Best-Performing Cities 2008 - CCSTccst.us/.../documents/BestPerformingCities2008.pdfBest-Performing Cities 2008 ... a decline from the 1.8 percent recorded in 2006. ... Most of these

Where America’s Jobs Are Created and SustainedSeptember 2008

Best-Performing Cities 2008

1250 Fourth Street • Santa Monica, CA 90401Phone: 310.570.4600 • Fax: 310.570.4601E-mail: [email protected]

© 2008 Milken Institute

Ross DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Soojung Kim

PROVO-OREM, UTAHBest-Performing City




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.

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.


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.

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5

The Biggest Gainers ........................................................................................................ 9

The Biggest Losers.........................................................................................................11

The Best-Performing Large Cities ..........................................................................13

America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance ........................................................29

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

Complete Results: 2008 Best-Performing Large Cities ................................48

Complete Results: 2008 Best-Performing Small Cities ................................50

References .........................................................................................................................53

About the Authors .........................................................................................................55

Table of Contents

1


Executive SummaryOver the past decade, the Milken Institute has regularly analyzed U.S. metropolitan areas to determine which cities are most successful at creating and sustaining jobs. Global, national, and regional economic trends are reflected in the annual rankings, shedding light on where businesses are thriving or struggling, and where wages are growing or lagging. In the Milken Institute and Greenstreet Real Estate Partners’ Best-Performing Cities 2008 index , we see a continuation of trends that were already becoming evident in last year’s figures, along with new developments that are affecting the outlook for communities across the country.

As regional growth rates diverge, human capital shifts from areas with weaker growth to locations experiencing more rapid gains. Cities with large concentrations of technology firms have been performing quite well, as have metros that are highly dependent on export-intensive industries. Rising energy prices have hindered the performance of cities where industries with high energy use are the key drivers, while benefiting those regions with significant oil and gas production and exploration activities. Faced with weaker job and wage growth, along with losses in home equity and rising commodity prices, consumers have cut back their expenditures on discretionary items such as cars, appliances, and other durable goods—and metros that are heavily dependent on the production of consumer durables have seen their economies falter.

As businesses, labor, investors, and public officials plan their next moves, the Best-Performing Cities index provides important benchmarks for charting a course. The combination of long- and short-term measures provides an indicator of whether each city is developing a prosperous, competitive economy and a stable society.

National Conditions

U.S. economic growth weakened in 2007. Real GDP rose 2.1 percent in 2007, down from the 2.9 percent increase achieved in 2006, and most of that growth occurred in the early part of the year. Job growth slowed to 1.1 percent in 2007, a decline from the 1.8 percent recorded in 2006. International trade kept the economy from experiencing an even more dramatic slowdown in 2007, as the falling dollar and continued strong economic expansion abroad produced robust gains in exports and substantially diminished increases in imports. Business investment in structures (and, to a lesser extent, in equipment) was strong in 2007.

The primary culprit behind the economic slowdown was the bursting of the bubble in the housing market. In 2007, existing home sales dropped 13.0 percent, new home sales declined 26.0 percent, housing starts plunged by 25.0 percent, and residential fixed investment fell 17.0 percent.

Economic conditions deteriorated even further in the first half of 2008 under the weight of multiple challenges: the contraction of the housing market, rising agricultural and commodity prices, oil prices above $120 per barrel, overall inflation exceeding wage growth, a continuing credit crunch, declining employment figures, and consumers facing excessive debt-servicing burdens. The U.S. economy slowed to a crawl, at best, though it is more likely that the nation actually entered a mild recession in 2008. These factors will further change the patterns of economic growth around the country and will surely impact next year’s rankings.

Executive Summary

2


The Top 25 Best-Performing Cities

Texas performed particularly well in the 2008 index, with six cities placing in the top twenty-five large metros (more than any other state). Thanks to its heavy concentration of oil and gas operations, Texas was a clear beneficiary of rising energy prices and renewed activity in the industry. Additionally, several Texas metros received a boost from continued strength in technology hardware and services. While the housing downturn has been severe in states such as Florida, California, Arizona, and Nevada, Texas has not experienced a similar decline.

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)2008rank

2007rank

Provo-Orem, UT 1 8Raleigh-Cary, NC 2 10Salt Lake City, UT 3 18Austin-Round Rock, TX 4 20Huntsville, AL 5 16Wilmington, NC 6 2McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 7 7Tacoma, WA* 8 50Olympia, WA 9 37Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC 10 12Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 11 5Bakersfield, CA 12 17Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 13 33Lafayette, LA 14 24San Antonio, TX 15 43Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 16 32Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA* 17 77Ogden-Clearfield, UT 18 42Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC 19 11Greeley, CO 20 29Durham, NC 21 74Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 22 61Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 23 59Savannah, GA 24 34Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 25 58*Indicates Metropolitan DivisionSource : Milken Institute

Table 1. Best-performing cities: top twenty-five large metrosRank in 2008 index

All three of Utah’s largest metros ranked among the nation’s top twenty-five performers. In fact, Utah claimed two of the top three spots in the index, and Provo-Orem emerged as the best-performing city of 2008. Two other states, North Carolina and Washington, placed three metros among the top twenty-five. Most of these cities witnessed strong growth in their technology industries. All the technology centers in the top echelon improved their ranking from last year. South Carolina was the only other state with more than one metro in the top twenty-five.

The South had sixteen metros among the top twenty-five in the nation, surpassing last year’s performance by one despite the falloff experienced in Florida. The West had eight metros in the top tier. (Only one California metro, Bakersfield, remains on the list.)

Executive Summary

3


There was a ray of good news for the heartland: Des Moines –West Des Moines, Iowa, cracked the top twenty-five, a change from last year’s index, in which no metros from the Midwest made the list. Unlike most other Midwest metros, Des Moines has produced growth in professional services, with financial services as the primary engine of its job creation.

At the other end of the spectrum, nine Midwest metros finished in the bottom ten of the 200 largest metros in the country—and all are in Michigan or Ohio. The Northeast again failed to place a single city in the top twenty-five this year. Its best-ranked metro, Trenton-Ewing, New Jersey, placed 62nd overall.

This Year’s Best-Performing City: Provo-Orem, Utah

Provo-Orem, Utah, jumps into the no. 1 ranking, an improvement from last year’s 8th-place finish. The area’s economy has been generating jobs at a pace far above the national average over the past five years. Its job growth performance remained strong in 2007 at 5.0 percent, placing the metro 3rd in the nation in this indicator. The quality of jobs being created has been high as well, a fact borne out by its 3rd-place position in wage and salary growth in 2006. Much of the area’s economic growth has been fueled by a remarkable recovery in high-tech information services and hardware. Provo-Orem has benefited from increased research and associated spin-off activity at Brigham Young University (BYU). Superior job growth has led to high rates of migration to the area, spurring housing and non-residential construction building activity.

The Ten Largest Cities

Because America’s largest metropolitan areas are characterized by high density, with minimal room for expansion, we have broken 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 Provo, Raleigh, or Austin. However, the big metro areas could learn something from the favorable business climates promoted by these fast-growing areas.

The best performer among the nation’s largest metros, with an overall ranking of 16th place, Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, expanded its job base by a whopping 3.2 percent between March 2007 and March 2008, the second-largest increase in the nation. The one-year indicators for job and wage growth also showed robust gains, rising 3.0 and 4.0 percentage points faster, respectively, than the national average. Opportunities stemming from the energy industry, specifically with respect to oil exploration in the Gulf, have been a key engine of growth. Industries that support oil exploration have also been performing well. The heavy and civil engineering construction sector expanded by 5,700 jobs, while specialty trade contractors added another 7,800 workers in 2007.

The Biggest Gainers

The biggest gainers on the 2008 index rose for a variety of reasons, but they do share some commonalities. Most of these metros never experienced a housing-price bubble, so they are now being spared the pain of a major correction and its attendant ripple effects. Some have benefited from increased energy-related activity, while others improved due to the continued strength in the technology sector. Several rose courtesy of more aircraft production over the past couple of years. Metros dependent on industries with rising exports have risen in the rankings, courtesy of the depreciating dollar.

Executive Summary

4


The most improved metro, El Paso, Texas, climbed an impressive eighty-five spots to place 37th overall. El Paso saw a boost in economic activity due to a major expansion of the U.S. Army base at Fort Bliss under the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program. Nearly 21,000 soldiers are expected to transfer from other bases, with more than 7,000 having already arrived so far.

The Best-Performing Small City

Midland, Texas, was the best performer among the 124 small cities in our 2008 index, improving from last year’s 3rd-place finish. (Note that last year’s small-city index ranked 179 metros.) In our one-year indicator for job growth, which covers 2006 to 2007, employment increased by 4.3 percent in this region, outpacing the national average by 3.2 percentage points. Oilfield services—including the drilling of oil and gas wells and oil and gas operations—provide almost 6,900 jobs (or 10.4 percent of total jobs in Midland); this industry recorded an 11.3 percent average annual increase between 2002 and 2007.

Executive Summary

5


IntroductionThe Best-Performing Cities index was designed to measure 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, and government 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 and business expansion opportunities. In today’s economic slowdown, it helps determine which regional markets may have the lowest risk. The 2008 index applies the methodology used in previous indexes.

The index employs geographic terms 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. 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 (Dallas-Plano-Irving and Fort Worth–Arlington) make up the Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington MSA. We include the smaller metropolitan divisions in the index to reflect more accurate geographic growth patterns.

Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based

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 (2002–2007) to adjust for extreme variations in business cycles. It also incorporates the latest year’s performance in these areas. Lastly, it includes the latest twelve-month job growth performance (March 2007 to March 2008) to capture the relative recent momentum among metropolitan economies.2 Employment growth is weighted most heavily in the index because of its critical importance in determining community vitality. Wage and salary growth measures the quality of the jobs being created and sustained. Technology output growth is also an 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.3 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.

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,

Introduction

6

are subject to large variations and can be highly subjective, making them less meaningful than more objective indicators of outcome.

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.

Component WeightJob growth (I=2002) 0.143

Job growth (I=2006) 0.143

Wage and salary growth (I=2001) 0.143

Wage and salary growth (I=2005) 0.143

Short-term job growth (Mar 07-Mar 08) 0.143

Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2002) 0.071

Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2006) 0.071

High-tech GDP location quotient 0.071

Number of high-tech GDP LQ>1 0.071Note: I refers to the beginning year of the index.Source : Milken Institute

Table 2. Components of the Best-Performing Cities index

National Economic Conditions

The U.S. economy slowed substantially in 2007 and may have entered a recession by year-end. Real GDP rose 2.1 percent in 2007, down from the 2.9 percent increase in 2006, and most of that growth occurred earlier in the year. Job growth was 1.1 percent in 2007, a decline from the 1.8 percent recorded in 2006. International trade kept the economy from experiencing an even more dramatic slowdown in 2007 as a falling dollar and continued strong economic expansion abroad resulted in robust gains in exports and substantially diminished increases in imports. Business investment in structures was strong in 2007, as was (to a lesser extent) investment in equipment.

Just as the end of the dot-com and technology bubble sparked the 2001 recession, today it is the bursting of the housing bubble that has precipitated a decline in economic activity.4 The correction in housing started to unfold in 2006, with residential fixed investment spending falling by 4.6 percent. The correction accelerated in 2007, with existing home sales dropping by 13.0 percent, new home sales declining by 26.0 percent, housing starts plunging by 25.0 percent, and residential fixed investment falling another 17.0 percent. As the initial teaser rates on adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) reset and housing prices plummet, foreclosure rates are skyrocketing, further weakening prices. Many homes were purchased with little or no down payment, and due to falling home prices, their loan-to-value ratios are over 100, making it difficult for homeowners to refinance mortgages. Housing market activity will contract by an even greater percentage in 2008 and is unlikely to bottom out until sometime in 2009. This will cause dramatically disparate impacts on metros around the country.

Best-Performing Cities 2008Introduction

7


Rising energy prices, especially in oil and refined petroleum products, is another strong headwind that slowed economic growth in late 2007 and has taken a major toll in 2008. As higher crude prices filter into downstream prices for gasoline, jet fuel, home heating oil, and other refined-petroleum products, energy costs are eating up a greater share of household income. This has forced consumers to cut purchases of discretionary items such as autos, furniture, appliances, and other durable goods. Higher energy prices have also harmed energy-intensive industries, such as airlines and chemical producers. Metros with a high concentration of energy-reliant industries have been harmed. On the other hand, metros with significant oil and gas production and exploration activities have seen higher energy prices acting as a stimulus.

