Tag: Best Cities 2016

  • The Best Small And Medium-Size Cities For Jobs 2016

    When we look at how the U.S. economy is performing, we usually focus on the largest metropolitan areas. But some 29% of non-farm jobs in the U.S. are in small and midsize metro areas. And since they tend to be less economically diverse and more volatile, these metro areas often are where we can more clearly see the fissures in the economy — the sectors that are growing, and which are shrinking.

    In this year’s edition of our Best Cities For Jobs survey, 13 of the 20 metro areas with the fastest job growth are small (under 150,000 total nonfarm jobs) and medium-sized (between 150,000 and 450,000 total nonfarm jobs).

    Many of the smaller places creating jobs at the fastest pace are located in booming regions like the Intermountain West, near college towns and in regions with attractive natural amenities. Meanwhile, times are turning tougher in West Texas and other energy-dependent areas.

    The winners and losers also reflect demographic trends, notably the tsunami of downshifting boomers, that will shape our society and economy for years to come.

    The Utah Superstars

    As is the case with larger areas, it usually helps if a smaller region has more than one economic pillar. This is certainly true for our No. 1 city overall, St. George, Utah. The job count in this metro area has grown a remarkable 32 percent since 2010. Last year St. George’s job growth rate was 7 percent, roughly 3.5 times faster than the national rate, and one reason the area leaped 30 places in our overall rankings from last year.

    Located in the scenic southwestern part of the state near the Arizona border, and a magnet for retirees and tourists, St. George has had a remarkable population boom, growing from fewer than 100,000 residents in 2000 to 155,600 people as of 2015.

    This demographic surge can be seen where you would expect it, with rapid growth in construction sector jobs – up over 50 percent since 2010 — as well as leisure and hospitality, where employment expanded 37.8 percent over the same span.

    Yet this is not just a sleepy retirement and tourist town. The metro area has a median age of 32, three years older than the Utah average, but well below the national average of 37.2. Despite this younger demographic, job growth has occurred in sectors that tend to employ older workers, such as manufacturing, up 40.9 percent since 2010, and professional business services, up 34.6 percent.

    Not surprisingly if you want to find other local economies that reflect this kind of dynamic, the best place to look is elsewhere in the Beehive State. Our second-ranked area nationally, Provo-Orem has also achieved rapid job growth, with employment expanding 27.4 percent since 2010. Like St. George, this metro area has enjoyed strong growth in construction and hospitality, but also in higher-wage fields, including information, which has expanded employment 43.9 percent since 2010, and professional business services, up 34.3 percent.

    Home to Brigham Young University, the Harvard of Mormondom, the metro area is among the youngest in the nation, largely due to large Mormon families. It’s also, according to Gallup, the most religious as well as one of the best educated: almost 40 percent of its population over 25 holds bachelor’s degrees and almost 5 percent have advanced degrees, just ahead of San Jose, Calif., and Nashville, Tenn.

    Also placing highly from Utah is No. 15 Ogden-Clearfield, which rose 25 notches over last year. Employment has expanded 16.2 percent since 2010. Like St. George and Provo-Orem, this region has experienced strong expansion in its construction and hospitality sectors, but also boasts great economic diversity. Since 2010, manufacturing employment has grown 10.4 percent while professional business service jobs have expanded a healthy 31.3 percent.

    The Amenity Regions

    Of course, you don’t have to be a Latter Day Saint to have a successful small city. But it helps a great deal if you happen to be in a place that has standout natural and cultural amenities. This trend may be greatly enhanced by the movement of seniors, particularly affluent ones, to what may be called “amenity regions” throughout the country. Contrary to the urban mythology pressed by the mainstream media, Census data shows that seniors are not moving “back to the city” in great numbers but generally to smaller, less dense regions, if they move at all.

    Being in a nice place, of course, is an asset for any city; after all, entrepreneurs and young families also like to live somewhere good times beckon. At the same time, some of these areas also benefit from a strong hospitality and second home market. Another critical advantage belongs to college towns which, by their very nature, usually offer more by way of arts, restaurants and entertainment than other places.

    The highest ranked of these metro areas this year is Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO, which comes in sixth on our overall list. It enjoys the benefits of being home to the University of Arkansas as well as close to the Ozark Mountains, one of the premier recreation areas in middle America. Since 2010, employment in the metro area has jumped 19.6 percent, or 40,000 jobs, with a 4.7 percent expansion last year. Like other top small cities, the areas has enjoyed strong growth in construction and hospitality jobs, up 37.2 percent since 2010, but also professional and business services, which expanded 38.2 percent over the same time period.

    Some other of the fastest-growing areas metro are tourism and retirement destinations on the tech-rich West Coast. Five years ago, Napa, Calif., and Bend-Redmond, Wash., were mired toward the bottom of our ranking in 344th and 36rd place, respectively. But as the coastal tech economies have surged, so have they, rising to 13th and 14th place this year. Hospitality and construction have been the big job gainers for both, with some jobs added in professional services as well.

    Losing Ground In The Oil Patch

    As tech-linked areas ascend, many energy-producing towns are slipping, with oil and gas prices in the dumps and the coal industry racked by the government-guided transition to cleaner forms of power production.

