New Geography

Blog

  • Beyond the Stimulus: Time to Get Real

    In remarks on Friday following a meeting with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Sheila Bair, Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, President Obama pointed to some “glimmers of hope” in the economy, and indeed a few green shoots – rising mortgage refinancings and a slight uptick in durable goods orders – have appeared in recent weeks.

    But the economy is still in trouble. Don’t bet what remains of your 401K on the White House’s optimistic growth forecasts of the economy rebounding to 3.2 percent to 2010 and then improving to more than 4 percent on average for the next three years. Given the damage the housing and credit bubbles have done to the economy and the inadequacies of the administration’s economic recovery program, these growth assumptions are unrealistic. If anything, we will eventually need another better directed stimulus package before we see the kind of sustained economic growth the White House is predicting for the years beyond 2010.

    With its growth forecasts, the President’s economic team is betting on a sustainable V-shaped recovery typical of a normal business-cycle downturn. But as his team knows, this was not a normal business-cycle recession. For one thing, consumer spending is unlikely to return to its bubble-year levels given high household debt levels, slumping home prices, and constraints on credit expansion. In addition, unemployment is not expected to peak well in double digits until later in 2010, and thus it will put downward pressure on wages and incomes for some time to come. There are also serious impediments to increased business investment, not least of which is the fact that businesses have little incentive to invest given weak demand and excess capacity in many sectors.

    To be sure, Obama’s economic recovery program will help soften the economy’s fall as households and the financial system deleverage and rebuild their balance sheets. But it fails tragically to put the economy on a new more sustainable growth path. First, the $787 economic recovery program passed by Congress in February is too unfocused, too scattered over many areas, and too concerned with social spending to create a big new source of economic growth given likely lower levels of consumption in the future.
    The administration’s much-hyped green investment agenda comes to about $17 billion a year, far short of what is needed to create a new driver of investment and job creation.

    Indeed, on balance, the White House’s green energy agenda could actually become a drag on any economic recovery. The administration’s proposals for doubling the contribution of renewable energy by 2012 will make at best a modest contribution to energy supply. (Together, wind and solar sources produce only 1.1 percent of America’s electricity consumption and a far smaller percentage of all energy use.)

    Meanwhile, the cut-back in the domestic exploration of oil and gas, caused by falling prices and by Obama’s withdrawal of incentives for exploration, seems likely to reduce the domestic supply of energy by as much or even more. This a prescription for a new spike in energy prices that could snuff out any recovery just as it gets going. In the short term the administration’s green investment agenda may actually cost the economy jobs in the energy sector and lead to higher imports of foreign oil.

    Second, the economic recovery program is too concerned with short-term consumption as opposed to long-term investments in our public infrastructure that can create jobs and improve U.S. productivity. The White House estimates that the economic recovery program will create or save at most 3.5 million jobs over two years. Private forecasters are less optimistic and put the number at less than three million. But given the scale of job losses (now running at more than 600,000 per month) created by this recession, the economy will need to create 9 million more jobs to return the economy to something approaching full employment. Wages therefore are not likely to show any significant improvement any time soon, thereby eliminating the possibility of wage and income-led growth in the short-term. At the same time, weak private and public investment will undercut future gains in productivity, eroding the foundation for long-term income gains.

    Third, a sustainable economic recovery depends upon a strengthened tradable goods sector and a sustainable improvement in our trade balance. In order to work our way out of the debt accumulated during this crisis and, at the same time, improve American living standards, we will need to export more and import less. But the Obama economic recovery program will at best provide only a modest boost to America’s manufacturing sector. The most important help will come from the increased infrastructure spending included in the economic recovery program and the 2010 budget. Good basic infrastructure is critical to the success of American-based manufacturing companies, and the program will create some improvements in this area and relieve some bottlenecks that are now preventing increased investment.

    There are, however, other aspects of the Obama program that are much less favorable to the strengthening of manufacturing. As suggested earlier, the Obama green energy strategy will raise the cost of energy to American producers, and thus create new disincentives to business investment. In recent days, the White House has backed away from the president’s ambitious proposals for cap-and-trade, but some Congressional members of the President’s party are determined to push forward with this misguided policy.

