Milken Institute's 2009 Best-Performing Cities List

Best-Performing Cities 2009
Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained

November 2009
Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden,

and Candice Flor Hynek
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Best-Performing City
Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained
November 2009
Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden,

and Candice Flor Hynek
About Greenstreet Real Estate Partners
Greenstreet Real Estate Partners is an investment and asset management company operating throughout the United States since
1983. Its principals apply creative, entrepreneurial strategies that consistently deliver strong operating results and financial returns.
Greenstreet has developed a streamlined approach to investment with an opportunistic focus on high-growth markets and value
creation acquisitions. Greenstreet’s principals possess extensive experience navigating volatile and distressed markets that uniquely
positions the firm to take advantage of market turbulence. Because the firm invests the equity and capital of its principals, it can
execute transactions quickly and apply its investment strategies to a diverse range of property types.
Greenstreet’s proficiency in asset management is an ideal complement to its investment expertise. Through financial structuring,
adroit leasing strategies, renovation, repositioning, or redevelopment, Greenstreet consistently optimizes property value within
its hold periods. Greenstreet’s asset management portfolio includes more than 800 educational facilities owned by Knowledge
Learning Corporation, operating as KinderCare and Knowledge Beginnings centers. Greenstreet’s principals and executive team
have completed more than $15 billion in transactional volume in public and private structures.
About the Milken Institute
The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank whose mission is to improve the lives and economic conditions of
diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement
innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity. We put research to work with the goal of revitalizing regions and finding new
ways to generate capital for people with original ideas.
We focus on:
human capital: the talent, knowledge, and experience of people, and their value to organizations, economies, and society;
financial capital: innovations that allocate financial resources efficiently, especially to those who ordinarily would not have
access to them, but who can best use them to build companies, create jobs, accelerate life-saving medical research, and solve
long-standing social and economic problems; and
social capital: the bonds of society that underlie economic advancement, including schools, health care, cultural
institutions, and government services.
By creating ways to spread the benefits of human, financial, and social capital to as many people as possible—by democratizing
capital—we hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.
We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and publicly supported.
© 2009 Milken Institute

Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 1
Introduction........................................................................................................................ 7
The Biggest Gainers.......................................................................................................11
The Biggest Decliners...................................................................................................13
The Best-Performing Large Cities...........................................................................15
America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance.........................................................31
The Best-Performing Small Cities...........................................................................39
Complete Results: 2009 Best-Performing Large Cities.................................47
Complete Results: 2009 Best-Performing Small Cities.................................50
Endnotes.............................................................................................................................53
About the Authors..........................................................................................................56

Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The Milken Institute and Greenstreet Real Estate Partners’ Best-Performing Cities index is updated
annually to provide an objective scorecard for the economic vibrancy of metropolitan areas (metros)
across the nation. It is clear from the wide media attention generated by this report that policymakers,
business leaders, and average citizens alike are eager to know exactly which parts of the country are
thriving and which areas are struggling.
We utilize a range of indicators, but focus most heavily on measures of job creation and sustainability—
factors that are top of mind for everyone today. But all jobs are not created equal, of course. To determine
the quality of jobs being created, we also incorporate wage gains and various measures of technology
concentration and growth into the index results.
Among this year’s key findings:
• The U.S. economy was on thin ice before the full-blown financial crisis erupted in September 2008,
but it plummeted afterwards, witnessing the biggest decline in real GDP since World War II. Due
to the challenging macroeconomic environment, even the top-performing cities did not experience
robust growth, but some did manage to post modest job gains.
• In our rankings of the nation’s 200 largest cities, eighteen Southern metros, six Western metros, and
one Midwestern metro made the top 25.
• Texas had an impressive performance, claiming four of the top 5 spots and nine of the top 25 spots
among the 200 largest metros. It accounted for four of the top 10 best-performing small metros as well.
• Austin–Round Rock, Texas, garnered the number-one position among the 200 largest metros and
seems poised to be among a handful of cities that will add jobs in 2009.
• Among the nation’s ten largest metros, Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, remains the top
performer. In the full rankings of all 200 cities, it moved up from 16th place last year to 5th place
overall this year.
• The metro experiencing the largest gain was Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford, Connecticut,
which moved up a remarkable 101 spots to take 48th place.
• Midland, Texas, maintained its hold on the top position among the nation’s small metros, courtesy
of robust oil and gas exploration activity.
In good years, the cities that dominate the index exhibit dynamic growth, but given the magnitude of
the economic challenges we have recently faced, it is not surprising that mild increases in employment
constituted the nation’s “best performances” this time around. Only an elite group of cities experienced
meaningful job growth in 2008 and just a couple are likely to manage an increase in jobs for 2009. It
is especially important this year to look at individual cities’ performances in relation to the nation as a
whole and to each other.
The economy was already fragile before the financial panic and credit crisis that gripped the globe in late
September 2008, but the landscape fundamentally shifted after the dramatic events of that month. Rising
default rates in subprime mortgages and the escalating problems in securitized products built on the
shaky foundation of those loans highlighted the startling degree to which risk had been underpriced in
the financial system.
1
The fallout was severe: between the second quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009, the economy
contracted by 3.8 percent, the biggest drop since the Great Depression. Consumers cut back discretionary
spending as the value of their assets plunged and joblessness rose. Businesses, facing deteriorating demand
and fearing a potential depression, slashed investment. In combination with collapsing residential
and commercial construction activity, manufacturers cut production of durable consumer goods and
investment goods. Industrial production fell by nearly 14 percent. The reverberations were felt in export
markets as the economies of America’s major trading partners also entered recession. U.S. exports fell by
25 percent by the spring of 2009.
The impact of all this contraction was painful for Main Streets and households across the country.
Typically, as regional economic growth patterns diverge, people move to areas with better job prospects.
However, due to the collapse in housing demand and prices, mobility was constrained. Many families
and individuals didn’t relocate because they couldn’t sell their homes or found themselves underwater.
The cities with the best performance this year notably didn’t experience large housing bubbles earlier
this decade, and thus avoided the inevitable correction. A key ingredient for avoiding this boom-and-
bust housing cycle was a low proportion of subprime mortgages relative to total mortgage originations
in a metro area. Another attribute for success was a heavy reliance on the oil and gas industry, either as a
headquarters or for exploration. Additionally, several top-performing metros were centers of activity in
alternative fuels and clean technology initiatives. Having a high share of service industries proved to be
an advantage as well. Despite the downturn in a number of high-tech industries, several of the leading
metros remain hotbeds of incubation in technology.
The weakest performers were at the epicenter of the meltdown in subprime mortgages and the attendant
decline in home prices and construction activity. Metropolitan areas with a high exposure to durable
manufacturing also experienced massive job losses and unemployment rates above 12 percent. Major
port cities such as Los Angeles witnessed diminished trade and the loss of logistics-related jobs. Even
technology production centers saw demand plunge as domestic and foreign businesses curtailed
investment in information, communications, software, and related services.
2
Executive Summary
The Top 25 Best-Performing Cities
Texas, which turned in an impressive performance in the 2008 index, did even better this year. Not
only did Austin–Round Rock claim the top position but the state also garnered four of the top 5 slots
along with nine of the top 25 slots. Houston turned in the best performance among the nation’s ten
largest metros (based on population) and was 5th overall among the largest 200 metros—a remarkable
accomplishment.
Table
Table 1. Best-performingcities:
1. Best-performing cities: Top
Top2525
large metros
large metros
Rank in 2009
2009 index
index
2009 2008
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank
Austin-Round Rock, TX 1 4
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 2 13
Salt Lake City, UT 3 3
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 4 7
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 5 16
Durham, NC 6 21
Olympia, WA 7 9
Huntsville, AL 8 5
Lafayette, LA 9 14
Raleigh-Cary, NC 10 2
San Antonio, TX 11 15
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX* 12 29
Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 13 23
El Paso, TX 14 37
Wichita, KS 15 45
Corpus Christi, TX 16 88
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA* 17 17
Baton Rouge, LA 18 40
Tulsa, OK 19 72
Greeley, CO 20 20
Tacoma, WA* 21 8
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 22 48
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 23 54
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 24 67
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 25 41
*Indicates metropolitan division
Source: Milken Institute.
Texas continued to benefit from its concentration of oil and gas activity, although 2009 has brought
lower prices, causing momentum to wane. Nevertheless, the state’s favorable business climate, combined
with a housing decline that has been relatively modest compared to that in other parts of the country, has
placed Texas and its metros in an enviable position. Despite the fall in information and communication
technologies, several Texas metros continued to attract corporate relocations from other states
(particularly California), while emerging companies took root and expanded.
3
North Carolina had two metros, Durham and Raleigh-Cary, in the top 10 at 6th and 10th places,
respectively. Washington State and Louisiana each placed three cities in the top 25, while Colorado
placed two metros in the top 25 as well.
Strength in oil and gas exploration and technology explain these results. The South showed exceptional
strength, with eighteen metros in the top 25, while the West had six and the Midwest had one lone
entrant (Wichita, Kansas).
The impact of the plight of the domestic auto manufacturers is painfully clear in this year’s rankings.
Michigan had seven metros in the bottom 10, and Ohio added two more.
This Year’s Best-Performing City
Austin-Round Rock, Texas, takes top honors in our Best-Performing Cities 2009 ranking. Austin
managed to add jobs during 2008—no small feat in a dismal macroeconomic environment. It also seems
poised to be among a handful of cities that will experience net job growth in 2009. Austin is joined by
just one other metro, McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, in placing among the top 10 in job growth for
the latest five-year period (2003-2008) and in the top 10 for 2008 alone.
The secret of Austin’s success is a unique combination: the stability afforded by being the state capital and
the home of a major research university, plus the economic dynamism of a thriving technology cluster and
professional services sector. Austin seems ready to benefit from its foray into clean energy technology as well.
The Ten Largest Cities
America’s largest metropolitan areas confront unique barriers to growth, including high density and
minimal space for expansion. For this reason, it is appropriate to break out their performances separately.
It isn’t reasonable to expect cities like Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago to grow at the same rate as
Austin, Salt Lake City, or Durham. However, the big metro areas could take cues from the favorable
business climates promoted by these fast-growing areas.
Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, remains the top performer this year among the ten largest
metros. In the overall results for the 200 largest metros, it moved from 16th place last year to 5th place
this year. A global leader in the oil and gas industry, with thousands of engineering and other technical
and professional jobs, Houston ranked 7th in both job growth and wage and salary growth for the one-year
period we examined. Its cost of doing business is substantially below the U.S. average, a rarity among the
largest metro areas. Houston’s role as a major health services center has provided stability and helped to
moderate the impacts of the national recession.
4
Executive Summary
The Biggest Gainers
Those cities experiencing the biggest gains on the Best-Performing Cities 2009 index share important
similarities. First, residential construction activity wasn’t the driving force behind their growth from
2003 to 2006, so the falloff in this sector has had a smaller impact. Another commonality was a small
dependence on durable goods manufacturing, especially consumer and business equipment production,
and a larger share of economic activity in the services sector, which is less sensitive to the business cycle.
Fourteen of the top 20 biggest gainers are located in the Northeast. New York State had six metros on the
list, while Massachusetts accounted for five and Connecticut recorded three. Most metros improved from
positions of 150 or higher in the 2008 index.
The metro posting the largest gain was Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford, Connecticut, which
moved up a whopping 101 spots to 48th place. While its major insurance firms cut jobs, the losses were
minimal given the threat of further downsizing. Aerospace employment has fallen, but those losses didn’t
occur until well into 2009.
The Best-Performing Small City
Midland, Texas, maintained its hold on the top spot among America’s small metros. It sits in the middle
of the Permian Basin, which generates 61 percent of the oil production in Texas. The region has benefited
from higher crude oil prices in 2007 and 2008. Overall, employment increased by 6.2 percent in 2008,
even as the rest of the nation lost jobs. Exploration activity in oil and gas produced a 15.8 percent
increase in jobs between 2003 and 2008. Strong consumer activity supported the Midland economy, as
seen in the 16.1 percent jump in retail sales recorded in 2008.
5
Introduction
Introduction
The Best-Performing Cities index was designed to measure objectively which U.S. metropolitan areas are
most successful in terms of job creation and retention, the quality of jobs being produced, and overall
economic performance. Specifically, it pinpoints where jobs are being created and maintained, where
wages and salaries are increasing, and where economies and businesses are growing and thriving.
The index allows businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors, academics,
government officials, and public policy groups to assess, monitor, and gain insight into each metro’s
relative performance. It also provides benchmarking data that can be used in developing strategies
to improve and maintain a metro’s economic performance. Moreover, it is a tool for understanding
consumer markets and business expansion opportunities. In today’s recessionary climate, it helps
determine which regions may present the lowest risk.
We have employed geographic terms and definitions used by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), which in turn uses data from the 2000 Census. The OMB defines a metropolitan statistical area
(MSA) as a region generally consisting of a large population nucleus and adjacent territory with a high
degree of economic and social integration, as measured by community ties.1 Using these parameters, the
agency identifies 361 metropolitan statistical areas.2 County population growth accounts for the creation
of new MSAs.
If specific criteria are met, an MSA with a single nucleus and a population of 2.5 million or more is
further divided into geographic areas called metropolitan divisions. There are currently twenty-nine
metropolitan divisions. For example, two metropolitan divisions (Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale and
Santa Ana–Anaheim–Irvine) make up the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana MSA. We include the
smaller metropolitan divisions in the index to reflect more accurate geographic growth patterns.
Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based
The 2009 index applies the methodology used in previous editions. The components shown in the
following table are used to calculate our index rankings. The index measures growth in jobs, wages and
salaries, and technology output over a five-year span (2003–2008) to adjust for extreme variations in
business cycles. It also incorporates the latest year’s performance in these areas. Lastly, it includes twelve-
month job growth performance (March 2008 to March 2009) to capture relative recent momentum
among metropolitan economies.3 Employment growth is weighted most heavily in the index because
of its critical importance in determining community vitality. Wage and salary growth also measures the
quality of the jobs being created and sustained. Technology output growth is another important element
in determining the economic vibrancy of cities.
We have incorporated other measures to reflect the concentration and diversity of technology industries
within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients (LQs, which measure the concentration of the technology
industry in a particular metro relative to the national average) are included to indicate a metro’s participation
in the knowledge-based economy.4 We also measure the number of specific high-tech industries (out of a
possible twenty-five) whose concentrations in an MSA are higher than the national average.
7
The Best-Performing Cities index is solely an outcomes-based measure. It does not incorporate explicit
input measures (such as business costs; cost-of-living components, such as housing; and other quality-
of-life measures, such as commute times or crime rates). Static input measures, although important, are
subject to large variations and can be highly subjective, making them less meaningful than more objective
indicators of outcomes.
Businesses choose to locate in particular areas for various reasons. Some, for instance, opt to remain in
high-cost cities despite the availability of lower-cost locations. The output measures used for this index
include the benefits of situating in expensive locations. Theoretically, a prospering region will raise wages
and rents as its businesses tap into more human capital and available space. Nevertheless, holding all
other factors constant (such as the productivity associated with being in one location versus another), a
company will generally choose to locate where business costs are lower and employees enjoy higher living
standards.
Table 2. 2.
Table Components
Components of the
theBest-Performing
Best-Performing Cities
Cities index
index
Component Weight
Job growth (I=2003) 0.143
Job growth (I=2007) 0.143
Wage-and-salary growth (I=2002) 0.143
Wage-and-salary growth (I=2006) 0.143
Short-term job growth (Mar08-Mar09) 0.143
Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2003) 0.071
Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2007) 0.071
High-tech GDP location quotient 0.071
Number of high-tech industries with GDP LQ>1 0.071
Note: I refers the beginning year of Index.
National Economic Conditions
The U.S. economy tipped into a recession in December 2007. Through July or August of 2008, it was a
“phantom recession.” You needed to be a professional economist to find it due to the modest decline in
a wide range of indicators. The National Bureau of Economic Research’s (NBER) Business Cycle Dating
Committee made the recession call official in December 2008.
Beginning in the summer of 2008, a cascading chain of events began to unfold: a severe correction in
housing markets, oil prices breaching $100 per barrel (though they later retreated), a weakening labor
market, overextended consumers pulling back, and a full-fledged financial panic with the attendant
collapse in faith between counterparties, along with a hit to wealth. The turmoil in the financial sector
ultimately swamped the real economy, causing a full-fledged recession. As credit markets froze, our major
trading partners also entered severe recessions, causing U.S. exports to plummet. By early 2009, exports had
fallen by 25 percent from the same period in 2008. At the time many feared that we had entered the “Great
Depression II,” but subsequent evidence makes the term “Great Recession” a more accurate depiction.
8
Introduction
Similar to the 2001 recession, the bursting of a bubble (this time in housing, as opposed to dot-com
and high-tech) was the major culprit in deflating the economy. Initially, the slumping housing market
wasn’t sufficient to pull the broader economy down along with it, but the subprime mortgage meltdown
that started in August 2007 continued to snowball as the months went by. Additionally, problems in
the subprime market spilled over into other credit markets, as participants concluded that risk had been
underpriced in many financial products.
September 2008 brought a full-blown financial shock from which we are just now beginning to
emerge. The markets went from a game of “Where’s Waldo”—guessing exactly who was holding toxic
collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and other investment vehicles comprised of bad subprime loans—
to a far darker period of wondering which banks and investment firms would be the next to go under.
With credit markets locked up, businesses couldn’t borrow to obtain working capital. Interbank lending
froze, as indicated by the enormous jump in the three-month LIBOR rate (the interest rate banks charge
each other to lend) relative to the three-month Treasury bill rate—the so-called TED spread. (The good
news is that as of this writing, the TED spread has narrowed to a normal range, indicating that credit is
beginning to flow once again.)
Tight credit conditions, rising joblessness, and overextended consumers caused light vehicle sales to decline
nearly 40 percent from their peak. While the troubles of the domestic motor vehicle manufacturers have
garnered much of the headlines, the suddenness of the correction in motor vehicle sales caught virtually
all manufacturers by surprise. Inventories of domestic and imported models rose dramatically, leading
to huge production cutbacks at domestic and foreign assembly plants. (The success of the 2009 “Cash
for Clunkers” program has thinned inventories of popular models, and manufacturers have announced
increases to their production schedules in the second half of 2009.) Sales of other consumer durable goods
(appliances, furniture, electronics, and other big-ticket items) contracted at a rapid rate. Despite recent
signs that the economy is recovering, the skittish consumer remains the weak link.
A combination of declining demand, lower capacity utilization, and the credit crunch caused capital
goods spending to falter. Businesses have been unable to finance many equipment purchases. Many
firms, fearing that a depression was imminent, slashed investment. Investment in heavy equipment and
information and communication technology were gutted in the last year.
During 2007 and the first half of 2008, rising private nonresidential construction helped cushion the
blow from plunging residential construction. But the availability of financing for commercial real estate
has tightened sharply, and demand for new retail and office space evaporated as consumer spending
and employment declined. Many commercial loans are coming due, and with rising vacancy rates and
falling rents, borrowers may not be able to secure new financing. Commercial construction will remain
depressed, with double-digit declines expected for 2009 and 2010.
Because of the severity of the economic contraction, and the tax structure of state and local governments,
tax revenues have fallen sharply. At the same time, demand for government services has escalated, placing
severe pressures on budgets. Governments have increased taxes, made painful program cuts, and forced
government workers to take unpaid furlough days to narrow deficits. The result has been a pro-cyclical
fiscal policy at the state and local level, exacerbating the severity of the downturn. This trend is weighing
9
heavily on many state capitals and other locations with high concentrations of state and local employees.
The good news is that the economy bottomed out sometime over the summer of 2009. The NBER is
likely to declare the recession officially ended in July 2009, but probably won’t convene to make the
call until November or December. If our assessment that the recession has ended is correct, the peak-
to-trough decline in economic activity will be 3.8 percent from the second quarter of 2008 to second-
quarter 2009, eclipsing what was until now the most severe recession since World War II: the short but
sharp 3.7 percent decline experienced in 1957.
The question now becomes the likely strength of the recovery. The best bet is on a U-shaped recovery,
but the leading economic indicators thus far are consistent with more of a V-shaped recovery based upon
historical experience. Nevertheless, labor markets are not likely to bottom out until early 2010. The pattern
and industrial composition of growth will impact the relative performance of cities across the country.
What does all this mean for interpreting the results of the index? In a year when robust growth was in
painfully short supply, the top-performing cities posted only mild increases in employment. Only an
elite group of cities experienced meaningful job growth in 2008 and just a couple are likely to add jobs
in 2009. In this kind of environment, it is even more important to evaluate each city’s performance in
relation to the nation as a whole and in relation to each other.
10
The Biggest Gainers
The Biggest Gainers