    West Virginia’s metropolitan areas have all suffered major declines on our list, with Wheeling dropping 54 places from last year’s survey to 396th on a 0.7 percent contraction in employment on the year. In Charleston, W.V., which has fallen to five spots from the bottom of our list, mining and natural resources employment declined 9.8 percent last year and is off 31.5 percent since 2010. Big job losses have occurred also in Wyoming, a major coal producing area, where Cheyenne dropped 82 places to 206th as mining and natural resources employment contracted 6.2 percent last year.

    Many once red-hot areas in the oil patch have taken devastating hits. Former high-flyer Victoria, Texas, dropped from 24th place last year to 115th. But no place reflects the flagging fortunes of the West Texas energy economy more than Midland, which, just last year ranked first on our list; this year it’s at 139th after losing 14.7 percent of its natural resources jobs and 6.9 percent of its jobs overall. Odessa fell from third last year to 173rd this year on the back of an 8.8 percent contraction in employment, and 20.4 percent in the natural resources sector.

    Several Louisiana metro areas have suffered steep job losses, including Houma-Thibodaux, down 183 places on our list to 325th after an 8 percent contraction in employment. Several smaller Oklahoma communities have taken serious hits, including Tulsa, which dropped to 222nd. Bismarck, N.D., a prime beneficiary of the Bakken oil boom, dropped 67 places from last year to 102nd as 6.8 percent of its natural resources jobs evaporated, while Bakersfield, Calif., one of the country’s largest oil producing areas dropped 70 places to 109th as natural resources employment contracted 11.5 percent.

    The Rust Belt: Is The Bounce Back Over?

    The picture is less uniform in the industrial sector than in energy. Some manufacturing-oriented areas are booming, such as No. 4 Gainesville, Ga., and No. 10 Columbus, Ind., home to Cummins. Nationwide manufacturing employment grew a paltry 0.3 percent last year, with some local declines that devastated the affected economies.

    In the Midwest, the big losers include Midland, Mich., which dropped 75 places to 245th, Green Bay, Wisc., which fell 83 places to 286th, and Fond du Lac, Wisc., which lost 173 places to 293rd. In Pennsylvania, Scranton-Wilkes Barre-Hazelton fell 97 places to 373rd and Williamsport dropped an astounding 212 places since last year to 383rd, with manufacturing employment off 13.2 percent since 2010 and overall employment down 3.5% last year. And then there’s Johnson, Pa., in last place at 421st.

    Like the energy economies, the industrially oriented metro areas are likely to stagnate for the time being as declines in global markets, the high dollar as well as lower demand from the energy sector take their toll. The International Monetary Fund predicts a modest 3.2 percent global growth rate for 2016, held down in significant part by a faltering Chinese economy. At the same time, OPEC overproduction and the addition of Iranian oil to global markets will likely keep the price below the $70-$80 per barrel range that energy producers need to start expanding energy investments again.

    This means, for the time being at least, the strongest smaller cities will be those which attract people and companies from bigger places by offering better amenities, cheaper housing, better schools, growing populations and, in many cases, college campuses—all offering a better quality of life but in a smaller, usually more affordable place.

    This piece first appeared at Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com. He is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His newest book, The Human City: Urbanism for the rest of us, will be published in April by Agate. He is also author of The New Class ConflictThe City: A Global History, and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. He lives in Orange County, CA.

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

    By UtahStizzle (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

  • The Best Cities For Jobs 2016

    While speculation is mounting that they’re overheating, the tech boom is still creating jobs at a rapid pace in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley, placing them atop our annual assessment of The Best Cities For Jobs for the third year in a row. A number of secondary tech centers are posting strong growth as well on the back of the boom, as well as spillover from Northern California as high prices push expanding companies and startups to locate elsewhere.

    Tech job growth has been strong, but it’s not been equally distributed across the country. For example, U.S. employment in software publishing is up 5.5% from last year to a weighted total of 343,000 jobs, 26% above the sector’s prior peak amid the dot-com bubble in 2001. The twin capitals of the U.S. tech industry have accounted for much of the growth. Employment in the information sector in the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco metropolitan statistical area expanded 6.8% last year, capping a torrid growth rate of 62% since 2010. At the same time the metro area’s professional business service sector — which employs almost four times as many as information (270,000) at such firms as Salesforce.com, Uber and Oracle — has grown an impressive 45% since 2010. Overall, the San Francisco metro area clocked 4.6% employment growth last year, and an impressive 23.8% since 2010, placing it first on our list of The Best Cities For Jobs for the second year in a row.

    In the neighboring San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Ana MSA, information sector employment has expanded 57% since 2010; its business services sector, smaller than that of San Francisco’s, has posted 36.4% job growth over the same span. Taken together, these two metro areas have been best positioned to take advantage of the growth of social networking and the smartphone economy, which have soared even as many of the older Valley firms — Intel, Hewlett Packard, Yahoo — have faced tough times. Job growth in the San Jose metro area was 4.1% last year,  and 20.8% since 2010, placing it second on our list.

    Yet the success of the Bay Area, particularly its western strip along the San Francisco Peninsula, also has had a spillover impact on other tech hubs. High housing prices, intensified by the force of California’s regulatory regime, has driven many employers to seek other, more affordable locations. A recent study by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office found that the area’s top tech executives see high housing prices as the biggest barrier to future growth.

