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	24.4	192.0	307	-44
352	Anniston-Oxford, AL	24.1	48.7	255	-97
353	Redding, CA	24.0	57.0	317	-36
354	North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL	24.0	239.9	368	14
355	Wausau, WI	24.0	67.0	360	5
356	Yuba City, CA	23.9	36.3	261	-95
357	Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA	23.9	170.3	365	8
358	Winston-Salem, NC	23.6	203.4	204	-154
359	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	22.9	153.4	334	-25
360	Sheboygan, WI	21.8	58.3	370	10
361	Stockton, CA	21.8	187.7	316	-45
362	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	21.7	1112.1	359	-3
363	Bend, OR	21.6	59.6	308	-55
364	Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division	21.3	328.1	290	-74
365	Yuma, AZ	21.2	49.7	346	-19
366	Carson City, NV	21.1	28.8	342	-24
367	Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA	20.6	799.5	322	-45
368	Brunswick, GA	20.6	40.4	285	-83
369	Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division	20.5	1044.7	397	28
370	Naples-Marco Island, FL	20.3	110.7	376	6
371	Danville, IL	20.2	28.9	296	-75
372	Reno-Sparks, NV	20.1	189.8	372	0
373	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division	18.8	3782.6	352	-21
374	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	18.8	488.7	364	-10
375	Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ	18.2	45.2	333	-42
376	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	18.2	797.3	339	-37
377	Ocala, FL	18.1	89.9	367	-10
378	Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL	17.8	43.1	335	-43
379	Prescott, AZ	17.7	54.0	319	-60
380	Eugene-Springfield, OR	17.6	140.6	343	-37
381	Rome, GA	17.2	38.1	236	-145
382	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	17.2	194.9	371	-11
383	Mansfield, OH	16.7	52.1	362	-21
384	Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division	15.1	694.6	394	10
385	Greensboro-High Point, NC	15.0	337.5	345	-40
386	Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV	15.0	43.6	379	-7
387	Monroe, MI	14.1	37.3	382	-5
388	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC	13.7	142.7	389	1
389	Morristown, TN	13.4	45.3	396	7
390	Flint, MI	13.4	132.7	375	-15
391	Jackson, MI	13.3	53.0	387	-4
392	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	11.0	585.4	321	-71
393	Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI	10.3	57.7	377	-16
394	Dalton, GA	9.6	65.7	390	-4
395	Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division	9.4	947.0	357	-38
396	Janesville, WI	9.3	60.8	391	-5
397	Dothan, AL	8.2	56.5	328	-69
398	Pine Bluff, AR	8.2	36.5	215	-183

Large Cities Rankings - 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

Mark Schill — Sun, 01 May 2011 03:10:12 -0400

Read about how we selected the 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

2011 Size Ranking	Area	2011 Weighted INDEX	2010 Nonfarm Empl (1000s)	2010 Size Rank	Size Movement from 2010
1	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	89.1	769.3	1	0
2	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	88.9	522.6	46	44
3	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	82.1	2552.3	3	0
4	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	80.7	841.3	2	-2
5	Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division	80.6	2043.4	5	0
6	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division	74.1	2412.6	6	0
7	Northern Virginia, VA	73.8	1306.5	4	-3
8	Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN	73.1	742.9	30	22
9	New York City, NY	72.6	3731.4	10	1
10	Philadelphia City, PA	71.9	661.8	14	4
11	Pittsburgh, PA	71.7	1129.8	13	2