Those cities experiencing the biggest gains on the Best-Performing Cities 2009 index share important
similarities. First, the majority didn’t experience an extreme housing bubble earlier in the decade,
allowing them to avoid a severe correction. Residential construction activity wasn’t the driving force
behind their growth from 2003 to 2006, so the falloff in that sector has not been as painful in these
metros. These metros also tended to have a small dependence on durable goods manufacturing, especially
consumer and business equipment production, since those sectors witnessed the largest declines in output
and employment. Another feature was a larger share of economic activity in the services sector, which
is less sensitive to the business cycle. Additionally, most of these metros are not major exporters. Most
metros improved from positions of 150 or higher in the 2008 index, so in fact, theirs is typically a story
of weak performance that simply did not deteriorate as rapidly as the national economy.
The Northeast recorded the biggest gains, accounting for fourteen out of the top 20 movers. New York
had six metros on the list, while Massachusetts had five and Connecticut recorded three.
The metro experiencing the largest gain was Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford, Connecticut, which
moved up 101 spots to 48th place. While its major insurance firms cut jobs, the losses were minimal given
the threat of further downsizing. Local aerospace employment didn’t start falling until well into 2009.
Table 3. Biggest gainers
Table 3. Biggest gainers
Change in rankings
Change in rankings
2009 2008 Spots
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank climbed
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 48 149 +101
New Haven-Milford, CT 88 184 +96
Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA* 45 139 +94
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 86 180 +94
Rochester, NY 89 181 +92
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 73 159 +86
Norwich-New London, CT 94 176 +82
Utica-Rome, NY 54 134 +80
Worcester, MA 79 156 +77
Corpus Christi, TX 16 88 +72
Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg, MD* 51 123 +72
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 80 148 +68
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 84 151 +67
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 72 138 +66
Binghamton, NY 65 125 +60
Peabody, MA* 111 171 +60
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 43 100 +57
Boston-Quincy, MA* 61 118 +57
Springfield, MA 127 182 +55
Columbus, GA-AL 112 166 +54
11
The Biggest Decliners
The Biggest Decliners

One glance at the list of metros recording the biggest declines reveals the extent of the housing bust
in Florida. Twelve of the twenty metros experiencing the biggest declines were in Florida. Much of
the economic growth through mid-decade in these metros was driven by residential and commercial
construction activity, and this sector has ground to a halt. Several of these metros are also dependent on
travel and tourism, which plunged late last year.
The dubious distinction of posting the biggest decline goes to Pensacola–Ferry Pass–Brent, Florida.
Pensacola is the poster child for the factors behind the decline: a housing bust combined with a rapid
deterioration in travel and tourism. Its professional and business services employment also took a
dramatic hit.
Table
Table 4. 4. Biggestdecliners
Biggest decliners
Change in rankings
Change in rankings
2009 2008 Spots

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank d ow n
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 157 33 -124
Merced, CA 184 73 -111
Jacksonville, FL 141 39 -102
Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC 120 19 -101
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 169 80 -89
Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 99 11 -88
Boise City-Nampa, ID 114 27 -87
Clarksville, TN-KY 136 51 -85
Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL 176 97 -79
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 98 22 -76
Ocala, FL 104 30 -74
Port St. Lucie, FL 150 78 -72
Naples-Marco Island, FL 155 83 -72
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL* 131 61 -70
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 162 92 -70
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL* 175 105 -70
Fresno, CA 115 47 -68
Montgomery, AL 102 38 -64
Stockton, CA 166 103 -63
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL* 179 117 -62
13
The Best-Performing Large Cities

Austin-Round Rock, Texas, by virtue of its stellar economic performance relative to the country overall,
claims top honors in our Best-Performing Cities 2009 ranking. Austin managed to add jobs even amid the
dismal macroeconomic environment of 2008 and seems poised to experience net job growth for 2009 as
well (it is one of only a couple of cities that can hope for such results this year). Austin is joined by just
one other metro area (McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas) in placing among the top 10 in job growth for
the latest five-year period (2003–2008) as well as for 2008 alone. Commensurate wage and salary growth
places Austin in an elite position.
This consistent pattern of growth makes Austin stand out. The metro area derives stability from its role as
the state capital and the home of a major research university, even as it enjoys dynamic growth generated
by its technology cluster and professional services sector. The city seems poised to make a strong foray
into clean energy technology as well.
Figure 1. Annual wage and salary growth

Austin-Round
Figure Rock and
1. Annual wage vs. United
salaryStates
growth
Austin-Round Rock vs. United States
Percent change from preceding year
15.0
Austin-Round Rock
United States
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute.
Austin’s technology sector hasn’t been immune to the severe contraction in U.S. and international
business investment in information and communications equipment and services, but has weathered the
storm better than most tech centers. Led by Dell, computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing is
ten times more important to Austin than that industry is to North America overall.5 Dell is widening its
distribution channels by moving to retail locations and should benefit from a recovery in PC sales.
Austin continues to successfully recruit emerging firms in technology and related fields. Corvalent, a
circuit-board producer, recently completed its move from Silicon Valley, where it was founded sixteen
years ago. In recent months, two Australian software firms—Interspire and Oxygen—established their
North American headquarters there, citing Austin’s strong talent base and its low living and business
costs.6 The area is further benefiting from strong growth in data centers for Fortune 500 companies. But
Austin doesn’t just rely on recruitment; it has a strong entrepreneurial spirit, as evidenced by the fact that
the metro has the fourth-highest rate of self-employment in the United States.7
15
Several clean-energy and tech initiatives are under way in an attempt to carve out a significant position
for Austin. A new public-private partnership, the Pecan Street Project, is slated to develop a leading-edge
clean power system. The idea is not only to modernize Austin’s grid but to use the project as an incubator
for green energy technologies, thus spurring sustainable development and creating jobs in the region.8
Pecan Street aims to develop smart-grid technologies that can run appliances at non-peak times and
deliver pollution-free solar-generated electricity. The University of Texas, Austin and major firms such
as Dell, Oracle and IBM have signed on to the project. Additionally, Gemini Solar is constructing what
could become the largest solar power plant in the country for Austin Energy.9 Several other solar energy
firms have also established facilities in the area. Federal policy will play a role in how quickly these efforts
will pay off, but it’s clear that Austin is a hotbed of activity.
Another reason for Austin’s top position is that while it did experience strong appreciation in home values
during the boom years, it didn’t develop an overinflated housing bubble like some markets. The area has
been spared a wrenching correction in housing sales and prices. New residential construction activity has
waned, but without causing the major drag on the local economy that has been seen in prime bubble
locations. Rising commercial vacancy rates suggest some modest overbuilding, but rising absorption as
the economy recovers should correct the excess inventory. Austin will remain among the national leaders
as the macroeconomy recovers.
Killeen-Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, continues its ascent in the rankings, rising to 2nd place this year, up
from 13th last year and 33rd two years ago. Killen had the highest job growth in the country in 2008 and
continues to maintain that pace in 2009 in terms of monthly year-over-year gains. Much of this growth
stems from the positive impact of the Base Relocation and Consolidation program on Fort Hood, one of
the largest military installations in the world. Health-care services, one of the few sectors in the country
to add jobs during the recession, are highly concentrated here, while higher education adds a stabilizing
force as well.
Table 5.
Table 5. Fort
Fort Hood
Hood military
militaryemployment
employment
Change
Change from2004
from 2004toto2007
2007
Percent
2004 2007 change
Soldiers assigned 44,000 53,000 20.5%
Department of Army civilians 4,000 5,100 27.5%
Service/contract employees 6,700 9,200 37.3%
Source: Greater Killeen Chamber of Commerce.
Fort Hood contributed $10.9 billion to the area’s economy in 2007,10 directly employing nearly 68,000
people. The Army has been consolidating operations and transferring military and support staff to Fort
Hood over the past several years, but it is worth noting that this expansion will be complete in 2010.
Another source of growth has been Central Texas College, which has steadily increased enrollment
in recent years. Additionally, ground has already been broken on the new Texas A&M Central Texas
campus, which is slated to be a major facility.11
16
Like nearby Austin, the Killeen metro area never saw hyper-appreciation in its housing market and
has largely been spared from the housing bust. In-migration at Fort Hood has helped stabilize the
housing market, too. Moreover, the area’s proportion of subprime mortgage products was very low, and
foreclosure rates remain at modest levels. Further expansion in health services is under way, with a new
hospital in the works.12
Salt Lake City, Utah, maintains its position in 3rd place this year. The quality of the jobs created in
recent years has been very strong, as exhibited by its 2nd-place ranking in wage and salary growth from
2006 to 2007. Salt Lake City consistently ranks in the upper echelon of all the index components.
Technology is a key driver of the area’s economy, with a vibrant presence in computer systems design and
related services. Less well-known is Salt Lake City’s strength in medical equipment, a sector that employs
some 5,800 workers. Within North America, Salt Lake City ranks 6th as a center for medical equipment
manufacturing.13 Brigham Young University has been a source for much of the local growth within the
life sciences, and particularly within medical equipment.
Figure 2. Computer systems design and related service

Salt Lake systems
Figure 2. Computer City vs. United
design States
and related services
Salt Lake City vs. United States
Jobs, percent change from preceding year
40
Salt Lake City
United States
30
20
10
-10
-20
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Salt Lake City hasn’t escaped the national recession, but the effects have been muted there relative to
the slump experienced in other tech-dependent areas. Salt Lake also had vulnerability associated with its
status as a regional financial center stemming from the financial crisis. Fortunately, the region had a low
exposure to subprime mortgages and less speculative activity in its housing sector. The good news is that
existing home sales have recovered and are running substantially ahead of the levels recorded a year ago.
Even new residential construction is seeing positive signs, with new permits from January through July
rising 39 percent from the same period in 2008.14
Although Utah hasn’t been immune to the budget problems plaguing state capitals across the country,
its cutbacks have been modest and government employment has played a stabilizing role in the Salt Lake
City economy. Travel and tourism spending has fallen, but by smaller amounts than in other tourist
hubs. The recent loosening of liquor laws may even provide a boost to tourism over the next few years.
Salt Lake City has a young and highly educated workforce, low business costs, a favorable overall business
17
climate, and a growing tech sector—all factors that should leave the area well-positioned for growth
during the recovery.
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, came in 4th, improving by three slots from last year’s index. The
metro area performed exceptionally well in two categories: McAllen ranked 1st in employment growth
and in high-tech GDP growth between 2003 and 2008 (improving from a decidedly low base). Minimal
exposure to the housing crisis has also helped to sustain its position among the leaders. With most metros
across the nation posting large declines in their employment base, McAllen’s economy has remained
relatively stable. Supported by robust population growth, its service-based economy continues to prosper.
Its strategic location across the Mexican border supports trade links with mequiladora facilities, setting the
stage for further expansion in its distribution and logistics sector. While the global recession will likely
curb some of that growth, the metro’s relatively low business costs will lure new firms and investment
into the region. The city is currently in the running as the potential site of a new auto manufacturing
plant linked with a European automaker.15
The metro’s first-place finish in high-tech GDP growth is largely indicative of its recent growth in
telecommunications services. McAllen’s low costs have enabled companies to open new call centers in the area.
Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, surged to 5th place this year, up from 16th in 2008. (It is also
the top performer among the nation’s ten largest cities.) Houston ranked 7th in both job and wage and
salary growth in the one-year period we examined. Although its job growth has slipped in recent months,
Houston remains in the top 25 in the indicator measuring job growth through March 2009. A global
leader in the oil and gas industry, the metro area boasts thousands of engineering and other technical
and professional jobs. Houston’s cost of doing business is substantially below the U.S. average, a rarity
among the largest metro areas.16 The stability provided by being a major health services center has helped
moderate the impacts of the national recession. Housing markets have cooled, but price declines relative
to their peak have been in the single digits, compared to the more than 20 percent drop experienced
nationally. Recent monthly data shows year-over-year price increases in Houston.
Figure 3. Engineering and architectural services

Houston-Sugar
Figure Land-Baytown
3. Engineering vs. United States
and architectural services
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown vs. United States
8
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
United States
6
-2
-4
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
18
Energy exploration activity has waned due to the decline in oil and natural gas prices, but overall,
Houston’s energy sector has remained remarkably strong. There has been a notable falloff in natural gas
exploration in recent months, and the rig count is down.17 But new opportunities in nuclear, wind, and
other alternative energies have the potential to provide further gains in the area. Several investment banks
are establishing operations in Houston with the expectation that energy-related opportunities will arise
with oil prices recovering.18
Manufacturing remains weak, but there are positive developments, such as Mitsubishi Caterpillar
Forklift’s announcement that it will expand operations in Houston, shifting operations of several lines
from Japan and South America. The objective is to source most components locally, avoiding fluctuations
in global currency exchange rates.19 Given its strategic location on the Gulf of Mexico, Houston has strong
trade and export links with Latin America and should benefit from the widening of the Panama Canal.
Durham, North Carolina, moves into 6th place, up from 21st last year. Durham’s economy is tied to
high tech, biopharmaceuticals, medical research, and education. As a pillar of the Research Triangle,
Durham benefits from the many technology startup firms that spin out of Duke University with
the support of seasoned entrepreneurs. The presence of IBM, with more than 11,000 employees,
provides a solid talent pool for these emerging firms. The volatility associated with information and
communications technologies has hit the region as Nortel Network’s bankruptcy is causing layoffs
and rippling through the local economy.20 Nevertheless, the metro area has weathered the recession
remarkably well given its industry mix.
Construction employment in the Durham area has fallen, but the residential markets have remained
relatively firm. Existing home prices barely fell and are already recovering. Positive net migration has
helped buoy the housing market as well; the area remains a magnet for young professionals. Health
services and education continue to create jobs, mitigating the impact of losses in other sectors. Thus far,
state and local government continue to add jobs but will soon feel the impact of budget cuts.
Figure 4. Net migration

Figure 4.
Durham, Net migration
North Carolina
Durham, North Carolina
Thousands
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
19
Rising two spots, Olympia, Washington, retained its place among the top performers by coming in 7th.
The metro’s relatively low living costs have attracted migrants from nearby cities. In addition, Olympia
has provided low-cost advantages for businesses, particularly for back-office operations, attracting several
Seattle firms. Serving as its state’s capitol, Olympia derives much of its employment base from state
government, which accounts for almost one out of every four jobs in the metro. While its housing sector
appears to be relatively more balanced than other parts of the country, the state has seen its revenues
shrink, which impacts job growth in the metro. Nevertheless, in the one-year category evaluating job
growth between 2007 and 2008, Olympia finished 14th.
Olympia’s favorable population trends remain a source of stability for the economy. In 2008, population
growth surged to 2.9 percent, though this trend will moderate this year as potential migrants become
aware that budget cutbacks will reduce government jobs and other opportunities in the area. With little
dependence on manufacturing, Olympia has remained relatively unscathed by the downturn in this
sector.
Huntsville, Alabama, placed 8th in this year’s index. Huntsville has consistently occupied one of the top
spots in the index for the past few years. The area has the 6th-highest concentration of high-tech output
in the United States—more than twice the national average. Professional, scientific, and technical services
have expanded rapidly; they already represent more than 14 percent of jobs in the metro area (versus
less than 6 percent for the United States as a whole). Computer and electronic product manufacturing is
the most important private-sector industry in Huntsville. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center is a key
anchor for the area and will play a vital role in mankind’s return to the moon.
Figure 5. Professional, scientific, and technical services

Huntsvillescientific,
Figure 5. Professional, vs. Unitedand
States
technical services
Huntsville vs. United States
Percent share of total employment
16
Huntsville
United States
14
12
10
4
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Huntsville’s Redstone Arsenal will benefit from the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure program
over the next couple of years. Furthermore, the Missile Defense Agency is slated to relocate more
than 2,200 employees there over the next several years. Many aerospace contractors are expanding or
establishing operations in hopes of securing additional work on the program. Some estimates place the
20
total job impacts of these programs, including contractors, at 10,000 to 12,000.21 Huntsville has also
been working with NASA’s shuttle contractor, United Space Alliance, to recruit engineers from Brevard
County, Florida, home to the Kennedy Space Center. As the Space Shuttle program winds down, many
highly skilled technical workers will likely be available.22 This strong rate of in-migration has kept home
price declines in the single digits, and there are already signs that the housing market is improving.
Meanwhile, the University of Alabama, Huntsville, is investing heavily in the life sciences, which have
gotten a boost from the 2008 opening of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology.
Lafayette, Louisiana, has cracked the top 10, coming in at 9th, which represents an improvement of five
slots from last year. The area has benefited from renewed interest in oil and gas exploration in the Gulf
of Mexico in recent years, though this activity is vulnerable to shifts in energy prices. Additionally, many
hurricane evacuees either temporarily or permanently settled in the metro. Support activities for mining
account for more than 11 percent of Lafayette’s employment base.23 Health care and educational services
are major components of its economy as well. They provide welcome stability, but state budgets cutbacks
will pare some positions.
Continued diversification away from its traditional industries will be vital to maintaining a high rate of
economic growth in Lafayette. Its low business and living costs give the area an advantage, but it must
develop a skilled and well-educated workforce to remain in the upper echelon.
Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina, edges down to 10th this year, slipping eight places. Nevertheless, given
its concentration of high-tech firms, this is a considerable achievement. Over the past five years, Raleigh
ranks 5th in total job growth in the country. Leading universities (the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill and N.C. State University) serve as research anchors. These institutions and other research
centers work closely with the business community and form a tightly integrated network. SAS Institute,
the fast-growing statistical software giant, is headquartered in this area, and Cisco has major operations
there. Professional and business services, along with scientific services, have experienced rapid job growth
in recent years.

Raleigh-Cary
Figure 6. Professional, vs. United
scientific, States
and technical services
Raleigh-Cary vs. United States
10
Raleigh-Cary
United States
8
-2
-4
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
21
As North Carolina’s capital, Raleigh counts on the public sector to provide some stability in its
employment base. But strains on the state budget are likely to translate into layoffs among government
and university workers.24 GlaxoSmithKline won’t escape the business model adjustments coming in the
pharmaceutical industry, but Raleigh seems well positioned to avoid the extensive job losses that other
leading centers will experience. Fort Bragg’s expansion will create opportunities for local firms, too.
Raleigh’s net migration has been at a high rate for years, but with more high-skill jobs being created, a
greater proportion of the migrants will be young professionals.
Though stung by the loss of AT&T headquarters to Dallas, San Antonio, Texas, still improved four
spots from last year to claim 11th place. Aided by ongoing military-related expansion (as a result of the
2005 Base Realignment and Closure recommendations), the metro has seen significant growth in its
education and health services sector. This has helped mitigate losses in professional and business services
due to AT&T’s departure. In terms of one year-job growth from 2007 to 2008, the metro exhibited more
promising signs relative to the national average, coming in 8th overall. Despite the current downturn,
non-farm jobs only fell by 0.2 percent during the previous 12 months through March 2009. The
expansion of Brooke Army Medical Center will help sustain the region’s medical cluster, while creating
more opportunities for local suppliers in the surrounding area. Between 2007 and 2008, ambulatory
health care services added 3,500 jobs.
San Antonio’s low cost structure, along with its growing reputation as a transportation and distribution
hub, has recently attracted Caterpillar. The company’s assembly, paint, and testing plant in nearby Seguin
will build engines for the truck, marine, and electric power industries.25
Improving from its 29th-place showing on last year’s index, Fort Worth–Arlington, Texas, moved
up sharply to come in 12th. Offering a lower-cost alternative to businesses and residents, Fort Worth
continues to capitalize on spillover from Dallas and experience robust population growth. As the price
of natural gas rose in early 2008, the metro’s energy exploration sector provided a further boost to the
economy. However, with current prices plummeting, growth in this area will likely subside, at least
temporarily. Construction and mining-related activity generated 2,400 and 2,200 jobs, respectively,
between 2007 and 2008. But now key industries in Fort Worth such as aerospace and automobile
manufacturing are feeling the effects of the recession. Still, the metro’s overall employment growth, driven
by energy exploration and health-care-related services, fared better than the national average between
2007 and 2008 (Fort Worth came in 18th on that measure). The area’s wage and salary growth ranked
16th in the nation over the latest one-year period.
22
Figure 7. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Figure Fort Worth-Arlington
7. Mining, vs. United
quarrying, and oil andStates
gas extraction
Fort Worth-Arlington vs. United States
40
Fort Worth-Arlington
United States
30
20
10
-10
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Employment in Fort Worth declined by just 0.5 percent in last twelve months ending March 2009. The
existence of two dominant anchor firms—American Airlines, which is headquartered in the metro, and
Lockheed Martin, which maintains a major presence there—provide longer-term stability while creating
more growth opportunities for logistical and transportation support services.
Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, gained some ground this year, moving up from 23rd to 13th place in the
index. Wage and salary growth between 2006 and 2007 outperformed the national average, coming in at
13th. A diversified and growing high-tech sector, plus higher-paying jobs stemming from corporate-based
headquarters and regional offices, has contributed to the area’s overall wealth. Professional and scientific
services and management of companies created 7,300 and 3,600 jobs, respectively, between 2007 and
2008. In addition, the metro ranked 14th for high-tech diversity (as measured by the number of high-
tech industries with LQs—or relative concentrations—above 1.0, which represents the average for the
United States as a whole). The area’s concentration of high-tech output is roughly 50 percent above the
national average. Its telecom industry now includes the headquarters of AT&T, which recently made the
move from San Antonio.
Dallas’s large financial sector has been able to survive through the crisis; adverse ripple effects appear to be
less severe there than in other financial hubs like New York and Charlotte.26 Similarly, the housing market
in Dallas has been relatively stable, with smaller price declines than those experienced in other major
markets across the nation.
23
Figure 8. Company and enterprise management