    If this is a headache for these tech moguls, it’s manna from heaven for upstart metro areas like Austin-Round, Texas (sixth place on our list of Best Cities For Jobs); Raleigh, N.C. (ninth); Denver-Aurora-Lakewood (seventh) and Portland, Ore. (10th). Although not inexpensive by national standards, these areas are natural catch-basins for tech workers and companies. Employment in Austin’s information sector, for example, has expanded an impressive 34% since 2010, while professional business services jobs have grown 42%. In Raleigh, the tech region with some of the lowest housing costs, information sector employment has increased 18.5% since 2010 and professional business services almost 28%.

    Methodology

    Our rankings are based on short-, medium- and long-term job creation, going back to 2004, and factor in momentum — whether growth is slowing or accelerating. We have compiled separate rankings for America’s 70 largest metropolitan statistical areas (those with nonfarm employment over 450,000), which are our focus this week, as well as medium-size metro areas (between 150,000 and 450,000 nonfarm jobs) and small ones (less than 150,000 nonfarm jobs) in order to make the comparisons more relevant to each category. (For a detailed description of our methodology, click here.)

    The Return Of The Sun Belt

    In the wake of the housing bust, many Sun Belt economies suffered, particularly in the Southeast and Intermountain West. Some believed that the half-century-long era of Sun Belt growth was nearing its end. Yet as the latest Census trends reveal, it is precisely to the Sun Belt where Americans once again are moving, taking their talents, ambitions and hopes with them.

    This resurgence is epitomized by Orlando, which jumped 14 places this year to third, capping a comeback from its dismal 2010 ranking of 36th among the largest MSAs. Job growth last year was 4.6%, equaling that of the San Francisco-Silicon Valley region.

    Orlando’s resurgence has been driven by growth in professional business service jobs (up 26.8% since 2010) , construction-related employment (up 11.5%) and by its largest sector, hospitality, up 22%. The metro area’s population has exploded from 1.2 million in 1990 to 2.3 million today. Much of this recent growth has come from domestic migration, which has accelerated two and half fold since the end of the recession. This has fueled a modest resurgence in construction employment, which expanded 4.6% in the last year in the Florida city.

    The growth of domestic migration has sparked job gains in fields such as construction, retail, education and health, as well as steady growth in business services.  This back to the Sun Belt pattern can be seen in the strong performance of No. 4 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tenn., and No. 8 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, which are also seeing a payoff from the corporate headquarters and manufacturing jobs they have lured from higher-cost metro areas like Los Angeles. Even cities devastated by the housing bubble like Phoenix, which gained 10 places this year to 17th, and Las Vegas, which gained nine places to 22nd, are clearly on the comeback trail. The death of the Sun Belt has turned out to be more the stuff of coastal dreams than reality.

    Full List: The Best Big Cities For Jobs 2016

    As has been the case for more than a decade, Texas boasts by far the most high-growth hubs of any state. The fifth-ranked Dallas metro area remains a steady fountain of new jobs, attracting many new companies in recent years, most notably Toyota. Besides No. 6 Austin, 12th-ranked San Antonio has also been on a roll, enjoying both strong growth in population (up 11.2% over the past five years and more than 39% since 2000) as well as in jobs.

    Decline In The Tangible Economy

    But not all the news in Texas is good, with the sputtering of years-long growth in hard industries such as energy and manufacturing, which tend to provide high-paying blue collar work. The recent weakness in energy prices has been felt heavily in Houston, a star performer for much of this decade. The energy capital has descended to 24th on this year’s list from sixth last year, the largest drop of any metro area in the country. Economist Bill Gilmer, head of the Institute of Regional Forecasting at the University of Houston, expects somewhere close to 50,000 local energy jobs will disappear before things get better.

    Fortunately, unlike during the early ’80s oil bust, Houston’s economy appears to be diverse enough to weather the storm. Rapid growth in health services (the area is home to the world’s largest medical center), as well as education has kept employment expanding slightly, with 0.7% job growth over the past year, but well off the pace from its five-year increase of 16.4%. Until energy prices rise again, it’s unlikely this dynamic city will get its mojo back entirely.

    With an estimated 250,000 energy jobs gone, other energy centers have also been hard-hit. Ft. Worth-Arlington, home to energy giant Halliburton, dropped 15 places to 28th while Oklahoma City slipped four positions to 37th and New Orleans fell five to 48th. Although not as energy-dominated as Houston, oil and gas has been an important producer of high-wage jobs in these metro areas.

    Perhaps equally worrisome, there are signs that manufacturing-oriented economies are also losing momentum. Unlike Houston, these metro areas rarely have placed among the top 10 Best Large Cities For Jobs, but many had been moving up our rankings in recent years. Not anymore.

    Much of the worst damage has taken place in the Midwest. For example, Grand Rapids dropped three places to 37th, Cincinnati fell nine to 50th, Milwaukee slipped seven to 61st, and Detroit dipped two to 62nd. But the damage also extends to some of the non-Midwestern industrial centers; for example 65th-ranked Birmingham-Hoover, Ala., dropped 10 places, as did Pittsburgh, which had a strong energy sector as well. Our two bottom feeders, 69th-place Buffalo-Cheektowaga–Niagara Falls and last-place Rochester, N.Y., each dropped seven rungs.

    The Big Three

    America’s three largest metropolitan areas — New York, Los Angeles and Chicago– also rarely crack the top 10, but this year clear differences have emerged among them. By far the healthiest economy is New York City, which moved up one place to 16th. Since 2010 the Big Apple has added an impressive 530,000 jobs, paced by a 29.7% expansion in hospitality sector employment and 22% growth in professional business services jobs.