Exports of goods and services were the strongest segment of the U.S. economy in 2007. Real exports of goods and services rose by 8.1 percent in 2007, a minor decrease from the 8.4 percent gain of 2006. Rapid growth in exports has mitigated the impact of declining domestic sales of manufactured goods. Metros with high concentrations of exporters have benefited from rising international demand for U.S. products.

U.S. economic conditions deteriorated even further in the first half of 2008, as growth slowed to a crawl (at best) or, more likely, a mild recession took hold. Multiple challenges converged simultaneously: the continued contraction of the housing market, rising agricultural and commodity prices, a sharp spike in oil prices, overall inflation exceeding wage growth, a continuing credit crunch, declining employment figures, and a consumer increasingly squeezed by excessive debt-servicing burdens. These factors will further impact the patterns of economic growth around the country in the months to come and will surely impact next year’s rankings.

Introduction

9


The Biggest GainersThe biggest gainers on the 2008 Best-Performing Cities index rose for a variety of reasons, but they do share some commonalities. The majority of these metros didn’t experience a drastic housing-price bubble and an overbuilt market, so they haven’t seen a major correction in new home construction and the attendant loss of construction employment, along with the ripple effects on their economies. Some have benefited from increased energy-related activity, while others improved due to the continued strength in the technology sector. Several rose courtesy of more aircraft production activity over the past couple of years. Metros dependent on industries producing rising exports have improved in the rankings, courtesy of a depreciating dollar. Upward revisions to previous job gain estimates were reported in many of these metros as well.

The most-improved metro, El Paso, Texas, climbed an impressive eighty-five spots to place 37th overall. El Paso saw a boost in economic activity due to a major expansion of the U.S. Army base at Fort Bliss under the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program. Nearly 21,000 soldiers are expected to transfer from other bases, with more than 7,000 having already arrived so far.5


2007rank

Spots climbed

El Paso, TX 37 122 +85Asheville, NC 46 117 +71Wichita, KS 45 114 +69Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 67 131 +64New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ* 85 148 +63Denver-Aurora, CO 44 106 +62Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA* 17 77 +60Oklahoma City, OK 50 108 +58Durham, NC 21 74 +53Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 68 121 +53Syracuse, NY 127 174 +47Spokane, WA 35 81 +46Nassau-Suffolk, NY* 96 139 +43Tacoma, WA* 8 50 +42Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 93 135 +42Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 121 163 +42Amarillo, TX 49 89 +40Pittsburgh, PA 136 176 +40Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 22 61 +39Lynchburg, VA 71 110 +39Kansas City, MO-KS 77 116 +39Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 81 120 +39*Indicates Metropolitan Division

Table 3. Biggest gainersChange in rankings

Source : Milken Institute

The Biggest Gainers

11


The Biggest LosersMost of the metros experiencing the most precipitous declines in the 2008 rankings were the epicenters of the housing decline. Many experienced a rise in home sales and prices far in excess of the underlying fundamentals earlier this decade. Some had a high share of sub-prime mortgage loan issuance over the past several years, and as interest rates on ARMs adjusted higher, delinquency and foreclosure rates soared. Housing prices have plummeted in the majority of these markets and new home construction has ground to a halt. Additionally, several had a high concentration of mortgage originators and have experienced a dramatic decline in financial services employment. Thirteen out of the twenty biggest decliners are in Florida, California, or Nevada, reflecting the severity of the housing downturn in those markets.

Vallejo-Fairfield, California, saw the biggest plunge, falling a precipitous 123 spots to 145th. This metro area has taken one of the hardest hits in the nation from recent housing woes. The economic and financial consequences have been so severe, in fact, that the city of Vallejo was forced to declare bankruptcy.

Table 4. Biggest losersChange in rankings


2007rank

Spots down

321-22541AC ,dleifriaF-ojellaV311-72041 AC ,arutneV-skaO dnasuohT-dranxO701-62331 VN ,skrapS-oneR701-31021 LF ,sreyM troF-laroC epaC77-638 LF ,dnalsI ocraM-selpaN27-78951 YN ,nwotelddiM-hgrubweN-eispeekhguoP07-8289 LF ,nevaH retniW-dnalekaL96-63501 *LF ,hcaeB notnyoB-notaR acoB-hcaeB mlaP tseW66-957 VN ,esidaraP-sageV saL26-0329 LF ,hcaeB dnomrO-hcaeB anotyaD-anotleD75-94601 *AC ,enivrI-miehanA-anA atnaS65-84401 LF ,ellivsutiT-enruobleM-yaB mlaP45-421871 *JN-DM-ED ,notgnimliW45-0449 IH ,ululonoH05-335 AC ,oiratnO-onidranreB naS-edisreviR94-101051 LA ,revooH-mahgnimriB74-511261 AC ,otsedoM74-26901 *JN ,nedmaC64-65201 AV ,dnomhciR14-17211 VW-DM ,grubsnitraM-nwotsregaH

*Indicates Metropolitan DivisionSource : Milken Institute

The Biggest Losers

13


The Best-Performing Large CitiesProvo-Orem, Utah, jumps into the no. 1 ranking in the 2008 Best-Performing Cities index, posting a solid improvement from last year’s 8th-place finish. The area’s economy has been generating job growth far in excess of the national average over the past five years. From 2002 to 2007, Provo-Orem has seen its employment base expand 16.5 percentage points faster than the U.S. average, ranking 5th overall in this indicator. Its job-growth performance remained strong in 2007 at 5.0 percent, placing the metro 3rd in the nation in this measure. The quality of jobs being generated has been high as well, highlighted by its 3rd-place position in wages and salary growth in 2006. Much of its economic growth has been fueled by a remarkable recovery in high-tech information services and hardware. Provo-Orem has benefited from increased research and associated spin-off activity at Brigham Young University (BYU). Superior job growth has sparked high rates of migration to the area, further spurring housing and non-residential construction building activity.

2007200620052004200320022001

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

2001 index =100

Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute

Figure 1. High-tech employment Provo-Orem vs. United States

Provo-OremUnited States

Like many high-tech areas of the country, Provo-Orem experienced a dramatic decline in employment at its leading firms when the technology bubble burst earlier this decade. However, while national high-tech employment has never regained the levels achieved in early 2001, Provo-Orem has actually managed to eclipse its previous peak. Its new Micron Technology/Intel flash memory plant has expanded employment in this high-paying sector.6 Software technology is another important driver for the area’s economy. Provo-Orem is 3.3 times more dependent on software employment than the national average, with Novell and Symantec as key anchors. BYU has also expanded its research budget, increased student enrollment, and has become the center of an emerging life sciences cluster. A number of companies have either been spun out or launched based on university-developed intellectual property.

Broad-based job growth led to high rates of net migration into Provo-Orem. From a low of 1,600 in 2004, net migration rose to an estimated 10,000 in 2007.7 This population growth is self-reinforcing, as it drove higher consumer purchases and greater demand for housing. New residential construction activity was brisk (although it has fallen off in recent months), with building construction employment

The Best-Performing Large Cities

14


rising by an average of 15.8 percent over the last five years. Construction generated more than 25 percent of all jobs created in 2006 and 2007. A retrenchment in new home construction will reduce future job growth in Provo-Orem, but national business investment in information and communication technology remains fairly strong despite the economic downturn and should mitigate the extent of the slowdown in Provo-Orem.

Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina, leapt to 2nd place this year, up from 10th in last year’s rankings. At 5.5 percent, its job growth was 2nd in the nation in 2007. Despite some slowing this year, job growth over the twelve-month period from March 2007 to March 2008 was 1st in the nation at 3.6 percent. Like many tech centers, its economy took a hit in the national tech implosion of 2001; however, Raleigh-Cary’s technology sectors have recovered and aided economic expansion. Professional and business services have witnessed robust growth, and state government employment provides some stability. Stellar economic growth was reinforced by high net migration, which rose to an estimated 36,000 in 2007.

Figure 2. Professional, scientific, and technical servicesRaleigh-Cary vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

Jobs, percent change from preceding year


Raleigh-CaryUnited States

Raleigh-Cary has developed into one of the premier technology clusters in the nation. Top-notch universities (North Carolina State and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) serve as research anchors and provide high-quality talent at moderate wage levels relative to other U.S. tech centers.8 The relatively low cost of living is a major recruiting advantage for the area. Universities and other research centers interact with the business community to form a closely integrated network that aids economic development. IBM has a major presence in the area, employing more than 13,000 workers.9 SAS Institute, the statistical software giant, is also headquartered here, while Red Hat is another major player. The biopharmaceutical sector has been growing, with GlaxoSmithKline being the largest employer in this field. Overall, the region is more than 50 percent more dependent on the high-tech sector than the national average. The high knowledge content of the region’s economy is reflected in per capita income roughly $4,000 above the average for North Carolina as a whole. Raleigh-Cary won’t escape the national housing market correction, but it should avoid the steep declines in new construction activity and prices that other areas will experience.


15


Salt Lake City, Utah, improved to take the 3rd spot this year, rising fifteen places from its 2007 ranking. While it lands in the top five in only one of the individual components that comprise the index, it consistently achieves upper-tier ranking. As with the top two metros, the high-tech sector played a role in propelling Salt Lake City up the list, but in this case, energy operations factored into the outcome as well. Computer systems and related design is an important driver of economic growth in the area’s economy. Salt Lake City has become an important regional financial center, with Zions Bancorporation employing 9,500 and Discover Financial Services basing major operations in the area.10

Figure 3. Computer systems design and related servicesSalt Lake City vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0



Salt Lake CityUnited States

Health care is an important component of the area’s economy; Intermountain Health Care employs more than 27,000 workers.11 The University of Utah is an important player in medical research, and the state has supported commercialization activities through its Centers of Excellence program funding. The state government is the largest employer—and while many state capitals are experiencing severe budget shortfalls, Utah’s finances have been managed in a fiscally prudent manner. This should allow Salt Lake City to avoid cutbacks in government employment. Travel and tourism activity is another vital sector for the area’s economy. The local housing sector is slowing, with building permits running at approximately one-half their peak level in 2005. Nevertheless, strong export markets and continued high levels of business investment in information technology leave Salt Lake City well positioned relative to other areas of the nation.


16


Austin–Round Rock, Texas, a thriving example of a 21st-century knowledge-based community, soars sixteen places from last year’s ranking to stand at 4th overall in 2008. Its economy has recently gained forward momentum as evidenced by two job growth indicators: one showing growth from 2006 to 2007 and another measuring the twelve months from March 2007 to March 2008. Austin placed 4th in the nation in both of these categories, while its five-year job growth ranking from 2002 to 2007 was 21st.

Austin–Round Rock ranks 10th in the nation in terms of the importance of the high-tech sector to its local economy. Among high-tech industries, its highest concentration is in computer and electronic product manufacturing; it is four-and-a-half times more dependent on this sector than the nation overall. Dell is the major computer manufacturer, along with IBM; electronic component firms Applied Materials, Advanced Micro Devices, Flextronics, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, and others play a major role in the area’s economy.12 Even Google recently announced that it chose Austin for the site of a new satellite software engineering office that will be home to some 100 engineers.13 With the University of Texas, Austin, producing high-quality science and engineering graduates, and the relative attractiveness of the area to talent from other parts of country, many tech firms have established operations. Governor Perry is even pushing harder for UT-Austin to create more start-up firms and include commercialization of research as a criterion in granting tenure.

Figure 4. Computer and electronic product manufacturingAustin-Round Rock vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Percent share of total employment


Austin-Round Rock United States

The Austin economy isn’t built on high tech alone, but is based on a diverse group of industries. A wide array of professional and business services provide high-paying jobs to the area’s residents. Austin is well known for its music scene, and its economy has a related travel and tourism component. New residents far outnumber those who leave the area; Austin’s net migration total was more than 48,000 in 2007. This causes a ripple effect in new home construction and related retail and other non-residential construction. Additionally, Austin’s role as the state capital positions state and local government as the largest employer. While the area won’t escape the national slowdown, it is poised to remain among the top performers.


17


Huntsville, Alabama, climbs to 5th place this year, an improvement of eleven spots from last year’s ranking. The Huntsville economy is among the most dependent on high-tech industries in the country, ranking 7th overall; the area is more than twice as tied to the sector as the nation overall. Computer and electronic product manufacturing has the highest concentration of any industry in the metro, closely followed by transportation equipment manufacturing. Government employment is the third most concentrated in Huntsville, closely followed by another tech sector: professional, scientific, and technical services. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center is an important anchor for the area and will play a vital role in mankind’s return to the moon on the Ares 1.14 Many aerospace contractors are establishing or expanding operations in hopes of securing additional work on the program. Aerospace giants Boeing and Northrop Grumman have an important presence in the metro area.