Dallas-Plano-Irving vs. United States
Figure 8. Company and enterprise management
Dallas-Plano-Irving vs. United States
40
Dallas-Plano-Irving
United States
30
20
10
-10
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Dallas offers greater cost advantages than most other large U.S. cities. A key distribution and logistics
hub, it boasts extensive railroad and air-cargo facilities for national and international trade. When the
economy begins to rebound, the region will be better-positioned to capitalize on growth opportunities.
Ranking 14th on the overall index, El Paso, Texas, climbed twenty-three spots this year, driven by the
military’s expansion at Fort Bliss. Robust population gains, largely stemming from the base realignment
program, have kept demand healthy across a broad range of industries. More than 28,000 additional
soldiers, along with their families, are expected to move to the region by 2012. In fact, if enough units
aren’t built quickly enough, the city could face a housing shortage.27 Meanwhile, the metro finished
6th in the nation for employment growth in the one-year period examined between 2007 and 2008.
Ambulatory health-care services were responsible for generating more than 1,000 jobs during that time
frame. El Paso also performed well in wage and salary growth over the year since 2006, placing 17th.
The decline in U.S. auto manufacturing has lead to significant job losses in Cuidad Juarez, El Paso’s
neighbor across the border, and this contraction ultimately impacts El Paso’s retail sector. Maquiladora
factories have laid off tens of thousands of nearby workers.28 While the metro area’s close ties with Mexico
pose some downside risk during the current recession, they will serve as a competitive edge when global
markets recover.
Improving by thirty spots, Wichita, Kansas, landed in 15th place on this year’s index. The metro has
a high-tech output location quotient of 2.0, meaning that the high-tech sector is more than twice as
concentrated here than in the nation overall. Wichita also placed 9th on relative job growth measured
between 2007 and 2008. Transportation equipment manufacturing added 2,200 jobs in the metro during
that same period.
Home to Cessna Aircraft, Sprit Aerosystems, Hawker Beechcraft, and major operations of Boeing, the
region depends on aerospace manufacturing as its primary economic driver. The current downturn
and credit crunch have led to lower production, forcing several companies, including Boeing, to shed
24
jobs.29 But the metro has been spared from a sharp fall in its housing market since it never experienced
overheated price growth during the boom.
Figure 9. Transportation equipment manufacturing

Wichita vs. United States
Figure 9. Transportation equipment manufactuing
Wichita vs. United States
10
Wichita
United States
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Moving up a whopping seventy-two spots from last year, Corpus Christi, Texas, finished 16th overall
on this year’s index. On the one-year indicator for job growth from 2007 to 2008, the metro ranked
2nd highest in the nation. Increased port activity has been largely driven by demand for petroleum-
related products. While declining oil prices resulted in lower profit margins at refineries, more recent
trends point to stabilization. Increased energy exploration has spurred positive ripple effects across other
industries within the metro. Notably, it has strengthened the region’s transportations and logistic sector,
which has grown more than 10 percent during the one-year period examined between 2007 and 2008.
In addition, during that period, infrastructure activity generated 1,500 construction jobs in the metro.
Serving as another key asset to the local economy, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi employs more than
8,200 workers. But recent BRAC realignment may reduce the size of the naval base, potentially hindering
performance cross a broad spectrum of industries.30
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Washington, maintained last year’s ranking of 17th on the overall index.
Despite posting hefty job losses over the more recent twelve months ending March 2009, Seattle saw
wage and salary growth remain strong over the one-year period between 2006 and 2007, coming in
at 9th in the nation on this indicator, due to the high-paying jobs in the region’s high-tech industries,
notably software and aerospace. Professional, scientific, and technical services along with publishing
created 6,300 and 3,100 jobs, respectively, between 2007 and 2008. With a ranking of 4th in the nation
for concentration of high-tech output, the metro is twice more dependent on high tech than the nation
as a whole.
25
Figure 10. Software publishing employment

Seattle-Bellevue-Everett vs. United States
Figure 10. Software publishing employment
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett vs. United States
10.0
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett
United States
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Led by Microsoft, Seattle is one of the nation’s preeminent IT centers. As the economy recovers, the
region’s highly skilled labor force will give Seattle a competitive edge. The aerospace industry, dominated
by Boeing, has suffered in the face of shrinking global demand, limiting the metro’s growth potential at
least in the near-term.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, moved up from 40th to 18th place in the 2009 rankings. Many residents left
New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in favor of Baton Rouge, creating enormous demand for real estate,
education, and health services. However, population growth since 2007 has slowed, with some new
arrivals heading back to New Orleans as it begins to stabilize. Even so, job growth in Baton Rouge over
the last twelve months ending in March 2009 was a healthy 0.5 percent. Wage and salary growth between
2006 and 2007 showed significant strides, with Baton Rouge placing 4th in that category. With two
local universities (Louisiana State University and Southern University), the metro is well equipped for
producing new talent and meeting the region’s demand for high-skilled labor. Management of companies
and enterprises added nearly 800 jobs between 2007 and 2008.
As the seat of state government, Baton Rouge is vulnerable to losing public-sector jobs as a result of
budget cuts. On the brighter side, the Pennington Biomedical Research Center is constructing a new
clinical research building in the metro that will help to raise the profile of the region’s biotech industry
while providing relatively high-paying jobs in the near-term.31 The center is due to open in 2010.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, came in 19th overall, making a strong move after placing 72nd last year. In
the category of one-year job growth from 2007 to 2008, the metro ranked 16th; its employment
base has since held up better than much of the rest of the nation. In fact, the one-year recent job
momentum indicator places Tulsa at 11th in the nation. Key industries in the region include aerospace,
transportation, telecom, mining, and structural metals manufacturing. Tulsa’s Port of Catoosa, one of the
nation’s largest inland-river ports, is a key asset, providing access to and from coastal ports and opening
up trade. With the exception of aerospace, most sectors have remained relatively stable in the region despite
the recession. Holly recently purchased a refinery in the metro for $65 million, preserving nearly 400 jobs.32
26
Tulsa has been less exposed to the national housing crisis and related banking issues, providing more
stability to the local economy. Not only is per-capita income higher than the national average, the
metro’s cost of living is among the lowest in the nation,33 creating huge incentives for those seeking more
affordable lifestyles. Other amenities include the recent development of the Bank of Oklahoma (BOK)
Center, a new arena for the performing arts, sports, and other events; it has not only helped create jobs in
the metro, but also managed to lend support to the city’s revenue base.34
Greeley, Colorado, maintained its rank of 20th on this year’s index. Its reputation as an inexpensive
bedroom community near Denver and Boulder has led to robust population growth, driving up local
demand in a number of service-based industries. The metro had the 14th-highest job growth in the
nation on a five-year basis, while finishing 20th on a one-year basis in 2008. While Greeley’s largest
industry is meatpacking, the metro has been evolving into a hub for wind power.35 New alternative
energy firms have been drawn here, attracting high-skilled labor from outside the region. The recently
constructed Vestas wind power plant will help diversify the region’s economy, while providing a source for
higher-paying jobs.36 Wages and salaries in the region have increased at a faster pace than the U.S. average.
Figure 11. Heavy and civil engineering construction jobs

Greeley vs. United States
Figure 11. Heavy and civil engineering construction jobs
Greeley vs. United States
50
Greeley
United States
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Although it fell thirteen spots, Tacoma, Washington, managed to maintain a solid ranking of 21st in
the nation. As a more affordable alternative to nearby Seattle, it continues to attract newcomers, keeping
population growth steady. The presence of Intel and Boeing is a key driver of the region’s high-tech sector.
Tacoma ranked 9th overall in high-tech GDP growth for the five-period between 2003 and 2008. Wages
and salaries in the area have displayed solid momentum; Tacoma finished 14th for this indicator in 2002-
2007. With the current global downturn and sluggish trade flows, Tacoma’s port activity has rapidly
deteriorated, threatening jobs in supporting logistics and infrastructure. Prior to the downturn, however,
the metro’s port was increasingly active in global trade, handling a large volume of inbound containerized
cargo from Asia.
27
The metro’s largest employer is the U.S. Army’s Fort Lewis, with more than 40,000 soldiers and
workers.37 Along with McChord Air Force Base, Tacoma has a significant military presence that will
continue to provide stability to the region.
The metropolitan area of Fort Collins–Loveland, Colorado, leapt twenty-six spots to 22nd place in
this year’s index. Job growth in 2008 remained relatively stable, coming in at 30th in the nation. Much
of this growth stems from the region’s burgeoning high-tech sector, where output is 40 percent more
concentrated in the region than the U.S. average. In addition, direct linkages between high-tech start-ups
and Colorado State University appear to be accelerating innovation throughout the metro in fields such
as solar energy. Abound Solar, a Colorado State University spin-off, is building a new photovoltaic panel
plant in the area, which will enhance the metro’s already diverse high-tech industry mix.38 Supported by a
high-skilled workforce, the alternative energy sector will fuel future economic growth.
Little Rock–North Little Rock–Conway, Arkansas, improved thirty-one spots, capturing 23rd place
on this year’s index. Wage growth came in 26th in the nation in 2008. As the state’s capital, it counts a
large number of public-sector jobs in the local employment base. With the current downturn, however,
Little Rock is looking elsewhere for growth. Dramatic gains in its education and health-services sector
have offset some of the recent losses in other sectors. In fact, health-care services were responsible for
creating 1,300 jobs in the metro between 2007 and 2008. An affordable cost of living attracts retirees
and other new residents, keeping population growth healthy. The area’s growing medical services field
also has a draw for retirees. The largest local employer is the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,
with 8,500 workers.39 The university anchors the region’s medical community, attracting researchers and
increasing demand for related services.
Shreveport–Bossier City, Louisiana, gained forty-three spots, to land in 24th place in the nation this
year. Despite the uncertain fate of GM and resulting contraction of its manufacturing sector, Shreveport’s
economy remains relatively stable, thanks to its greatest asset, the Haynesville Shale natural gas deposit.
One of the largest natural fields in the U.S., it came into prominence in early 2008, helping boost a
number of industries in the metro area. Ongoing development has spurred job growth in construction,
while luring in companies engaged in gas extraction and processing. With the fall in natural gas prices,
development is still taking place but at a more steady pace.40 Support activities for mining (see figure
12 on the following page) generated 380 jobs between 2007 and 2008. Just recently, EXCO Resources
announced its new facilities intended for exploration activity in the area.41 In fact, Shreveport ranked 8th
on high-tech GDP growth over five-period measured between 2003 and 2008.
28
Figure 12. Support activities for mining

Shreveport-Bossier City vs. United States
Shreveport-Bossier City vs. United States
30
Shreveport-Bossier City
United States
20
10
-10
-20
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV metro area, jumped to 25th place after finishing

41st on last year’s index. D.C.’s high-tech output is 50 percent above the national average, and the
metro’s diverse high-tech industry mix has helped to sustain economic growth in a tough environment.
The presence of the federal government generates the need for massive data-processing support; defense
and aerospace contractors also cluster here in proximity to the Pentagon, which is itself a major employer
(the headquarters of Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are located here). More than 10,000
jobs were added in professional, scientific, and technical services from 2007 to 2008. While there have
been some layoffs in information technology and the telecom industry, recent federal spending has kept
the local economy on track. In addition, the Pentagon has recently announced that it would be adding
9,000 positions at two agencies charged with auditing and managing contracts for various weaponry.42
29
America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance

Examining the performance of America’s ten largest cities reveals noteworthy changes—some positive
and some painful—in the Sun Belt. The two large cities in Texas both cemented their place in the top 25:
Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown powered its way into the top 10 overall, continuing a dramatic, energy-
industry-driven ascent, while Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, moved up by ten positions. But the hangover
from the housing bust is clear in the results for California and Arizona’s major metros. As shown in the
table below, significant drops were recorded by previous standouts Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario,
California, and Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona.
The economies of Houston, Dallas, and Washington were profiled earlier in this report, since all three
metros placed among the top 25 best-performing cities overall.
Table
Table 6.6. Performance of
Performance of the
theten
tenlargest metros
largest metros
Rank
Rank according
according to
to 2009 index
2009 index
2009 2008 Spots

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank up/down
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 5 16 +11
Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 13 23 +10
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 25 41 +16
New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ* 38 85 +47
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 93 32 -61
Philadelphia, PA* 96 130 +34
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 103 53 -50
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 106 59 -47
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA* 139 126 -13
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL* 148 160 +12
* Indicates metropolitan division
For the second year in a row, New York–White Plains–Wayne, New York–New Jersey, posted the most
dramatic gains. Once ranked 9th among this group, New York is now the 4th-best performer among
the ten. In terms of the overall rankings of 200 large cities, it jumped an impressive 110 places over two
years, rising from 148th place in the 2007 index to 85th in 2008 to 38th this year. Professional, scientific,
and technical services added nearly 12,000 jobs over the last year, growing at a rate of 2.8 percent. In
stark contrast to much of the rest of the country, construction still showed positive growth in the city
during the period we examined, adding 1,770 jobs from 2007 to 2008. Motion picture and television
production has done very well in New York recently, thanks to a series of incentives introduced in 2007.
The motion picture and sound recording industries added more than 1,600 jobs between 2007 and 2008,
growing at a rate of 4.6 percent. Demand for the production credit has been so great that the city’s fund
was actually fully claimed by June of this year.43
31
The crisis that set off the restructuring of Wall Street has obviously been keenly felt in the nation’s
financial capital. The sector comprising credit intermediation and related activities lost 4,500 jobs
between 2007 and 2008. Securities, commodities, and other financial investment activities also started
to slide during the same period. However, this data reflects only a snippet of the turmoil that was yet
to come in New York’s financial sector, which has since gone through firm failures, abrupt mergers, and
layoffs. These losses will fully show up in next year’s index.
Figure 13. Professional, scientific and technical services

New York-White Plains-Wayne vs. United States
Figure 13. Professional, scientific and technical services
New York-White Plains-Wayne vs. United States
6
New York-White Plains-Wayne
United States
4
-2
-4
-6
-8
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Out of the nation’s ten largest cities, Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, saw the largest overall drop
in the rankings. Previously one of the strongest performers in the index, Phoenix is caught up in the
housing bust. In the full ranking of the nation’s 200 largest metros, it fell from 4th place in 2007 to
32nd place in 2008 and then all the way to 93rd place in the current index. Phoenix continues to be hit
hard by declines in construction and related industries, though it still remains ahead of the Southern
California metros as well as Atlanta in the rankings. This downturn comes after an extended period
in which the Phoenix metro area set the pace for the rest of the nation in construction in order to
accommodate a rapidly growing population.
32
Between 2007 and 2008, the specialty trade contractor and construction industries suffered, losing
21,400 and 5,260 jobs, respectively. The sector showing the greatest decline in the Phoenix metro area
on a percentage basis during the five-year period we examined is data processing, hosting, and related
services. From 2003 to 2008, the sector lost more than 2,100 employees for an average annual decline
of 8.4 percent. Continuing a trend, the biggest source of job growth was the public sector, as local
government added more than 4,000 jobs between 2007 and 2008.
Figure 14. Specialty trade contractors

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale vs. United States
Figure 14. Specialty trade contractors
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale vs. United States
20
10
-10
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
United States
-20
-30
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, rose three places to rank 6th among the ten-largest metro areas, overtaking
the slumping cities of Riverside, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. The city rose in the overall rankings for the
second year in a row, climbing 34 places from 130th to 96th. Professional, scientific, and technical
services have continued to grow here, adding more than 20,300 jobs from 2003 to 2008, including
over 2,200 between 2007 and 2008. Ironically, the leading area of job growth in the city is a cause for
concern, or at least a concerted effort to address other concerns. Over the past year, social assistance
added more than 3,000 jobs, growing at a rate of 6.4 percent; this field added more than 15,000 jobs
from 2003 to 2008.
33
On the downside, data processing, hosting, and related services saw an annual decline of more than
16 percent during the same period, shedding more than 7,000 jobs in the region. More troubling has
been the decline of pharmaceutical manufacturing, which has been vital to the region’s economy. Credit
intermediation and related services showed the largest decline over 2007 to 2008 in absolute numbers,
losing nearly 2,500 jobs and declining 6.7 percent overall. The decline of the print media has also hit the
city, with printing and related support activities losing more than 1,000 jobs and declining at a rate of
over 10 percent during the same period.
Figure 15. Printing and related support activities

Philadelphia vs. United States
Figure 15. Printing and related support activities
Philadelphia vs. United States
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Philadelphia
United States
-12
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Perhaps no major metro area has been hit harder by the collapse of the housing market than Riverside–
San Bernardino–Ontario, California. Just two years ago, buoyed by a strong construction sector that
was racing to keep up with an insatiable demand for housing, Riverside ranked 3rd among all large
metros in our 2007 index. After dropping fifty places each of the past two years, it has now fallen to
103rd place. The specialty trade contractor sector, which includes home builders and related services,
shed more than 17,000 jobs from 2007 to 2008, a 21.3 percent decline. Riverside’s downturn has not
been limited to the construction industry, however. On a percentage basis, the largest decline actually
occurred in transportation equipment manufacturing, which saw a 21.8 percent drop while losing more
than 2,400 jobs. (See figure 16 on the following page.)
34
Riverside’s role as a logistics and warehousing center for the region continues to be the one consistent
positive note. Even as global trade has fallen, this sector has continued to add jobs locally, even as it is
shrinking in many other locations. Warehousing and storage added more than 400 jobs from 2007 to
2008, growing by 2.4 percent. Over the longer term, continued growth in this sector is highly likely,
as Riverside remains the only area in Southern California with both the space and the infrastructure to
handle expanded cargo flows.44 The largest overall gains in our one-year job growth indicator came from
local government, which added more than 3,900 jobs from 2007 to 2008.

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. United States
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. United States
10
-5
-10
-15
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
United States
-20
-25
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Atlanta–Shady Springs–Marietta, Georgia, also saw a dramatic fall. Among the nation’s ten largest
metros, it has slipped from 6th place in the 2007 and 2008 indexes to 8th in the current edition. Its
overall ranking fell from 59th in the 2008 index to 106th place today. The city’s largest employer is
Delta Airlines, which provides more than 22,200 jobs.45 Delta operates the greatest number of flights at
Atlanta’s busy Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, which serves as the airline’s major hub, and is
headquartered in the city. Air transportation largely stayed flat from 2007 to 2008, losing only 50 jobs,
but the severe cutbacks in corporate and personal travel seen over the last few months will impact the
2009 results.
35
Local government and professional, scientific, and technical services provided Atlanta’s largest job gains
from 2007 to 2008, adding more than 5,600 and 4,600 jobs, respectively. The recession has brought
some significant local cutbacks in corporate staffing, with 8,120 jobs being lost in administrative and
support services from 2007 to 2008. The city’s construction boom has also stalled, with heavy civil and
engineering construction falling at a rate of 15.1 percent and shedding more than 3,200 jobs in 2008.
Figure 17. Heavy and civil engineering construction

Atlanta-Shady Springs-Marietta vs. United States
Figure 17. Heavy and civil engineering construction
Atlanta-Shady Springs-Marietta vs. United States
10
-5
-10
Atlanta-Shady Springs-Marietta
United States
-15
-20
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale, California, has been mired in a slump. The metro area dropped
thirteen places for two consecutive years, falling from 126th place last year to 139th in this year’s overall
rankings. It also slipped from 8th to 9th place on our list of the nation’s ten largest metros. In our
indicator for recent job momentum, which examines March 2008 to March 2009, Los Angeles ranked
138th overall for job growth, losing 3.6 percent of its workforce.
Like other metros experiencing steep housing declines and increasing default and foreclosure rates, Los
Angeles has been hammered by the loss of jobs in construction, manufacturing, real estate services, and
financial services. These sectors lost more than 18,000 jobs between 2007 and 2008. As the recession
progressed, other service-providing industries, such as administrative and support services (a category that
includes temp agencies) also hemorrhaged. Nearly 5,900 jobs were lost in that industry during the same
period. (See figure 18 on the following page.)
Our five-year job growth indicator shows that the largest job losses during this period in Los Angeles have
been suffered in corporate management and in apparel. Although Los Angeles has managed to remain
a center for fashion design, more than 14,000 jobs were lost in apparel manufacturing between 2003
and 2008 (including more than 1,400 cuts between 2007 and 2008). The management of companies
and enterprises category saw the loss of nearly 21,000 workers between 2003 and 2008 (including more
than 2,200 in the most recent year). As companies have continued to move their headquarters out of Los
Angeles due to high cost of doing business, the impact has not only been felt in terms of lost jobs, but
also the lost spending that these companies once contributed locally.
36
Figure 18. Administrative and support services

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale vs. United States
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale vs. United States
6
-2
-4
-6
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale
United States
-8
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
The entertainment industry remains a strong asset for the region, though shakeups and slowdowns have
affected this sector as well. The industry has rebounded from recent labor disputes, but the continuing
rise of reality TV creates fewer staff jobs than traditional comedies and dramas once did. Motion picture
and sound recording added 2,800 jobs between 2007 and 2008, but broadcasting has been hit hard in
the recent downturn as advertising money dried up. Some 1,700 workers in this category were laid off
between March 2008 and March 2009. Frozen credit markets also increased the difficulty of getting new
films and other entertainment projects financed.
The few bright spots for the local economy continue to be health care and education. Los Angeles saw an
increase of nearly 6,000 jobs in health-care services and more than 2,200 jobs in educational services in
between 2007 and 2008.
37
Despite improving twelve spots overall, Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Illinois, ranks only 148th overall
and remains the weakest performer of the nation’s ten largest metros. Its dependence on traditional,
industrial manufacturing became an Achilles’ heel in the current recession. Fabricated metal
manufacturing shed 5,600 local jobs from 2003 to 2008.
Chicago’s financial sector, a primary driver of the region’s economy, has also undergone severe cutbacks
as result of the financial crisis. Credit intermediation and related activities saw a decline of 7.3 percent
between 2007 and 2008, a loss of more than 7,600 jobs in that industry alone. As a result, administrative
and support services quickly lost 11,000 jobs during the same period. A major convention hub, Chicago
has also been hit by the decline in business travel, with attendant losses in its leisure and hospitality sector.
Supported by a well-educated workforce, Chicago remains a major business center that will eventually
benefit from a national recovery. In the meantime, educational and health-care services have been the
leading sources for job creation.
Figure 19. Credit intermediation and related activities