    The story is not so pleasant in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale. As its longtime Bay Area rival has boomed, Los Angeles employment growth has been mediocre, ranking it 42nd this year. Although leisure and hospitality employment has boomed, up 28.1% since 2010, and business and professional services has grown a decent, if unspectacular, 13.8% in the last five years, growth has been slow in information, barely 3.5% over the same period; employment in L.A.’s manufacturing sector declined 3.4% to 356,100 – still a substantial number but a shadow of its former might.

    Full List: The Best Big Cities For Jobs 2016

    Doing even worse is Chicago, which dropped three slots to 47th. The Windy City economy has posted modest growth in professional and business services, and its hospitality industry, while on the upswing, has added jobs at a considerably slower pace than either New York or Los Angeles. And like Los Angeles, its industrial sector continues to shrink, down 1.7% since 2010 to 281,000 jobs. In the most recent Census, the Chicago area led the nation in population decline.

    If you’ve made it this far, there’s one clear takeaway: the health of the American economy looks very different depending on where you live. Right now, growth momentum belongs to the tech centers and the Sun Belt. Don’t expect a major shift in the pecking order until the tech boom or the housing market weaken, or until manufacturing and energy pull themselves out of the current morass.

    This piece first appeared at Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com. He is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His newest book, The Human City: Urbanism for the rest of us, will be published in April by Agate. He is also author of The New Class ConflictThe City: A Global History, and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. He lives in Orange County, CA.

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

  • 2016 How We Pick the Best Cities for Job Growth

    The methodology for the 2016 rankings largely corresponds to that used in previous years, which emphasizes the robustness of a region’s growth both recently and over time, with a minor addition to mitigate the volatility that the Great Recession has introduced into the time series.  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 2004 to January 2016.

    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.

    This year’s rankings use five measures of growth to rank all 421 metro areas for which full data sets were available from the past 15 years.  "Large" areas include those with a current nonfarm employment base of at least 450,000 jobs. "Midsize" areas range from 150,000 to 450,000 jobs. "Small" areas have as many as 150,000 jobs.  This year’s rankings reflect the new Office of Management and Budget definitions of MSAs for all series released after March 2016.  In the year-to-year comparisons, four of the MSAs grew enough over the last year to be reclassified from “Small” to “Midsized.” For each of these four, the year-to-year comparisons by comparing their position this year to where they would have ranked last year if they had been included in the “Midsized” category.

    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 2010-2015 growth rate (two points); 3) long-term momentum: the sum of the 2010-2015 and 2004-2009 employment growth rates multiplied by the ratio of the 2004-2009 growth rate over the 2010-2015 growth rate (one point); 4) current year growth (one point); and 5) the average of each year’s growth rate, normalized annually, for the last ten years (two points).  This methodology corresponds to that used in last year’s rankings.  The goal of the rankings methodology is to capture a snapshot of the present and prospective employment outlook in each MSA.

