New Geography

Author: admin

  • Contemporary China’s Mirror Image: Imperial Germany

    China has emerged as the bad boy on the global scene, pushing around executives at Rio Tinto, attacking Google, and humiliating Barack Obama at the Copenhagen Climate Talks. Speculation is growing about China’s rising power and the country’s leaders are displaying a discouraging sense of hubris. There is growing fear that the autocratic Middle Kingdom will soon dominate the world.

    These fears have parallels with another rising power of a century ago: Imperial Germany. Both emerged quickly on the global scene and did so with an enormous chip on their shoulders. Like China today, Germany was a little late coming to the industrial revolution, though its cultural contribution to European civilization and in turn to American civilization was enormous (Ralph Waldo Emerson was passionate student of Goethe). Only after its final unification and triumph over the French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 could Otto von Bismarck, the great 19th century pragmatist, force Germany’s sundry states into union.

    Again like China, once united and in control of its own destiny, Germany grew quickly, harboring ever more delusions about its place in the sun. In the years leading to the First World War Wilhelm I, the competent Bismarck confidant, died of cancer. This allowed vainglorious Wilhelm II to assume the mantle of the state in 1888. Prussian militarism by then was backed by a massive industrial machine operating in complete fealty to the state. Germany’s new Emperor and his clique felt that it had something to prove.

    China, once the most advanced nation on earth, similarly has a passel of historical resentments ranging from the Opium War to the complete denigration of its standing in the world. Like Germany, China has viewed itself as an advanced culture whose time had now arrived. Like Germany in the late 19th Century, it has incorporated technologies from others about as fast as it could get its hands on them.

    When Deng Zhao Ping awoke China from its Maoist/Stalinist nightmare that ripped through the country under the guise of the Cultural Revolution, they were confronted with the disintegration of communist governments around the world. Chinese leaders knew that the only way to for them to hold power was to have their economy grow. This approach parallels the economic pragmatism in late Imperial Germany under Bismarck and the Hohenzollerns, who pushed economic growth as a means of promoting social welfare while simultaneously doing all they can to consolidate power in their hands. Bismarck created the first social security system not out of a deep seated concern for the proletariat but to emasculate the socialist party.

    China by the same token has not adopted capitalism because they want to move the country towards rule of law and greater democracy but as a means of justifying their continued presence at the country’s helm. China, much like Imperial Germany, has witnessed unbelievable growth because of these centralized policies.

    On the eve of WWI, Germany was the second largest economy in the world after shooting ahead of Britain and trailing America. China just accomplished a similar feat in an even shorter time frame. China passed contemporary Germany a couple of years ago and is poised to do so with Japan in the coming year. China is cultivating a modern-style imperial prescence in Iran, Africa and Latin America in an effort to secure the natural resources that the country lacks much like Germany did. Ironically, China is doing more to raise living standards in Africa than any western aid program has been able to do.

    German industrial bosses were elites, most bore the titles of nobility. China’s bosses have been compared to the Emperor’s corrupt courtesans. The vast wealth of the Thyssen and Krupp steel dynasties can still be seen today in the massive industrial museums lining the Ruhr Valley. As in Imperial Germany, the military dominates large swaths of the economy. Germany in the late 19th and early twentieth century used its coal and iron resources to build the munitions factories that lined the despoiled Ruhr and Rhine. Holding even tighter on the reigns, China has developed an a strong state-dominated economy, forcing, for example, foreign firms to enter a joint venture with a state-owned corporation, which will quickly steal what it can of the western company’s intellectual property.

    The two governments bear disturbing similarities. Germany also had a vast bureaucracy attempting to tamp down any sedition amongst its masses. China is doing much the same. The most interesting parallel however is the rampant nationalism propagated in both Imperial Germany then and contemporary China.

    Of course, there are also some significant differences. China, for example, is much larger than Germany ever was. China is also not necessarily as instinctively expansionist . But it is extremely sensitive when it comes to Taiwan. The kerfuffle over arms sales to Taiwan last month provides more than enough evidence of this. Germany also had territories that it got very sensitive about as well. China’s attitude towards Taiwan and Tibet echoes the Kaiser’s sentiment towards occupying Strasbourg along the French border.

    Is China going to attack its neighbors and plunge the Pacific Rim into World War Three? It seems highly unlikely. China still has a lot of growing left to do. Large swaths of the peasantry are still stumbling along at poverty levels. China is also well aware of the US military’s ability to project force should it try to attack Taiwan.