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. United States
Figure 19. Credit intermediation and related activities
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. United States
6
-2
-4
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet
United States
-6
-8
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
38
The Best-Performing Small Cities

In addition to ranking the 200 largest metro areas in the United States, we have also created a companion
index of the best-performing small cities.
The 2009 index is comprised of 124 small metros. Texas, the big winner in the index of large cities, also
dominates this list: four small metros from the state placed in the top 10. The state is clearly benefiting
from high oil prices, an abundance of natural resources, and growth in the broader energy industry.
Midland, Texas, took the top spot once again, while Tyler is a newcomer to the top 10 list (Kennewick,
Washington; Bismarck, North Dakota; and Fargo, North Dakota, also made their debut in the top 10
this year.) After five years, Las Cruces, New Mexico, made its way back onto the top 10 list. At the other
end of the spectrum, many cities in the upper Midwest, particularly those in Michigan, did not fare well,
placing in the bottom ranks.
Table
Table 7.7.Top
Top10
10 best-performing
best-performing small cities
small cities
Rank in 2009 index*
Rank in 2009 index*
2009 2008
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank
Midland, TX 1 1
Longview, TX 2 7
Grand Junction, CO 3 5
Tyler, TX 4 26
Odessa, TX 5 10
Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA 6 29
Bismarck, ND 7 15
Warner Robins, GA 8 6
Las Cruces, NM 9 11
Fargo, ND-MN 10 17
*Among 124 small metros
For two consecutive years, Midland, Texas, has claimed the number-one spot among best-performing
small metros in the United States. The metro sits in the middle of the Permian Basin, which generates 61
percent of the oil production in Texas.46 The region benefited greatly in recent years, especially during the
summer of 2008, when the price of crude oil reached its zenith at $147 per barrel. Overall, employment
increased by 6.2 percent between 2007 and 2008, driven by oilfield services—a striking result when
compared with the nation’s negative job growth. Support activities for mining, which includes drilling
oil and gas wells and oil and gas operations, is the leading industry, employing more than 8,200 workers
and accounting for 12 percent of the total jobs in Midland. This industry recorded 15.8 percent annual
growth between 2003 and 2008. However, the global recession and the subsequent collapse of energy
prices eventually pushed Midland’s unemployment rate higher, to 4.3 percent in March 2009.47
39
With job opportunities expanding and income levels rising in recent years, the metro’s housing sector has
boomed. Median home prices in the region have held up well. In the first quarter of 2009, there was an
average of four months of inventory supply, compared with 2.1 months during the same period of 2008.
Growing consumer activity supports Midland’s strong economy; annual retail sales increased by 16.1
percent in 2008.48 In fact, employment in the food services and drinking places category rose 9.3 percent
during the same year.

Midland vs. United States
Midland vs. United States
30
Midland
United States
20
10
-10
-20
-30
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Longview, Texas, leapt to the number-two spot in 2009, propelled by strong energy and chemical
industries. Between 2007 and 2008, overall job growth was 2.8 percent, making Longview one of the few
U.S. metros that recorded positive job growth during that period. Wage growth was decent, rising by 3.8
percent from 2006 to 2007.
Longview benefits from the large number of energy-related jobs based in the East Texas oilfields. The
industries of oil and gas extraction and its supporting activities remain the key engines of growth in
this region. In particular, the supporting activities for mining industry added close to 2,200 jobs from
2003 to 2008, and recorded 13.2 percent annual job growth since 2003. Most of these professionals
are employed on a contract basis, either individually or through agencies. Consequently, employment
services and other business support services—such as accounting and payroll—grew as well, adding 780
jobs and 470 jobs, respectively, between 2007 and 2008.
Longview also is considered a regional health-care hub and tends to attract retirees from the North.49 The
health-care sector employed 12,900 workers, accounting for 13 percent of the metro’s total workforce, in
2008.
40

Longview vs. United States

20
Longview
United States
15
10
-5
-10
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Grand Junction, Colorado, climbed a couple of spots to finish 3rd in the 2009 index. This metro area
is positioned between Denver and Salt Lake City, giving it access to a wide market base. At 4.5 percent,
overall short-term job growth remained robust, ranking 4th among the nation’s small cities and making
Grand Junction one of the few places in the nation that can lay claim to significant job growth between
2007 and 2008.
The energy sector, whose prices peaked in the summer of 2008, contributed to the region’s economic
gains and job creation. The metro sits in the Piceance Basin, which is rich in oil shale, coal, and natural
gas. Exploration and R&D for better extraction of these resources has been growing. As a result, the
support for mining activity category remained the metro’s leading industry, creating more than 3,200
jobs for 41.7 percent average annual growth from 2003 to 2008.
Tyler, Texas, leapt twenty-two positions to become the 4th-best-performing small metro in the United
States. Located in northeast Texas, next to Longview MSA, another thriving metro, Tyler serves as a
distribution hub for several major regional markets: Dallas, Houston, Austin, Shreveport, Little Rock,
Oklahoma City, and New Orleans are all less than 500 miles away.50 Overall job growth was 1.8 percent
between 2007 and 2008, led by warehousing and storage, which added close to 2,000 positions.
The health-care services sector is the largest employer in the region. The East Texas Medical Center and
Trinity Mother Frances Hospital employed more than 7,200 workers in 2008.51 Together, the ambulatory
health-care services and hospitals industries were responsible for the creation of almost 1,000 jobs
between 2007 and 2008.
41
Figure 22. Health-care and social assistance services

Tyler vs. United States
Figure 22. Health care and social assistance services
Tyler vs. United States
7.0
Tyler
United States
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Odessa, Texas, moved up to 5th in the 2009 small metro index. This oil-rich region, a major center for
oil field technology, is a crucial service, work force, transportation, supply, and manufacturing hub of the
Permian Basin. It enjoyed robust job growth of 6.7 percent between 2007 and 2008, the fastest increase
in the nation.52 Odessa’s unemployment rate in 2008 was the second-lowest in the state at 3.4 percent
(the state of Texas ended the year with 4.9 percent unemployment, considerably below the national
unemployment rate of 5.8 percent).53
Odessa, along with Midland, forms an economic hub in the Permian Basin region that stretches across
West Texas and Southern New Mexico, and along La Entrada Pacífico, the trade corridor that extends
into Mexico. Not surprisingly, oil and gas extraction and supporting activities for mining are leading
industries, employing more than 6,800 workers and accounting for 10.8 percent of total jobs in 2008.
Distribution centers of major corporations such as Coca-Cola also call Odessa home.
The metro has ambitious plans to upgrade public infrastructure. The $69 million Water and Sewer
System Improvement Programming Project54 was a factor behind growth in the heavy and civil
engineering construction industry, which added more than 500 jobs in the past year, a 26.4 percent
increase from 2007.
Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, Washington, climbed twenty-three spots to rank 6th among small U.S.
metros in 2009. The area’s overall job growth was 3.8 percent between 2007 and 2008. Leading job
creation were the professional, scientific, and technical services sector (which includes engineering
services, research and development, and environmental consulting services) and government. The former
added 900 positions and the latter added more than 500 during this period. Waste management and
the remediation services sector also has a large presence and added more than 200 new jobs. The public
sector plays an important role in the local economy since the metro area is home to the Department
of Energy’s Hanford Site, which encompasses plutonium production facilities and nuclear reactors.55
Indeed, the largest employers in the region are the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest
42
National Lab (PNNL), plus several engineering and consulting firms, such as Fluor and Bechtel. There
are more scientists and engineers per capita in the “Tri-Cities” than anywhere else in the nation.56
Due to the high number of high-tech jobs, the region has posted impressive wage growth. Between 2006 and
2007, wages increased by 5.4 percent, the third-best performance in this measure in the small metro index.

Kennewick-Pasco-Richland vs. United States
Kennewick-Pasco-Richland vs. United States
20
Kennewick-Pasco-Richland
United States
15
10
-5
-10
-15
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Energy-rich Bismarck, North Dakota, rose to 7th place in the 2009 small cities index after finishing
15th last year. The metro area has large reserves of lignite coal, oil, and natural gas. It is home to four
lignite coalmines, which produce more than 30 million tons annually.57 Agriculture is also an important
sector in the region. Acreage of corn and soybeans—used for biofuels—has increased, while wheat
production remains the number-one crop. All three commodities’ prices skyrocketed in the time
period we examined as demand from emerging markets and the alternative energy sector increased.
Construction of the new Northern Plains Commerce Center (NPCC), which will serve as an industrial,
distribution, and technology park, and has immediate access to land, rail, and air transportation, will
expand the region’s trade capacity.
Between 2007 and 2008, overall job growth was 2 percent. The top three leading job creators were
ambulatory health-care services, which added 170 jobs; heavy and civil engineering construction, which
grew by 140 jobs; and professional, scientific, and technical services, which added 120 new jobs. As of
March 2009, the metro had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation at 4.7 percent. This was
lower than the state of North Dakota (5.1 percent) and considerably lower than the nation’s 9.0 percent
unemployment rate during the same month.
Warner Robins, Georgia, the new home of the Southeast Regional Headquarters of Little League,
was the 8th-best-performing small metro of 2009, declining by two spots since the 2008 index. Robin
Air Force Base (Robin AFB) continues to be the dominant force in the local economy, generating $3.9
billion in economic impact in Middle Georgia. It is the largest local employer, with more than 21,000
43
civilians, contractors, and military members.58 Not surprisingly, federal government jobs are strongly
concentrated in the region, accounting for more than 3,800 workers in 2008. Between 2003 and 2008,
overall job growth in the region was 10.3 percent and wages rose 8.8 percent.
The food-manufacturing sector also has a big presence in Warner Robins, which is home to operations of
Perdue and Frito-Lay. The combined workforce of these two top employers was close to 3,700 workers.59
Job growth in the food manufacturing industry increased by 2.7 percent between 2007 and 2008.
Located in southwestern New Mexico, Las Cruces made it back to the top 10 list, finishing 9th
among the best-performing small metros of 2009. This is the area’s best showing since 2004, when it
ranked number 2. New Mexico State University, White Sands Missiles Range, and NASA White Sands
Test Facility continue to be the economic engines of the region. Spaceport America, the world’s first
commercial spaceport, is being developed in the region as well. With the growing aerospace engineering
program at NMSU attracting aerospace firms, and its low cost of doing business, Las Cruces is becoming
a major player and top location for aerospace and space-related technology R&D firms.
Overall job growth in Las Cruces was 1.6 percent between 2007 and 2008. Its location along the Rio
Grande trade corridor gives the metro area access to the consumer and business markets of border cities
in both Texas and Mexico. Las Cruces is also a growing destination for retirees, which is keeping the real
estate market afloat in the region.
44
Fargo, North Dakota, ranks 10th among the best-performing small metros of 2009. Overall job
growth was 1.3 percent between 2007 and 2008. Increased demand for agricultural commodities such
as wheat, corn, and soybeans, which the state grows in abundance, has benefited the heavy machinery
manufacturing industry in Fargo and increased local income. Fargo has a growing technology cluster,
including operations of Microsoft, Navtech, and Aldevron. The metro’s four institutions of higher
learning (North Dakota State University, Rasmussen College, and—just across the state line—Minnesota
State University and Concordia College, both in the neighboring city of Moorhead, MN) support this
new strength in technology, in particular the bioscience sector.
Between 2003 and 2008, the professional, scientific, and technical services sector added more than
1,700 jobs. Most of the growth came from the computer systems design and scientific research and
development services. Meanwhile, the machinery manufacturing industry added more than 500
positions, mostly in the manufacturing of agriculture, construction, and mining machineries.
Figure 24. Computer systems design services