  • Small Cities Rankings – 2016 Best Cities for Job Growth

    Read about how we selected the 2016 Best Cities for Job Growth

    2016 Size Ranking – Small MSAs Area 2016 Weighted INDEX  2015 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)  2016 Rank Change
    1 St. George, UT 98.9           59.0 17
    2 Gainesville, GA 97.3           85.6 7
    3 Columbus, IN 95.1           53.1 2
    4 Napa, CA 93.2           71.5 4
    5 Bend-Redmond, OR 92.9           74.7 7
    6 Lake Charles, LA 91.3         103.9 8
    7 The Villages, FL 90.9           26.9 8
    8 Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL 86.7           69.2 25
    9 Greeley, CO 86.3         101.0 -7
    10 Wenatchee, WA 85.4           42.8 27
    11 College Station-Bryan, TX 84.9         111.8 65
    12 Haverhill-Newburyport-Amesbury Town, MA-NH NECTA Div 84.7           65.7 60
    13 Jonesboro, AR 83.8           55.3 3
    14 Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA 82.5           88.8 122
    15 Coeur d’Alene, ID 81.8           59.0 5
    16 Lawrence-Methuen Town-Salem, MA-NH NECTA Div 81.6           83.3 44
    17 Port St. Lucie, FL 81.5         141.1 10
    18 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 81.4         139.0 -14
    19 Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC 81.3           74.6 9
    20 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA 80.8         115.1 3
    21 Auburn-Opelika, AL 80.7           61.8 -14
    22 Laredo, TX 80.3         103.1 9
    23 Visalia-Porterville, CA 78.8         120.3 38
    24 Winchester, VA-WV 78.8           62.4 0
    25 Fargo, ND-MN 78.5         140.8 -19
    26 Elkhart-Goshen, IN 78.0         127.8 -9
    27 Logan, UT-ID 77.8           60.2 22
    28 Charlottesville, VA 76.7         114.0 14
    29 Ames, IA 76.2           53.7 -19
    30 Punta Gorda, FL 76.1           46.8 73
    31 Killeen-Temple, TX 75.9         141.0 59
    32 Spartanburg, SC 75.7         145.7 22
    33 Clarksville, TN-KY 75.4           89.6 2
    34 Prescott, AZ 74.9           62.2 14
    35 Idaho Falls, ID 74.8           63.0 57
    36 Manhattan, KS 74.4           45.5 93
    37 Olympia-Tumwater, WA 73.7         110.4 1
    38 Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI 73.5           74.3 7
    39 Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY 71.4           56.5 39
    40 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 71.0         135.0 37
    41 Lubbock, TX 70.0         142.6 34
    42 Merced, CA 69.6           64.1 -31
    43 Columbia, MO 69.4         100.6 44
    44 Tuscaloosa, AL 68.9         105.9 -19
    45 Bismarck, ND 68.9           74.5 -26
    46 Bowling Green, KY 68.7           73.1 -16
    47 San Rafael, CA Metro Div 68.7         114.9 -15
    48 Kennewick-Richland, WA 67.3         107.9 26
    49 Tyler, TX 67.2         102.4 14
    50 Athens-Clarke County, GA 66.6           93.5 7
    51 Salinas, CA 66.5         135.7 -4
    52 Victoria, TX 66.4           45.1 -39
    53 Billings, MT 65.6           84.7 78
    54 Madera, CA 65.5           36.6 39
    55 Wilmington, NC 64.4         118.9 0
    56 Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Div 64.2           82.0 -3
    57 Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA 63.2           61.0 37
    58 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL 62.6           49.7 4
    59 Yuba City, CA 62.4           41.6 20
    60 Cleveland, TN 62.4           49.9 10
    61 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 61.4         140.7 23
    62 Midland, TX 61.3           91.3 -61
    63 Longview, WA 61.2           39.5 -37
    64 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 61.0           98.0 -18
    65 Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN 61.0         103.1 -26
    66 Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA 60.9         126.4 7
    67 Yakima, WA 60.7           82.5 65
    68 St. Cloud, MN 60.6         108.5 12
    69 Janesville-Beloit, WI 59.9           67.6 2
    70 Chico, CA 59.7           78.6 -12
    71 San Angelo, TX 59.6           49.5 -42
    72 Pueblo, CO 59.2           61.4 14
    73 Medford, OR 59.0           83.5 -23
    74 Ocean City, NJ 58.8           37.2 31
    75 Monroe, MI 58.7           43.0 33
    76 Manchester, NH NECTA 58.4         110.0 -33
    77 Hanford-Corcoran, CA 57.8           38.6 50
    78 El Centro, CA 57.5           53.3 -37
    79 Hattiesburg, MS 57.1           63.8 31
    80 Iowa City, IA 57.1           99.6 -21
    81 Gainesville, FL 56.6         137.7 38
    82 Grants Pass, OR 56.5           24.9 -42
    83 Bellingham, WA 56.3           87.8 -49
    84 Dubuque, IA 56.3           60.7 -16
    85 Barnstable Town, MA NECTA 56.2           99.3 31
    86 New Bedford, MA NECTA 55.9           67.1 -30
    87 Sherman-Denison, TX 55.9           46.6 37
    88 Morgantown, WV 55.8           72.0 25
    89 Panama City, FL 55.7           80.5 11
    90 Corvallis, OR 55.7           41.4 -7
    91 Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA 55.6           48.3 -40
    92 Pocatello, ID 55.1           36.0 30
    93 Odessa, TX 54.9           73.8 -90
    94 Missoula, MT 54.6           58.7 66
    95 Flagstaff, AZ 54.4           65.3 16
    96 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA 52.8           89.0 45
    97 Brunswick, GA 52.3           42.4 68
    98 Waco, TX 51.9         116.1 69
    99 Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL 51.8         105.0 -4
    100 Owensboro, KY 50.6           53.5 42
    101 Redding, CA 50.5           64.0 -5
    102 Amarillo, TX 50.5         119.6 53
    103 Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Div 49.8         149.6 6
    104 Florence, SC 49.7           87.1 48
    105 Morristown, TN 49.4           45.5 58
    106 Macon, GA 49.0         103.7 -8
    107 Appleton, WI 48.9         124.0 14
    108 Jackson, TN 48.7           66.9 10
    109 Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA 48.4           77.2 -20
    110 Cheyenne, WY 47.9           46.9 -45
    111 Ocala, FL 47.6           98.6 -42
    112 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 47.0           88.5 16
    113 Rochester, MN 46.8         116.4 53
    114 Kalamazoo-Portage, MI 46.6         145.4 71
    115 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 46.4         141.5 66
    116 Dover, DE 45.2           69.1 7
    117 Yuma, AZ 44.7           54.8 101
    118 Mankato-North Mankato, MN 44.6           56.5 -19
    119 Lewiston, ID-WA 43.6           27.7 1
    120 Kokomo, IN 41.8           40.7 -16
    121 Sebring, FL 41.7           25.4 -54
    122 Wausau, WI 41.5           72.9 15
    123 Lynn-Saugus-Marblehead, MA NECTA Div 41.3           44.8 -71
    124 Carbondale-Marion, IL 41.2           58.2 122
    125 Albany, OR 40.5           41.7 15