Figure 5. Professional, scientific, and technical servicesHuntsville vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

Percent share of total employment


Huntsville United States

The Redstone Arsenal, a major U.S. Army post, will benefit from the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program over the next several years. The Army Space Missile Defense Command recently completed its move from Arlington, Virginia,15 and the Missile Defense Agency is slated to relocate more than 2,200 employees here over the next couple of years. Huntsville is also beginning to establish new growth in the life sciences as the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology opened its doors late last year. Strong service sector growth has resulted in gains in consumer spending. New office construction has been driven by all of the business expansion activity; residential construction has increased demand for workers, but the number of permits has recently fallen off. Nevertheless, Huntsville seems well-positioned for continued growth despite the national contraction.

Wilmington, North Carolina, ranks 6th this year, slipping just four slots from 2007. Although its momentum has been slowing in recent months, the metro has recorded job growth rates that are among the highest in the nation. Wilmington was 8th in job growth measured over the last five years and 5th in 2007 alone, but failed to place in the top forty for job growth as measured over the twelve months ending in March 2008. Increased port activity and the associated logistical support infrastructure have been a significant source of growth. A new, deeper channel has allowed the port to handle larger container ships


18


and establish a new shipping service with closer ties to Asia. Easy rail and interstate freeway access has made the area an important distribution center for big box retailers.16 The tourism sector is another key driver for Wilmington: Scenic and sightseeing transportation is the most concentrated industry in the area’s economy, while full-service restaurants and limited-service eating places are the second- and third-largest employers after state and local government.

Job growth in professional and business services has bolstered the area’s economy. Development officials have adopted a strategy of growing knowledge-intensive industries that will diversify the local economy and improve per capita incomes.17 In support of that effort, Verizon Wireless has been expanding operations and now employs more than 1,200 workers. Over the past five years, telecommunications employment has risen by an annual average rate of 23.9 percent. The revival of the nuclear energy industry is creating opportunities for the region’s economy, too. GE Energy is consolidating many of its design operations in Wilmington. Rapid employment and population growth, along with strong demand for second homes, supported a high level of home construction, but Wilmington’s housing market is slowing and will remove this sector as a source of economic growth.

Figure 6. Jobs in wireless telecommunications carriers* Wilmington vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

Percent change from preceding year


*Excluding satellite

WilmingtonUnited States

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, is holding steady in 7th place, retaining the same ranking it received last year. Although it has slipped somewhat in recent months, the metro’s job growth remains among the strongest in the nation. McAllen had the 3rd-highest job growth on a five-year basis, while the most recent data one-year job momentum indicator places it 10th in the nation. Its economy is closely linked to its sister metro across the border, Reynosa, Mexico.18 Burgeoning trade activity with Maquiladora facilities has allowed the area to become a key distribution/logistic center. For example, increased U.S.-Mexican trade through McAllen is reflected in the 14.4 percent annual average increase over the past five years in truck transportation employment. Declining demand from the Big Three automakers due to weak sales has reduced imports of parts from Maquiladora plants.


19


Another key source of growth has been new call centers. Converges and T-Mobile have established operations in the area.19 Nearly 1,200 jobs have been created in telecommunications services over the past five years, an average annual growth rate of 29.4 percent. The area has become a regional health services center with a strong position in home health care, now the second largest employment sector after state and local government. Health services provide a relatively stable source of job growth. McAllen has developed a major presence in retail trade, serving many consumers south of the border.

Tacoma, Washington, leaps to 8th place, moving up from last year’s ranking of 50th. The area has enjoyed stable employment growth, coming in slightly above 3.0 percent for the period measured in our five-year indicator. Although its housing and business costs are close to the national average, they are inexpensive relative to nearby Seattle. Low housing costs have attracted many young families, including professionals who work in Seattle. As more professionals move into the area, firms have opened offices to tap into the labor pool.20 For example, Intel employs 1,100 in the metro division. Data processing, hosting, and related services enjoyed average annual job growth of 17.2 percent over the past five years.

Figure 7. Job growthTacoma vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0



TacomaUnited States

International trade plays an important role in the area’s economy as well. The Port of Tacoma specializes in inbound containers from Asia and has benefited from capacity constraints at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Its largest exports are wood products and apples. The industry category of support activities for transportation has the highest concentration of employment in the metro economy, and many other transportation-related categories rank among the leaders. The military also has a large presence in the Tacoma economy. The U.S. Army base at Fort Lewis is the largest employer, with 37,000 soldiers and workers; along with McChord Air Force Base, it provides a steady source of demand.21 A slowdown in construction activity will curtail growth in the local economy, but nevertheless, Tacoma should remain among the best performers in the country.


20


Olympia, Washington, joins its neighbor Tacoma on the list of the nation’s top ten best performers, ranking 9th this year. In previous years Olympia was categorized as a small metro, but steady employment and population growth have pushed it onto the list of the 200 largest metro areas. Because it is the capital of Washington, state and local government is the key driver of Olympia’s economy. State and local government employs 36,200 workers, which is nearly 36.0 percent of total employment in the region. Since Washington’s economy has seen brisk growth in recent years, Olympia’s state government has benefited from this largesse. The current state budget gap will curtail growth in this sector, but is unlikely to cause a decline in overall economic activity in the area.

Business and housing costs are low relative to nearby Seattle, and Olympia has probably benefited even more than Tacoma from this cost advantage.22 Olympia has been gaining more residents from Tacoma and Seattle than it has lost, with net migration estimated at over 4,300 in 2007. This population growth has resulted in fairly strong housing construction. Information services have been the fastest-growing job sector over the past five years, with average annual growth of 38.0 percent. The main limit on long-term economic growth is the absence of large private-sector employers. Nevertheless, as other metro areas experience significant declines due to the deterioration of formerly high-flying housing markets, Olympia’s government sector should immunize it from a similar fate.

2007200620052004200320022001

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0



Figure 8. Information services employmentOlympia vs. United States

OlympiaUnited States


21


Charleston–North Charleston–Summerville, South Carolina, moves up two places to rank 10th this year. Tourism has been a catalyst of job creation for the regional economy, as increasing numbers of tourists from the Northeast and Midwest have been drawn here to discover Charleston’s history, architecture, and rich cultural scene. Although it has recently experienced slower growth in inbound cargo due to the low value of the dollar and the national economic contraction, the Port of Charleston has witnessed remarkable growth in recent years. It is consistently ranked among the most efficient ports in North America. A large transportation/logistics industry has developed, supporting thousands of jobs in the regional economy.

Another key source of growth is its expanding aerospace manufacturing sector, with specializations in advanced composite materials, precision metal parts, and systems integration. Dupont is building a $500 million Kevlar production facility as commercial aircraft producers are turning to Kevlar as a lightweight substitute for aluminum.23 Employment in data processing, hosting, and related services has achieved average annual growth of 10.9 percent over the past five years. The health-care industry, anchored by the Medical University of South Carolina, is an important component of the economy, while biosciences are a target for investment as the sector attempts to leverage its medical research assets.

Figure 9. Aerospace product and parts manufacturingCharleston-North Charleston-Summerville vs. U.S.

2007200620052004200320022001

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0



Charleston-North Charleston-SummervilleUnited States

Even as the housing downturn worsened throughout 2007, Orlando-Kissimmee, Florida, maintained a strong showing, coming in at 11th overall. Although it dropped six places from its ranking in last year’s index, it has consistently achieved high growth. Total employment and wages in the metro area have grown 15.0 and 17.0 percentage points, respectively, above the national average in the period examined in our five-year indicators. Orlando-Kissimmee’s emerging health-care cluster is broadening the area’s industry base. The development of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research and a new medical school based at the University of Central Florida will expand the industry’s R&D capacity and attract more high-tech firms to the area. Recently approved plans for the Nemours Children’s Hospital Orlando will further enhance the metro’s growing health-care sector.24 In the last year alone, roughly 4,000 jobs were added to this sector.


22


Growth in recent months has been suppressed by the real-estate market, as high foreclosure rates and a dearth of buyers have sent inventories soaring. This has placed a damper on construction activity; employment in the industry declined 7.0 percent between 2006 and 2007. Additionally, weakness in the national economy has strained the area’s leisure and hospitality sector, the primary driver of growth in the region. But the negative impacts on Orlando’s tourism industry may be offset by an influx of international travelers, who can take advantage of the weaker U.S. dollar to enjoy the area’s resorts and theme parks at bargain prices.

Bakersfield, California, gained some ground, moving up from 17th to 12th place in this year’s index. Over the last few years, the metro’s growth has been ignited by housing and a burgeoning population. As a result, the metro has benefited from increased demand for services such as education and health care. Natural resources such as oilfields have created opportunities for growth. The mining and petroleum manufacturing industries in particular have been largely responsible for the underlying growth in the region. Total non-farm employment and wages grew 10.0 and 14.0 percentage points faster, respectively, than the national average in the five-year span we examined. Administrative and support services along with food and drinking places added 6,300 jobs between 2002 and 2007, a period that still reflected some of the positive ripple effects from the housing boom. Today, however, Bakersfield is being hit hard by the housing crisis, posting one of the nation’s highest foreclosure rates. The same industries that drove growth in the past few years are now bracing for deterioration.

Figure 10. Non-farm employmentBakersfield vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0



BakersfieldUnited States

In the long term, Bakersfield will rely on its strategic location between northern and southern California and its proximity to Nevada, factors that will continue to support its transportation and logistics sector. The presence and operations of Edwards Air Base and Chevron will help stabilize the metro’s economy during the downturn.25


23


Killeen-Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, moved sharply higher in this year’s index, rising from 33rd to 13th place. Wages and salaries grew by 5.0 percentage points above the national average between 2005 and 2006. The strong military presence in Fort Hood has been the primary driver of growth in the area.26 Killeen’s solid performance also reflects the fact that it has not been as severely affected by the housing downturn as most metros in the nation, sparing the area from further ripple effects in related industries. In fact, most sectors in the metro area have experienced growth in the past few years. Professional, business, and scientific services grew by an average of 6.0 percent annually in the five-year period we examined, adding more than 1,200 jobs. Telecommunications employment grew by 14.0 percent average annually (creating nearly 800 jobs) in the same period, driving high-tech output growth in Killeen to 10th highest in the nation. The area’s low cost of doing business has provided incentives for firms in nearby larger cities.

The biggest gainer in last year’s index, Lafayette, Louisiana, improved its position by another ten spots to claim 14th place this year. Last year’s dramatic climb was largely attributable to the population influx of hurricane evacuees. This sharp growth in population consequently led to increased demand in various service-driven industries. With the current housing crisis and slowdown in related sectors of the economy, growth in the metro has begun to subside. Interestingly, a shortage in health-care and education services has led to a dramatic increase in wages and salaries in those industries.27 Between 2005 and 2006, overall wages and salaries in the metro experienced the fastest increase in the nation, growing 8.0 percentage points above the U.S. average.

2007200620052004200320022001

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0



Figure 11. Population growthLafayette vs. United States

LafayetteUnited States

Energy exploration in the nearby Gulf of Mexico will continue to support local manufacturing and mining industries, helping to mitigate some losses in other sectors. Machinery and fabricated metal product manufacturing added more than 600 jobs in the last year, while support for mining generated an additional 1,000 workers. These sectors have contributed to overall job growth of 2.8 percent in the twelve months ending with March 2008.