Fargo vs. United States
Figure 24. Computer systems design services
Fargo vs. United States
40
Fargo
United States
30
20
10
-10
-20
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
45
Complete Results: 2009 Best-Performing Large Cities
5-yr job growth 1-yr job growth 5-yr wages/salaries 1-yr wages/salaries Job growth 5-yr relative HT GDP 1-yr relative HT GDP High-Tech # of HT GDP Population
2009 2008 2003–2008 2007–2008 growth 2002–2007 growth 2006–2007 (Mar 08–Mar 09) growth 2003–2008 growth 2007–2008 GDP LQ 2008 LQs over 1 2008 2008 Overall
rank rank Metropolitan area 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2007 Value* Rank 2007 Value* Rank Growth Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank (thousands) index**
1 4 Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA 112.92 6 103.04 4 109.66 19 103.08 5 0.32% 4 112.86 20 102.41 11 1.56 14 10 23 1,653 100.00
2 13 Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA 108.23 18 104.15 1 117.43 4 101.62 28 1.81% 1 139.23 6 98.91 73 0.85 75 6 78 379 232.98
3 3 Salt Lake City, UT MSA 109.51 10 101.14 44 107.77 29 103.73 2 -2.58% 96 102.18 48 103.87 5 1.00 56 11 14 1,116 337.32
4 7 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 118.13 1 103.60 3 116.02 7 102.82 8 -0.01% 6 182.19 1 96.75 133 0.45 174 3 148 727 350.33
5 16 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA 108.55 16 102.70 7 108.92 21 102.91 7 -0.69% 23 97.22 70 99.18 68 0.77 89 3 148 5,728 362.57
6 21 Durham, NC MSA 106.70 28 102.15 13 102.87 68 101.39 33 -1.75% 54 96.91 72 101.72 20 2.18 4 9 34 490 363.07
7 9 Olympia, WA MSA 107.64 23 102.13 14 106.63 39 102.66 11 -0.39% 16 119.21 14 101.38 25 0.54 154 4 125 245 363.55
8 5 Huntsville, AL MSA 107.75 20 102.33 9 106.79 37 100.55 62 -2.19% 73 100.13 55 102.16 14 2.08 6 8 47 396 364.50
9 14 Lafayette, LA MSA 107.68 22 101.73 23 111.22 16 102.72 10 -0.37% 14 114.00 19 97.86 104 0.64 122 4 125 259 374.44
10 2 Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA 113.09 5 101.30 33 108.06 28 102.61 12 -3.36% 128 98.68 62 100.71 37 1.45 20 12 10 1,089 376.31
11 15 San Antonio, TX MSA 107.71 21 102.67 8 107.68 30 102.16 20 -0.19% 10 94.09 95 96.62 138 0.88 69 6 78 2,031 386.93
12 29 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MD 106.32 30 101.92 18 103.68 58 102.39 16 -0.38% 15 95.92 79 96.87 131 1.10 45 9 34 2,074 390.86
13 23 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX MD 106.25 32 102.01 17 103.57 60 102.56 13 -1.72% 53 103.18 41 96.23 148 1.49 17 11 14 4,226 396.07
14 37 El Paso, TX MSA 103.46 53 102.80 6 103.18 65 102.35 17 -0.78% 24 94.70 90 100.22 45 0.67 113 4 125 742 487.99
15 45 Wichita, KS MSA 104.19 46 102.33 9 98.76 117 100.18 76 -0.58% 20 104.06 38 99.33 65 2.01 7 7 57 604 489.00
16 88 Corpus Christi, TX MSA 104.18 47 103.77 2 104.16 54 101.27 36 -1.36% 41 109.27 29 100.93 31 0.56 143 3 148 415 493.68
17 17 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA MD 105.95 33 101.64 27 101.65 79 102.75 9 -3.34% 126 97.28 69 100.14 48 2.18 4 8 47 2,559 498.05
18 40 Baton Rouge, LA MSA 105.09 39 101.01 50 108.10 27 103.09 4 0.45% 3 102.94 42 97.12 125 0.47 170 3 148 774 506.96
19 72 Tulsa, OK MSA 105.47 36 102.07 16 100.12 97 100.19 75 -0.23% 11 108.58 30 100.78 32 0.71 100 5 106 916 512.89
20 20 Greeley, CO MSA 108.82 14 101.82 20 105.42 47 101.64 27 -1.57% 48 102.61 44 98.77 78 0.51 162 3 148 250 516.27
21 8 Tacoma, WA MD 107.27 25 100.24 89 111.87 14 101.77 25 -2.27% 77 133.99 9 100.21 46 0.64 122 5 106 786 516.30
22 48 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA 103.81 50 101.45 30 97.41 127 100.67 56 -1.16% 36 97.50 68 100.55 41 1.40 24 10 23 293 524.59
23 54 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR MSA 102.10 75 101.02 49 102.09 76 101.66 26 -1.35% 40 106.08 33 97.91 102 1.12 43 7 57 675 533.26
24 67 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA 103.29 58 101.31 31 104.63 49 102.34 18 -0.98% 28 134.58 8 95.19 169 0.63 127 5 106 390 540.07
25 41 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MD 103.42 55 101.16 43 105.56 45 99.77 97 -0.89% 27 93.31 104 98.23 92 1.47 19 9 34 4,182 544.34
26 50 Oklahoma City, OK MSA 103.14 61 101.63 28 103.88 55 100.15 81 -0.24% 12 104.03 39 98.91 73 0.65 120 6 78 1,206 544.74
27 57 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO MSA 108.47 17 100.26 87 111.11 17 99.56 110 -1.12% 33 144.68 4 103.97 4 0.54 154 4 125 444 566.45
28 1 Provo-Orem, UT MSA 114.96 2 99.44 140 114.74 9 104.17 1 -3.85% 145 95.63 83 101.37 26 1.26 36 6 78 541 568.15
29 56 Lubbock, TX MSA 101.04 81 102.18 11 99.89 100 100.58 60 0.05% 5 111.66 21 93.20 185 1.28 31 6 78 271 576.07
30 10 Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC MSA 108.08 19 101.26 38 107.64 31 100.84 47 -3.05% 116 111.34 22 97.01 129 0.69 106 6 78 645 581.54
31 52 Fayetteville, NC MSA 105.69 34 101.81 22 111.76 15 102.44 15 -1.86% 58 92.40 109 97.85 105 0.42 180 2 173 356 592.95
32 18 Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA 106.31 31 99.88 115 106.35 41 103.18 3 -2.71% 102 95.78 81 103.26 6 0.70 105 6 78 531 593.70
33 43 Peoria, IL MSA 104.20 45 101.46 29 106.79 37 99.63 106 -1.00% 31 101.65 49 98.16 95 0.55 148 5 106 372 620.95
34 6 Wilmington, NC MSA 113.99 4 99.99 105 114.39 11 102.05 22 -4.32% 160 142.68 5 98.32 88 0.72 98 4 125 347 639.47
35 49 Amarillo, TX MSA 102.85 64 101.71 24 104.29 51 102.03 23 -0.55% 19 96.44 75 93.79 179 0.50 164 3 148 244 643.82
36 12 Bakersfield, CA MSA 109.08 13 100.20 94 108.21 26 100.28 72 -1.34% 39 95.16 86 98.64 83 0.49 166 5 106 800 645.13
37 28 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA MSA 105.11 38 100.44 76 101.76 78 100.36 69 -4.23% 154 139.05 7 100.03 50 1.84 9 9 34 2,207 647.49
38 85 New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ MD 100.28 93 101.29 35 105.67 44 103.07 6 -2.17% 70 89.93 133 99.00 71 0.66 116 4 125 11,697 653.47
39 24 Savannah, GA MSA 110.37 7 99.08 156 109.32 20 101.04 37 -2.05% 63 110.20 26 97.64 112 0.74 93 3 148 334 656.58
40 63 Anchorage, AK MSA 102.75 65 102.09 15 102.36 69 100.15 81 0.88% 2 93.42 103 93.40 183 0.71 100 5 106 365 663.69
41 35 Spokane, WA MSA 104.73 41 100.75 63 104.21 52 101.47 31 -2.87% 111 99.16 59 98.87 75 0.68 107 4 125 463 668.49
42 31 Albuquerque, NM MSA 103.38 56 100.40 78 102.24 73 99.54 113 -2.48% 89 93.69 98 101.16 28 1.95 8 11 14 846 672.33
43 100 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA MSA 98.77 125 100.00 104 102.12 75 100.37 68 -1.78% 55 102.29 46 100.34 43 1.41 22 11 14 405 681.50
44 95 Boulder, CO MSA 102.59 68 101.85 19 97.20 130 100.35 70 -2.96% 112 96.21 78 97.94 101 2.75 3 15 3 293 684.00
45 139 Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA MD 96.64 163 100.93 56 96.12 142 100.83 48 -0.44% 18 91.58 115 102.20 13 2.84 1 18 1 1,482 684.96
46 62 Trenton-Ewing, NJ MSA 100.79 87 101.19 42 100.85 93 99.38 119 -2.27% 76 107.18 31 99.30 67 1.26 36 9 34 365 697.32
47 26 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC MSA 106.69 29 100.50 68 106.47 40 101.29 35 -6.04% 189 106.98 32 100.77 33 0.68 107 4 125 1,702 708.54
48 149 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT MSA 98.91 120 101.27 36 98.88 115 100.92 39 -1.99% 60 102.37 45 99.04 69 0.93 64 5 106 1,191 712.08
49 93 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MSA 98.42 129 100.96 54 103.13 66 100.92 39 -2.67% 99 99.77 56 98.63 84 0.99 59 7 57 895 716.40
50 84 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 99.75 105 100.84 61 98.96 11 4 100.87 44 -3.87% 146 94.80 89 101.80 19 2.83 2 15 3 1,819 733.12
51 123 Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg, MD MD 98.51 127 100.19 95 102.36 69 99.02 140 -0.05% 8 95.67 82 100.03 50 1.42 21 9 34 1,176 741.12
52 77 Kansas City, MO-KS MSA 100.82 86 100.96 54 97.19 131 100.67 56 -1.41% 42 93.10 106 95.59 163 1.35 27 7 57 2,002 758.43
53 25 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA MSA 105.23 37 101.10 46 104.17 53 99.91 90 -1.48% 43 94.89 88 94.87 172 0.55 148 3 148 556 759.53
54 134 Utica-Rome, NY MSA 95.49 175 100.33 81 96.23 140 101.62 28 -0.67% 22 104.30 37 97.32 118 1.04 52 15 3 294 766.79
55 44 Denver-Aurora, CO MSA 102.47 71 101.22 41 98.83 116 100.78 53 -3.75% 141 93.12 105 96.71 136 1.63 12 12 10 2,507 770.02
56 36 Columbia, SC MSA 102.73 66 100.43 77 103.04 67 100.57 61 -1.53% 45 105.19 36 96.70 137 0.53 156 3 148 728 770.37
57 86 Cedar Rapids, IA MSA 102.70 67 101.66 26 98.98 113 100.17 78 -0.79% 25 87.43 150 92.76 189 0.82 82 6 78 255 775.83
58 66 Salem, OR MSA 103.78 51 100.87 60 102.32 71 100.48 63 -4.37% 161 105.38 34 101.82 18 0.68 107 3 148 392 778.16
59 91 Mobile, AL MSA 102.55 69 101.13 45 103.42 62 100.16 79 -1.19% 37 89.89 135 97.99 100 0.52 158 3 148 406 781.20
60 71 Lynchburg, VA MSA 102.13 74 101.30 33 99.37 105 100.13 84 -0.26% 13 85.57 157 97.25 120 0.52 158 6 78 246 785.52
61 118 Boston-Quincy, MA MD 99.30 113 101.26 38 98.60 118 100.83 48 -2.15% 68 87.09 151 99.83 53 0.78 85 6 78 1,885 790.41
62 69 Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA 102.97 62 100.49 70 103.29 64 100.64 59 -1.62% 49 102.22 47 96.55 142 0.29 197 3 148 291 793.08
63 90 Madison, WI MSA 100.27 94 100.34 80 99.28 108 99.11 135 -2.30% 80 115.83 18 99.71 56 1.09 47 9 34 562 799.81
64 87 Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA 99.84 104 100.14 96 101.48 81 99.48 116 -2.53% 94 100.51 54 100.60 38 1.00 56 10 23 2,667 802.51
65 125 Binghamton, NY MSA 96.53 167 100.63 67 90.58 184 100.86 46 -2.00% 61 99.03 60 100.73 35 1.57 13 12 10 245 813.22
66 82 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA MSA 100.94 84 101.68 25 99.87 101 99.36 121 -1.54% 46 90.83 123 98.17 94 0.72 98 5 106 838 816.62
67 70 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA 99.95 99 100.65 65 103.83 56 101.41 32 -2.48% 90 116.42 15 94.45 175 0.66 116 1 194 378 822.51
68 42 Springfield, MO MSA 104.23 44 99.78 122 102.28 72 100.76 54 -2.15% 69 88.44 143 97.23 121 0.64 122 6 78 426 824.08
69 96 Nassau-Suffolk, NY MD 97.89 143 100.47 72 100.57 94 102.08 21 -2.11% 66 89.15 138 96.73 135 0.93 64 7 57 2,864 824.42
70 119 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX MSA 104.08 48 102.18 11 100.01 98 100.87 44 -2.14% 67 87.07 152 97.71 109 0.25 199 1 194 393 825.94
71 116 York-Hanover, PA MSA 103.30 57 100.91 57 100.14 96 100.20 74 -2.29% 79 88.51 141 99.03 70 0.55 148 5 106 425 827.56
72 138 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA 97.44 150 100.88 59 96.17 141 101.35 34 -1.29% 38 90.34 127 97.48 115 1.07 50 7 57 854 829.52
73 159 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY MSA 97.88 144 100.39 79 99.14 111 100.45 67 -1.72% 52 85.86 156 102.98 7 0.87 71 7 57 673 832.59
74 127 Syracuse, NY MSA 96.71 161 100.77 62 94.91 162 102.26 19 -0.99% 29 89.98 132 97.37 116 1.06 51 9 34 644 833.78
75 46 Asheville, NC MSA 102.53 70 99.94 110 101.30 87 101.04 37 -4.79% 173 109.79 27 102.02 15 0.55 148 6 78 408 850.12
76 107 Manchester-Nashua, NH MSA 99.69 107 101.01 50 99.02 112 98.32 163 -1.71% 51 87.75 148 100.60 38 1.37 26 8 47 402 852.25
77 68 Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC MSA 103.23 60 101.31 31 98.41 121 100.71 55 -2.74% 103 89.46 136 95.85 158 0.83 80 4 125 625 860.84
78 55 Tucson, AZ MSA 104.81 40 99.39 142 107.29 34 99.53 114 -4.91% 175 81.51 175 105.87 3 1.22 39 11 14 1,012 863.54
79 156 Worcester, MA MSA 96.98 159 100.14 96 95.95 147 100.83 48 -1.84% 57 82.52 172 102.49 8 1.25 38 11 14 784 867.01
80 148 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL MSA 99.42 110 100.98 53 99.77 102 100.16 79 -0.42% 17 95.84 80 96.41 144 0.50 164 2 173 378 891.19
81 76 Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA 103.45 54 99.18 151 101.35 85 99.92 88 -5.98% 187 126.74 10 100.27 44 1.10 45 7 57 347 895.25
82 121 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC MSA 98.26 131 100.33 81 96.55 139 99.86 92 -2.08% 65 103.52 40 101.51 23 0.60 130 6 78 534 895.39
83 65 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA 99.40 111 99.68 129 101.80 77 99.63 106 -3.33% 125 96.75 74 98.06 97 1.51 15 14 6 3,001 896.47
84 151 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA MSA 81.46 200 102.88 5 89.16 187 102.55 14 -0.03% 7 91.29 117 100.12 49 0.45 174 4 125 1,134 897.23
85 74 San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA MD 99.30 113 101.06 48 96.98 134 100.65 58 -3.72% 140 90.56 125 96.90 130 1.35 27 10 23 1,770 898.01
86 180 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA 96.04 172 101.27 36 94.93 161 101.97 24 -2.18% 72 85.03 161 98.39 86 0.84 79 7 57 1,124 912.96
87 89 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA 98.83 123 99.53 138 102.17 74 99.90 91 -0.84% 26 88.19 144 98.18 93 0.73 95 6 78 1,658 913.53
88 184 New Haven-Milford, CT MSA 96.27 169 99.75 124 94.86 163 100.92 39 -0.12% 9 90.11 131 97.67 110 1.27 33 9 34 846 915.42
89 181 Rochester, NY MSA 96.26 170 100.89 58 93.81 176 101.52 30 -0.60% 21 83.18 169 95.90 156 1.15 42 8 47 1,034 920.47
90 34 Gainesville, FL MSA 100.22 97 99.93 111 108.58 23 99.41 118 -2.07% 64 92.09 112 94.45 175 0.57 139 6 78 259 924.22
91 113 Rockingham County-Strafford County, NH MD 100.84 85 100.21 92 99.34 106 98.32 163 -2.43% 84 96.83 73 97.75 107 0.94 63 9 34 419 930.20
92 99 Winston-Salem, NC MSA 100.97 83 99.93 111 95.90 149 100.47 65 -3.24% 121 159.10 2 101.55 22 0.57 139 4 125 468 936.42
93 32 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA 109.46 12 98.01 181 113.75 12 99.35 122 -7.30% 196 74.60 192 101.64 21 1.02 54 7 57 4,282 952.96
rank rank Metropolitan area 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2007 Value* Rank 2007 Value* Rank Growth Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank (thousands) index
94 176 Norwich-New London, CT MSA 95.81 173 100.29 85 94.84 164 100.92 39 -2.67% 101 101.58 50 99.31 66 1.34 29 5 106 265 956.80
95 108 Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI MD 99.32 112 100.45 74 96.59 138 99.59 108 -2.29% 78 85.35 160 99.57 57 1.27 33 5 106 877 956.99
96 130 Philadelphia, PA MD 97.58 146 100.64 66 98.57 119 99.82 95 -2.33% 81 79.54 180 98.24 91 1.12 43 7 57 3,892 963.18
97 146 Lincoln, NE MSA 99.94 100 101.01 50 95.45 152 99.16 131 -1.16% 35 80.70 178 99.37 62 0.67 113 5 106 295 969.72
98 22 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN MSA 103.27 59 100.02 102 106.23 42 99.83 94 -3.83% 144 87.64 149 94.88 171 0.65 120 6 78 1,551 972.92
99 11 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL MSA 110.22 8 98.91 162 112.57 13 98.78 146 -5.59% 184 98.90 61 93.14 187 0.83 80 7 57 2,055 981.23
100 94 Honolulu, HI MSA 102.34 72 99.82 116 105.90 43 100.27 73 -2.37% 82 91.78 113 92.51 193 0.47 170 2 173 905 986.91
101 111 Colorado Springs, CO MSA 100.53 90 99.68 129 99.31 107 100.18 76 -3.76% 142 78.92 181 97.34 117 1.73 11 10 23 618 987.76
102 38 Montgomery, AL MSA 102.29 73 100.33 81 99.75 103 99.27 127 -2.67% 100 97.69 67 96.79 132 0.61 129 4 125 366 987.87
103 53 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA 105.54 35 96.62 192 114.60 10 99.33 123 -6.30% 190 111.07 24 98.30 89 0.59 135 6 78 4,116 991.97
104 30 Ocala, FL MSA 108.61 15 96.85 191 118.09 3 98.26 168 -4.97% 177 149.64 3 92.76 189 0.85 75 7 57 330 996.16
105 129 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ MSA 100.26 96 100.31 84 98.35 122 99.67 102 -2.44% 85 83.69 167 96.59 140 0.74 93 7 57 808 997.60
106 59 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA 102.93 63 99.34 143 99.16 110 99.98 87 -4.97% 176 93.60 99 98.47 85 1.08 49 8 47 5,376 1,000.56
107 75 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA 114.23 3 99.04 157 123.86 1 100.46 66 -5.21% 178 95.18 85 93.17 186 0.37 192 2 173 1,866 1,004.39
108 135 Columbus, OH MSA 98.03 136 100.24 89 94.35 171 99.07 137 -1.56% 47 94.45 93 100.72 36 0.79 84 6 78 1,773 1,009.56
109 136 Pittsburgh, PA MSA 96.13 171 100.67 64 94.41 168 100.07 85 -1.80% 56 90.29 128 96.04 151 0.87 71 10 23 2,351 1,016.13
110 124 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA MSA 97.96 139 100.47 72 95.19 157 99.28 125 -2.56% 95 110.46 25 95.92 154 0.78 85 10 23 531 1,017.94
111 171 Peabody, MA MD 95.20 180 99.54 136 95.35 155 100.83 48 -2.78% 106 79.69 179 101.89 17 1.83 10 13 8 736 1,018.99
112 166 Columbus, GA-AL MSA 95.51 174 99.96 109 98.44 120 99.66 103 -1.15% 34 87.89 146 93.90 178 1.27 33 9 34 288 1,023.01
113 154 Jackson, MS MSA 98.87 121 100.04 101 101.14 91 99.57 109 -1.49% 44 83.76 165 99.45 61 0.56 143 2 173 537 1,024.36
114 27 Boise City-Nampa, ID MSA 109.59 9 98.46 166 108.27 25 98.29 166 -6.80% 192 83.99 163 102.46 10 1.01 55 3 148 600 1,037.71
115 47 Fresno, CA MSA 101.66 78 99.27 147 101.51 80 99.72 99 -3.45% 131 105.38 34 97.78 106 0.42 180 4 125 909 1,053.40
116 104 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA 99.47 109 97.45 187 107.19 36 97.15 185 -5.43% 181 100.59 53 99.82 54 1.50 16 13 8 537 1,063.29
117 58 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA MSA 98.87 121 98.06 179 103.39 63 99.81 96 -5.24% 179 97.83 65 98.70 80 0.95 62 8 47 2,110 1,064.78
118 102 Richmond, VA MSA 101.35 79 99.59 135 101.33 86 99.68 101 -3.61% 136 91.75 114 95.22 168 0.71 100 6 78 1,226 1,066.57
119 60 Knoxville, TN MSA 100.33 91 99.93 111 101.30 87 99.50 115 -3.39% 129 78.36 183 97.05 127 0.68 107 7 57 691 1,070.68
120 19 Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC MSA 109.48 11 99.28 145 111.02 18 98.61 153 -7.08% 195 101.22 52 97.49 113 0.40 184 3 148 257 1,071.26
121 109 Camden, NJ MD 97.93 141 99.74 125 99.95 99 99.01 141 -4.21% 153 95.51 84 100.77 33 0.88 69 8 47 1,251 1,079.52
122 106 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA MD 98.59 126 98.40 170 104.80 48 98.52 155 -4.71% 170 92.62 107 98.68 81 1.28 31 16 2 3,011 1,085.15
123 137 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI MSA 98.19 132 99.78 122 97.03 133 100.48 63 -3.28% 123 87.96 145 96.17 149 0.93 64 7 57 3,230 1,085.60
124 64 Visalia-Porterville, CA MSA 104.65 42 100.22 91 103.69 57 98.60 154 -3.07% 117 88.56 140 95.65 161 0.23 200 3 148 426 1,091.42
125 81 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN MSA 100.31 92 100.28 86 96.12 142 98.22 170 -3.00% 114 83.52 168 98.07 96 1.20 40 7 57 1,715 1,091.43
126 168 Roanoke, VA MSA 97.58 146 99.68 129 95.20 156 99.07 137 -1.69% 50 90.27 129 99.53 59 0.73 95 7 57 298 1,096.41
127 182 Springfield, MA MSA 95.29 178 99.72 126 94.14 172 100.83 48 -2.79% 107 98.02 64 100.57 40 0.59 135 6 78 688 1,098.62
128 152 St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 97.54 149 100.45 74 93.66 177 98.76 148 -2.47% 87 93.78 97 96.27 147 1.00 56 9 34 2,841 1,115.95
129 115 Tallahassee, FL MSA 101.28 80 99.24 148 98.04 123 98.39 161 -2.53% 93 98.11 63 95.54 164 0.71 100 5 106 357 1,142.64
130 79 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA MSA 99.54 108 99.42 141 101.27 90 99.85 93 -3.17% 120 91.11 118 93.99 177 0.56 143 5 106 265 1,145.59
131 61 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL MD 103.84 49 98.10 178 107.35 32 97.25 184 -4.37% 162 91.43 116 92.73 191 0.77 89 8 47 1,751 1,149.56
132 161 Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA 97.37 153 99.99 105 93.93 174 99.14 132 -2.75% 104 101.34 51 95.25 167 0.78 85 11 14 549 1,150.18
133 128 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA MSA 96.62 165 101.08 47 95.36 154 98.66 150 -3.15% 119 92.34 110 95.30 166 0.77 89 10 23 305 1,153.31
134 132 Salinas, CA MSA 95.35 177 100.26 87 99.75 103 99.66 103 -3.11% 118 99.42 58 98.26 90 0.39 187 3 148 408 1,153.55
135 164 Reading, PA MSA 100.66 89 99.97 108 95.09 158 99.23 128 -2.97% 113 90.85 122 98.02 98 0.56 143 5 106 404 1,155.01
136 51 Clarksville, TN-KY MSA 101.80 76 98.66 164 116.04 6 98.77 147 -4.73% 171 89.90 134 98.68 81 0.46 172 3 148 261 1,156.08
137 98 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 107.09 26 98.42 168 108.64 22 98.86 143 -4.49% 165 94.04 96 93.28 184 0.38 189 3 148 581 1,157.07
138 173 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN MSA 97.36 154 99.99 105 94.38 169 98.64 151 -2.59% 97 97.73 66 102.40 12 0.73 95 3 148 2,155 1,164.09
139 126 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA MD 96.95 160 99.16 153 98.03 124 99.66 103 -3.63% 138 88.49 142 97.13 124 1.30 30 10 23 9,862 1,165.49
140 158 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME MSA 97.27 156 100.21 92 97.21 129 98.97 142 -2.18% 71 91.01 120 96.37 146 0.62 128 5 106 514 1,168.10
141 39 Jacksonville, FL MSA 104.36 43 98.40 170 108.45 24 98.44 158 -4.03% 149 86.31 155 90.85 199 0.60 130 4 125 1,313 1,179.41
142 163 Newark-Union, NJ-PA MD 94.82 182 100.12 98 95.05 159 99.14 132 -2.52% 92 77.54 185 97.16 122 1.18 41 10 23 2,121 1,180.57
143 133 Reno-Sparks, NV MSA 101.80 76 96.27 195 107.35 32 100.31 71 -7.57% 197 93.47 102 97.49 113 0.46 172 2 173 415 1,183.13
144 177 Charleston, WV MSA 97.87 145 101.26 38 94.81 165 98.84 144 -1.12% 32 74.05 194 91.47 197 0.57 139 4 125 304 1,183.37
145 147 Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA MD 95.27 179 98.67 163 96.84 136 99.38 119 -4.17% 151 93.55 101 98.35 87 1.40 24 14 6 2,504 1,193.16
146 112 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV MSA 99.23 116 99.14 155 101.29 89 98.28 167 -2.81% 109 120.65 13 95.75 159 0.55 148 4 125 264 1,194.14
147 114 Edison-New Brunswick, NJ MD 97.94 140 99.81 117 95.94 148 99.31 124 -4.30% 159 82.99 170 96.45 143 1.48 18 12 10 2,325 1,194.65
148 160 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL MD 97.09 158 99.69 127 95.79 150 99.56 110 -3.79% 143 90.71 124 98.77 78 0.81 83 7 57 7,990 1,195.34
149 153 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA 97.43 151 99.81 117 96.07 144 99.72 99 -1.00% 30 90.15 130 95.64 162 0.38 189 2 173 284 1,206.36
150 78 Port St. Lucie, FL MSA 106.94 27 95.29 198 116.85 5 97.29 183 -5.44% 182 102.88 43 95.87 157 0.45 174 2 173 404 1,207.58
151 157 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA 97.35 155 99.81 117 94.00 173 98.23 169 -4.02% 148 116.15 16 101.25 27 0.92 67 5 106 1,549 1,211.28
152 169 Fort Wayne, IN MSA 96.54 166 99.22 149 88.83 188 97.34 180 -2.01% 62 115.91 17 99.74 55 0.85 75 5 106 411 1,213.19
153 131 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN MSA 99.05 118 99.93 111 97.40 128 99.92 88 -3.28% 124 90.92 121 96.05 150 0.49 166 2 173 1,245 1,214.94
154 141 Greensboro-High Point, NC MSA 98.15 133 99.00 159 95.53 151 99.74 98 -6.38% 191 92.59 108 100.99 30 0.71 100 8 47 706 1,217.22
155 83 Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA 103.50 52 94.77 199 114.86 8 94.42 200 -5.98% 188 109.49 28 93.68 180 0.43 179 6 78 315 1,223.31
156 175 Lancaster, PA MSA 98.83 123 100.48 71 96.04 145 99.23 128 -3.43% 130 65.74 199 100.35 42 0.49 166 2 173 502 1,233.20
157 33 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL MSA 99.70 106 96.60 194 105.49 46 98.35 162 -4.19% 152 94.69 91 90.07 200 0.68 107 7 57 453 1,234.51
158 140 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA 96.63 164 97.94 183 104.40 50 98.44 158 -4.88% 174 84.14 162 97.28 119 1.41 22 11 14 798 1,235.18
159 162 Modesto, CA MSA 97.57 148 98.22 175 99.28 108 99.19 130 -3.48% 133 123.99 11 99.37 62 0.48 169 3 148 511 1,236.91
160 101 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA MSA 96.40 168 97.97 182 94.36 170 100.89 43 -4.24% 156 75.44 191 100.18 47 0.87 71 9 34 253 1,239.23
161 122 Lexington-Fayette, KY MSA 99.91 102 99.69 127 96.68 137 98.80 145 -3.27% 122 88.98 139 96.74 134 0.64 122 4 125 453 1,241.85
162 92 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL MSA 99.85 103 96.61 193 107.27 35 97.43 178 -4.75% 172 96.24 77 95.72 160 0.66 116 6 78 498 1,247.16
163 167 Duluth, MN-WI MSA 98.08 134 100.50 68 91.89 182 99.44 117 -2.46% 86 93.59 100 95.08 170 0.51 162 0 199 275 1,254.55
164 179 Erie, PA MSA 97.27 156 100.01 103 92.68 181 99.07 137 -1.95% 59 76.19 189 94.60 174 0.66 116 7 57 279 1,257.10
165 143 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA 96.69 162 98.46 166 93.86 175 100.14 83 -5.48% 183 81.18 177 99.56 58 1.09 47 11 14 467 1,276.39
166 103 Stockton, CA MSA 99.26 115 98.02 180 100.93 92 100.06 86 -2.60% 98 83.81 164 95.37 165 0.35 194 2 173 672 1,277.23
167 172 Akron, OH MSA 98.51 127 100.12 98 94.59 167 97.87 173 -3.51% 134 92.23 111 102.49 8 0.55 148 2 173 699 1,278.47
168 174 Gary, IN MD 97.99 138 100.08 100 94.94 160 97.74 174 -2.20% 74 94.57 92 97.65 111 0.41 183 2 173 702 1,286.95
169 80 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 100.75 88 97.64 186 100.32 95 97.33 181 -4.52% 166 91.07 119 91.47 197 0.90 68 8 47 2,734 1,295.94
170 142 Evansville, IN-KY MSA 93.63 186 99.67 132 93.15 179 97.58 175 -2.77% 105 90.41 126 99.46 60 1.03 53 6 78 350 1,302.07
171 165 Green Bay, WI MSA 98.00 137 99.52 139 95.40 153 98.63 152 -2.48% 88 99.46 57 96.04 151 0.40 184 3 148 303 1,305.86
172 110 Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA 99.07 117 99.80 121 96.90 135 98.30 165 -2.42% 83 96.43 76 91.76 194 0.42 180 1 194 518 1,310.92
173 145 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA MSA 95.44 176 97.84 185 101.46 82 99.28 125 -3.02% 115 82.20 173 96.38 145 0.60 130 6 78 408 1,315.68
174 155 Rockford, IL MSA 98.29 130 98.99 160 93.41 178 99.55 112 -2.50% 91 94.21 94 95.94 153 0.52 158 3 148 354 1,317.64
175 105 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL MD 100.27 94 97.04 189 103.49 61 97.38 179 -4.39% 163 94.99 87 93.55 182 0.60 130 4 125 1,265 1,318.48
176 97 Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL MSA 99.96 98 95.88 196 103.67 59 95.58 196 -6.91% 194 111.11 23 92.63 192 0.58 138 6 78 688 1,333.56
177 150 Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA 98.93 119 99.54 136 97.65 125 98.22 170 -3.34% 127 76.78 187 91.63 196 0.68 107 6 78 1,118 1,336.38
178 144 Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA 97.40 152 99.21 150 97.13 132 99.13 134 -2.20% 75 85.36 159 97.12 125 0.39 187 2 173 1,286 1,341.58
179 117 Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL MD 101.01 82 99.01 158 101.43 83 98.47 156 -4.30% 158 86.96 153 93.59 181 0.52 158 2 173 2,398 1,347.75
180 120 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA 107.58 24 93.66 200 122.71 2 95.53 198 -9.32% 200 73.58 196 91.64 195 0.38 189 3 148 593 1,373.22
181 183 Spartanburg, SC MSA 99.94 100 101.82 20 92.98 180 98.42 160 -4.63% 168 68.76 198 94.73 173 0.33 195 2 173 281 1,386.41
182 178 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ MD 98.05 135 99.62 133 97.58 126 97.45 177 -4.25% 157 81.23 176 96.57 141 0.59 135 3 148 696 1,429.58
183 189 Dayton, OH MSA 90.25 196 98.40 170 88.11 191 96.97 187 -3.46% 132 86.37 154 99.92 52 0.86 74 10 23 837 1,430.34
184 73 Merced, CA MSA 97.93 141 98.42 168 101.39 84 98.74 149 -3.60% 135 73.63 195 97.02 128 0.32 196 0 199 246 1,440.16
166 103 Stockton, CA MSA 99.26 115 98.02 180 100.93 92 100.06 86 -2.60% 98 83.81 164 95.37 165 0.35 194 2 173 672 1,277.23
167 172 Akron, OH MSA 98.51 127 100.12 98 94.59 167 97.87 173 -3.51% 134 92.23 111 102.49 8 0.55 148 2 173 699 1,278.47
168 174 Gary, IN MD 97.99 138 100.08 100 94.94 160 97.74 174 -2.20% 74 94.57 92 97.65 111 0.41 183 2 173 702 1,286.95
171 165 Green Bay, WI MSA 98.00 137 99.52 139 95.40 153 98.63 152 -2.48% 88 99.46 57 96.04 151 0.40 184 3 148 303 1,305.86
174 155 Rockford, IL MSA 9 8 . 2 9
5-yr job growth130 1-yr9job8.99growth160 9 3 . 4 1
5-yr wages/salaries 178 99.55
1-yr wages/salaries 112 -Job %
2.50growth 91 5-yr relative
94.21 HT GDP94 1-yr relative
95.94 HT GDP 153 0.52 158
High-Tech 3 148
# of HT GDP 354
Population 1,317.64
175
2009 105
2008 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL MD 100.27
2003–2008 94 97.04
2007–2008 189 103.49
growth 2002–2007 61 growth97.38 2006–2007179 (Mar-4.39%
08–Mar 09) 163 94.99
growth 2003–2008 87 growth 93.55
2007–2008182 GDP LQ0.60 2008130 LQs over 142008125 1,265
2008 1,318.48
Overall
176
rank rank97 B
Metropolitan
radenton-Sararea asota-Venice, FL MSA 2008 Value*
99.96 Rank 98 2008 Value*
95.88 Rank 196 2007 Value*
103.67 Rank59 9 5
2007 Value* . 5 8 1
Rank96 - 6
Growth. 9 1 % 1
Rank 94 111.11
2008 Value* Rank 23 9 2
2008 Value*. 6 3 1
Rank92 0
2008 Value* 138
.58 Rank 78
2008 Value*6 Rank 6 88
(thousands) 1 ,333.56
index
19748 1
17464 M e m p h
Norwich-New LonSis , T N -M d-oAnR, CM TSMASA 9957..8410 117532 10909..2291 18550 9947..8143 116342 9 9
100.92 . 1 3 13394 --2 . 2
2.67% 0 % 10715 8 5 .
101.58 3 6 15509 9 7 .
99.31 1 2 16265 0 . 3 9
1.34 12 897 2 1
5 10 763 1,2
26856 1,3 94
561..8508
19759 110187 LMaikaemCi-oM uinatmy-K iBen eoaschha-KCeonudnatyll,, IFLL-WMI D MD 19091..3021 11822 10909..4051 17548 19061..5493 13883 9998..5497 1
10586 --4
2..2390%% 17588 8
856..3956 1
16503 9
993..5579 18571 0
1..2572 13538 25 117
06 3 2,3
87978 1,3 94
56
7..9795
19860 113200 C a p e C o
Philadelphia, PA MDr a l- F o r t M y e r s, FL MSA 19077..5588 14264 9 3
100.64 . 6 6 26060 19282..5771 1192 9995..8523 19958 --9 .3
2.33% 2% 28010 7 3 .
79.54 5 8 1
18906 9 1 .
98.24 6 4 19915 0 .
1.123 8 18
43 9 37 14578 5 9
3,892 3 1,3 73
963..1282
19871 114863 LSinpcaorltna,nN bE urM g,SSAC MSA 9999..9944 110000 110011..0812 5200 9952..4958 115820 9998..1462 1
13610 --4
1..1
663%% 13658 8
608..7706 1
17988 9
994..3773 17623 0
0..6373 111
935 25 117063 2
28951 1,39869
6..7421
82
198 78
122 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ MD
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN MSA 98.05
103.27 35
159 99.62
100.02 133
102 97.58
106.23 26
142 97.45
99.83 77
194 4.25%
--3.83% 157
144 81.23
87.64 176
149 96.57
94.88 1 41
171 0
0.65
.59 120135 36 14 788 696
1,551 1,4 29.58
972.92
19893 11819 ODralayntodn o,-KOisHsim Mm SA ee, FL MSA 11900..2225 1986 9988..9410 116720 11828..5171 11931 986..7987 14867 -3 5.5496%% 18342 9
886..9307 16514 939.1942 87
15 2 0.836 80
7 4 107 2537 05
2,8 357 1,4 81
93 0.2334
110804 9743 HMoenrocleud lu,, C HA IM MSSAA 10927..3943 17421 9998..8422 111668 110051..9309 4834 10908..2774 17439 -3 2.3670%% 18325 9
713..7683 1
11935 9
927..5012 19238 0..4372 17 906 02 19 739 2
94056 1,4 86
94 0..9116
10815 1191 C
Ho iclkooraryd-oLeSnporin r-gMso, rCgOanM toS nA, NC MSA 19010.8 53 190 997.6 88 18249 8
989.8 31 18097 19090.11 8 17365 -37.7 669% 14982 28
17 1.9 82 11821 19
076.3 841 112 7 0
1.5 773 1131 9 140 123 5 3
66138 1,94847
0.7 961
10826 13983 M
Cloenvteglo am nde-rEyl,yA riaL-Me SnAtor, OH MSA 19032.5 229 17837 19090.1 373 18512 990.7 956 1083 997.2 576 12776 -23.67% 10309 976.6 99 67
7 1 19
061.7 494 12342 0.61 0 12 390 42 12 753 2,3
06868 1,948471.8 772
10837 15730 R
Privoevrid siednec-e S-aNneB weB rneadrfdoirndo--FOanll tR
ariivoe,rC
,R
AI-M
MSAAMSA 19045.2 54 1385 968.6 124 19726 19164.0 620 11406 998.3 437 12536 -64.3 503% 19607 13
18 1.7 027 12646 985.3 902 18594 0.5 798 1835 6 78 4
1,1
51967 1,9491 0.9 777
18084 13806 S
Oocuatlh a,BFeLnM d-SMAishawaka, IN-MI MSA 19048.7 641 11853 969.8 259 14941 18198.9 049 183 5 986.2 863 16889 -42.9 779% 10787 17
479.7 664 183 4 927.76 5 18097 0.8 657 17 153 7
3 15 478 33107 1,959069.1 265
10859 12895 A
Klalelanm toawzno-oB-e Ptohrlteahgeem ,M-EIaM stSoAn, PA-NJ MSA 19030.3 246 19868 19080.9 361 18641 9
887.3 456 12923 997.6 174 10826 -24.4 147% 18550 8
539.6 99 1
26070 968.5 994 17420 0.7 845 9
73 5 7
4 15 275 8
30284 1,959570.6 005
19060 15997 C
Atalanntotan--S MaansdsyillS onp,riOngHs-M MSaA rietta, GA MSA 1902.0 913 16839 99.6 314 13443 8
969.14 6 19160 979.8 998 18772 -24.9 875% 17160 9
835.6 409 19598 987.4 878 18053 1
0.0 28 14 998 8
2 14 773 5,4
30786 1,055030.4 565
19017 17952 A
Lansn V Aerbgoars,-M PaI rMadSiA se, NV MSA 19114.3 253 193 5 989.2 034 17547 18263.0 886 191 7 19050.7 446 16965 -45.23 1% 15758 95