    China may want to occupty Taiwan and there is none of the rhetoric among the leadership cadre about the need for Lebensraum that dominated conversations in German salons before the Great War. China’s leadership also appears far more competent than that of late Imperial Germany. But this may have to do with dumb luck. The Hohenzollerns up until Wilhelm II were all competent leaders. Could China be so unlucky as well? Could one idiot weasel his way up through the CP ranks? Who knows?

    China has serious problems with restive minorities and a growingly arrogant and repressive regime. It has industrial might, a massive resentment of western powers and a desire to get its own place in the sun. It does not have the same geographical pressures that Germany had and it is still not in any position to take on the US in the military theater and its rulers realize that. Though its economy is inflating, much of the population living below the poverty line.

    So far the technocrats over the last thirty years have been freakishly capable and have generally done a good job. The real trial of China’s claim to its place in the sun will be when a blustering fool like Kaiser Wilhelm weasels his way into the party chairmanship. Just as Germany was powerless to dispose of its ill-suited leader, China may very well be as well. If that happens, God help us all.

    Kirk Rogers resides in Bubenreuth on the outer edges of Nuremberg and teaches languages and Amercan culture at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg’s Institut für Fremdsprachen und Auslandskunde. He has been living in Germany for about ten years now due to an inexplicable fascination with German culture.

    Photo by Artshooter

  • A Spotlight on Chicago Machine Boss Alderman Burke

    With President Obama’s approval ratings headed downward, there’s a growing interest in the powerful Cook County politicians that pushed Obama. James Peterson has written a three part series on Chicago Machine boss, Alderman Ed Burke. The series was written for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website.

    The first installment of the series deals with Alderman Burke’s association with the Chicago Mob. Burke’s unapologetic relationship with Alderman Fred Roti, who was described by the FBI (in 1999) as one of only 47 made members of the Chicago Mob. Peterson quotes this resolution Burke entered into Chicago’s City Council glorifying Roti:

    Fred B. Roti, a committed public servant, a cherished friend of many and good neighbor to all, will be greatly missed and fondly remembered by his many family members, friends and associates.

    Peterson’s second article deals with top FBI informer Robert Cooley’s accusation that Alderman Burke attempted to fix a murder trial for the Chicago Mob. Even though Cooley repeated this accusation, Burke failed to sue him or the publisher of the book. Peterson also deals with the sensitive subject of Alderman Burke’s relationship with Chicago’s media. Peterson quotes a 2003 Chicago Sun-Times story:

    The curious public feud between City Council’s most powerful alderman and one of Chicago’s highest profile television reporters was turned up a notch Wednesday. Unable to persuade WLS-TV Channel 7 to pull reporter Andy Shaw off the City Hall beat because of the bed and breakfast Shaw and his wife run out of their Lincoln Park home, Finance Committee Chairman, Edward M. Burke (14th) did what he considers to be the next best thing. He introduced a legislative “order” directing six city departments—Fire, Revenue, Buildings, Streets and Sanitation, Zoning and Public Health—to enforce “any and all provisions” of the municipal code at only one address:607 West Deming. That happens to be the address of the Windy City Urban Inn, where the Shaws have continued to rent seven rooms at their three-story mansion…

    Part three deals with Alderman Burke and the legitimate world. Peterson delves into the relationship Burke has had with the law firm Jenner and Block. Peterson quotes an a 1997 Chicago Sun-Times story:

    Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th), whose decisions on hiring lawyers in the City Council ward remap case have funneled $7.5 million in city fees to the prominent Jenner and Block law firm, holds co-counsel status with that firm in two recent lawsuits, court records show. Burke’s links with the firm do not appear to violate any laws or regulations…

    Managing partner Jerold Solovy – who is the lead attorney in the remap case – was treasurer of the unopposed 1996 campaign for Illinois Appellate Court justice of Anne Burke, the alderman’s wife. And prominent [Jenner and Block] partner John Simon served as her campaign chairman. The firm provided $14,414.15 in services and money to the campaign.

    The firm hired Burke’s daughter Jennifer A. Burke in June, 1995, shortly after she graduated 173rd in a class of 385 from Chicago Kent College of Law. In making new hires, the firm usually draws top students from the nation’s leading law schools. Two weeks ago, Burke, whose name has been linked to the federal investigation of ghost payrolling at City Hall, hired Jenner and Block partner and former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas to represent him in that inquiry.