24


San Antonio, Texas, climbed twenty-eight spots in this year’s ranking to place 15th. The indicator for recent job momentum (comparing March 2007 and March 2008) shows robust growth of 2.3 percent. It appears that the metro’s housing market has been relatively stable as compared to other parts of the country. Construction employment actually increased by 4.5 percent between 2006 and 2007, and if anything, a strong military presence and proposed renovations and modernizations within the local bases will help to sustain employment in the industry. The presence of a Toyota plant has positively contributed to the transportation equipment manufacturing industry, which has generated more than 4,000 jobs in the last five years (an average increase of 14.0 percent annually). Proposed defense spending will generate additional economic activity in the metro and help sustain viable growth in the long run.28

Another Texas metro, Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, has climbed up in the rankings, rising from 32nd to 16th place. Among the nine measures used to compile the overall index, Houston’s most recent job momentum performance (comparing March 2007 and March 2008) was most notable. The metro area expanded its job base by a whopping 3.2 percent, the second-largest increase in the nation. The indicators for one-year job and wage growth also showed robust gains, rising 3.0 and 4.0 percentage points faster, respectively, than the national averages. Opportunities stemming from the energy industry, specifically with respect to oil exploration in the Gulf, have been a key engine for growth. Industries supporting oil exploration have also been performing well. Heavy and civil engineering construction recorded an increase of 5,700 jobs, while specialty trade contractors added another 7,800 jobs in the one-year indicator we examined (2006–2007). Support activities for mining also contributed 3,700 jobs. In terms of high-tech, machinery manufacturing grew 5.0 percent between 2006 and 2007, generating 3,800 high-paying jobs. The presence of key players in the region (namely Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP) will help sustain the industry’s growth.29

Figure 12. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extractionHouston-Sugar Land-Baytown vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

Employment, percent change from preceding year


Houston-Sugar Land-BaytownUnited States


25


The metro division of Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Washington, jumped an impressive sixty spots to claim 17th place in this year’s index. The indicator for recent job momentum (comparing March 2007 with March 2008) showed a healthy 2.0 percent employment growth. Transportation equipment manufacturing, which encompasses the aerospace sector, was responsible for generating 5,600 of the jobs measured in our indicator for one-year growth between 2006 and 2007. In the same period, professional R&D services added another 6,200 jobs. Most of the growth can be attributed to the vast presence of Boeing and Microsoft (and the secondary impacts of these two behemoths throughout the region). Increased global demand for more fuel-efficient commercial aircraft has sweetened Boeing’s outlook.30 The metro’s high-tech sector produces 1.3 times the national average for output. In addition, this sector depends on highly skilled labor, resulting in above-average wages—so it is no surprise that the indicator for one-year growth in wages and salaries was 3.2 percentage points above the national average.

2007200620052004200320022001

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0



Figure 13. Transportation equipment manufacturing jobsSeattle-Bellevue-Everett vs. United States

Seattle-Bellevue-EverettUnited States

Ogden-Clearfield, Utah, moved up from 42nd to 18th place in the rankings. The indicator for five-year job growth between 2002 and 2007 shows the metro area outpacing the national average by 7.4 percentage points. Although it has since slowed, the construction industry grew by more than 10 percent between 2006 and 2007. Strong population growth in the area has helped fuel demand across consumer-driven industries. Ambulatory health care and administrative and support industries together added roughly 5,000 jobs in the period encompassed by our five-year indicator. Professional, scientific, and technical services added another 2,600 jobs. The debut of a new rail line between Salt Lake and Ogden in 2008 will help support future economic activity.31 In addition, Ogden’s Hills Air Force Base has served as an important driver for the metro’s emerging aerospace industry.

Although it dropped eight spots, Myrtle Beach–North Myrtle Beach–Conway, South Carolina, managed to maintain a solid position in 19th place. Overall job growth in the five-year period examined in our indicators outstripped the national average by more than 15 percentage points. Contributing to that growth was the metro’s leisure and hospitality sector, which posted 6.6 percent growth between 2006 and 2007 alone. Plans for an airport expansion are currently underway to accommodate both residents


26


and leisure travelers.32 In the past few years, a booming population (driven in part by an increasing number of retirees who choose to settle here) has helped to maintain a robust service economy. Our indicator for five-year employment growth shows that accommodations and food services added more than 6,700 jobs between 2002 and 2007. Another 2,100 jobs were added in administrative and support services during the same period.

Greeley, Colorado, improved by nine positions to rank 20th in this year’s index. The area’s low cost of living has provided a more affordable alternative to residents in nearby metros. With a healthy population influx in the last few years, Greeley’s overall employment base rose 2.5 percent from March 2007 to March 2008. Vestas Wind Systems, a manufacturer of wind turbines, will give a further boost to the area’s high-tech industry base, as it expects to add another 700 jobs.33 In fact, high-tech output in the metro grew 2.7 percentage points faster than the national average. Plastic and rubber manufacturing has grown by 12.2 percent on an average annual basis over the five-year period we examined, while professional, scientific, and technical services added over 600 jobs during that same time frame.

Rising by a substantial fifty-three spots in this year’s index, Durham, North Carolina, ranks 21st overall. Our indicator for recent job momentum shows that total employment grew 2.3 percent between March 2007 and March 2008. In 2007, Durham’s high-tech output was 2.2 times the national average. In addition, the metro area (which is part of the Research Triangle) is home to a diverse set of high-tech industries, thanks to key players such as Duke University, IBM, and GlaxoSmithKline.34 Durham’s economy has witnessed an expansion in the last few years. Between 2002 and 2007 (the period covered in our five-year job growth indicator), ambulatory health-care hospital services created more than 5,200 jobs, while education services added another 3,600 jobs. Perhaps the most significant expansion came from the public sector, as government created more than 4,300 jobs in the metro area. The region’s strength in high tech, particularly in the life sciences, brightens its prospects for long-term economic prosperity.

2007200620052004200320022001

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0



Figure 14. Government employmentDurham vs. United States

DurhamUnited States


27


Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tennessee, made solid strides from last year’s ranking to claim the 22nd spot overall. Strong migration trends have contributed to population growth year-over-year, while housing prices have declined at a more moderate pace than in the rest of the nation. Non-farm employment and wages have experienced healthy gains, rising 4.5 and 7.7 percentage points higher, respectively, than the national average in our indicator for five-year job growth. The metro’s relatively low business costs have supported the expansion of warehousing (1,500 jobs), clothing (2,400 jobs), and management of companies (2,200 jobs) between 2002 and 2007. In the last year alone, the metro area added 540 jobs in its data-processing services sector. The presence of Nissan and GM plants, however, may not continue to be a source of growth, given the gloomy outlook on auto manufacturing in the short term.35

Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, moved up sharply to come in at 23rd place. Growth in the metro division has been fairly broad-based, exceeding the national average in many of the categories used to compile the index. The area’s high-tech sector continues to diversify and attract new firms. Just recently, AT&T announced that it will be moving its headquarters from San Antonio to Dallas.36 Internet service providers/data processing and telecoms are already 3.5 and 2.3 times more concentrated, respectively, in Dallas than in the nation as a whole. Between 2006 and 2007, the category for management of companies and enterprises contributed more than 2,100 jobs, an increase of 7.7 percent. The credit-intermediation industry has added more than 18,000 jobs over the last five years, supporting the metro’s already well-established financial sector. Dallas’s growing reputation as a convention center has generated positive impact on local business and increased demand in industries that cater to such large-scale events.

Savannah, Georgia, rose to 24th place this year. Our five-year indicator shows that non-farm employment and wages have risen by 11.9 and 9.5 percentage points higher, respectively, than the national averages. Not only does the city benefit from a strong military presence, but Savannah’s port has also served as a key asset to its economic vitality.37 As the dollar has declined, exports have strengthened, supporting trade-related activity in the region. Support activities for transportation added 1,200 jobs between 2002 and 2007, while administrative and support contributed nearly 4,000 jobs. The metro’s aerospace industry has also generated 1,400 jobs during that period, increasing 4.8 percent on an average annual basis. Growth in these industries has yielded higher-paying jobs in the region.

Figure 15. Support activities for transportation employmentSavannah vs. United States

2007200620052004200320022001

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0



SavannahUnited States


28


Des Moines–West Des Moines, Iowa, came in at 25th, after placing 58th last year. The Des Moines economy has been growing slightly above the U.S. average in terms of employment and wages. The area’s high-tech output outstripped the national average by 6.3 percentage points. Professional, scientific, and technical services generated more than 1,900 jobs between 2002 and 2007, the period examined in our five-year indicators. Machinery manufacturing has grown at an average annual rate of almost 4.0 percent over that period. The metro area is also a hub for financial services and insurance, including key players such as Wells Fargo and Principal Financial Group.38 The credit-intermediation activities industry is almost three times more concentrated in Des Moines than in the nation as a whole; this industry has contributed more than 4,200 jobs during the five-year period we examined.


29


America’s Ten Largest Cities: PerformanceAmong America’s ten largest cities, outcomes were decidedly mixed. Unlike the previous two editions of the index, this year’s results show none of the ten largest cities in the country ranked among the top ten overall performers. As shown in the table below, previous standouts Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, California, and Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, both experienced significant declines. Meanwhile, Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, continued its dramatic, energy-industry-driven ascent to become the top performer among the nation’s ten largest metros. (The economies of Houston and Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, were profiled earlier in this report since both metros placed among the top twenty-five best-performing cities overall.)


2007rank

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 16 32Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 23 59Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 32 4Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 41 37Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 53 3Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 59 86New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ* 85 148Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA* 126 109Philadelphia, PA* 130 142Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL* 160 152*Indicates Metropolitan DivisionSource : Milken Institute

Table 5. Performance of America's ten largest cities Rank in 2008 index

America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance

30


Out of the nation’s ten largest cities, Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, posted the 3rd-best performance (it placed 2nd among this group in the 2007 index). In the full ranking of the nation’s 200 largest metros, however, the Phoenix area fell from 4th all the way to 32nd place. Like many other Sunbelt cities, Phoenix has been hit hard by the bursting of the housing bubble, which has affected several sectors related to construction and homebuilding. Although the decline in Phoenix was not as steep as the deterioration in Riverside, California, the metro did experience a significant slowdown in the construction industry, especially in the specialty trade contractor sector. 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.

One of the sectors showing the greatest decline in the Phoenix metro area during the period examined in our five-year indicator is telecommunications. From 2002 to 2007, the sector lost more than 5,400 employees, posting an average annual decline of 6.61 percent. The fact that a sector with a current 0.93 LQ has led the metro in employment decline over this five-year span is actually a sign of the general strength of the Phoenix economy, indicating that job losses have been relatively minimal in the industries that are most highly concentrated here. On the positive side, the largest gainer over the past year has been local government, which added more than 7,000 jobs.

2007200620052004200320022001

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0



Figure 16. Construction employmentPhoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale vs. United States

Phoenix-Mesa-ScottsdaleUnited States


31


The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, metro area saw very little change from last year. The 4th-best performer among the ten largest cities in the country, it slid only four spots (from 37th to 41st) in the complete rankings of the 200 largest metros. More than 10,000 jobs were added in professional, scientific, and technical services from 2006 to 2007; in our five-year indicator, which examines the period from 2002 to 2007, more than 77,000 jobs were added in this sector. High tech continues to thrive in the region, even as other sectors have begun to falter. The federal government has been a key source of new employment in the metro. While this sector fell slightly in 2007, the number of federal jobs grew significantly from 2002 to 2006, due in large part to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and growth in the Defense Department. Although total growth in federal employment in the metro area averaged only slightly over 1 percent per year from 2002 to 2006, the vast size of the government means that even a relatively small percentage change translates into a significant number of jobs.

2007200620052004200320022001

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

-3.0

-4.0



Figure 17. Federal government employmentWashington-Arlington-Alexandria vs. United States

Washington-Arlington-AlexandriaUnited States


32


This year’s index shows a dramatic reversal of fortunes in Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, California. Last year’s top performer among the nation’s ten largest cities, it is now only the 5th-best performer in that group. In the full rankings of the nation’s 200 largest metro areas, however, Riverside tumbled from 3rd place all the way to 53rd. The housing downtown has hit the metro’s economy hard. The specialty trade contractor sector, which includes home builders and related services, lost more than 12,600 jobs from 2006 to 2007. In fact, Riverside’s construction sector, which dramatically outpaced the rest of the nation for the first half of the decade, has now become one of the greatest drags on the local economy, shrinking by 11 percent from 2006 to 2007. The region has continued to benefit from corporate relocations, however, with administrative and support services adding more than 3,200 jobs year over year.

Warehousing and storage continues to be a strong sector for the Riverside metro area, as its location outside Los Angeles and San Diego makes it an ideal distribution point. Despite the softening economy, warehousing added more than 1,600 jobs from 2006 to 2007, growing at over 6.4 percent (not matching the rapid 17.5 percent increase it posted during the entire period from 2002 to 2007, but still posting solid gains). Continued growth in this sector is highly likely as the metro remains the only area in Southern California with both the space and the infrastructure to handle expanded cargo flows.39 The largest overall gains in our one-year job growth indicator came from administrative and support services, which added more than 3,200 jobs from 2006 to 2007.