12	Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division	70.7	565.3	15	3
13	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division	70.4	1679.0	19	6
14	Raleigh-Cary, NC	67.8	500.0	8	-6
15	Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division	67.8	850.0	7	-8
16	Rochester, NY	66.7	506.9	17	1
17	Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division	65.5	1232.2	16	-1
18	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	64.7	541.0	20	2
19	Columbus, OH	64.3	912.1	26	7
20	Salt Lake City, UT	64.2	613.9	12	-8
21	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	63.1	456.9	9	-12
22	Oklahoma City, OK	62.4	559.6	11	-11
23	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	60.0	814.8	49	26
24	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	56.9	1191.0	24	0
25	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	56.3	1010.7	36	11
26	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA	55.5	536.3	18	-8
27	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	54.9	859.7	47	20
28	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	53.4	870.5	34	6
29	Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY	51.4	554.2	33	4
30	Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	50.0	803.4	31	1
31	St. Louis, MO-IL	49.7	1291.0	27	-4
32	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Division	49.2	1378.0	28	-4
33	San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division	47.9	936.1	42	9
34	Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	47.0	590.7	25	-9
35	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	46.2	969.9	41	6
36	Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division	46.2	989.6	45	9
37	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	46.1	1227.6	48	11
38	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	45.0	727.4	23	-15
39	Richmond, VA	44.1	598.6	32	-7
40	Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division	43.6	974.0	39	-1
41	Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL Metropolitan Division	43.4	3624.2	50	9
42	Jacksonville, FL	43.1	583.4	37	-5
43	Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ	43.0	868.7	38	-5
44	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA	42.9	542.0	55	11
45	Kansas City, MO	37.5	536.2	21	-24
46	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	36.8	1688.1	40	-6
47	Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division	35.6	506.6	29	-18
48	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	34.7	992.9	58	10
49	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	33.9	980.6	35	-14
50	Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division	32.5	1359.6	60	10
51	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	30.7	1117.4	54	3
52	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	30.5	2247.7	43	-9
53	Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ	29.3	1701.2	51	-2
54	Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	28.5	705.4	56	2
55	Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division	27.7	962.8	44	-11
56	West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	26.3	503.0	61	5
57	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	21.7	1112.1	63	6
58	Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA	20.6	799.5	53	-5
59	Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division	20.5	1044.7	66	7
60	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division	18.8	3782.6	59	-1
61	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	18.8	488.7	64	3
62	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	18.2	797.3	57	-5
63	Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division	15.1	694.6	65	2