    126 Gadsden, AL 40.3           38.0 20
    127 Dover-Durham, NH-ME NECTA 40.0           52.5 -21
    128 Pittsfield, MA NECTA 39.9           42.3 69
    129 Midland, MI 39.7           37.9 -28
    130 Ithaca, NY 39.6           70.4 -13
    131 Greenville, NC 39.3           78.6 3
    132 Saginaw, MI 39.3           90.0 54
    133 Muncie, IN 39.0           52.2 95
    134 Dalton, GA 38.9           68.0 1
    135 Walla Walla, WA 38.3           27.3 18
    136 Muskegon, MI 38.0           63.7 9
    137 Sumter, SC 37.8           39.2 11
    138 Leominster-Gardner, MA NECTA 37.8           51.3 20
    139 Eau Claire, WI 37.7           85.3 -9
    140 Texarkana, TX-AR 37.7           61.1 97
    141 Battle Creek, MI 37.7           58.9 -16
    142 Lawrence, KS 37.6           53.1 9
    143 Grand Forks, ND-MN 37.2           57.4 -46
    144 California-Lexington Park, MD 37.2           44.8 38
    145 La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN 36.6           77.9 30
    146 Grand Junction, CO 36.6           61.8 -39
    147 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI 36.5           61.4 53
    148 Valdosta, GA 36.4           55.6 -4
    149 Danbury, CT NECTA 36.1           78.8 -85
    150 Casper, WY 35.6           40.7 -84
    151 Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA 35.4           51.0 3
    152 Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 35.0           95.4 18
    153 New Bern, NC 34.4           44.5 26
    154 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 34.0         123.0 18
    155 Kankakee, IL 33.8           45.1 -12
    156 Santa Fe, NM 33.8           62.7 51
    157 Fond du Lac, WI 33.8           48.1 -66
    158 St. Joseph, MO-KS 33.8           62.9 11
    159 Harrisonburg, VA 33.5           65.4 -10
    160 Farmington, NM 33.4           51.1 -116
    161 Johnson City, TN 33.1           79.2 30
    162 Cedar Rapids, IA 32.9         143.5 34
    163 Jacksonville, NC 32.7           49.1 -48
    164 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 32.6         104.0 -17
    165 Springfield, IL 32.6         113.6 48
    166 Rapid City, SD 32.5           64.2 -52
    167 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ 32.4           47.5 25
    168 Lima, OH 32.0           53.5 65
    169 Abilene, TX 31.4           68.8 -31
    170 Peabody-Salem-Beverly, MA NECTA Div 31.0           96.0 -58
    171 Joplin, MO 30.0           81.5 6
    172 Glens Falls, NY 29.9           54.1 37
    173 Rome, GA 29.9           40.6 -17
    174 Longview, TX 29.7         100.4 -138
    175 Burlington, NC 29.6           59.8 -87
    176 Sheboygan, WI 29.3           60.7 -43
    177 Champaign-Urbana, IL 29.2         109.6 27
    178 Houma-Thibodaux, LA 28.8           93.9 -97
    179 Lawton, OK 28.7           46.4 45
    180 Lebanon, PA 28.7           51.3 -16
    181 Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA 28.6           42.5 -19
    182 Watertown-Fort Drum, NY 28.6           42.2 35
    183 Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Div 28.5         126.7 19
    184 State College, PA 28.5           76.9 -8
    185 Hinesville, GA 28.5           19.8 -17
    186 Homosassa Springs, FL 27.9           32.9 49
    187 Taunton-Middleborough-Norton, MA NECTA Div 27.7           59.2 2
    188 Warner Robins, GA 27.7           70.6 11
    189 Hammond, LA 26.9           43.8 -63
    190 Kingston, NY 26.8           61.3 5
    191 Las Cruces, NM 26.6           71.2 -7
    192 Great Falls, MT 26.1           35.9 24
    193 Monroe, LA 25.8           79.1 30
    194 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL 25.0           56.5 -21
    195 Hot Springs, AR 24.9           37.6 -34
    196 Fayetteville, NC 24.3         128.9 24
    197 Gettysburg, PA 24.0           34.1 -112
    198 Staunton-Waynesboro, VA 23.9           49.2 24
    199 East Stroudsburg, PA 23.5           56.4 51
    200 Goldsboro, NC 23.3           42.6 36
    201 Bangor, ME NECTA 23.2           66.6 0
    202 Altoona, PA 22.8           61.3 9
    203 Alexandria, LA 22.6           64.2 -20
    204 Grand Island, NE 22.4           42.0 -54
    205 Lynchburg, VA 22.4         104.3 14
    206 Danville, IL 21.6           29.3 2
    207 Columbus, GA-AL 21.1         122.2 -29
    208 Cape Girardeau, MO-IL 21.0           44.5 2
    209 Norwich-New London-Westerly, CT-RI NECTA 20.9         128.3 42
    210 Dutchess County-Putnam County, NY Metro Div 20.0         144.2 21
    211 Duluth, MN-WI 19.8         132.7 -31
    212 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 19.6           91.0 -41
    213 Albany, GA 19.6           62.2 21
    214 Topeka, KS 19.4         110.4 -24
    215 Decatur, IL 19.3           51.5 32
    216 Flint, MI 19.1         140.0 -59
    217 Fort Smith, AR-OK 18.7         113.7 -14
    218 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC 18.7         147.2 -13
    219 Williamsport, PA 18.2           54.6 -117
    220 Racine, WI 17.6           76.3 -6
    221 Erie, PA 17.5         129.8 -33
    222 Terre Haute, IN 16.4           71.2 20
    223 Bloomington, IN 16.4           76.3 -30
    224 Waterbury, CT NECTA 16.3           67.0 -37
    225 Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ 16.3           57.8 33
    226 Wichita Falls, TX 16.1           58.7 12
    227 Utica-Rome, NY 15.7         127.4 14
    228 Jefferson City, MO 15.5           76.0 12
    229 Fairbanks, AK 14.8           37.1 -4
    230 Wheeling, WV-OH 14.8           68.2 -32
    231 Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH 14.6           43.3 23
    232 Rocky Mount, NC 14.4           58.0 23
    233 Dothan, AL 14.3           57.2 -3
    234 Bay City, MI 14.2           36.7 -19
    235 Jackson, MI 13.2           55.0 -61
    236 Bloomington, IL 13.1           94.6 7
    237 Decatur, AL 12.5           53.8 2
    238 Springfield, OH 12.0           50.7 -79
    239 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 11.9         140.7 -13
    240 Mansfield, OH 11.2           52.3 -34
    241 Elmira, NY 10.2           38.7 -14
    242 Carson City, NV 10.1           27.7 -10
    243 Michigan City-La Porte, IN 9.9           41.5 6
    244 Beckley, WV 9.2           46.4 -15
    245 Cumberland, MD-WV 9.1           38.8 -24
    246 Parkersburg-Vienna, WV 9.1           42.2 -34
    247 Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL 9.0           46.0 6
    248 Charleston, WV 8.0         122.4 -4
    249 Binghamton, NY 7.5         103.5 3
    250 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ 6.8           34.1 -2
    251 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ 6.6         127.0 6
    252 Pine Bluff, AR 6.1           33.8 4
    253 Johnstown, PA 5.7           56.5 -8
  • Mid Sized Cities Rankings – 2016 Best Cities for Job Growth