2007200620052004200320022001

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0



Figure 18. Construction employmentRiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. United States

Riverside-San Bernardino-OntarioUnited States


33


Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta, Georgia, continues to post the fastest overall population growth in the country. The city held its 6th-place position among the ten largest metros in the 2008 index, while its overall ranking rose from 86th to 59th. The city continues to add jobs, gaining more than 7,300 positions in professional, scientific, and technical services from 2006 to 2007. Atlanta continues to benefit from its role as home to corporate headquarters of multiple Fortune 500 companies.40 Despite losing BellSouth headquarters to a merger with AT&T, Atlanta remains the base for AT&T Mobility (formerly Cingular Wireless).41

Despite these positive trends, larger economic forces—including the rising price of oil and gas and the housing downturn—have placed significant pressures on three of Atlanta’s major corporations. Delta Airlines continues to cut staff due to hikes in fuel prices and declining revenues. Both Home Depot and Sun Trust Bank have seen the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit their bottom lines, and tightening credit standards may begin to curb the rapid population influx into the metro.42

2007200620052004200320022001

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5



Figure 19. Population growthAtlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta vs. United States

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-MariettaUnited States


34


Of the nation’s ten largest metros, New York–White Plains–Wayne, New York–New Jersey, posted the most dramatic gains. Once ranked 9th among this group, it is now the 7th-best performer. In terms of the overall rankings, however, it jumped an impressive sixty-three places, rising from 148th place in the 2007 index to 85th this year. Construction in New York has been thriving, and so far the area has staved off the slump that has affected the rest of the country. Employment in building construction actually grew at a 4 percent pace over the year from 2006 to 2007, adding more than 3,700 jobs; specialty trade contractors also added nearly 6,700 jobs. The sector comprising securities, commodities, and other financial investment activities continued to consolidate in the metro, adding more than 11,500 jobs from 2006 to 2007. New York actually trailed the country as a whole in adding jobs in finance and insurance from 2001 to 2003 (in fact, it suffered significant losses in this sector as financial firms relocated in the wake of 9/11), but that trend has since reversed itself. Employment growth in the metro area’s finance sector remained strong at 2 percent, even as the sector slipped into slightly negative territory on a national level, reflecting the credit crunch.

However, continued pressure on major financial institutions is now becoming apparent in the New York metro area; many firms in the financial sector and in support activities are trimming payrolls in 2008 due to the fallout from the subprime crisis. The sudden fall of Bear Stearns combined with tremendous losses at major institutions such as Citibank are likely to soon wipe out many of the gains posted by New York this year.

2007200620052004200320022001

4.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0



Figure 20. Finance and insurance employmentNew York-White Plains-Wayne vs. United States

New York-White Plains-WayneUnited States


35


The local economy in Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale, California, did not perform well over the past year. The metro area fell seventeen places overall from 109th to 126th in the overall rankings, and slipped from 7th to 8th place among the ten largest metros. In our indicator for recent job momentum, which examines March 2007 to March 2008, Los Angeles ranked 156th overall for job growth, actually losing 0.26 percent of its work force. Like other metros experiencing steep housing declines, Los Angeles has been hit over the past year by the loss of jobs in the construction sector (but since most of the metro area is already heavily developed, losses in this sector are a far smaller percentage of the total work force than in neighboring Riverside). However, high housing prices in Los Angeles have left the metro area highly vulnerable to the effects of tightening credit. Job losses in the financial-services sector (including trouble spots such as Countrywide and IndyMac) are a growing concern.

Our five-year job growth indicator shows that the largest job losses during this period in Los Angeles have been suffered in the apparel industry and in corporate management. Although Los Angeles has managed to remain a center for fashion design, more than 16,400 jobs were lost in apparel manufacturing between 2002 and 2007 (including more than 3,000 cuts between 2006 and 2007 alone). The category encompassing management of companies and enterprises saw the loss of more than 23,300 workers between 2002 and 2007 (including more than 3,800 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 in the form of lost spending that these companies once contributed locally.

The one continued bright spot for the local economy continues to be international trade and tourism. As the dollar weakens, exports thrive and international visitors arrive to take advantage of travel bargains. Los Angeles saw a 4 percent rise in international arrivals in the first quarter of 2008.43

2007200620052004200320022001

4.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0



Figure 21. Corporate management employmentLos Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale vs. United States

Los Angeles-Long Beach-GlendaleUnited States


36


Overtaken by New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, slipped one spot, to 9th place, among the ten largest metro areas. Despite this, the city rose twelve places, from 142nd to 130th, in the full ranking of all 200 metro areas. Philadelphia has continued to thrive as a corporate center. In our indicator for five-year job growth, which examines 2002 through 2007, the management of companies and enterprises sector posted more than 11.5 percent annual growth, adding more than 15,300 jobs. On the down side, data processing, hosting, and related services saw an annual decline of more than 16 percent per year, shedding more than 7,000 jobs in the region during the same period. More troubling has been the decline of pharmaceutical manufacturing, which has been vital to the region’s economy. Chemical manufacturing as a whole lost more than 8,300 jobs from 2002 to 2007 (although losses have slowed recently, to only 640 from 2006 to 2007). While Philadelphia outpaced the nation in pharmaceutical manufacturing growth in 2001 and 2002, it has since trailed severely, continuing to lose jobs even as the country as a whole returned to net gains in the sector in 2006 and 2007.

Philadelphia’s ongoing quest to remain competitive and attract new jobs is made more difficult by its high cost of doing business and the region’s high taxes. Steps have been proposed to reduce property and wage tax burdens in Pennsylvania, and this may restore some of the region’s competitive balance in the near future.44

2007200620052004200320022001

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0



Figure 22. Pharmaceutical manufacturing employmentPhiladelphia vs. United States

PhiladelphiaUnited States


37


Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Illinois, remains in 10th place among the ten largest metros, with its overall ranking falling slightly to 160th from 152nd. Mirroring a trend faced by many other older industrial cities, Chicago is coping with the decline of manufacturing. Our five-year job growth indicator shows that six different industrial sectors (textile mills, apparel manufacturing, leather manufacturing, wood product manufacturing, plastics and rubber manufacturing, and computer and electronic product manufacturing) all lost jobs at the rate of more than 4 percent per year between 2002 and 2007, shedding more than 19,000 jobs in total. Chicago’s need for health care has actually been a leading source for new jobs, as ambulatory health-care services contributed more than 19,300 new jobs between 2002 and 2007. Administrative support services fared even better during that period, adding more than 35,200 jobs.

The one-year job growth indicator shows the effect of the decline in home construction, with a loss of more than 3,700 specialty trade contractor jobs from 2006 to 2007; this sector posted the largest decline during that period in the region. However, the retail environment has remained strong, led by electronics wholesaling, which grew by more than 10,000 jobs from 2002 to 2007, including more than 2,900 jobs added from 2006 to 2007 alone.

2007200620052004200320022001

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0



Figure 23. Manufacturing employmentChicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. United States

Chicago-Naperville-JolietUnited States


39


The Best-Performing Small CitiesIn 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.

Although last year’s index ranked 179 of these metro areas, the 2008 report examines only 124 cities. Fifty-five locations were dropped, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer compiles employment data on these metros due to funding cuts.45 Most of the newly dropped locations did not perform well in the 2007 index, so excluding them had little effect on our 2008 rankings of the top cities.

The West dominates this year’s list of small cities exhibiting robust economic growth. Texas, which also posted a strong performance in the index of the largest metros, is well-represented here, with three small metros placing in the top ten. 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, while Longview and Odessa are newcomers to the top ten list. (Grand Junction, Colorado, and Bellingham, Washington, also made their debut in the top ten in 2008.) At the other end of the spectrum, many cities in the upper Midwest, particularly those in Michigan and Ohio, did not fare well, placing in the bottom ranks.

Table 6. Top ten best-performing small citiesRank in 2008 index


2007*rank

31 XT ,dnaldiM62 DI ,enelA'd rueoC13 RO ,dneB24 TU ,egroeG .tS815 OC ,noitcnuJ dnarG016 AG ,sniboR renraW037 XT ,weivgnoL418 AW ,mahgnilleB

79 ZA ,ttocserP7201 XT ,assedO

* Among 179 small citiesSource : Milken Institute

The Best-Performing Small Cities

40


Midland, Texas, was the best performer among 124 small cities in our 2008 index, improving from last year’s 3rd-place ranking among 179 metros. Overall job and wage growth were solid. In our one-year indicator for job growth, which measures from 2006 to 2007, employment increased by 4.3 percent in this region, outpacing the national average by 3.2 percentage points. Midland’s unemployment rate dropped to 2.7 percent in February 2008, demonstrating that the local economy remains very healthy.46 Oilfield services are highly concentrated in this region. The employment category encompassing support activities for mining—including the drilling of oil and gas wells and oil and gas operations—provides 6,870 jobs (or 10.4 percent of total jobs in Midland); this industry recorded an 11.3 percent average annual increase between 2002 and 2007. Consumer spending has been a source of strength; retail sales have increased by 3.8 percent over 2007 levels.47

2007200620052004200320022001

10.50

10.00

9.50

9.00

8.50

8.00

7.50

7.00

6.50

0.22

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

Percent share of total employment Percent share of total employment


Figure 24. Employment in support activities for miningMidland vs. United States

Midland (L)United States (R)


41


Placing 2nd among the 124 smallest cities in 2008 is Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Despite the housing downturn, overall job and wage growth in this region outperformed the national average. Our five-year indicators, which encompass the period from 2002 to 2007, show that employment and wages in Coeur d’Alene grew 18.8 and 21.8 percent over the national average, respectively.

The area’s fast-growing tourism industry has recently been a major engine of growth, adding 1,800 new jobs in 2007 alone.48 This sector now accounts for 3.1 percent of total jobs in the metro area. Coeur d’Alene has also emerged as a regional health-care hub; hospitals and health-care services accounted for 51.7 percent of job growth from 2006 to 2007.

2007200620052004200320022001

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4


Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute

Figure 25. Job growthCoeur d'Alene vs. United States

Coeur d'AleneUnited States


42


Bend, Oregon, last year’s top performer, has slipped slightly to 3rd place in the 2008 index. Our five-year job growth indicator, which spans 2002 to 2007, shows that Bend’s overall employment rose 25.3 percent faster than the national average during this period. However, recent unemployment figures indicate a softening local economy, with Bend recording a higher jobless rate than the U.S. average for 2007 (5.0 percent in Bend vs. 4.6 percent for the nation as a whole). Bend’s housing market has been decelerating, with median home prices falling by 10.1 percent (from $319,900 in the first quarter of 2007 to $290,500 in the first quarter of 2008). But a recent report singled out Bend as having the second-most overvalued housing market in the nation (trailing only Atlantic City, New Jersey), and estimated that its home values are still inflated by 49.5 percent.49 This may indicate that further declines are in store.

The indicator for recent job momentum shows the greatest decline in the Bend area occurred in manufacturing; employment in this industry dropped 6.9 percent from March 2007 to March 2008. Weakness was especially apparent in wood manufacturing, which is strongly concentrated in this region. This sector lost 7.9 percent of its jobs from 2006 to 2007, possibly due to a slowdown in new housing construction. But tourism remains a bright spot for job creation. From 2006 to 2007, employment in air transportation grew by 11.8 percent, while the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector saw 11.2 percent job growth.

2007200620052004200320022001

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5



Figure 26. Arts, entertainment, and recreation employmentBend vs. United States

BendUnited States


43

Best-Performing Cities 2008The Best-Performing Small Cities

Sliding out of the 2nd-place position it held in the 2007 index, St. George, Utah, now ranks 4th among small metros this year. Its five-year job and wage growth indicators rose 35.4 percent and 47.5 percent higher, respectively, than the national average, outpacing all the other small cities on the index. St. George posted strong GDP growth from high tech in 2007, ranking 7th in the nation (7.7 percentage points above the national average between 2006 and 2007). Specialty trade contractors are a leading industry in this region, accounting for some 6,000 jobs (or 11.2 percent of total employment) in 2007, and driving 16.2 percent of average annual job growth from 2002 to 2007.

2007200620052004200320022001

12.0

11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

Percent share of total employment Percent share of total employment


Figure 27. Specialty trade contractor employment St. George vs. United States

St. George (L)United States (R)

44


Grand Junction, Colorado, moved up the rankings to take the 5th-place spot. After placing 18th out of 179 small cities in 2007, the metro area made a remarkable jump into the top ten small cities in 2008 index. The indicator for one-year overall job growth shows a robust performance, 4.6 percentage points above the national average from 2006 to 2007; in this measure, Grand Junction ranks 2nd among small cities. The city’s unemployment rate has consistently declined since 2003, dipping to 3.2 percent in 2007, well below the national average of 4.6 percent.