    Anyone interested in the place President Obama came from should read all three articles in detail. Alderman Burke is one key people who fast tracked Obama’s career. You’ll also want to read about the Chicago Democrats and the Chicago Mob. When Rod Blagojevich’s trial starts on June 3, the names of Tony Rezko, Jesse Jackson Jr., Valerie Jarret, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod, and Barack Obama are guaranteed to be mentioned. They are part of the Chicago Democratic Machine, a Machine with Alderman Burke at the top.

  • 2010 How We Pick the Best Cities For Job Growth


    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

  • Telecommute Taxes On The Table

    The Obama Administration has recently been shining a spotlight on the need to eliminate barriers to telework and its growth. Now Congress has legislation before it that would abolish one of telework’s greatest obstacles, the risk of double taxation Americans face if they telecommute across state lines. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 2600)would remove the double tax risk.

    H.R. 2600 can and should be enacted as a stand-alone measure. However, Washington is also currently developing or considering a variety of other legislative packages, any one of which would be significantly strengthened if the provisions of H.R. 2600 were added to it. These packages include energy/climate legislation (expected to be unveiled later this month), transportation legislation and small business legislation. Each of these packages, we have been told, would double as a jobs bill.

    Telework is a critical component of any plan to create jobs, as well as any plan to improve our energy security, slow climate change, ease traffic congestion, reduce transportation infrastructure costs and boost small businesses. Congress must not miss the important opportunity that H.R. 2600 and these emerging packages provide to get rid of the tax barrier to telework.

    The Obama Administration’s Focus on Removing Obstacles
    On March 31, the White House hosted a first-of-its kind forum on workplace flexibility, bringing together businesses, employees, advocates, labor leaders and experts to talk about the importance of expanding the use of telework and other practices that enable workers to meet the competing demands of job and family. Obama identified workplace flexibility as an issue that affects “the success of our businesses [and] the strength of our economy – whether we’ll create the workplaces and jobs of the future we need to compete in today’s global economy.” Discussing a new effort within the federal government to increase the number of federal teleworkers, the President said,

    “…this isn’t just about providing a better work experience for our employees, it’s about providing better, more efficient service for the American people – even in the face of snowstorms and other crises that keep folks from getting to the office…. It’s about attracting and retaining top talent in the federal workforce and empowering them to do their jobs, and judging their success by the results that they get – not by how many meetings they attend, or how much face-time they log, or how many hours are spent on airplanes. It’s about creating a culture where, as [the Administrator of the General Services Administration] puts it, “Work is what you do, not where you are.”

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also urging greater reliance on telework. In the National Broadband Plan delivered to Congress on March 16, the FCC reported that “[m]aking telework a more widespread option would potentially open up opportunities for 17.5 million individuals.” For example, the FCC said, telework can spur job growth among Americans living in rural areas, disabled Americans and retirees. To make the telework option more available, the FCC recommended that Congress “consider eliminating tax and regulatory barriers to telework.”

    What regulatory barrier did the FCC target? The “convenience of the employer” rule – the state tax doctrine that subjects interstate telecommuters to the risk of double taxation. Specifically, a state with a “convenience of the employer” rule can tax nonresidents who telecommute part-time to an employer within that state on the wages they earn at home, even though their home states can tax the same income.

    For many people, the threat of owing taxes to two states can put a long-distance job out of reach. By making telework unaffordable for workers, the tax penalty also thwarts businesses and government agencies trying to tap the cost-saving and other economic benefits telework offers.

    The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would bar states from taxing the income nonresidents earn in their home states, and it would prohibit them from applying a “convenience of the employer” rule. Congress should follow the FCC’s counsel to “consider addressing this double taxation issue that is preventing telework from becoming more widespread.”

    Congressional Opportunities to Remove the Tax Barrier
    As noted above, H.R. 2600 can and should be passed as a stand-alone bill. However, Congress could also seize the opportunity to include the provisions of H.R. 2600 in the energy/climate package, the transportation package, or the small business package that lawmakers are working on, and, in the process, make that package more effective.

    How would telecommuter tax fairness strengthen energy and climate legislation? By substituting the use of broadband for the use of cars and mass transit, telecommuters conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The National Broadband Plan reported that “[e]very additional teleworker reduces annual CO2 emissions by an estimated 2.6-3.6 metric tons per year. [Further, replacing] 10% of business air travel with videoconferencing would reduce carbon emissions by an estimated 36.3 million tons annually.” How can Congress enact an energy bill that does not include such savings?