    An improved trade balance also depends upon stronger global demand, critical if the exports are to increase in the months ahead. The president understands the importance of rebalancing the global economy with the large current account surplus economies consuming more and saving less. But even though the president received high marks for his recent European trip, he gave up more than he received in this area. Large current-account economies like China and Germany need to increase their fiscal stimulus to encourage more consumption. But in face of resistance from Germany and France, the administration quietly dropped its call for G-20 countries to commit to a modest 2 percent of GDP target for fiscal expansion. At the same time, the administration pledged to resist Buy America provisions and other measures that would ensure that the US stimulus does not leak out of the economy and help economies free-riding off world demand. As a result, once again the U.S. economy will bear a disproportionate burden in pulling the world economy out of a deep recession.

    The basic point here: The administration’s program is not properly structured to create a bridge to a new healthy pattern of economic growth. It is too reliant on the Federal Reserve and its program of quantative easing. At best, this will create a pale version of the debt-financed consumption-led economic growth that we experienced over the last five years – with a new bubble forming in commodities and energy that will act as a drag on a sustained economic recovery. The economy may experience a short recovery that will peter out into a prolonged slow-growth recession with high unemployment as stimulus dries up and energy prices begin to rise

    So how do we avoid this prospect? We need a second economic recovery program, one that focuses on the economic basics of encouraging real investment and demand creation. This economic recovery program would be more strategically focused on creating jobs with more emphasis on investment in America’s tradable goods sector. It would include the following features:

    • A temporary payroll tax cut to help restore the purchasing power of working families and to reduce the cost to employers of retaining or hiring new workers.
    • A greatly expanded long-term public infrastructure investment program that would commit the country to spend 1 percent of GDP beyond current spending to build the infrastructure needed for the 21st century
    • A crash oil and gas exploration energy program, combined with a program to convert part of our transportation fleet to natural gas by 2012, to complement Obama’s renewable energy initiative.
    • A cut in the corporate income tax to draw capital back to the United States and help spur onshoring of investment and jobs.
    • A jobs training program that would provide paid apprenticeships in fields and industries reporting shortages before the economic recession.

    This economic recovery plan should be accompanied by a new global diplomatic initiative that would push for new rules of trade and investment that would force chronic current account surplus economies to expand domestic demand and increase support for international development. If successful, such a global rebalancing plan would increase demand for U.S. good and services. This together with the domestic measures above would enable us to reduce America’s trade deficit and to stimulate private investment and job creation in our tradable goods sector.

    This program would represent a real sustainable economic stimulus for the country because it would create a new pattern of economic growth – one that no longer relies on debt-financed consumption but focuses instead on raising real wages and incomes through investment and job creation in America’s productive economy.

    Sherle Schwenninger directs the New America Foundation’s Economic Growth Program and the Global Middle Class Initiative. He is also the former director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program.

  • America’s Four Great Growth Waves and the World Cities They Produced

    There have been four great growth waves in American history. In each case, there was an attractive new frontier, which not only drew migrating waves of people seeking new opportunity, but also developed large new bases of industry, wealth, and power. These waves have also created top-tier world cities in their wake. The first three of these waves were:

    1. The Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC corridor was America’s original land of opportunity, industry, wealth, and power. New York was the big winner, and DC and Boston still do quite well.
    2. The rise of the agricultural and industrial Midwest, including Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and St. Louis. The fall here has been a hard one as manufacturing moved abroad, but Chicago still stands as a world-class city produced during the region’s heyday.
    3. The great westward migration, mostly focused on California, but with ancillary growth in adjacent and west coast states. This migration started well before World War 2, but really took off after the war, and produced two top-tier mega-metros – Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area – and several successful second-tiers like Seattle, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

    These waves are not clearly distinct, but overlap each other. As one region matures and starts to level off, the next region starts its growth wave. And that’s the situation now as California shows clear signs of having peaked: gigantic tech and housing crashes plus economic and domestic outmigration as tax, cost-of-living, housing, and regulatory burdens rise and a dysfunctional government teeters towards financial collapse.

    The fourth wave is increasingly clear and follows the same California model of a single focus mega-state and an ancillary region: Texas and the new South.