    Read about how we selected the 2015 Best Cities for Job Growth

    2016 Size Ranking – Midsized MSAs Area 2016 Weighted INDEX  2015 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)  2016 Size Movement
    1 Provo-Orem, UT 98.4       230.0 0
    2 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO 96.6       240.7 1
    3 Fort Collins, CO 94.2       157.0 6
    4 Ogden-Clearfield, UT 92.6       244.2 3
    5 Savannah, GA 92.6       174.5 0
    6 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 91.9       254.2 -4
    7 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 91.4       336.8 1
    8 Boise City, ID 84.1       294.6 7
    9 Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC 81.9       150.9 1
    10 Stockton-Lodi, CA 79.7       222.5 10
    11 Sioux Falls, SD 79.6       152.3 19
    12 Fresno, CA 78.5       329.0 -2
    13 Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC 78.0       406.6 -4
    14 Trenton, NJ 77.2       265.2 30
    15 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 76.5       287.6 -11
    16 Santa Rosa, CA 76.1       199.2 -4
    17 Boulder, CO 76.0       182.0 -3
    18 Asheville, NC 75.5       184.7 0
    19 Salem, OR 75.4       157.4 11
    20 Tacoma-Lakewood, WA Metropolitan Division 75.1       301.2 2
    21 Columbia, SC 73.9       391.4 18
    22 Colorado Springs, CO 73.1       274.1 15
    23 Baton Rouge, LA 70.5       409.0 -2
    24 Lexington-Fayette, KY 68.9       274.5 -5
    25 El Paso, TX 68.7       308.0 26
    26 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 68.4       251.8 -13
    27 Modesto, CA 68.1       168.2 -11
    28 Knoxville, TN 67.8       392.8 0
    29 Bakersfield, CA 67.3       262.5 -23
    30 Reno, NV 66.9       214.2 3
    31 Springfield, MO 64.8       210.0 -2
    32 Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA 64.2       182.7 -15
    33 Corpus Christi, TX 64.2       196.3 -22
    34 Salisbury, MD-DE 63.6       150.1 51
    35 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 62.9       191.7 5
    36 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 62.5       212.6 14
    37 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 61.8       349.5 -13
    38 Madison, WI 61.3       393.7 -13
    39 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 61.3       298.1 -12
    40 Chattanooga, TN-GA 57.8       249.9 17
    41 Ann Arbor, MI 56.0       218.1 26
    42 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division 55.9       363.5 3
    43 Eugene, OR 55.6       154.4 13
    44 Fort Wayne, IN 53.3       220.6 21
    45 Lincoln, NE 53.3       187.5 -9
    46 Lancaster, PA 52.4       246.3 -4
    47 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 51.8       168.7 -24
    48 Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA 51.4       236.6 -14
    49 Huntsville, AL 48.8       221.7 7
    50 Akron, OH 46.6       343.4 24
    51 Reading, PA 46.5       178.3 -13
    52 Calvert-Charles-Prince George’s, MD 46.4       398.4 26
    53 Tulsa, OK 43.5       446.4 -18
    54 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 43.1       167.9 -28
    55 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 42.5       357.9 -3
    56 Framingham, MA NECTA Division 42.3       172.0 -13
    57 York-Hanover, PA 41.9       184.0 22
    58 Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division 40.7       404.4 3
    59 Tucson, AZ 40.5       378.5 23
    60 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 40.3       353.5 15
    61 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 40.2       228.4 -29
    62 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 40.2       204.0 10
    63 Toledo, OH 40.0       308.1 22
    64 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 39.9       335.4 7
    65 Elgin, IL Metropolitan Division 39.7       254.8 -5
    66 Winston-Salem, NC 39.6       258.8 2
    67 Greensboro-High Point, NC 39.6       359.2 -3
    68 Rockford, IL 39.4       152.8 -6
    69 Jackson, MS 39.4       276.3 -15
    70 Delaware County, PA 39.0       233.6 -21
    71 Worcester, MA-CT NECTA 38.7       279.3 -40
    72 Anchorage, AK 36.3       178.4 -9
    73 Dayton, OH 35.5       383.0 8
    74 Springfield, MA-CT NECTA 34.9       327.5 -19
    75 Green Bay, WI 34.6       173.7 -34
    76 Lansing-East Lansing, MI 34.5       228.6 1
    77 Roanoke, VA 34.1       163.2 -4
    78 Wichita, KS 33.1       298.0 5
    79 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 32.6       297.6 -32
    80 Portland-South Portland, ME NECTA 30.9       195.9 -4
    81 Tallahassee, FL 30.5       175.5 -35
    82 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA 29.8       410.5 -23
    83 New Haven, CT NECTA 28.6       281.5 -25
    84 Canton-Massillon, OH 27.6       171.9 -15
    85 Albuquerque, NM 26.7       383.0 1
    86 Montgomery, AL 26.1       171.2 -2
    87 Evansville, IN-KY 25.4       156.8 -34
    88 Baltimore City, MD 25.3       365.2 -8
    89 Gary, IN Metropolitan Division 24.0       275.5 -19
    90 Lafayette, LA 23.3       210.4 -42
    91 Mobile, AL 23.1       176.9 -2
    92 Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS 22.6       153.3 0
    93 Scranton–Wilkes-Barre–Hazleton, PA 19.6       259.6 -27
    94 Syracuse, NY 18.6       318.5 -4
    95 Peoria, IL 17.2       177.7 -8
    96 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 15.5       226.1 -5
    97 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 12.7       183.2 -4
    98 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 12.2       180.7 -10
  • Large Cities Rankings – 2016 Best Cities for Job Growth