7 4.1 48 18953 983.1 070 19896 0.3 978 16 902 2
6 178 3 1,3
84676 1,050743.3 994
19028 18375 A
Ctolalunm ticbuCsit,yO ,NHJMMSSAA 948.4 003 18346 19090.28 4 18495 94.7 325 16761 969.3 076 13970 -14.5 669% 14679 9
746.4 858 19836 1001.7 921 3
16 0.3 779 1894 2 2
6 178 3 1,2
771 3 1,508029.3 536
10993 13868 P
Yiottusnbgusrg tohw, nP-A WM arS reAn-Boardman, OH-PA MSA 916.6 103 19731 19080.62 7 164 5 8
974.8 491 19628 19060.3 057 18951 -31.9 880% 15467 8
920.6 289 17218 996.3 064 16541 0.4 857 171 4 140 123 5 2,5
36561 1,60016.8 183
19140 19204 Ha
G rarrnisdbR uargp-iC dsa-rWlisyleo,mPinAgM ,M SA I MSA 957.0 996 18319 19090.1 467 17523 8
995.6 119 18567 979.3 238 18215 -52.2 576% 19850 18
110.5 436 12754 985.7 982 17574 0.5 738 1855 6 120 1273 5
73717 1,061278.94 5
11915 17916 P
Laenasbiondgy-E ,M asAt LMaD nsing, MI MSA 951.2 508 19840 99.8 514 11376 8
965.4 35 1955 19060.2 843 14983 -32.6 728% 13076 729.63 9 19779 19
061.6 819 11
37 9 0
1.4 853 1170 4 113 198 4 4
75346 1,605128.0 949
11926 16969 C
Holu lamnd b-uGsr, aGnA d-H Aa LvM enS,AMI MSA 915.8 51 19714 989.3 96 17039 8
968.9 414 19240 969.1 646 19043 -61.8 135% 13943 7
887.9 829 18416 19
037.9 306 171 8 0
1.5 267 1343 2
9 13 74 3 26808 1,606213.4 001
11937 15984 W
Jaacrkrseonn-T , rMoS y-FMaSrm A ington Hills, MI MD 8
98.1 827 19271 19060.9 094 19001 18031.7 104 191 8 969.3 517 19029 -71.9 489% 14949 7
863.5 746 18685 989.8 415 7
661 0.9 576 1641 3 4
2 12 753 2,5
43775 1,062741.36 9
11948 12974 B
Tolie se doC, iO tyH -NM am SA pa, ID MSA 10991.5 793 199 2 98.4 164 1676 1808.5 297 12950 986.2 996 16868 -65.8 601% 19825 839.9 198 16337 1021.4 064 1
209 1
0.0 410 1585 4 31 1498 4 60409 1,063 3.71
77 2
11959 24070 F
Dreetsroniot-,LC ivAonMiaS-D Aearborn, MI MD 18051.7 696 17989 997.2 179 14878 18031.3 591 18909 995.7 525 199 7 -35.4 653% 13816 17
05.7 368 13940 97.7 186 10262 0.4 726 1982 0 4
5 12 05 6 1,90590 1,07503.4 105
2
10160 10945 P
Flainlm Ba
t, M I yM-M SA elbourne-Titusville, FL MSA 9
896.4 174 10998 975.4 559 1897 17087.7 139 23060 974.1 553 18959 -54.43 6% 18614 07
18 0.8 519 15437 992.82 6 15848 1
0.5 604 11 262 143 128 5 5
43279 1,076337.2 693
117 58 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA MSA 98.87 121 98.06 179 103.39 63 99.81 96 -5.24% 179 97.83 65 98.70 80 0.95 62 8 47 2,110 1,064.78
118 102 Richmond, VA MSA 101.35 79 99.59 135 101.33 86 99.68 101 -3.61% 136 91.75 114 95.22 168 0.71 100 6 78 1,226 1,066.57
119 60 Knoxville, TN MSA 100.33 91 99.93 111 101.30 87 99.50 115 -3.39% 129 78.36 183 97.05 127 0.68 107 7 57 691 1,070.68
* “Values” are benchmarked against the national average, which is set to 100.
120 19 Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC MSA 109.48 11 99.28 145 111.02 18 98.61 153 -7.08% 195 101.22 52 97.49 113 0.40 184 3 148 257 1,071.26
121 109 Camden, NJ MD 97.93 141 99.74 125 99.95 99 99.01 141 -4.21% 153 95.51 84 100.77 33 0.88 69 8 47 1,251 1,079.52
** Index scores are benchmarked against the top performer, which is set to 100. Lower index scores indicate stronger performance.
122 106 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA MD 98.59 126 98.40 170 104.80 48 98.52 155 -4.71% 170 92.62 107 98.68 81 1.28 31 16 2 3,011 1,085.15
123 137 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI MSA
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Moody’s Economy.com, Milken Institute. 98.19 132 99.78 122 97.03 133 100.48 63 -3.28% 123 87.96 145 96.17 149 0.93 64 7 57 3,230 1,085.60
124 64 Visalia-Porterville, CA MSA 104.65 42 100.22 91 103.69 57 98.60 154 -3.07% 117 88.56 140 95.65 161 0.23 200 3 148 426 1,091.42
125 81 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN MSA 100.31 92 100.28 86 96.12 142 98.22 170 -3.00% 114 83.52 168 98.07 96 1.20 40 7 57 1,715 1,091.43
126 168 Roanoke, VA MSA 97.58 146 99.68 129 95.20 156 99.07 137 -1.69% 50 90.27 129 99.53 59 0.73 95 7 57 298 1,096.41
127 182 Springfield, MA MSA 95.29 178 99.72 126 94.14 172 100.83 48 -2.79% 107 98.02 64 100.57 40 0.59 135 6 78 688 1,098.62
128 152 St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 97.54 149 100.45 74 93.66 177 98.76 148 -2.47% 87 93.78 97 96.27 147 1.00 56 9 34 2,841 1,115.95
129 115 Tallahassee, FL MSA 101.28 80 99.24 148 98.04 123 98.39 161 -2.53% 93 98.11 63 95.54 164 0.71 100 5 106 357 1,142.64
130 79 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA MSA 99.54 108 99.42 141 101.27 90 99.85 93 -3.17% 120 91.11 118 93.99 177 0.56 143 5 106 265 1,145.59
131 61 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL MD 103.84 49 98.10 178 107.35 32 97.25 184 -4.37% 162 91.43 116 92.73 191 0.77 89 8 47 1,751 1,149.56
132 161 Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA 97.37 153 99.99 105 93.93 174 99.14 132 -2.75% 104 101.34 51 95.25 167 0.78 85 11 14 549 1,150.18
133 128 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA MSA 96.62 165 101.08 47 95.36 154 98.66 150 -3.15% 119 92.34 110 95.30 166 0.77 89 10 23 305 1,153.31
134 132 Salinas, CA MSA 95.35 177 100.26 87 99.75 103 99.66 103 -3.11% 118 99.42 58 98.26 90 0.39 187 3 148 408 1,153.55
135 164 Reading, PA MSA 100.66 89 99.97 108 95.09 158 99.23 128 -2.97% 113 90.85 122 98.02 98 0.56 143 5 106 404 1,155.01
136 51 Clarksville, TN-KY MSA 101.80 76 98.66 164 116.04 6 98.77 147 -4.73% 171 89.90 134 98.68 81 0.46 172 3 148 261 1,156.08
137 98 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 107.09 26 98.42 168 108.64 22 98.86 143 -4.49% 165 94.04 96 93.28 184 0.38 189 3 148 581 1,157.07
138 173 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN MSA 97.36 154 99.99 105 94.38 169 98.64 151 -2.59% 97 97.73 66 102.40 12 0.73 95 3 148 2,155 1,164.09
139 126 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA MD 96.95 160 99.16 153 98.03 124 99.66 103 -3.63% 138 88.49 142 97.13 124 1.30 30 10 23 9,862 1,165.49
140 158 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME MSA 97.27 156 100.21 92 97.21 129 98.97 142 -2.18% 71 91.01 120 96.37 146 0.62 128 5 106 514 1,168.10
141 39 Jacksonville, FL MSA 104.36 43 98.40 170 108.45 24 98.44 158 -4.03% 149 86.31 155 90.85 199 0.60 130 4 125 1,313 1,179.41
142 163 Newark-Union, NJ-PA MD 94.82 182 100.12 98 95.05 159 99.14 132 -2.52% 92 77.54 185 97.16 122 1.18 41 10 23 2,121 1,180.57
143 133 Reno-Sparks, NV MSA 101.80 76 96.27 195 107.35 32 100.31 71 -7.57% 197 93.47 102 97.49 113 0.46 172 2 173 415 1,183.13
144 177 Charleston, WV MSA 97.87 145 101.26 38 94.81 165 98.84 144 -1.12% 32 74.05 194 91.47 197 0.57 139 4 125 304 1,183.37
145 147 Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA MD 95.27 179 98.67 163 96.84 136 99.38 119 -4.17% 151 93.55 101 98.35 87 1.40 24 14 6 2,504 1,193.16
146 112 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV MSA 99.23 116 99.14 155 101.29 89 98.28 167 -2.81% 109 120.65 13 95.75 159 0.55 148 4 125 264 1,194.14
147 114 Edison-New Brunswick, NJ MD 97.94 140 99.81 117 95.94 148 99.31 124 -4.30% 159 82.99 170 96.45 143 1.48 18 12 10 2,325 1,194.65
148 160 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL MD 97.09 158 99.69 127 95.79 150 99.56 110 -3.79% 143 90.71 124 98.77 78 0.81 83 7 57 7,990 1,195.34
149 153 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA 97.43 151 99.81 117 96.07 144 99.72 99 -1.00% 30 90.15 130 95.64 162 0.38 189 2 173 284 1,206.36
150 78 Port St. Lucie, FL MSA 106.94 27 95.29 198 116.85 5 97.29 183 -5.44% 182 102.88 43 95.87 157 0.45 174 2 173 404 1,207.58
151 157 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA 97.35 155 99.81 117 94.00 173 98.23 169 -4.02% 148 116.15 16 101.25 27 0.92 67 5 106 1,549 1,211.28
152 169 Fort Wayne, IN MSA 96.54 166 99.22 149 88.83 188 97.34 180 -2.01% 62 115.91 17 99.74 55 0.85 75 5 106 411 1,213.19
153 131 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN MSA 99.05 118 99.93 111 97.40 128 99.92 88 -3.28% 124 90.92 121 96.05 150 0.49 166 2 173 1,245 1,214.94
154 141 Greensboro-High Point, NC MSA 98.15 133 99.00 159 95.53 151 99.74 98 -6.38% 191 92.59 108 100.99 30 0.71 100 8 47 706 1,217.22
155 83 Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA 103.50 52 94.77 199 114.86 8 94.42 200 -5.98% 188 109.49 28 93.68 180 0.43 179 6 78 315 1,223.31
156 175 Lancaster, PA MSA 98.83 123 100.48 71 96.04 145 99.23 128 -3.43% 130 65.74 199 100.35 42 0.49 166 2 173 502 1,233.20
157 33 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL MSA 99.70 106 96.60 194 105.49 46 98.35 162 -4.19% 152 94.69 91 90.07 200 0.68 107 7 57 453 1,234.51
158 140 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA 96.63 164 97.94 183 104.40 50 98.44 158 -4.88% 174 84.14 162 97.28 119 1.41 22 11 14 798 1,235.18
159 162 Modesto, CA MSA 97.57 148 98.22 175 99.28 108 99.19 130 -3.48% 133 123.99 11 99.37 62 0.48 169 3 148 511 1,236.91
160 101 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA MSA 96.40 168 97.97 182 94.36 170 100.89 43 -4.24% 156 75.44 191 100.18 47 0.87 71 9 34 253 1,239.23
161 122 Lexington-Fayette, KY MSA 99.91 102 99.69 127 96.68 137 98.80 145 -3.27% 122 88.98 139 96.74 134 0.64 122 4 125 453 1,241.85
162 92 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL MSA 99.85 103 96.61 193 107.27 35 97.43 178 -4.75% 172 96.24 77 95.72 160 0.66 116 6 78 498 1,247.16
163 167 Duluth, MN-WI MSA 98.08 134 100.50 68 91.89 182 99.44 117 -2.46% 86 93.59 100 95.08 170 0.51 162 0 199 275 1,254.55
164 179 Erie, PA MSA 97.27 156 100.01 103 92.68 181 99.07 137 -1.95% 59 76.19 189 94.60 174 0.66 116 7 57 279 1,257.10
165 143 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA 96.69 162 98.46 166 93.86 175 100.14 83 -5.48% 183 81.18 177 99.56 58 1.09 47 11 14 467 1,276.39
166 103 Stockton, CA MSA 99.26 115 98.02 180 100.93 92 100.06 86 -2.60% 98 83.81 164 95.37 165 0.35 194 2 173 672 1,277.23
167 172 Akron, OH MSA 98.51 127 100.12 98 94.59 167 97.87 173 -3.51% 134 92.23 111 102.49 8 0.55 148 2 173 699 1,278.47
168 174 Gary, IN MD 97.99 138 100.08 100 94.94 160 97.74 174 -2.20% 74 94.57 92 97.65 111 0.41 183 2 173 702 1,286.95
171 165 Green Bay, WI MSA 98.00 137 99.52 139 95.40 153 98.63 152 -2.48% 88 99.46 57 96.04 151 0.40 184 3 148 303 1,305.86
174 155 Rockford, IL MSA 98.29 130 98.99 160 93.41 178 99.55 112 -2.50% 91 94.21 94 95.94 153 0.52 158 3 148 354 1,317.64
175 105 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL MD 100.27 94 97.04 189 103.49 61 97.38 179 -4.39% 163 94.99 87 93.55 182 0.60 130 4 125 1,265 1,318.48
176 97 Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL MSA 99.96 98 95.88 196 103.67 59 95.58 196 -6.91% 194 111.11 23 92.63 192 0.58 138 6 78 688 1,333.56
178 144 Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA 97.40 152 99.21 150 97.13 132 99.13 134 -2.20% 75 85.36 159 97.12 125 0.39 187 2 173 1,286 1,341.58
179 117 Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL MD 101.01 82 99.01 158 101.43 83 98.47 156 -4.30% 158 86.96 153 93.59 181 0.52 158 2 173 2,398 1,347.75
180 120 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA 107.58 24 93.66 200 122.71 2 95.53 198 -9.32% 200 73.58 196 91.64 195 0.38 189 3 148 593 1,373.22
181 183 Spartanburg, SC MSA 99.94 100 101.82 20 92.98 180 98.42 160 -4.63% 168 68.76 198 94.73 173 0.33 195 2 173 281 1,386.41
182 178 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ MD 98.05 135 99.62 133 97.58 126 97.45 177 -4.25% 157 81.23 176 96.57 141 0.59 135 3 148 696 1,429.58
183 189 Dayton, OH MSA 90.25 196 98.40 170 88.11 191 96.97 187 -3.46% 132 86.37 154 99.92 52 0.86 74 10 23 837 1,430.34
Complete Results: 2009 Best-Performing Small Cities
rank rank Metropolitan area 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2007 Value* Rank 2007 Value* Rank Growth Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank (thousands) index**
1 1 Midland, TX MSA 120.00 2 106.61 2 131.83 2 104.92 4 2.18% 3 101.67 46 97.73 62 0.72 35 7 13 129.5 100.00
2 7 Longview, TX MSA 110.60 10 103.25 11 118.01 7 103.79 7 -0.73% 30 111.14 30 96.10 87 0.73 34 6 23 204.7 167.37
3 5 Grand Junction, CO MSA 116.90 5 104.95 4 113.91 9 103.99 6 2.47% 2 92.54 74 97.46 66 0.56 66 4 50 143.2 169.26
4 26 Tyler, TX MSA 105.15 35 102.23 17 106.52 25 101.78 17 0.95% 9 115.63 20 97.45 68 0.75 28 8 4 201.3 179.74
5 10 Odessa, TX MSA 118.48 3 107.11 1 125.32 3 105.94 1 3.26% 1 99.17 53 97.46 66 0.37 107 2 99 131.9 188.34
6 29 Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA MSA 107.07 23 104.24 5 103.69 37 105.36 3 0.32% 13 79.19 108 101.21 27 1.26 3 4 50 235.8 192.74
7 15 Bismarck, ND MSA 107.61 20 102 20 108.84 19 101.60 20 0.99% 8 106.25 36 99.51 37 0.62 55 4 50 104.9 193.88
8 6 Warner Robins, GA MSA 110.93 9 100.42 63 108.84 19 100.87 34 -1.54% 44 147.07 4 109.07 2 0.94 9 6 23 133.2 207.69
9 11 Las Cruces, NM MSA 106.66 27 101.99 21 109.13 15 100.16 49 -0.72% 29 130.09 8 98.02 55 0.81 20 7 13 201.6 208.57
10 17 Fargo, ND-MN MSA 108.56 18 103.04 13 107.39 22 101.67 19 0.74% 10 103.68 42 96.43 82 0.68 42 4 50 195.7 209.22
11 45 Pascagoula, MS MSA 105.40 33 105.21 3 103.26 39 101.52 22 -2.15% 58 123.72 14 104.39 10 0.74 30 5 34 153.1 219.66
12 23 Sioux Falls, SD MSA 106.92 25 102.48 15 105.18 29 101.15 28 -0.66% 28 120.78 15 98.17 54 0.61 58 5 34 232.9 226.56
13 8 Bellingham, WA MSA 108.62 17 101.34 32 111.59 13 102.02 15 -2.57% 70 108.12 33 100.78 28 0.76 25 5 34 196.5 228.38
14 38 College Station-Bryan, TX MSA 104.86 37 104.12 6 107.21 23 101.04 30 -1.35% 43 119.24 19 99.24 41 0.74 30 4 50 207.4 230.51
15 2 Coeur d'Alene, ID MSA 117.32 4 100.53 60 118.49 6 100.58 40 -0.15% 21 129.63 9 98.86 47 0.59 61 4 50 137.5 236.49
16 12 Cheyenne, WY MSA 106.41 28 102.64 14 113.54 10 105.43 2 0.00% 16 87.68 84 91.61 116 0.50 78 5 34 87.5 248.64
17 81 Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR MSA 101.61 55 102.15 18 104.27 34 101.77 18 -0.02% 17 124.91 12 108.30 4 0.37 107 3 76 135.5 266.22
18 27 Waco, TX MSA 98.62 79 101.01 40 104.90 33 104.33 5 -0.08% 19 149.01 3 95.55 94 0.83 18 6 23 230.2 270.32
19 16 Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA MSA 110.18 11 101.93 22 118.00 8 102.06 14 1.56% 6 102.62 45 94.16 108 0.27 118 1 113 201.1 278.21
20 44 Laredo, TX MSA 113.40 7 103.38 9 109.00 17 100.81 37 0.51% 11 103.93 41 97.44 69 0.23 121 1 113 236.9 278.37
21 40 Abilene, TX MSA 103.08 40 103.34 10 101.94 44 101.24 27 0.01% 15 102.74 44 95.72 90 0.49 79 5 34 159.5 285.93
22 25 Iowa City, IA MSA 103.32 39 101.69 24 100.69 49 100.80 38 -1.32% 40 174.50 1 95.60 92 0.74 30 5 34 149.4 296.23
23 72 Glens Falls, NY MSA 99.80 68 100.94 41 100.82 47 101.34 25 -1.28% 38 94.05 69 99.84 35 1.14 5 8 4 128.8 304.14
24 24 Billings, MT MSA 106.99 24 100.72 53 109.03 16 103.36 9 -4.56% 104 110.78 31 103.32 14 0.58 63 4 50 152.0 314.46
25 64 Ithaca, NY MSA 100.98 60 101.63 25 99.27 59 101.81 16 -0.93% 35 82.04 101 97.99 57 0.92 11 5 34 101.1 327.00
26 18 Charlottesville, VA MSA 107.55 21 100.28 70 106.18 26 99.61 63 -2.45% 65 98.09 58 101.36 26 0.86 17 8 4 194.4 328.49
27 28 Morgantown, WV MSA 109.49 12 103.43 8 105.02 31 100.33 45 1.44% 7 85.86 89 94.01 109 0.42 95 2 99 118.5 329.04
28 3 Bend, OR MSA 115.57 6 96.63 119 125.20 4 99.89 57 -4.02% 98 132.22 6 98.30 52 0.89 16 9 1 158.5 355.14
29 66 Rapid City, SD MSA 101.67 52 102.04 19 99.25 60 100.99 31 -0.49% 25 94.81 67 98.36 51 0.48 82 3 76 122.5 358.23
30 4 St. George, UT MSA 125.38 1 9 6.1 121 142.56 1 103.73 8 -4.75% 108 111.96 25 107.12 7 0.47 85 3 76 137.6 370.16
31 78 Alexandria, LA MSA 105.77 32 103.56 7 105.77 27 103.23 10 -1.28% 39 83.65 97 93.69 112 0.29 115 0 120 153.1 370.85
32 47 State College, PA MSA 99.95 66 101.43 28 98.86 63 100.00 52 -2.54% 69 97.03 63 97.89 59 0.94 9 9 1 144.8 379.79
33 43 Pueblo, CO MSA 101.02 59 100.88 45 95.63 83 101.39 24 -1.19% 37 101.22 48 95.37 97 0.56 66 7 13 156.7 397.12
34 19 Auburn-Opelika, AL MSA 108.91 15 100.3 69 111.47 14 100.20 48 -2.37% 62 111.64 27 97.52 65 0.36 109 1 113 133.0 402.30
35 14 Santa Fe, NM MSA 103.08 40 100.51 61 102.66 42 99.90 56 -1.85% 53 99.33 52 98.30 52 0.52 73 4 50 143.9 403.19
36 80 Bloomington-Normal, IL MSA 95.68 101 101.02 37 94.11 89 100.91 33 0.44% 12 90.31 77 99.96 33 0.75 28 4 50 165.3 403.90
37 106 Topeka, KS MSA 94.37 106 101.82 23 92.08 103 102.44 12 -0.11% 20 95.22 66 102.40 16 0.48 82 4 50 229.6 409.32
38 60 Joplin, MO MSA 101.61 55 101.39 31 97.52 71 99.35 69 -0.62% 27 89.42 81 101.63 24 0.43 90 4 50 172.9 414.18
39 35 St. Joseph, MO-KS MSA 107.68 19 101.02 37 98.72 65 100.37 44 -2.19% 59 88.92 82 97.61 64 0.60 60 2 99 126.4 415.05
40 13 Yuma, AZ MSA 111.75 8 100.63 58 112.63 12 100.25 47 -9.85% 123 167.42 2 97.19 75 0.34 111 3 76 194.3 419.08
41 22 Greenville, NC MSA 108.89 16 101.03 36 102. 97 41 102.50 11 -3.95% 97 64.64 121 94.51 103 0.69 38 2 99 176.8 420.36
42 50 Grand Forks, ND-MN MSA 102.56 43 100.83 48 99.88 51 100.54 41 -0.19% 22 101.26 47 94.38 104 0.38 105 2 99 97.3 421.49
43 41 Salisbury, MD MSA 102.39 45 99.47 90 103.87 36 99. 29 73 -3.13% 81 104.64 38 98.00 56 0.74 30 8 4 120.2 429.56
44 54 Dubuque, IA MSA 102.40 44 100.48 62 100.89 46 99.04 78 -3.76% 94 111.90 26 102.22 18 0.63 54 5 34 92.7 430.65
45 48 Johnson City, TN MSA 102.02 50 100.38 66 99.64 53 99.04 78 -2.93% 77 81.95 103 101.82 22 1.01 7 8 4 195.8 432.84
46 46 Rochester, MN MSA 99.91 67 99.79 82 99.32 57 99.50 65 -0.75% 32 73.85 117 101.98 20 0.77 23 6 23 182.9 435.42
47 31 Hattiesburg, MS MSA 104.98 36 99.57 89 105.11 30 99.44 66 -2.45% 64 114.65 22 99.12 42 0.44 87 3 76 140.8 439.68
48 42 Tuscaloosa, AL MSA 106.24 29 100.39 65 105.54 28 99.01 82 -1.33% 41 98.11 57 99.07 44 0.34 111 2 99 206.8 441.56
49 92 Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA MSA 96.62 91 101.07 35 96.81 75 96.98 112 1.56% 5 93.33 72 99.95 34 0.72 35 6 23 158.3 441.58
50 9 Prescott, AZ MSA 109.02 13 95.53 122 120. 55 5 99.62 62 -8.74% 122 108.72 32 107.95 5 0.51 76 4 50 215.5 447.66
51 65 Columbia, MO MSA 102.39 45 100.7 57 98.10 69 98.99 83 -0.32% 23 94.03 70 99.09 43 0.49 79 3 76 164.3 453.34
52 74 Lake Charles, LA MSA 100.82 61 100.81 49 99.59 55 101.33 26 -1.61% 48 90.55 76 95.17 99 0.42 95 3 76 192.9 454.14
53 87 Champaign-Urbana, IL MSA 95.85 100 101.29 33 90.22 113 98.64 95 1.77% 4 114.83 21 97.82 61 0.69 38 7 13 224.2 454.41
54 39 Medford, OR MSA 101.63 54 97.97 114 104.99 32 100.13 51 -3.64% 89 119.80 18 97.40 70 0.71 37 6 23 201.1 457.12
55 58 St. Cloud, MN MSA 102.23 47 99.99 76 98.39 67 101.08 29 -2.14% 56 75.41 114 97.37 71 0.52 73 6 23 187.0 458.26
56 20 Gainesville, GA MSA 109.00 14 101.42 30 102.00 43 99.81 60 -3.42% 84 73.87 116 96.81 78 0.40 102 3 76 184.8 459.57
57 55 Bloomington, IN MSA 99.06 75 100.84 47 93.67 93 97.82 103 -1.08% 36 94.55 68 98.57 49 1.19 4 8 4 183.9 459.97
58 53 Valdosta, GA MSA 103.93 38 101.02 37 98.39 67 98.63 96 -1.59% 45 96.06 64 97.70 63 0.42 95 4 50 133.3 462.16
59 56 Eau Claire, WI MSA 102.13 48 99.72 84 96.63 78 99.12 75 -2.51% 66 126.83 10 104.07 11 0.76 25 2 99 158.7 467.63
60 37 Athens-Clarke County, GA MSA 105.98 30 103.05 12 99.07 62 98.97 84 -1.74% 51 82.39 99 94.25 106 0.43 90 3 76 189.3 467.86
61 86 Pittsfield, MA MSA 98.16 81 100.86 46 94.57 87 100. 83 35 -4.76% 109 134. 06 5 99.97 32 0.77 23 3 76 129.4 470.43
62 107 Lafayette, IN MSA 101.16 58 101.54 26 92.25 100 97.78 104 0.10% 14 80.27 107 97.94 58 0.66 49 4 50 192.9 478.78
63 67 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA MSA 102.05 49 100.03 75 103.93 35 100.99 31 -5.65% 116 68.85 119 100.58 30 0.67 46 3 76 239.8 487.04
64 51 Florence, SC MSA 96.89 86 100.72 53 96.67 77 102.39 13 -2.14% 57 97.42 61 97.86 60 0.42 95 2 99 199.8 489.08
65 99 Oshkosh-Neenah, WI MSA 99.03 76 100.92 42 91.06 107 97.99 101 -0.74% 31 105.65 37 108.80 3 0.61 58 3 76 162.1 490.18
66 108 Springfield, IL MSA 96.56 94 100.79 51 88.01 116 99.65 61 -0.45% 24 85.91 88 96.05 88 0.92 11 7 13 207.4 492.29
67 33 Bowling Green, KY MSA 106.76 26 100.14 74 106.63 24 100.14 50 -4.18% 101 107.13 34 96.79 79 0.28 117 0 120 117.9 496.13
68 21 Winchester, VA-WV MSA 101.41 57 97.2 116 103.31 38 98.80 91 -4.61% 106 111.21 29 102.20 19 0.69 38 8 4 122.4 500.46
69 62 Missoula, MT MSA 100.03 63 97.49 115 101.84 45 101.48 23 -5.45% 115 99.35 51 100.14 31 0.55 70 5 34 107.3 501.19
70 30 Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL MSA 107.34 22 99.44 91 112.71 11 97.92 102 -3.91% 96 103.55 43 90.08 118 0.62 55 4 50 163.9 501.99
71 104 Decatur, IL MSA 96.61 92 100.38 66 97.26 72 99.18 74 -2.00% 54 104.04 40 101.70 23 0.44 87 4 50 108.3 505.56
72 32 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL MSA 99.63 71 97.14 117 108.94 18 96.35 119 -2.53% 68 124.45 13 92.92 113 1.11 6 9 1 179.7 507.48
73 61 Wichita Falls, TX MSA 96.42 95 99.71 85 96.03 81 101.57 21 -2.60% 71 95.60 65 89.10 119 0.91 13 6 23 147.3 511.01
74 83 Appleton, WI MSA 97.71 84 99.59 87 95.60 84 98.48 98 -2.88% 76 126.08 11 101.94 21 0.78 22 5 34 219.7 522.57
75 57 Burlington, NC MSA 96.29 97 99.39 92 92.52 98 100.65 39 -4.58% 105 131.14 7 103.21 15 0.64 53 7 13 148.1 524.79
76 71 Napa, CA MSA 101.66 53 101.43 28 99.65 52 99.09 76 -6.41% 120 78.88 110 97.26 74 0.56 66 4 50 133.4 528.39
77 91 Johnstown, PA MSA 98.75 78 100.71 56 95.49 86 98.93 87 -3.06% 80 93.21 73 98.68 48 0.83 18 4 50 144.3 531.58
rank rank Metropolitan area 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2007 Value* Rank 2007 Value* Rank Growth Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank (thousands) index
78 93 Rocky Mount, NC MSA 96.11 98 98.13 112 91.40 104 100.42 43 -5.32% 113 120.18 16 116.45 1 1.50 1 8 4 146.4 531.67
79 34 Anniston-Oxford, AL MSA 101.78 51 99.36 93 103.13 40 98.90 88 -2.65% 73 78.80 111 92.60 114 0.67 46 8 4 113.4 532.35
80 77 Kingston, NY MSA 92.35 115 99.68 86 99.60 54 99.30 71 -2.36% 61 60.15 122 103.64 12 0.65 50 7 13 181.7 535.97
81 102 Macon, GA MSA 96.42 95 101.49 27 90.87 108 99.31 70 -3.35% 82 89.95 78 95.59 93 0.76 25 7 13 230.8 537.03
82 111 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD MSA 99.69 70 102.48 15 90.40 112 99.97 53 -1.83% 52 80.83 106 94.70 101 0.38 105 3 76 143.2 546.84
83 68 Yakima, WA MSA 99.51 73 100.72 53 100.79 48 99.91 54 -2.53% 67 69.73 118 98.41 50 0.23 121 0 120 234.6 550.63
84 69 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA MSA 99.59 72 101.15 34 99.29 58 99.89 57 -2.22% 60 84.63 93 89.07 120 0.33 113 1 113 164.2 551.62
85 36 Harrisonburg, VA MSA 100.01 64 98.97 100 96.95 74 97.46 107 -2.09% 55 97.07 62 96.42 83 0.65 50 7 13 118.4 556.38
86 101 Barnstable Town, MA MSA 93.73 110 99.33 95 97.12 73 100.83 35 -3.39% 83 81.74 105 98.90 46 0.79 21 4 50 221.0 559.64
87 103 La Crosse, WI-MN MSA 100.00 65 100.81 49 93.15 96 98.03 100 -2.38% 63 98.75 55 95.90 89 0.45 86 4 50 131.9 566.05
88 82 Bangor, ME MSA 96.66 90 100.38 66 92.20 101 98.97 84 -1.67% 50 99.65 50 97.05 76 0.68 42 3 76 148.7 566.19
89 76 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL MSA 102.73 42 98.96 101 99.11 61 99.83 59 -1.60% 46 98.08 59 88.77 121 0.26 119 0 120 143.8 571.60
90 90 Jefferson City, MO MSA 97.45 85 100.91 43 94.52 88 99.57 64 -2.63% 72 85.93 87 96.40 84 0.53 72 1 113 146.4 584.55
91 89 Wausau, WI MSA 98.22 80 98.67 108 96.05 80 97.65 105 -3.71% 93 119.86 17 105.23 9 0.54 71 5 34 131.0 587.08
92 88 Burlington-South Burlington, VT MSA 96.80 87 100.27 71 95.58 85 98.36 99 -4.33% 102 79.14 109 99.38 40 1.29 2 5 34 208.5 592.40
93 73 Gulfport-Biloxi, MS MSA 92.11 118 100.22 72 93.51 94 100.47 42 -3.06% 79 92.20 75 99.44 39 0.51 76 3 76 234.6 593.75
94 52 Chico, CA MSA 98.13 82 98.95 102 98.64 66 99.30 71 -3.44% 85 84.71 92 97.34 72 0.48 82 6 23 220.3 596.50
95 118 Wheeling, WV-OH MSA 97.79 83 100.89 44 93.92 91 97.37 111 -0.58% 26 93.37 71 91.58 117 0.39 103 2 99 144.8 606.53
96 109 Monroe, LA MSA 92.72 114 99.76 83 91.39 105 99.38 68 -0.02% 18 99.10 54 93.94 110 0.56 66 2 99 172.7 609.53
97 49 Dover, DE MSA 105.34 34 99.35 94 98.74 64 96.10 121 -5.71% 117 114.60 23 94.52 102 0.67 46 3 76 155.4 610.95
98 98 Albany, GA MSA 95.40 104 99.59 87 92.19 102 99.06 77 -3.71% 92 106.55 35 96.78 80 0.62 55 7 13 164.9 611.20
99 79 Decatur, AL MSA 100.53 62 100.15 73 96.32 79 100.33 45 -4.90% 110 85.94 86 94.19 107 0.39 103 3 76 150.1 612.13
100 110 Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ MSA 95.92 99 99.98 77 97.65 70 98.58 97 -1.61% 47 84.36 94 92.22 115 0.52 73 4 50 156.8 613.39
101 94 Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH MSA 93.01 112 99.9 79 89.70 114 99.91 54 -0.82% 34 84.72 91 94.31 105 0.57 64 3 76 160.7 618.90
102 114 Williamsport, PA MSA 95.57 103 100.74 52 90.78 109 98.75 92 -3.53% 87 89.45 80 97.33 73 0.65 50 5 34 116.7 619.84
103 117 Mansfield, OH MSA 90.02 120 99.8 81 83.49 121 96.44 118 -2.80% 75 104.62 39 105.91 8 0.90 14 4 50 125.0 630.27
104 85 Jackson, TN MSA 99.80 68 99.84 80 95.79 82 98.72 93 -3.70% 90 74.70 115 99.64 36 0.42 95 3 76 112.7 633.33
105 115 Muncie, IN MSA 90.30 119 98.9 104 81.25 123 97.38 109 -1.35% 42 98.69 56 100.63 29 0.68 42 5 34 114.7 637.82
106 63 Flagstaff, AZ MSA 105.87 31 99.06 98 107.83 21 98.82 90 -5.32% 113 34.57 124 72.45 124 0.36 109 2 99 128.6 640.55
107 112 Racine, WI MSA 96.72 89 99.95 78 91.23 106 96.72 115 -3.61% 88 113.78 24 101.53 25 0.43 90 3 76 199.5 644.24
108 70 Dothan, AL MSA 99.44 74 98.39 110 99.95 50 98.69 94 -3.05% 78 85.66 90 94.81 100 0.42 95 3 76 141.0 647.00
109 105 Sheboygan, WI MSA 98.89 77 99.27 96 93.97 90 97.44 108 -3.89% 95 76.51 113 107.18 6 0.49 79 4 50 114.6 651.30
110 97 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI MSA 93.13 111 100.41 64 88.21 115 99.04 78 -4.48% 103 89.72 79 103.49 13 0.41 101 4 50 159.5 654.09
111 100 Altoona, PA MSA 95.29 105 99.15 97 92.53 97 98.88 89 -3.70% 90 97.78 60 95.31 98 0.69 38 5 34 125.2 654.69
112 95 Terre Haute, IN MSA 93.79 108 98.87 106 90.42 111 96.74 114 -2.75% 74 81.88 104 93.93 111 0.95 8 6 23 170.2 702.16
113 59 Redding, CA MSA 92.16 117 96.35 120 96.76 76 99.03 81 -5.25% 111 84.33 95 96.21 85 0.59 61 6 23 180.2 703.20
114 122 Lima, OH MSA 89.83 121 98.53 109 87.06 117 96.56 117 -1.64% 49 101.17 49 102.37 17 0.43 90 2 99 105.2 707.10
115 75 Janesville, WI MSA 96.59 93 98.03 113 93.27 95 96.63 116 -6.20% 119 111.38 28 95.43 96 0.44 87 5 34 160.2 727.04
116 96 Elkhart-Goshen, IN MSA 93.97 107 92.94 124 99.57 56 97.38 109 -13.58% 124 82.01 102 99.46 38 0.43 90 4 50 199.1 728.57
117 119 Anderson, SC MSA 96.77 88 98.88 105 90.74 110 99.44 66 -4.05% 99 83.66 96 96.94 77 0.21 123 1 113 182.8 741.89
118 113 Dalton, GA MSA 92.27 116 95.07 123 93.84 92 97.58 106 -8.68% 121 82.38 100 98.92 45 0.90 14 3 76 134.1 745.88
119 120 Springfield, OH MSA 93.75 109 100.63 58 81.88 122 95.72 122 -0.76% 33 77.69 112 77.11 123 0.15 124 0 120 139.9 753.78
120 84 Lewiston-Auburn, ME MSA 95.66 102 98.95 102 92.47 99 98.97 84 -3.47% 86 82.62 98 86.25 122 0.24 120 2 99 106.9 763.88
121 116 Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI MSA 92.88 113 98.7 107 86.99 118 96.15 120 -5.29% 112 52.38 123 96.76 81 0.57 64 4 50 174.3 804.70
122 121 Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI MSA 87.18 124 96.85 118 80.47 124 94.62 124 -4.10% 100 87.98 83 95.68 91 0.68 42 3 76 200.7 812.54
123 123 Battle Creek, MI MSA 89.53 122 99.02 99 84.58 120 96.98 112 -5.78% 118 87.01 85 96.20 86 0.29 115 1 113 135.9 850.27
124 124 Jackson, MI MSA 89.49 123 98.18 111 84.85 119 95.48 123 -4.68% 107 64.77 120 95.52 95 0.31 114 2 99 160.2 879.45
* “Values” are benchmarked against the national average, which is set to 100.
** Index scores are benchmarked against the top performer, which is set to 100. Lower index scores indicate stronger performance.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Moody’s Economy.com, Milken Institute.
Endnotes
Endnotes
1. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Statistical and Science Policy Branch, Office of Management and
Budget, OMB Bulletin, no. 04-03.
2. Though the OMB identifies 361 MSA, our index ranks 324 MSAs for which employment and wage data is available
on a consistent basis.
3. The latest twelve-month job performance calculates the percentage change from the same month in the previous
year (e.g., the percentage change in jobs from March 2008 to March 2009). The percentage change is a measure of
recent momentum, capturing which metropolitan areas have improved their performance in recent months. The
annual growth rate measures the percentage change from calendar year 2007 to 2008. While annual growth rate
does not indicate whether high growth was achieved or diminished in the first or latter half of the year, the twelve-
month growth rate captures that aspect. Employment, wage, and gross metro product data is compiled from various
government agencies, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and
the U.S. Census Bureau. More detailed coverage on individual sectors is derived from Moody’s Economy.com.
4. An industry’s location quotient (LQ) measures the level of concentration in a given location (in this case, an MSA)
relative to the industry average across the United States. A metro with a GDP LQ higher than 1.0 in a high-tech
industry, for example, has greater output in that industry than the nation has on average. It is an indication of
whether a metro has successfully attracted an above-average mass of high-tech industries. Metros that exceed the
national average in high-tech industry LQ have an edge in attracting and retaining high-tech firms because of their
dense employment base and other positive agglomeration, or clustering, factors.
5. Ross DeVol, Kevin Klowden, Armen Bedroussian, and Benjamin Yeo, North America’s High-Tech Economy: The
Geography of Knowledge-Based Industries (Milken Institute, 2009), p. 8.
6. Lori Hawkins, “Spray-Batter Maker Joins Influx to Austin,” Austin American Statesman, July 5, 2009.
7. Claudia Grisales, “In Feeble Times, City Still Feeling Strong Growth,” Austin American Statesman, July 20, 2009.
8. Marty Toohey, “Green Energy Partnership Nears Launch,” Austin American Statesman, July 31, 2009.
9. Christopher Calnan, “City Council Gives Austin Energy the Go-Ahead for Major Solar Project,” Austin Business
Journal, March 6, 2009.
10. “Texas in Focus: Central Texas,” Texas Comptroller’s office, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/central/
indProfiles.php.
11. “Texas in Focus: Central Texas,” Texas Comptroller’s office, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/central/
education.php.
12. “Killeen-Area Medical Community Healthy,” Killeen Daily Herald, August 2, 2009 (http://www.kdhnews.com/
news/story.aspx?s=34922; accessed October 7, 2009).
13. North America’s High-Tech Economy: The Geography of Knowledge-Based Industries, p. 25.
14. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Salt Lake City, 2009.
15. Ryan Holeywell, “Details of Possible Sharyland Auto Plant Emerge,” The Monitor, April 10, 2009.
16. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Houston, 2009.
17. L.M. Sixel, “The Quarterly: Energy, Once a Shield for City, May Take a While to Rally Its Strength,” Houston
Chronicle, August 2, 2009.
18. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Houston, 2009.
19. Monica Perin, “Global Manufacturing Lines Imported by Cat Lift Trucks,” Houston Business Journal, April 10,
2009.
20. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Durham, 2009.
21. Dawn Kent, “Two Bright Spots in a Recession: Rocket and Port Cities Doing Well in Hard Times,” Birmingham
News, February 22, 2009.
22. Robert Block, Aaron Deslatte, and Mark K. Matthews, “Thousands at Kennedy Space Center May Get Alabama
Jobs,” Orlando Sentinel, March 4, 2009.
53
23. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Lafayette, 2009.