    Just as California had its pre-war growth surge, Texas had its first real growth waves with the 20th-century post-Spindletop oil boom. California had the dust bowl migration of the 30s, and Texas the oil boom migration of the 70s. But the real super-surge has become clearer in the new century as California hands off the baton to Texas. This growth wave really covers much of the South, but Texas is the 800lb gorilla vs. states like Georgia and North Carolina, just as California dominates over Washington, Nevada, and Arizona. Texas even looms over Florida, which certainly has experienced incredible population growth to become the fourth-largest state, but has had considerably less success with building industry, wealth, and power. Florida’s wealth – like that of Arizona – comes in part from people who built wealth elsewhere but moved or bought a second home there. Neither place is home to many Fortune 500 headquarters, an area where Texas has excelled.

    California had its agriculture and oil barons before WW2, but the real story there was the post-war rise of the entertainment, defense, aerospace, biotech, trade and technology industries. In a similar way, Texas’ oil tycoons are just the tip of the coming surge of wealth and power in industries such as technology, health care, biotech, defense, trade, transportation, aerospace, finance, telecom, and alternative energy in addition to traditional oil and gas (in fact, Texas is the #1 wind power state).

    The great cities emerging from this new wave are Atlanta, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and Houston. They dominate the census growth stats (Houston story), and all indications are that Houston will pass Philadelphia in the 2010 census to join Dallas-Ft.Worth in the top 5 metros along with New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. DFW and Houston are even approaching the combined San Francisco Bay Area population of 6.1 million, and Texas passed California and New York for the #1 ranking in the Fortune 500 HQ rankings last year.

    Want more evidence? Check out this impressive video on the DFW-Austin-San Antonio-Houston Texas Triangle with an overwhelming list of statistics that make the case. In the video, they refer to the region as the 18m-strong “Texaplex” – a play on the “Metroplex” nickname for Dallas-Ft. Worth. You can also see their Texaplex informational brochure here (pdf).

    When you look at it in this historical context, it’s clear Texas and the new South will be the focal point of America’s growth for at least the next few decades. History also says at least one, and possibly more, truly top-tier world cities will emerge from this wave – and it could be argued that some have already. It’s easy to get caught up in the day-to-day hubub and crisis-of-the-moment, but take a minute to stand back and see the big picture. Those living in or moving to Texas and the new South are part of a great historical wave that’s just starting to really take off, the same as being in Chicago at the turn of the 19th-century or in California after WW2. Pretty cool, eh?

    Tory Gattis is a Social Systems Architect, consultant and entrepreneur with a genuine love of his hometown Houston and its people. He covers a wide range of Houston topics at Houston Strategies – including transportation, transit, quality-of-life, city identity, and development and land-use regulations – and have published numerous Houston Chronicle op-eds on these topics.

  • Marc Wright

  • Where are the Best Cities for Job Growth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

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

  • All Cities Rankings – 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

    Read how we pick the best cities.

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

  • 2009 How We Pick the Best Cities for Job Growth

    By Michael Shires

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

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

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

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

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

  • Large Cities Ranking – 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

    Read how we pick the best cities.

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

  • Medium Cities Ranking – 2009 New Geography Best Cities For Job Growth

    Read how we pick the best cities.

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

  • Small Cities Rankings – 2009 New Geography Best Cities for Job Growth

    Read how we pick the best cities.

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

  • Millennials’ First Recession

    Each generation has been affected differently by the deepening global recession. Baby boomers have witnessed their retirement savings evaporate into oblivion. Generation X families who finally saved enough for a down payment on their first house find themselves deep underwater without SCUBA gear. And earnest Millennials fresh out of college are wondering where all those high-paying jobs promised by duplicitous corporate recruiters went.

    No doubt the economic collapse is most palpable for the Boomer generation. Closing in on retirement, many are now holding off on purchasing that winter home in Florida. Moreover, many Boomers have no other choice but to delay retirement (provided they have managed to keep a job) in order to maintain current lifestyles.

    Ironically, this may not be too much of a stretch for the ‘forever young’ generation who has come to define themselves by their occupations. Yet this does pose a problem from those who are actually young and currently entering the workforce.

    Over the past few months I have witnessed many of my 20-something peers lose their jobs – not to mention me as well. This contradicts the popular, yet flawed notion that ‘technologically savvy’ Millennials are rendering older workers obsolete. It is clear now that upper management at corporations across the country have opted for a more conservative approach to hunkering down. This includes letting go of those with less experience (low on the company ladder) and closing the door completely to new hires out of college.