Soaring oil prices contributed to economic gains in this region due to its abundance of oil shale and potential for extraction.50 The employment category for mining support activities has consequently become a leading industry here, creating 2,420 jobs for a 37.4 percent average annual increase in growth from 2002 to 2007. The availability of jobs has sparked population growth; Grand Junction experienced a net migration rate of 3.1 percent in 2007.

200720062005200420032002

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

-40



Figure 28. Net migration Grand Junction, Colorado

Net migrationPopulation

Improving on its 10th-place showing in the 2007 index, Warner Robins, Georgia, now ranks 6th among the best-performing small cities. Robins Air Force Base is still a dominant force in the local economy, generating $4.2 billion in economic impact in central Georgia each year. Warner Robins Air Logistics Center remains the metro’s top employer, accounting for more than 15,000 jobs.51

Not surprisingly, federal jobs are more highly concentrated in this region than jobs in private industry. This level of government employment has brought economic stability to the metro area, since federal positions typically have greater job security and less frequent turnovers.


45


2007200620052004200320022001

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6



Figure 29. Federal government employmentWarner Robins vs. United States

Warner RobinsUnited States

Longview, Texas, leapt from 30th place in last year’s index to take 7th place in the 2008 ranking of small cities. Like the rest of the booming Texas economy, this metro performed particularly well in the one-year indicators for job and wage growth. Between 2006 and 2007, overall job growth hit 4.2 percent, 3.1 percentage points higher than the national average of 1.1 percent. Short-term wage growth has been solid, outpacing the national average by 4.8 percent from 2005 to 2006.

Longview’s economy is fueled by the energy sector, with many jobs based in the East Texas oil fields. Oil and gas extraction and its supporting activities remain the engine of growth in this region. Particularly noteworthy is the employment category for mining support activities, which added more than 1,960 jobs in the five-year period we examined, for 13.4 percent annual job growth since 2002.

Popular as the regional shopping destination for all of East Texas, Longview has built many new retail outlets over the past year to accommodate demand.52 Despite the sluggish housing market, employment in the construction industry (which includes both residential and commercial) increased by 9.9 percent since 2006.

200620052004200320022001

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0



Figure 30. Wages and salaries Longview vs. United States

LongviewUnited States


46


Another newcomer to the top ten, Bellingham, Washington, places 8th on this year’s list. Job growth maintained a robust pace from 2002 to 2007, the period measured in our five-year indicator, with an average annual growth rate of 3.4 percent. Because of its proximity to Canada, Bellingham benefits from the weak dollar, since Canadian consumers often cross the border to make retail purchases here.53 West Washington University is the top employer in the metro area, accounting for more than 2,200 jobs in 2007 and bringing economic stability to this region.

2007200620052004200320022001

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0


Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute

Figure 31. Job growthBellingham vs. United States

BellinghamUnited States

Prescott, Arizona, slipped to 9th place this year from its 7th-place position in the 2007 index. The metro’s clean mountain air and relatively low cost of living has attracted an influx of retirees as well as younger workers. Since 1990, Prescott’s population has almost doubled, increasing by 95.4 percent as of 2007. During the five-year periods examined in our indicators, job and wage growth have remained strong, with Prescott ranking 4th and 3rd, respectively, among small cities in these categories. Despite a weak concentration of high-tech industry, relative high-tech GDP growth increased 12.4 percentage points above the national average between 2006 and 2007, ranking 3rd among small cities.

2007200620052004200320022001

5

4

3

2

1

0



Figure 32. Population growthPrescott vs. United States

PrescottUnited States


47


Odessa, Texas, jumped to 10th in the 2008 index of best-performing small cities, making a substantial improvement from its 27th-place position in 2007. Odessa’s economy has been booming in recent years, posting strong performances in indicators for short-term and long-term overall job and wage growth. Our measurement of short-term job momentum shows that employment in March 2008 had increased by 5.2 percent in a year-over-year comparison to March 2007, the 3rd-best performance in this indicator posted among the 124 small cities we ranked. Odessa’s unemployment rate was 2.9 percent in February 2008, the second-lowest in the state, trailing only Midland, Texas, which came in at 2.7 percent.54

Odessa and Midland are the economic hubs of the Permian Basin region, which extends across West Texas and into southern New Mexico and is rich in natural resources. Not surprisingly, oil and gas extraction and support activities for mining are the leading industries, accounting for some 5,890 jobs (or 9.9 percent of total jobs) in 2007.

2007200620052004200320022001

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Percent share of labor force

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Milken Institute

Figure 33. Unemployment rate*Odessa vs. Texas

* Not seasonally adjusted.

OdessaTexas


48

Complete Results: 2008 Best-Performing Large Cities

2008

rank

2007

rank

Met

ropo

litan

are

aP

opul

atio

n20

07O

vera

llin

dex

2007

Val

ueR

ank

2007

Val

ueR

ank

2006

Val

ueR

ank

2006

Val

ueR

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k(T

hous

ands

)

18

Pro

vo-O

rem

, UT

MS

A11

6.49

510

3.87

310

9.54

3310

5.23

31.

90%

2710

5.80

5510

6.06

91.

3434

763

493

100.

00

210

Ral

eigh

-Car

y, N

C M

SA

113.

0711

104.

282

105.

8657

103.

2916

3.56

%1

101.

9873

100.

1494

1.53

1810

211,

048

125.

40

318

Sal

t Lak

e C

ity, U

T M

SA

107.

3828

102.

808

103.

5180

103.

1219

2.20

%17

109.

7537

107.

194

1.07

529

321,

100

141.

82

420

Aus

tin-R

ound

Roc

k, T

X M

SA

108.

9221

103.

554

100.

1610

510

3.55

152.

89%

410

6.28

5210

1.30

631.

6710

1021

1,59

814

6.74

516

Hun

tsvi

lle, A

L M

SA

107.

5226

102.

1115

109.

6732

101.

5548

2.11

%18

116.

3124

99.4

911

52.

167

932

387

150.

64

62

Wilm

ingt

on, N

C M

SA

115.

908

103.

335

111.

2623

102.

5030

1.39

%43

148.

444

100.

8574

0.75

946

7234

015

2.48

77

McA

llen-

Edi

nbur

g-M

issi

on, T

X M

SA

118.

393

102.

7010

119.

999

102.

4531

2.50

%9

200.

931

102.

6342

0.46

171

314

471

115

8.84

850

Taco

ma,

WA

MD

109.

1119

102.

0316

114.

7816

101.

5647

2.29

%12

137.

668

105.

5614

0.68

109

314

477

316

3.34

937

*O

lym

pia,

WA

MS

A10

9.45

1810

1.67

2510

8.70

3610

1.35

523.

09%

311

2.51

3310

6.10

80.

5315

55

9123

918

3.19

1012

Cha

rlest

on-N

orth

Cha

rlest

on-S

umm

ervi

lle, S

C M

SA

108.

3823

103.

027

111.

2524

100.

7468

1.18

%53

115.

7325

103.

0327

0.69

108

672

630

192.

26

115

Orla

ndo-

Kis

sim

mee

, FL

MS

A11

4.59

910

0.99

4211

6.73

1210

1.13

530.

64%

9111

3.80

3010

3.32

220.

9170

847

2,03

219

2.74

1217

Bak

ersf

ield

, CA

MS

A11

0.25

1710

1.17

3211

3.72

1710

2.93

201.

39%

4411

1.81

3510

3.19

250.

5116

14

121

791

198.

63

1333

Kill

een-

Tem

ple-

For

t Hoo

d, T

X M

SA

103.

2657

101.

1831

121.

808

104.

514

1.90

%26

133.

5510

97.3

816

20.

8478

412

137

020

5.52

1424

Lafa

yette

, LA

MS

A10

4.66

4310

2.36

1210

7.57

4210

8.20

12.

79%

511

4.98

2997

.04

169

0.64

120

314

425

622

0.21

1543

San

Ant

onio

, TX

MS

A10

4.56

4510

1.44

2810

7.99

3710

2.63

252.

28%

1491

.07

143

99.5

311

20.

9269

847

1,99

122

0.76

1632

Hou

ston

-Sug

ar L

and-

Bay

tow

n, T

X M

SA

105.

5236

103.

096

105.

0263

104.

308

3.19

%2

94.5

112

499

.56

111

0.81

844

121

5,62

822

0.93

1777

Sea

ttle-

Bel

levu

e-E

vere

tt, W

A M

D10

2.91

6110

1.88

2296

.74

146

103.

2317

2.04

%19

98.6

391

104.

7617

2.30

48

472,

536

227.

87

1842

Ogd

en-C

lear

field

, UT

MS

A10

7.40

2710

2.03

1610

7.58

4110

2.59

271.

47%

3697

.60

9910

1.06

690.

6810

94

121

518

228.

31

1911

Myr

tle B

each

-Nor

th M

yrtle

Bea

ch-C

onw

ay, S

C M

SA

115.

957

102.

2913

116.

3813

104.

456

1.58

%35

86.8

616

210

0.62

800.

3819

03

144

250

238.

50

2029

Gre

eley

, CO

MS

A10

9.02

2010

1.93

2111

0.10

2910

2.56

292.

45%

1093

.06

134

102.

7040

0.49

166

216

924

423

9.65

2174

Dur

ham

, NC

MS

A10

2.34

7010

1.99

2099

.78

111

102.

3335

2.33

%11

94.7

612

199

.87

103

2.21

511

1448

024

3.58

2261

Nas

hvill

e-D

avid

son-

-Mur

free

sbor

o--F

rank

lin, T

N M

SA

104.

5246

100.

1278

107.

7239

102.

2636

1.42

%39

101.

2279

101.

5858

0.72

102

763

1,52

125

7.02

2359

Dal

las-

Pla

no-I

rvin

g, T

X M

D10

2.54

6710

1.69

2498

.04

130

102.

1839

1.97

%23

97.3

710

210

0.00

991.

5617

129

4,11

226

2.17

2434

Sav

anna

h, G

A M

SA

111.

8615

102.

4211

109.

5234

102.

6924

0.50

%10

095

.41

118

102.

8735

0.68

109

216

932

926

3.68

2558

Des

Moi

nes-

Wes

t Des

Moi

nes,

IA M

SA

103.

9751

101.

1533

106.

8250

100.

6272

1.72

%30

109.

0739

106.

277

0.57

141

314

454

726

5.24

2623

Cha

rlotte

-Gas

toni

a-C

onco

rd, N

C-S

C M

SA

105.

6235

102.

808

106.

8649

102.

7523

1.71

%31

94.1

312

599

.35

119

0.61

130

314

41,

652

267.

12

2719

Boi

se C

ity-N

ampa

, ID

MS

A11

2.31

1410

0.90

4511

0.19

2810

5.83

2-1

.65%

190

137.

757

100.

2390

1.49

203

144

588

270.

70

2838

Por

tland

-Van

couv

er-B

eave

rton

, OR

-WA

MS

A10

4.03

5010

1.00

4199

.31

116

100.

9557

0.84

%74

121.

7316

100.

8276

1.64

138

472,

175

273.

93

2960

For

t Wor

th-A

rling

ton,

TX

MD

104.

0949

102.

0019

102.

0190

102.

7722

2.00

%21

89.0

215

094

.50

192

1.10

506

722,

034

285.

80

301

Oca

la, F

L M

SA

116.

486

99.5

112

512

5.05

510

3.58

14-1

.39%

184

161.

902

100.

9872

0.83

798

4732

528

7.07

3131

Alb

uque

rque

, NM

MS

A10

3.57

5499

.92

8910

4.72

7010

1.13

530.

30%

112

138.

705

100.

2192

2.19

611

1483

528

8.92

324

Pho

enix

-Mes

a-S

cotts

dale

, AZ

MS

A11

3.26

1010

0.17

7511

5.20

1510

4.04

10-0

.25%

155

80.1

417

910

2.85

361.

0158

672

4,17

928

9.06

3354

Pen

saco

la-F

erry

Pas

s-B

rent

, FL

MS

A10

6.82

2999

.65

112

107.

1545

101.

7046

1.27

%50

113.

2932

99.1

212

60.

7399

763

453

292.

10

3452

Gai

nesv

ille,

FL

MS

A10

1.81

7910

0.44

6311

2.00

2210

0.56

761.

84%

2910

7.87

4310

0.50

850.

6113

05

9125

729

3.02

3581

Spo

kane

, WA

MS

A10

5.38

3710

1.15

3310

3.57

7910

1.55

480.

69%

8798

.38

9310

6.57

60.