    Read about how we selected the 2015 Best Cities for Job Growth

    2016 Size Ranking – Large MSAs Area 2016 Weighted INDEX  2015 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)  2016 Rank Change
    1 San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco, CA Metro Div 98.3        1,072.8 0
    2 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 96.8        1,063.1 0
    3 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 95.5        1,184.4 5
    4 Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN 95.2           931.6 1
    5 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metro Div 95.2        2,459.2 -2
    6 Austin-Round Rock, TX 94.8           980.5 -2
    7 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 91.5        1,407.2 0
    8 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 91.3        1,122.4 1
    9 Raleigh, NC 90.5           593.6 6
    10 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 86.8        1,128.6 12
    11 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metro Div 86.7        1,614.4 3
    12 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 85.5           992.3 -2
    13 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 85.2        2,628.8 -1
    14 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 83.8        1,381.2 -3
    15 Salt Lake City, UT 83.1           685.6 4
    16 New York City, NY 83.1        4,287.0 1
    17 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 82.6        1,970.2 10
    18 Jacksonville, FL 80.5           662.1 16
    19 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, FL Metro Div 79.8           600.9 -1
    20 Richmond, VA 79.4           667.7 20
    21 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 76.0           926.7 9
    22 Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metro Div 75.6        1,141.8 -6
    23 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metro Div 75.3           817.2 -3
    24 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 74.8        3,003.4 -18
    25 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 74.3        1,274.2 7
    26 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 74.2           654.9 -5
    27 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 73.8           534.4 -3
    28 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Div 71.7        1,001.2 -15
    29 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 71.2        1,406.7 -1
    30 Columbus, OH 70.9        1,052.3 -5
    31 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 70.6        1,027.8 0
    32 Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley, CA Metro Div 70.0        1,110.2 -3
    33 Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, CA Metro Div 69.0        1,567.9 -7
    34 Kansas City, KS 65.8           463.1 -11
    35 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA NECTA Division 62.8        1,781.9 2
    36 Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metro Div 62.3        1,212.3 3
    37 Oklahoma City, OK 61.8           633.7 -4
    38 Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA 61.8           926.6 -2
    39 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Div 57.2        2,613.8 8
    40 Middlesex-Monmouth-Ocean, NJ 57.0           877.5 11
    41 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 53.7        1,936.4 -3
    42 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metro Div 53.1        4,337.3 -7
    43 Kansas City, MO 52.5           583.9 3
    44 Northern Virginia, VA 52.1        1,415.6 6
    45 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 51.0           494.4 -3
    46 Urban Honolulu, HI 48.6           474.1 -1
    47 Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights, IL Metro Div 48.4        3,670.5 -3
    48 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 47.5           573.8 -5
    49 Orange-Rockland-Westchester, NY 45.9           707.1 11
    50 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 45.1        1,062.5 -9
    51 Philadelphia City, PA 42.7           693.8 -3
    52 Silver Spring-Frederick-Rockville, MD Metro Div 40.4           590.6 12
    53 Nassau County-Suffolk County, NY Metro Div 39.4        1,309.4 -4
    54 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 38.1           634.3 7
    55 Montgomery County-Bucks County-Chester County, PA Metro Div 37.7        1,040.2 2
    56 Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ 37.3           917.6 12
    57 Camden, NJ Metro Div 36.8           525.3 13
    58 St. Louis, MO-IL 36.7        1,347.4 7
    59 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA 36.0           577.9 -3
    60 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA 32.2           572.7 -8
    61 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 31.9           855.5 -7
    62 Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI Metro Div 31.6           741.3 -3
    63 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 31.5           457.6 -10
    64 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 29.8           765.9 3
    65 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 29.0           518.1 -10
    66 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 27.7        1,048.2 0
    67 Newark, NJ-PA Metro Div 27.2        1,196.5 2
    68 Pittsburgh, PA 23.5        1,160.4 -10
    69 Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 22.7           555.8 -7
    70 Rochester, NY 19.4           524.9 -7