    Justin Pope of the Associated Press has confirmed that college graduates face the worst job market in years. As is indicated in Pope’s article, employers plan to hire 22% fewer graduates this spring – an alarming statistic reported from a survey conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

    Perhaps one of the more unnerving new realities spawned by the recession is what appears to be the diminishing returns to education. Even those graduating with J.D. or M.B.A. degrees find themselves in panic mode. Traditionally, these prestigious degrees meant relatively high salaries right out of grad school. Yet with law firms laying off in droves and corporations slashing entry-level positions, not only do graduates with fresh Master’s degrees find themselves without any job prospects, many are stuck with exorbitantly high student loan bills.

    So what are Millennials doing to ride out the storm? Those who do have jobs are hanging on for dear life. Some are applying to graduate school with the hopes that the economic climate will be better by the time they graduate. Others, like 26 year-old Michael Kaainoni have opted to move back home.

    After graduating from Columbia University with a Masters in Architecture degree last year, Michael landed a job at a large international architecture firm in Manhattan. Only months later, he found himself caught in a wave of corporate downsizing. Rather than scrape by and continue to pay ridiculous New York City rents, Michael opted to move back to his hometown of Kailua, Hawaii. Now living back in Hawaii, he works for a local architecture office that gets steady commissions from the government.

    Michael’s story is not uncommon for young people these days. The Millennial generation does not share the same horror about moving back home as the rabidly ‘independent’ Boomers or Gen Xers. Rather than seeing a retreat back to the nest as taboo, many Millennials will tell you that this is just smart financial planning.

    In many ways the Millennials may be following not the boomers but the experience of immigrants. For decades strong family networks have allowed immigrants to the U.S. to become ‘upwardly mobile’ despite all sorts of disadvantages from lack of English fluency to discrimination. Now that this secret is out into the mainstream consciousness, the ‘going it alone’ mentality is rapidly disappearing. Familial and community support networks are making a strong comeback out of financial necessity – and probably for the better.

    Writer Tamara Draut focuses on the financial plight facing young people today in the book “Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30-Somethings Can’t Get Ahead”. In her book, Draut explains why young people in the workforce might seem too eager to get ahead:

    “If today’s young adults can be accused of wanting it all too soon, the ‘it’ isn’t riches, gadgets, or luxury cars. The elusive ‘it’ that today’s twenty-somethings are after is financial independence, and then hopefully, financial security.”

    Derided as the ‘everyone gets a medal’ generation by cultural commentators who believe that young people today have a bloated sense of self-esteem, most Millennials just want to live secure, modest lifestyles. This observation goes against everything that civic boosters and urban real estate speculators have hoped for during the recent boom years.

    With the notion that lifestyle trumps employment, urban planners have been deluded into thinking that by turning cities into expensive playgrounds, they will attract the best and the brightest young workers. This was an idea touted by urban theorist Richard Florida in his highly influential book “The Rise of the Creative Class”. Florida claims that, according to his focus groups, young creative people do not want to live in places that “do not afford a variety of ‘scenes’”.

    The idea that young people can choose their city at will based on lifestyle preference does not make much sense given the current economic circumstances. Job opportunity and affordability, not to mention family ties, are more likely to dictate where young people end up settling now and in the immediate future.

    Furthermore, many of the ‘lifestyle amenities’ – such as cool coffee shops, farmer’s markets, and culturally diverse restaurants – desired by these young creatives can now be found in more affordable environments outside of the traditional urban core.

    By the time this recession is over, Millennials may have passed their ‘city phase’. This spells bad news for places that have banked on spurring a renaissance driven by young people who often like urban settings but can no longer afford the luxury. Neighborhoods like San Francisco’s SoMa or downtown Los Angeles could be the losers. Cities completely missed the boat by allowing greedy real estate developers to build expensive condos for a largely ephemeral surge of Boomer empty nesters while ignoring basic issues like quality of life, safety and affordability.

    Millennials will bounce back. As the youngest generation in the workforce, they will be defined by the experience of the current economic slump and take its lessons with them throughout their lives. Instead of greed and selfishness, which is likely to define the Boomer legacy, Millennials will more likely resemble that of their grandparents’ generation – one where family and frugality is valued over individuality and self-interest.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.