24. Benjamin Niolet, “Layoffs Might Hit Public Jobs, Too,” The News & Observer, February 8, 2009.
25. Roger Croteau, “Caterpillar Bringing 1,400 Jobs to Area,” San Antonio Express-News, December 19, 2008.
26. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Dallas, 2009.
27. Vic Kolenc, “Fort Bliss Housing Meets Cost Snag,” El Paso Times, April, 4, 2009.
28. Jason Beaubien, “Economy, Drug Wars Hurt Cross-Border Business,” NPR Morning Edition, December 4, 2008
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97752572; accessed September 29, 2009).
29. Graham Warwick, “Boeing Warns of Job Cuts in 2009,” Aviation Week, November, 21, 2009.
30. Department of the Navy, Base Realignment and Closure, Program Management Office, Texas, Naval Air Station,
Corpus Christi (http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/major_realignments.aspx?baseid=85&name=newport).
31. Office of the Governor, State of Louisiana, “Governor Bobby Jindal Marks Groundbreaking For Pennington’s New
Clinical Research Building,” June 14, 2009.
32. Rod Walton, “Philadelphia-Based Sunoco to Sell Tulsa Refinery to Holly,” Tulsa World April, 16, 2009. (http://www.
tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20090416_298_0_PIAEPI404403; accessed October
7, 2009).
33. Laurie Windslow, “Tulsa Ranks No.1 in Cost of Living on New National List,” Tulsa World, August, 27, 2009
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=32&articleid=20090827_298_0_Teacld276450;
accessed October 7, 2009).
34. Brian Barber, “BOK Center Rakes in Millions,” Tulsa World April, 17, 2009. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/
article.aspx?articleID=20090427_11_A1_Tulsas804632; accessed October 7, 2009).
35. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Greeley, 2009.
36. Evan Dreyer, “Gov. Ritter Celebrates Opening of Vestas Plant,” Office of Economic Development and International
Trade, March, 5, 2008 (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/OEDIT/OEDIT/1206001694734?rendermode=previ
ew-sdalgar-1162927364983).
37. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Tacoma, 2009.
38. “CSU Startup Abound Solar Opens First Production Facility,” Colorado State University, April 15,2009. (http://
www.news.colostate.edu/Release/4424; accessed October 7, 2009).
39. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Little Rock, 2009.
40. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Shreveport, 2009, and http://www.oilshalegas.com/haynesvilleshale.html.
41. “EXCO Resources Inc. to Unveil Facilities for Haynesville Shale Exploitation,” Businesswire, June 22, 2009 (http://
www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090622006321&newsLa
ng=en; accessed October 7, 2009)
42. Jim Wolf, “Pentagon to Create 20,000 Jobs to Manage Arms Buys,” Reuters, May 6, 2009. (http://www.reuters.
com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE54545N20090506; accessed October 7, 2009).
43. Dave Itzkoff, “Tax-Credit Fund Empty at City Film Office,” New York Times, July 2, 2009.
44. Moody’s Economy.com , Metro Précis Riverside, 2009.
45. Metro Atlanta Overview 2009, Metro Atlanta Chamber and Georgia Power (http://metroatlantachamber.com/files/
file/about_atlanta/Atlanta%20Overview_2009.pdf; accessed October 7, 2009), p. 3.
46. Midland Development Corporation, http://www.midlandtexasedc.org/community_profile (accessed September 30,
2009).
47. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
48. Texas Comptroller’s Office, http://recenter.tamu.edu/mreports/Midland.pdf.
49. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Longview, March 2009.
50. Tyler Economic Development Council, http://www.tedc.org/profile/pro_location.php.
51. Tyler Economic Development Council, July 2008.
52. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Odessa, March 2009.
53. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, not seasonally adjusted annual data.
54
Endnotes
54. Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, RECON (Real Estate Center Online News), November 14, 2008
(http://recenter.tamu.edu/recon/RECON.asp?date=11/14/2008; accessed October 8, 2009).
55. Angelou Economics Community Assessment of the City of Kennewick, February 2006, and U.S. Department of
Energy (http://www.hanford.gov/?page=58&parent=6).
56. Tri-City Development Council (http://www.tridec.org/index.cfm?regid=%23%2F%40(%2F%0A&fwnavid=%23%
2F%404-%0A&navMode=(%3FT%3D%3A(Y%3EJ%3B1%5C%20%0A; accessed October 8, 2009).
57. Bismarck-Mandan Development Association, Energy Resources, http://www.bmda.org/energy/ (accessed October 8,
2009).
58. Robins Air Force Base, Economic Impact Statement, June 19, 2009 (available for download at http://www.robins.
af.mil/library/index.asp; accessed October 8, 2009).
59. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Warner Robins, March 2009.
60. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Fargo, 2009.
55
About the Authors
Ross C. DeVol is Director of Regional Economics at the Milken Institute. He oversees the Institute’s research efforts
on the dynamics of comparative regional growth performance, and technology and its impact on regional and national
economies. He is an expert on the new intangible economy and how regions can prepare themselves to compete in it.
DeVol authored the groundbreaking study America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development, and Risks for Metropolitan
Areas, an examination of how clusters of high-technology industries across the country affect economic growth in
those regions, and created the State Technology and Science Index, which ranks the 50 states in terms of their technology
and science assets. Prior to joining the Institute, DeVol was senior vice president of Global Insight, Inc. (formerly
Wharton Econometric Forecasting), where he supervised the Regional Economic Services group. DeVol supervised the
re-specification of Global Insight’s regional econometric models and played an instrumental role on similar work on
its U.S. Macro Model, originally developed by Nobel laureate Lawrence Klein. He was the firm’s chief spokesman on
international trade, headed Global Insight’s U.S. Long-Term Macro Service, and authored numerous special reports on
behalf of the U.S. Macro Group. He is ranked among the “Super Stars” of Think Tank Scholars by International Economy
magazine. DeVol earned his M.A. in economics at Ohio University.
Armen Bedroussian is a Research Economist with the Milken Institute. He has extensive graduate training in
econometrics, statistical methods, and other modeling techniques. Before joining the Institute, he was an economics
teaching assistant at the University of California, Riverside, where he taught intermediate micro- and macroeconomics.
Since coming to the Institute, Bedroussian has co-authored numerous studies, including The Impact of 9/11 on U.S.
Metropolitan Economies, America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, Economic Benefits of Proposed University of Central
Florida College of Medicine, and An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease. In addition to co-
authoring annual reports on Best-Performing Cities, he has also compiled the Milken Institute’s Cost of Doing Business
Index; both of these studies have gained increasing popularity among business and policy leaders across the nation.
Bedroussian earned his B.S. in applied mathematics and a master’s degree in economics from UC-Riverside.
Kevin Klowden is Managing Economist of the California Center and is part of the Regional Economics group at the
Milken Institute, specializing in the study of demographic and spatial factors, and how these are influenced by public
policy and affect regional economies. He has written and spoken on the role of transportation infrastructure as it relates
to the movement of goods and people in the development of regional competitiveness. Klowden has a strong interest
in the role of technology and media; he recently authored The Writers’ Strike of 2007–2008: The Economic Impact of
Digital Distribution, a study that examined the underlying issues surrounding the recent Hollywood writers’ strike
and calculated the costs of that work stoppage to the overall California economy. He coordinated the Institute’s Los
Angeles Economy Project, seeking public policy and private-sector solutions to challenges the region faces amid a growing
unskilled labor pool. He served on the editorial board of Millennium, the international affairs journal of the London
School of Economics, where he earned a master’s degree. Klowden also received a master’s in economic geography from
the University of Chicago.
Candice Flor Hynek is a Senior Research Analyst with the Milken Institute’s Regional Studies group. She was associate
economist of the LAEDC Kyser Center for Economic Research, where she worked for more than eight years, specializing
in the structure of leading industries in Southern California. She has managed the Kyser Center’s major economic reports
and served as editor of the e-EDGE economic newsletter. She has co-authored numerous reports, including The Business
of Sports in Los Angeles County, The Creative Economy of the Los Angeles Region and, most recently, Manufacturing 2.0:
A More Prosperous California. She has contributed U.S. economic outlook articles to several industry newsletters. Flor
Hynek is an active member of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) and is the 2008-09 president
of the Los Angeles Chapter of NABE. She received her bachelor’s degree in business economics from California State
University, Long Beach.
56
1250 Fourth Street • Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310.570.4600 • Fax: 310.570.4601
E-mail: info@milkeninstitute.org
www.milkeninstitute.org
© 2009 Milken Institute