    The same kind of fairness is a necessary addition to any transportation bill, because broader use of telework can slash transportation costs. By decreasing the demand for roads and rails, telework minimizes wear and tear on existing infrastructure and reduces the need to build more. As a result, telework limits the expense of repairs, maintenance and expansion. The new transportation funding bill should focus more on creating jobs laying broadband conduits and less on jobs laying asphalt. The transportation bill would also benefit from the addition of telecommuter tax fairness, because, by decreasing traffic congestion, telework decreases the hobbling cost of lost productivity.

    Small business legislation? Telework can help small firms hire new people at lower cost: Employers can increase staff without increasing real estate, energy and other overhead expenses. They can also select the most qualified applicants from the broadest geographic area while spending less on recruitment. Telework can increase company efficiency and, as President Obama noted at the workplace flexibility forum, help employers assure continuity of operations when emergencies arise. These are bottom line benefits Washington can offer small businesses without adding to the federal deficit.

    Finally, the success of any legislation designed to jumpstart hiring should include telecommuter tax fairness. It would enable the unemployed — especially those who cannot relocate because their homes are unsalable — to widen the area where they can look for work.

    The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act was introduced by Representatives Jim Himes (D-CT) and Frank Wolf (R-VA). It has bi-partisan support from lawmakers all around the country. Stakeholders endorsing it include the Telework Coalition, the National Taxpayers Union, the American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, along with the Association for Commuter Transportation and Take Back Your Time. Workplace Flexibility 2010, a public policy initiative at Georgetown University Law Center, has also recommended the elimination of the telecommuter tax penalty.

    Telework is an important part of the solution to the nation’s most urgent problems, including unemployment, foreign oil dependence, climate change, clogged and crumbling travel arteries and the struggle workers face to meet their responsibilities as employees, family members and members of their communities. As federal lawmakers tackle these challenges, they should consider the Administration’s focus on getting rid of regulatory roadblocks to telework. They should heed the FCC’s call to take up the issue of the telework tax penalty, and they should finally enact the Himes-Wolf bill.

    Photo: Representative Jim Himes (D-CT)

    Nicole Belson Goluboff is a lawyer in New York who writes extensively on the legal consequences of telework. She is the author of The Law of Telecommuting (ALI-ABA 2001 with 2004 Supplement), Telecommuting for Lawyers (ABA 1998) and numerous articles on telework. She is also an Advisory Board member of the Telework Coalition.

  • Business Developer

  • The Great Deconstruction – First in a New Series

    History imparts labels on moments of great significance; The Civil War, The Great Depression, World War II. We are entering such an epoch. The coming transformation of America and the world may be known as The Great Deconstruction. Credit restrictions will force spending cuts and a re-prioritization of interests. Our world will be dramatically changed. There will be winners and losers. This series will explore the winners and losers of The Great Deconstruction.

    ***

    The phrase, The Great Depression, was coined by British economist Lionel Robbins in a 1934 book of the same name. Its unexpected onset followed years of speculative growth during which economist Irving Fisher famously proclaimed, “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” The depression can be traced to the stock market crash of Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, when stocks lost $14 billion in a single day. During the Great Depression that, followed, unemployment soared to 25%, a drought turned the farm belt into a dust bowl and international trade plummeted by two-thirds. The worldwide slump did not end until the advent of World War II.

    A similar, albeit less catastrophic, stock market collapse occurred in 2008. Following the speculative rise of a housing bubble, trillions of dollars in home equity and stock value were wiped out and 15 million Americans were left looking for work. Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times, labeled the worst downturn in nearly a century, The Great Recession. The Dow fell from a peak of 14,093 in October of 2007 to 6,626 in March of 2009. While Wall Street recovered half of its losses thanks to TARP, an $800 billion financial rescue package for the banks, Main Street has lagged behind. Home equity fell by $5.9 trillion. Housing starts plummeted from 2,075,000 in 2005 to 306,000 in 2009 decimating the construction industry. Foreclosure notices went out to 2.8 million homeowners in 2009 and 4,000,000 are projected for 2010. Eight million jobs have been lost and despite an $800 billion stimulus package, unemployment remains at 9.7%. Under-employment, the real jobless number, has reached 17%. Diversion of agricultural water to protect an endangered species in California and a severe drought has brought bread lines to the famously fertile Imperial Valley.