6611

54

121

456

298.

36

3669

Col

umbi

a, S

C M

SA

103.

0758

101.

0539

103.

8977

100.

9459

1.59

%34

105.

7756

103.

3123

0.54

150

314

471

629

9.59

3712

2E

l Pas

o, T

X M

SA

100.

2296

101.

1036

104.

3775

101.

3751

2.61

%8

113.

5931

99.5

311

20.

6511

74

121

735

301.

56

3876

Mon

tgom

ery,

AL

MS

A10

2.33

7110

0.38

6510

4.46

7210

0.99

561.

45%

3711

1.90

3410

0.19

930.

6611

55

9136

630

8.96

3939

Jack

sonv

ille,

FL

MS

A10

6.67

3110

0.25

7211

3.07

1910

2.59

27-0

.11%

146

96.4

111

210

2.91

310.

6511

75

911,

301

310.

91

4067

Bat

on R

ouge

, LA

MS

A10

4.64

4410

1.61

2610

6.77

5110

4.33

70.

60%

9510

7.04

4699

.50

114

0.47

169

216

977

031

1.56

4137

Was

hing

ton-

Arli

ngto

n-A

lexa

ndria

, DC

-VA

-MD

-WV

MD

105.

0739

99.8

299

106.

9848

99.4

811

70.

96%

6210

4.70

6399

.45

117

1.57

169

324,

151

316.

82

4247

Spr

ingf

ield

, MO

MS

A10

5.87

3210

1.52

2710

3.85

7898

.72

150

1.21

%52

109.

6238

101.

8654

0.65

117

672

420

317.

03

4368

Peo

ria, I

L M

SA

101.

3181

100.

5952

107.

3044

102.

3633

0.92

%68

106.

1553

98.3

914

70.

5514

85

9137

132

8.59

4410

6D

enve

r-A

uror

a, C

O M

SA

100.

2495

100.

9843

94.8

116

510

0.88

621.

60%

3396

.64

111

101.

1967

1.66

1111

142,

465

330.

46

4511

4W

ichi

ta, K

S M

SA

98.0

013

610

1.75

2397

.61

136

103.

7811

1.11

%57

66.6

019

910

5.64

121.

6512

672

596

337.

54

4611

7A

shev

ille,

NC

MS

A10

3.90

5210

2.25

1410

0.48

100

100.

7864

2.24

%15

98.2

794

95.8

118

20.

4816

75

9140

433

7.98

4766

Fre

sno,

CA

MS

A10

2.78

6599

.99

8610

7.06

4610

0.53

770.

70%

8511

8.11

2210

3.56

210.

4617

15

9189

933

8.18

4875

For

t Col

lins-

Love

land

, CO

MS

A10

2.80

6410

1.29

2998

.44

126

99.3

012

42.

78%

692

.60

135

98.5

314

31.

4227

1021

288

338.

46

4989

Am

arill

o, T

X M

SA

102.

5966

99.9

091

105.

0263

100.

9557

1.64

%32

104.

6365

102.

9033

0.54

150

216

924

234

1.89

5010

8O

klah

oma

City

, OK

MS

A99

.76

107

100.

0480

105.

3959

103.

2317

0.46

%10

310

1.45

7610

3.01

280.

6212

76

721,

193

342.

16

5146

Cla

rksv

ille,

TN

-KY

MS

A10

5.16

3810

0.36

6712

4.32

610

2.21

380.

27%

115

100.

3982

98.2

115

10.

5415

03

144

262

348.

26

5280

Fay

ette

ville

, NC

MS

A10

4.79

4110

0.58

5311

7.71

1199

.88

990.

79%

7998

.86

8810

0.61

810.

4417

73

144

349

348.

68

533

Riv

ersi

de-S

an B

erna

rdin

o-O

ntar

io, C

A M

SA

112.

9412

99.0

316

112

2.48

710

1.92

42-1

.60%

189

128.

1314

104.

9316

0.63

124

591

4,08

135

2.89

5473

Littl

e R

ock-

Nor

th L

ittle

Roc

k-C

onw

ay, A

R M

SA

102.

1174

100.

3865

101.

1594

99.9

098

0.94

%65

109.

0040

98.9

613

21.

1346

763

666

354.

80

5515

Tuc

son,

AZ

MS

A10

5.84

3399

.81

100

110.

3027

102.

0941

-1.9

7%19

479

.31

182

102.

3946

1.13

4611

1496

735

6.44

5653

Lubb

ock,

TX

MS

A98

.89

125

99.6

711

110

1.70

9310

0.85

630.

92%

6712

1.40

1710

2.94

291.

3531

591

267

359.

36

5721

Fay

ette

ville

-Spr

ingd

ale-

Rog

ers,

AR

-MO

MS

A11

1.24

1610

0.02

8311

9.62

1010

0.78

640.

11%

127

136.

759

98.2

315

00.

5116

12

169

436

359.

61

5825

Sac

ram

ento

--A

rden

-Arc

ade-

-Ros

evill

e, C

A M

SA

102.

8862

99.4

413

110

7.00

4710

0.15

910.

04%

137

106.

5450

103.

1426

1.02

578

472,

091

369.

27

5986

Atla

nta-

San

dy S

prin

gs-M

arie

tta, G

A M

SA

103.

0659

101.

1435

97.7

713

499

.76

103

1.07

%58

91.1

314

299

.45

117

1.11

498

475,

279

374.

50

6079

Kno

xvill

e, T

N M

SA

102.

0176

100.

3171

105.

1962

100.

4580

0.80

%77

98.7

989

96.4

217

50.

7399

847

682

377.

35

6135

For

t Lau

derd

ale-

Pom

pano

Bea

ch-D

eerf

ield

Bea

ch, F

L M

D10

7.56

2599

.38

140

112.

4321

100.

4978

-0.9

0%17

410

0.90

8010

1.46

600.

8282

847

1,76

037

8.67

6255

Tre

nton

-Ew

ing,

NJ

MS

A10

0.89

8699

.07

160

103.

1182

100.

8961

0.93

%66

105.

3059

99.7

810

61.

2240

932

365

379.

41

6364

Anc

hora

ge, A

K M

SA

102.

5467

99.7

210

610

7.79

3899

.53

113

0.71

%84

101.

2877

101.

0170

0.75

945

9136

237

9.52

6445

Vis

alia

-Por

terv

ille,

CA

MS

A10

4.83

4099

.63

115

110.

0330

103.

6112

-0.3

5%16

110

8.05

4110

2.03

500.

2619

93

144

422

379.

95

6572

San

Die

go-C

arls

bad-

San

Mar

cos,

CA

MS

A10

0.70

8799

.42

134

105.

5058

99.6

010

8-0

.08%

144

106.

0054

103.

3123

1.58

1515

32,

975

383.

05

6657

Sal

em, O

R M

SA

103.

8053

100.

7747

105.

2361

100.

9060

0.07

%13

698

.22

9510

2.34

470.

5614

62

169

387

386.

85

6713

1S

hrev

epor

t-B

ossi

er C

ity, L

A M

SA

101.

0284

99.8

110

010

3.40

8110

0.31

872.

28%

1311

5.14

2792

.23

196

0.61

130

591

388

387.

88

6812

1G

reen

ville

-Mau

ldin

-Eas

ley,

SC

MS

A10

1.41

8010

2.03

1695

.72

155

99.5

910

92.

61%

788

.50

156

99.0

213

10.

8282

672

614

388.

21

6910

3F

ort S

mith

, AR

-OK

MS

A10

2.50

6910

0.47

5810

1.89

9110

0.62

720.

77%

8010

2.53

7010

5.77

100.

3019

72

169

290

391.

85

7085

Bea

umon

t-P

ort A

rthu

r, T

X M

SA

98.6

313

110

1.08

3810

2.45

8810

4.07

9-0

.56%

167

129.

8413

102.

8337

0.72

102

216

937

639

2.47

7111

0Ly

nchb

urg,

VA

MS

A10

1.85

7810

0.03

8197

.56

137

100.

3385

2.04

%20

94.1

112

610

2.46

440.

5614

66

7224

439

3.31

7298

Tul

sa, O

K M

SA

100.

1510

010

0.45

6098

.30

127

104.

475

-0.0

7%14

296

.97

105

104.

2218

0.68

109

591

906

393.

79

7363

Mer

ced,

CA

MS

A10

0.67

8910

0.33

6811

0.96

2599

.94

961.

12%

5692

.25

138

105.

2715

0.34

196

118

824

639

7.93

7497

San

Fra

ncis

co-S

an M

ateo

-Red

woo

d C

ity, C

A M

D94

.69

176

101.

2130

86.0

219

710

0.44

812.

22%

1693

.99

128

102.

9131

1.45

2310

211,

720

398.

04

759

Las

Veg

as-P

arad

ise,

NV

MS

A12

0.11

199

.91

9012

6.98

410

2.22

37-0

.28%

159

100.

1083

96.0

018

10.

3819

01

188

1,83

640

3.98

7651

Eug

ene-

Spr

ingf

ield

, OR

MS

A10

3.34

5610

0.32

6910

2.55

8699

.40

120

-0.1

9%15

111

7.49

2399

.61

110

0.98

606

7234

440

6.51

7711

6K

ansa

s C

ity, M

O-K

S M

SA

99.8

510

510

0.94

4497

.07

140

99.5

511

10.

76%

8195

.84

116

101.

5459

1.35

317

631,

985

407.

16

7841

Por

t St.

Luci

e, F

L M

SA

117.

594

99.3

714

112

8.33

210

1.76

43-1

.24%

180

104.

1168

100.

3089

0.46

171

216

940

040

8.62

7982

San

Lui

s O

bisp

o-P

aso

Rob

les,

CA

MS

A10

0.69

8810

0.16

7610

5.98

5610

0.38

820.

67%

8898

.42

9298

.49

145

0.61

130

591

262

409.

04

8044

Tam

pa-S

t. P

eter

sbur

g-C

lear

wat

er, F

L M

SA

104.

7442

98.5

917

610

5.38

6010

1.09

55-1

.08%

176

104.

4366

101.

3761

0.96

649

322,

724

410.

58

8112

0In

dian

apol

is-C

arm

el, I

N M

SA

101.

2383

100.

4560

97.9

613

299

.25

128

0.75

%82

101.

7174

99.9

110

21.

3531

672

1,69

541

3.10

8210

4O

mah

a-C

ounc

il B

luffs

, NE

-IA

MS

A99

.38

113

100.

0381

102.

3989

100.

5975

1.36

%47

99.7

884

98.9

413

30.

7110

54

121

830

414.

05

836

Nap

les-

Mar

co Is

land

, FL

MS

A11

2.47

1396

.39

198

127.

713

100.

6570

-5.4

7%19

812

7.57

1510

3.64

200.

4218

16

7231

641

4.08

8410

7S

an J

ose-

Sun

nyva

le-S

anta

Cla

ra, C

A M

SA

93.7

718

710

0.77

4784

.44

198

102.

6325

0.79

%78

92.5

813

610

2.63

423.

051

153

1,80

441

4.32

8514

8N

ew Y

ork-

Whi

te P

lain

s-W

ayne

, NY

-NJ

MD

98.4

013

410

0.66

4997

.88

133

102.

1839

1.00

%61

90.3

014

610

2.11

480.

7010

74

121

11,6

0841

4.43

8691

Ced

ar R

apid

s, IA

MS

A99

.26

118

100.

6250

96.1

515

298

.83

144

0.87

%71

105.

4758

108.

702

0.95

677

6325

341

6.95

8794

Bal

timor

e-To

wso

n, M

D M

SA

99.8

310

699

.81

100

104.

9765

99.2

512

80.

85%

7310

2.03

7298

.68

141

0.98

608

472,

668

417.

98

8865

Cor

pus

Chr

isti,

TX

MS

A10

0.56

9110

0.32

6910

4.81

6810

2.80

210.

63%

9210

5.55

5794

.75

191

0.52

157

118

841

442

0.99

8910

5V

irgin

ia B

each

-Nor

folk

-New

port

New

s, V

A-N

C M

SA

99.9

810

399

.86

9510

6.65

5299

.91

970.

89%

6996

.69

109

97.6

815

60.

7791

591

1,65

942

2.65

9095

Mad

ison

, WI M

SA

100.

2198

99.2

914

510

4.78

6999

.08

138

0.52

%98

119.

3019

100.

4487

1.04

559

3255

642

6.55

9188

Mob

ile, A

L M

SA

98.8

912

510

0.81

4610

3.09

8310

3.59

13-0

.07%

143

104.