Milken Institute's 2009 Best-Performing Cities List

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Milken Institute's 2009 Best-Performing Cities List

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best-Performing Cities 2009

Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained

Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden,

Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden,

About the Milken Institute

We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and publicly supported.

© 2009 Milken Institute

The Biggest Gainers.......................................................................................................11

The Biggest Decliners...................................................................................................13

The Best-Performing Large Cities...........................................................................15

America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance.........................................................31

The Best-Performing Small Cities...........................................................................39

Complete Results: 2009 Best-Performing Large Cities.................................47

Complete Results: 2009 Best-Performing Small Cities.................................50

About the Authors..........................................................................................................56

Among this year’s key findings:

The Top 25 Best-Performing Cities

This Year’s Best-Performing City

The Ten Largest Cities

The Biggest Gainers

The Best-Performing Small City

Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based

National Economic Conditions

The Biggest Gainers

The Biggest Decliners

2009 2008 Spots

The Best-Performing Large Cities

Figure 1. Annual wage and salary growth

Figure 2. Computer systems design and related service

Figure 3. Engineering and architectural services

Figure 4. Net migration

Figure 5. Professional, scientific, and technical services

Figure 6. Professional, scientific, and technical services

Figure 7. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Figure 8. Company and enterprise management

Figure 9. Transportation equipment manufacturing

Figure 10. Software publishing employment

Figure 11. Heavy and civil engineering construction jobs

Figure 12. Support activities for mining

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV metro area, jumped to 25th place after finishing

America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance

2009 2008 Spots

Figure 13. Professional, scientific and technical services

Figure 14. Specialty trade contractors

Figure 15. Printing and related support activities

Figure 16. Transportation equipment manufacturing

Figure 17. Heavy and civil engineering construction

Figure 18. Administrative and support services

Figure 19. Credit intermediation and related activities

The Best-Performing Small Cities

Figure 20. Support activities for mining

Figure 21. Administrative and support services

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

Figure 22. Health-care and social assistance services

Figure 23. Professional, scientific, and technical services

Figure 24. Computer systems design services

23. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Lafayette, 2009.

About the Authors

© 2009 Milken Institute

You might also like