64	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	11.0	585.4	52	-12
65	Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division	9.4	947.0	62	-3

Small Cities Rankings - 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

Mark Schill — Sun, 01 May 2011 03:01:26 -0400

Read about how we selected the 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth

2011 Size Ranking	Area	2011 Weighted INDEX	2010 Nonfarm Empl (1000s)	2010 Size Rank	Size Rank Change from 2010
1	Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX	93.8	129.0	4	3
2	Bismarck, ND	92.8	63.0	2	0
3	College Station-Bryan, TX	92.3	98.5	3	0
4	Midland, TX	90.8	69.2	45	41
5	Dubuque, IA	88.6	56.6	68	63
6	Manhattan, KS	88.3	57.0
7	Pascagoula, MS	85.4	58.7	21	14
8	Odessa, TX	84.1	61.8	65	57
9	Logan, UT-ID	82.2	54.4	81	72
10	Fairbanks, AK	81.0	37.7	31	21
11	Elizabethtown, KY	81.0	47.6	77	66
12	Jacksonville, NC	80.5	47.2	1	-11
13	Lawton, OK	80.5	44.0	7	-6
14	Lebanon, PA	80.5	50.1	79	65
15	Longview, TX	79.4	97.0	94	79
16	Joplin, MO	79.1	79.8	78	62
17	Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA	79.0	99.2	12	-5
18	Gulfport-Biloxi, MS	78.9	105.3	124	106
19	Brownsville-Harlingen, TX	77.9	127.2	22	3
20	Columbia, MO	77.2	93.4	23	3
21	Auburn-Opelika, AL	77.0	53.3	58	37
22	Clarksville, TN-KY	76.6	83.4	86	64
23	San Angelo, TX	76.4	44.9	63	40
24	Morgantown, WV	76.4	65.4	13	-11
25	Wheeling, WV-OH	76.2	67.9	59	34
26	Ithaca, NY	76.1	65.6	17	-9
27	Jonesboro, AR	75.9	49.2	32	5
28	Springfield, IL	74.6	111.7	42	14
29	Fargo, ND-MN	74.6	122.4	8	-21
30	Grand Forks, ND-MN	74.4	54.0	27	-3
31	Corvallis, OR	74.2	38.1	166	135
32	Cumberland, MD-WV	73.8	39.9	88	56
33	Oshkosh-Neenah, WI	73.5	92.7	96	63
34	Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA	73.5	53.7	43	9
35	Warner Robins, GA	73.3	59.7	18	-17
36	Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA	73.2	38.6	26	-10
37	Waco, TX	73.0	105.8	30	-7
38	Fort Collins-Loveland, CO	72.9	133.6	50	12
39	Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	72.7	110.8	128	89
40	Harrisonburg, VA	72.6	62.7	51	11
41	Iowa City, IA	72.6	90.5	19	-22
42	Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH NECTA Division	72.3	76.5	48	6
43	Las Cruces, NM	72.3	69.1	24	-19
44	Johnstown, PA	71.9	60.7	89	45
45	Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR	71.9	56.9	55	10
46	Eau Claire, WI	71.7	80.4	117	71
47	Bowling Green, KY	71.6	59.7	158	111
48	Great Falls, MT	71.3	35.6	15	-33
49	State College, PA	71.2	74.4	20	-29
50	Yakima, WA	71.2	76.5	9	-41
51	Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA	71.1	19.5	14	-37
52	Gainesville, GA	71.1	72.8	148	96
53	Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA	70.7	113.1	125	72
54	St. Cloud, MN	69.9	99.0	54	0
55	Williamsport, PA	69.8	52.6	131	76
56	Laredo, TX	69.7	88.4	70	14
57	New Bedford, MA NECTA	69.4	64.9	92	35
58	Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Division	69.3	87.7	129	71
59	Glens Falls, NY	69.1	53.0	35	-24
60	Sandusky, OH	68.9	35.5	132	72
61	Ocean City, NJ	68.6	36.3	90	29
62	Hattiesburg, MS	68.6	59.3	11	-51
63	Cedar Rapids, IA	68.6	137.5	34	-29
64	Tyler, TX	67.7	93.3	49	-15
65	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA	67.3	94.1	73	8
66	Owensboro, KY	67.3	49.8	97	31
67	Amarillo, TX	67.2	110.8	39	-28
68	Elmira, NY	67.1	40.1	137	69
69	Altoona, PA	66.7	60.5	83	14
70	Barnstable Town, MA NECTA	66.4	92.2	82	12
71	Sioux Falls, SD	66.3	133.0	36	-35
72	Rapid City, SD	65.9	59.3	38	-34
73	Pueblo, CO	65.7	57.1	25	-48
74	Lubbock, TX	65.1	129.5	28	-46
75	Dover, DE	64.3	63.4	111	36
76	Flagstaff, AZ	63.6	61.5	75	-1
77	Ames, IA	63.3	47.5	72	-5