    Like the Great Depression before it, this recession will leave permanent scars on the people. The depression experience made our parents forever frugal. The Greatest Generation became savers, amassing trillions in home equity, stocks and savings accounts. In contrast, their spoiled and coddled children, the Baby Boomers, became the generation of instant gratification. Easy credit and home equity credit lines meant flat screen TVs, vacations, jewelry and jet-skis could be acquired instantly and paid for later. The Baby Boomers entered Congress, the state house and local government with the same attitude: buy now and pay later. Their largesse was fueled by a bubble mentality. Even though the Dot-Com Bubble burst in the late 90s, it was followed by the Housing Bubble of the 00s and a seemingly endless stream of revenue. A spending frenzy ensued with equity rich homeowners offered home equity lines of credit and credit cards with $100,000 limits.

    It wasn’t just consumers who went wild. In many states, such as California, so did the Legislature. In 1999, California rewarded its public employees with generous pensions (SB 400) that allowed retirement at age 50 with 90% of salary – for life. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated the cost of SB 400 at $400 million per year. In 2009, the actual cost was $3 billion. The pension drain contributed to the $20 billion state deficit that California now faces. A Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research report estimates California’s unfunded pension obligation at $500 billion.

    Cities in California matched SB 400, as did counties and municipal agencies, and it led to similar economic results. On April 6th, the City of Los Angeles announced furloughs for public employees, a 40% pay cut, effective immediately to help plug a $500 million deficit. Vallejo, a small city of 120,000 that generously paid its City Manager $600,000 per year and its firemen, $175,000, was forced to file for Chapter 9 Municipal Bankruptcy once the Great Recession dried up their honey pot.

    The problem has consumed municipal government across the nation. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently estimated budget deficits for cities and counties would reach $200 billion this year. Detroit, with a $300 million deficit, has proposed leveling and returning huge sections of the decaying city to farmland.

    At the Federal level, the Obama Administration projects deficits of $1 trillion per year as far as the eye can see. The unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicare are a staggering $107 trillion. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said, “U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can’t be solved through minor changes. It’s a matter of arithmetic.”

    Elmendorf said fixing the problem will require fundamental changes and government would need to make changes in the large programs, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and the tax code, to get the deficit under control.

    When the Credit Card is Denied …

    Such deficits simply cannot be ignored. There will be an intervention. It may come from outside if China, Japan and the Saudis stop buying our debt. It could come from our children who may object to being forced to repay debt they did not spend. It will more likely come from our parents, The Greatest Generation, in the form of a credit intervention. Our parents may intervene, like they did back in the 60s when the Boomers experimented with sex, drugs and rock n roll. When some of us lost control, it was our parents who intervened and straightened us out. They may be forced to intervene once again. this time at the ballot box in November 2010. The Greatest Generation may send the politicians packing, impose order where chaos has reigned, and cut up the credit cards used by their spoiled and coddled Baby Boomer children. Have you noticed who attends the Tea Party rallies? They are retired, educated, tax paying middle class Americans – they look a lot like our parents.

    Deconstruction will take many forms and will encompass all that we know. Private industry has already shed 8 million jobs. The firing of private employees was low hanging fruit. Once untouchable social programs will be forced to disappear. Sacred cows will be slaughtered. Pet programs will be defunded. Even the military may have to learn to live with less. Further changes imposed will cut deep, reaching the union protected public employees and their constitutionally protected pensions. Just as General Motors was forced to abandon its venerable Pontiac brand along with Saturn, Saab and Hummer, unions will lose many of the benefits they obtained the last ten years. There will have to be changes to Medicare, Medicaid and even Social Security.

    We learned something from the health care fiasco. If we treat seniors, our parents, fairly and honestly, they will make the sacrifice. They were upset with the unfairness of the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. They became furious when Cadillac health care plans of union members received different treatment than theirs. Treated fairly, our parents will be part of the solution.

    Fifteen million Americans are looking for work. The jobs will not return soon. Thirty-three states have deficits that must be resolved by law. It will not happen without major sacrifice and draconian job lay-offs of public employees at the national, state, and local levels. The furloughs in Los Angeles only portend things to come. The Great Deconstruction has already begun.

    ***************************************

    The Great Deconstruction is a series written exclusively for New Geography. Future articles will address the impact of The Great Deconstruction at the national, state, county and local levels.

    Robert J Cristiano PhD is the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University and Director of Special Projects at the Hoag Center for Real Estate & Finance. He has been a successful real estate developer in Newport Beach California for twenty-nine years.