78	Charlottesville, VA	63.2	98.7	62	-16
79	Appleton, WI	63.2	116.0	134	55
80	Jefferson City, MO	63.0	77.7	61	-19
81	Pittsfield, MA NECTA	62.8	35.4	169	88
82	Niles-Benton Harbor, MI	62.7	60.3	213	131
83	Greenville, NC	62.5	75.0	37	-46
84	Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA	62.0	88.6	66	-18
85	Kankakee-Bradley, IL	62.0	42.9	29	-56
86	Springfield, OH	61.8	49.9	155	69
87	Erie, PA	61.7	128.5	180	93
88	Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL	61.7	54.8	57	-31
89	Athens-Clarke County, GA	61.6	81.0	69	-20
90	Palm Coast, FL	61.5	18.2	113	23
91	Tuscaloosa, AL	60.9	94.1	87	-4
92	Bloomington, IN	60.9	82.6	10	-82
93	Billings, MT	60.8	78.4	44	-49
94	Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA	60.6	55.9	115	21
95	Winchester, VA-WV	60.4	54.4	150	55
96	Victoria, TX	60.4	49.2	141	45
97	Bloomington-Normal, IL	60.2	90.3	64	-33
98	Fayetteville, NC	59.9	128.2	6	-92
99	Cheyenne, WY	59.8	43.4	33	-66
100	Hot Springs, AR	59.8	37.1	107	7
101	Coeur d'Alene, ID	59.5	52.6	80	-21
102	Johnson City, TN	58.1	78.4	160	58
103	Merced, CA	58.0	55.6	174	71
104	Lafayette, IN	57.7	93.2	145	41
105	St. Joseph, MO-KS	57.6	57.3	5	-100
106	Abilene, TX	57.5	65.2	47	-59
107	Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL	57.2	70.7	67	-40
108	La Crosse, WI-MN	57.2	73.1	103	-5
109	Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA	56.3	47.9	121	12
110	Mankato-North Mankato, MN	56.1	52.1	119	9
111	Lafayette, LA	56.1	148.0		-26
112	Duluth, MN-WI	55.7	127.8	138	26
113	Alexandria, LA	55.6	64.0	46	-67
114	Utica-Rome, NY	55.4	129.7	60	-54
115	Manchester, NH NECTA	55.0	97.5	71	-44
116	Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA NECTA	54.8	48.5	201	85
117	Sherman-Denison, TX	54.6	42.3	106	-11
118	Topeka, KS	54.6	107.9	93	-25
119	Casper, WY	53.4	38.3	127	8
120	Kingston, NY	53.4	60.7	110	-10
121	Decatur, IL	52.7	52.6	161	40
122	Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Division	52.7	114.7	144	22
123	Greeley, CO	52.4	77.9	130	7
124	Charleston, WV	51.2	147.1		-12
125	Columbus, GA-AL	50.7	117.2	95	-30
126	Savannah, GA	50.6	149.5		-8
127	Rochester, MN	50.2	101.7	53	-74
128	Battle Creek, MI	49.6	56.0	172	44
129	Sioux City, IA-NE-SD	49.5	73.1	74	-55
130	Anderson, SC	49.1	60.0	226	96
131	Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA	48.9	43.8	168	37
132	Wilmington, NC	48.7	135.2	76	-56
133	Kokomo, IN	48.4	41.1	231	98
134	Idaho Falls, ID	48.3	48.2	98	-36
135	Hanford-Corcoran, CA	48.3	35.2	16	-119
136	Champaign-Urbana, IL	47.7	109.4	118	-18
137	Terre Haute, IN	47.7	70.9	177	40
138	Holland-Grand Haven, MI	47.6	104.6	232	94
139	Santa Fe, NM	47.5	60.4	123	-16
140	Binghamton, NY	47.4	109.5	99	-41
141	Spartanburg, SC	46.8	118.9	214	73
142	Grand Junction, CO	46.7	58.8	146	4
143	Columbus, IN	46.2	42.4	188	45
144	Lynchburg, VA	46.1	104.1	101	-43
145	Punta Gorda, FL	45.9	40.7	179	34
146	Chico, CA	45.7	70.2	143	-3
147	Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL	45.4	43.6	40	-107
148	Modesto, CA	45.2	145.6		20
149	Peabody, MA NECTA Division	43.9	98.5	142	-7
150	Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV	43.8	96.9	153	3
151	El Centro, CA	43.2	44.3	91	-60
152	Missoula, MT	43.1	54.4	105	-47
153	Fort Smith, AR-OK	42.9	116.5	157	4
154	Gainesville, FL	42.6	127.7	112	-42
155	Elkhart-Goshen, IN	42.6	105.0	233	78
156	Sumter, SC	42.3	37.0	225	69
157	Burlington, NC	41.9	55.8	209	52
158	Olympia, WA	41.7	96.6	52	-106
159	Danbury, CT NECTA	41.6	65.8	208	49
160	Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA	41.6	116.9	182	22
161	Decatur, AL	41.6	53.7	199	38
162	Lake Charles, LA	40.8	88.7	133	-29
163	Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA	40.6	128.8	100	-63
164	Salem, OR	39.8	142.0		-43
165	Lawrence, KS	39.8	49.9	41	-124
166	Bangor, ME NECTA	39.5	63.9	84	-82
167	Farmington, NM	39.5	48.3	176	9
168	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA	39.4	67.9	108	-60
169	Wichita Falls, TX	39.3	58.2	192	23
170	Salisbury, MD	39.2	52.2	162	-8
171	Macon, GA	39.0	95.9	165	-6
172	Madera-Chowchilla, CA	38.9	32.5	56	-116
173	Florence, SC	38.8	82.5	173	0
174	Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI	38.7	83.4	186	12
175	Anderson, IN	38.3	40.4	120	-55
176	Cleveland, TN	37.9	39.2	175	-1
177	Bremerton-Silverdale, WA	37.9	81.8	85	-92
178	Goldsboro, NC	37.8	42.3	102	-76
179	Monroe, LA	37.6	75.4	114	-65
180	Gadsden, AL	37.4	35.7	200	20
181	Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH	37.3	113.7	104	-77
182	Port St. Lucie, FL	36.9	120.7	191	9
183	Valdosta, GA	36.8	52.3	149	-34
184	Racine, WI	36.8	74.8	221	37
185	Jackson, TN	36.6	57.9	205	20
186	Danville, VA	35.8	39.7	211	25
187	Kalamazoo-Portage, MI	35.7	137.3	185	-2
188	Fond du Lac, WI	35.5	44.9	217	29
189	Lewiston, ID-WA	35.1	25.6	122	-67
190	Rockford, IL	34.5	144.0		20
191	Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL	34.1	76.2	109	-82
192	Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Division	33.9	125.1	154	-38
193	Muncie, IN	33.8	49.3	207	14
194	Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH	33.7	68.8	126	-68
195	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA	32.3	95.9	167	-28
196	Visalia-Porterville, CA	32.1	104.8	139	-57
197	Medford, OR	32.1	75.3	193	-4
198	Vallejo-Fairfield, CA	31.7	117.9	181	-17
199	St. George, UT	31.5	45.6	164	-35
200	Rocky Mount, NC	31.1	60.6	196	-4
201	Lima, OH	30.8	52.2	206	5
202	Waterbury, CT NECTA	30.3	62.7	228	26
203	Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ	30.1	58.2	116	-87
204	Bellingham, WA	29.9	77.7	140	-64
205	Bay City, MI	29.7	36.2	203	-2
206	Salinas, CA	29.6	119.5	152	-54
207	Albany, GA	29.2	60.9	135	-72
208	Pocatello, ID	28.7	35.6	151	-57
209	Napa, CA	27.6	58.0	163	-46
210	South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI	26.3	132.3	224	14
211	Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	26.2	85.9	183	-28
212	Longview, WA	26.1	34.9	170	-42
213	Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ	25.9	135.3	195	-18
214	Michigan City-La Porte, IN	24.6	42.4	187	-27
215	Anniston-Oxford, AL	24.1	48.7	156	-59
216	Redding, CA	24.0	57.0	189	-27
217	Wausau, WI	24.0	67.0	210	-7
218	Yuba City, CA	23.9	36.3	159	-59
219	Sheboygan, WI	21.8	58.3	216	-3
220	Bend, OR	21.6	59.6	184	-36
221	Yuma, AZ	21.2	49.7	204	-17
222	Carson City, NV	21.1	28.8	202	-20
223	Brunswick, GA	20.6	40.4	171	-52
224	Naples-Marco Island, FL	20.3	110.7	219	-5
225	Danville, IL	20.2	28.9	178	-47
226	Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ	18.2	45.2	197	-29
227	Ocala, FL	18.1	89.9	215	-12
228	Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL	17.8	43.1	198	-30
229	Prescott, AZ	17.7	54.0	190	-39
230	Eugene-Springfield, OR	17.6	140.6		-11
231	Rome, GA	17.2	38.1	147	-84
232	Mansfield, OH	16.7	52.1	212	-20
233	Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV	15.0	43.6	222	-11
234	Monroe, MI	14.1	37.3	223	-11
235	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC	13.7	142.7		-1
236	Morristown, TN	13.4	45.3	234	-2
237	Flint, MI	13.4	132.7	218	-19
238	Jackson, MI	13.3	53.0	227	-11
239	Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI	10.3	57.7	220	-19
240	Dalton, GA	9.6	65.7	229	-11
241	Janesville, WI	9.3	60.8	230	-11
242	Dothan, AL	8.2	56.5	194	-48
243	Pine Bluff, AR	8.2	36.5	136	-107