4067

98.2

414

90.

5813

84

121

404

427.

89

9230

Del

tona

-Day

tona

Bea

ch-O

rmon

d B

each

, FL

MS

A10

6.73

3097

.93

186

115.

8114

100.

7269

-1.8

1%19

310

6.86

4710

1.98

530.

6412

05

9150

042

8.27

9313

5B

ridge

port

-Sta

mfo

rd-N

orw

alk,

CT

MS

A96

.93

149

100.

4560

96.7

914

410

0.65

701.

41%

4085

.83

164

100.

4886

0.97

627

6389

543

0.11

9440

Hon

olul

u, H

I MS

A10

4.27

4899

.49

128

110.

0031

100.

0194

0.64

%90

104.

6464

98.7

713

70.

5215

72

169

906

432.

40

9593

Bou

lder

, CO

MS

A97

.97

140

101.

0937

88.8

819

199

.27

126

1.15

%55

97.2

510

399

.76

107

2.86

215

329

043

4.45

9613

9N

assa

u-S

uffo

lk, N

Y M

D98

.45

132

100.

1278

99.6

011

299

.55

111

0.82

%75

92.2

413

910

2.00

510.

9762

847

2,76

043

4.92

9778

Bra

dent

on-S

aras

ota-

Ven

ice,

FL

MS

A10

2.33

7197

.55

192

113.

4418

101.

7544

-4.0

0%19

713

2.07

1210

2.77

380.

6113

05

9168

743

4.98

9828

Lake

land

-Win

ter

Hav

en, F

L M

SA

108.

7122

98.8

816

511

0.67

2610

0.78

64-1

.34%

182

106.

2951

103.

9419

0.39

188

314

457

543

6.34

9912

8W

inst

on-S

alem

, NC

MS

A99

.91

104

100.

5554

95.3

615

898

.75

148

1.38

%45

119.

9218

102.

9230

0.45

176

591

463

440.

85

100

70S

anta

Bar

bara

-San

ta M

aria

-Gol

eta,

CA

MS

A99

.42

112

99.5

711

810

2.82

8497

.18

185

0.23

%11

711

8.38

2110

2.43

451.

4424

1114

404

442.

33

5-yr

job

grow

th20

02–2

007

1-yr

job

grow

th20

06–2

007

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

001–

2006

1-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

005–

2006

# of

HT

GD

P

LQs

over

1Jo

b gr

owth

(3/0

7–3/

08)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

gr

owth

200

2–20

071-

yr r

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

grow

th 2

006–

2007

Hig

h-Te

ch

GD

P L

Q


49

2008

rank

2007

rank

Met

ropo

litan

are

aP

opul

atio

n20

07O

vera

llin

dex

2007

Val

ueR

ank

2007

Val

ueR

ank

2006

Val

ueR

ank

2006

Val

ueR

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k(T

hous

ands

)

5-yr

job

grow

th20

02–2

007

1-yr

job

grow

th20

06–2

007

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

001–

2006

1-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

005–

2006

# of

HT

GD

P

LQs

over

1Jo

b gr

owth

(3/0

7–3/

08)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

gr

owth

200

2–20

071-

yr r

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

grow

th 2

006–

2007

Hig

h-Te

ch

GD

P L

Q

101

134

San

ta C

ruz-

Wat

sonv

ille,

CA

MS

A96

.76

152

100.

6051

89.8

319

010

2.34

341.

96%

2477

.61

187

96.4

217

50.

9959

932

252

447.

81

102

56R

ichm

ond,

VA

MS

A10

2.23

7310

0.18

7410

2.81

8598

.76

146

0.52

%99

98.0

896

98.7

113

90.

7594

672

1,21

344

7.93

103

113

Sto

ckto

n, C

A M

SA

103.

3955

100.

2073

104.

9666

99.3

512

11.

37%

4696

.77

107

97.3

316

50.

3719

42

169

671

448.

05

104

48P

alm

Bay

-Mel

bour

ne-T

itusv

ille,

FL

MS

A10

4.47

4797

.17

195

112.

8720

99.6

410

7-0

.56%

168

99.3

385

96.7

317

11.

4424

161

536

448.

21

105

36W

est P

alm

Bea

ch-B

oca

Rat

on-B

oynt

on B

each

, FL

MD

105.

6634

98.6

917

310

8.77

3510

0.17

89-1

.09%

177

98.0

497

105.

7311

0.64

120

412

11,

266

451.

37

106

49S

anta

Ana

-Ana

heim

-Irv

ine,

CA

MD

102.

1174

98.5

217

810

7.64

4099

.74

104

-1.3

9%18

510

1.28

7710

0.35

881.

3235

153

2,99

745

1.70

107

126

Man

ches

ter-

Nas

hua,

NH

MS

A99

.30

115

99.4

413

199

.40

114

98.2

816

41.

44%

3897

.66

9899

.82

105

1.42

278

4740

246

3.46

108

143

Lake

Cou

nty-

Ken

osha

Cou

nty,

IL-W

I MD

99.2

911

699

.57

118

100.

1110

610

0.78

640.

65%

8989

.79

147

97.5

416

01.

3036

591

873

469.

39

109

62C

amde

n, N

J M

D10

0.18

9998

.81

169

104.

2576

98.8

614

30.

94%

6498

.87

8799

.17

124

0.85

769

321,

246

469.

99

110

111

Cha

ttano

oga,

TN

-GA

MS

A99

.63

110

99.7

710

598

.72

124

99.8

110

20.

08%

132

138.

356

114.

091

0.54

150

412

151

547

1.08

111

96C

olor

ado

Spr

ings

, CO

MS

A99

.72

108

99.8

398

99.3

011

798

.58

154

1.40

%42

75.1

219

297

.12

167

1.74

99

3260

947

5.43

112

71H

ager

stow

n-M

artin

sbur

g, M

D-W

V M

SA

100.

0110

298

.48

181

104.

4473

99.8

510

1-0

.07%

141

133.

3711

108.

663

0.58

138

591

261

476.

13

113

100

Roc

king

ham

Cou

nty-

Str

affo

rd C

ount

y, N

H M

D10

0.34

9499

.53

123

100.

3210

210

0.38

82-0

.82%

172

97.4

810

099

.46

116

0.96

6410

2141

847

8.64

114

133

Edi

son-

New

Bru

nsw

ick,

NJ

MD

98.9

512

499

.89

9296

.32

150

100.

1690

0.22

%12

087

.47

160

99.2

512

21.

5219

129

2,32

048

3.59

115

90Ta

llaha

ssee

, FL

MS

A10

2.99

6099

.88

9410

0.86

9899

.30

124

0.36

%10

995

.14

119

97.6

615

70.

7210

24

121

352

485.

47

116

84Y

ork-

Han

over

, PA

MS

A10

2.81

6310

0.47

5810

0.88

9795

.73

195

0.88

%70

94.6

412

399

.27

121

0.57

141

412

142

148

6.45

117

112

Mia

mi-M

iam

i Bea

ch-K

enda

ll, F

L M

D10

1.29

8299

.97

8710

4.48

7110

0.61

74-0

.06%

140

91.9

514

099

.74

108

0.55

148

216

92,

387

486.

64

118

153

Bos

ton-

Qui

ncy,

MA

MD

96.1

316

310

0.49

5694

.97

164

100.

4679

1.22

%51

87.5

715

910

0.58

830.

8085

412

11,

858

487.

25

119

92B

row

nsvi

lle-H

arlin

gen,

TX

Met

ropo

litan

Sta

tistic

al A

rea

101.

8777

100.

5455

104.

9267

101.

4950

0.42

%10

679

.28

183

94.9

118

90.

2520

00

199

387

488.

82

120

13C

ape

Cor

al-F

ort M

yers

, FL

MS

A11

9.31

297

.60

188

134.

691

102.

4531

-5.7

2%20

088

.69

154

95.0

518

80.

4118

34

121

591

492.

09

121

163

Aug

usta

-Ric

hmon

d C

ount

y, G

A-S

C M

SA

99.1

312

110

0.02

8399

.00

120

97.0

318

60.

96%

6310

7.30

4599

.86

104

0.58

138

672

529

497.

72

122

129

Lexi

ngto

n-F

ayet

te, K

Y M

SA

100.

2296

100.

4364

99.3

811

599

.23

131

0.45

%10

580

.40

178

100.

2291

0.67

113

412

144

750

4.01

123

83B

ethe

sda-

Fre

deric

k-G

aith

ersb

urg,

MD

MD

98.7

412

998

.98

163

106.

0955

99.5

011

5-0

.25%

153

96.3

311

499

.17

124

1.43

269

321,

156

504.

82

124

99H

arris

burg

-Car

lisle

, PA

MS

A97

.20

147

99.4

013

898

.98

121

97.5

217

70.

86%

7211

8.41

2010

0.67

780.

7791

932

529

506.

65

125

147

Bin

gham

ton,

NY

MS

A93

.98

181

99.8

695

88.5

719

399

.98

950.

18%

123

101.

6575

100.

8973

1.64

1312

924

651

1.08

126

109

Los

Ang

eles

-Lon

g B

each

-Gle

ndal

e, C

A M

D96

.85

150

99.5

012

798

.73

123

100.

1392

-0.2

6%15

694

.82

120

100.

6778

1.37

3010

219,

879

511.

23

127

174

Syr

acus

e, N

Y M

SA

95.8

616

799

.65

112

94.7

816

697

.90

170

1.01

%60

97.0

910

410

1.77

571.

1050

1114

645

521.

22

128

130

Kin

gspo

rt-B

risto

l-Bris

tol,

TN

-VA

MS

A95

.79

168

98.3

318

396

.75

145

100.

1888

0.31

%11

111

5.14

2710

0.81

770.

8674

1021

304

525.

92

129

102

Alle

ntow

n-B

ethl

ehem

-Eas

ton,

PA

-NJ

MS

A10

0.41

9399

.52

124

101.

1395

99.6

610

60.

07%

134

81.6

217

597

.62

159

0.73

997

6380

452

8.87

130

142

Phi

lade

lphi

a, P

A M

D96

.38

161

99.5

412

299

.60

112

99.6

810

50.

45%

104

79.7

318

199

.24

123

1.14

448

473,

888

530.

10

131

169

Loui

svill

e-Je

ffers

on C

ount

y, K

Y-I

N M

SA

99.3

411

410

0.49

5697

.74

135

99.3

112

31.

85%

2888

.32

157

94.8

019

00.

4816

71

188

1,23

453

3.03

132

156

Sal

inas

, CA

MS

A93

.89

184

99.2

715

010

1.11

9698

.76

146

1.40

%41

105.

0761

106.

675

0.41

183

314

440

853

8.06

133

26R

eno-

Spa

rks,

NV

MS

A10

7.95

2499

.29

145

106.

6153

100.

1392

-0.6

1%17

190

.53

145

93.4

619

40.

4417

73

144

410

538.

43

134

164

Utic

a-R

ome,

NY

MS

A95

.15

172

99.5

512

195

.34

160

99.1

513

60.

22%

119

110.

4736

99.1

012

81.

0654

153

295

541.

77

135

154

Col

umbu

s, O

H M

SA

97.8

214

210

0.14

7796

.70

147

98.3

016

11.

05%

5992

.41

137

98.2

115

10.

7889

591

1,75

454

2.19

136

176

Pitt

sbur

gh, P

A M

SA

95.1

317

399

.62

116

94.6

216

899

.26

127

0.73

%83

93.7

413

110

0.14

940.

8773

932

2,35

655

0.46

137

151

Min

neap

olis

-St.

Pau

l-Blo

omin

gton

, MN

-WI M

SA

98.9

612

399

.51

125

96.4

914

998

.30

161

0.82

%76

95.8

511

597

.37

163

0.95

677

633,

208

554.

25

138

166

Alb

any-

Sch

enec

tady

-Tro

y, N

Y M

SA

96.5

215

899

.20

154

95.3

615

898

.75

148

0.11

%12

698

.68

9010

2.88

341.

1248

1021

853

556.

41

139

171

Cam

brid

ge-N

ewto

n-F

ram

ingh

am, M

A M

D92

.77

190

99.3

114

489

.91

189

99.5

011

50.

37%

108

94.7

412

210

1.20

662.

803

161

1,47

355

7.40

140

27O

xnar

d-T

hous

and

Oak

s-V

entu

ra, C

A M

SA

99.4

411

198

.28

184

107.

5143

97.8

717

1-1

.75%

191

95.5

811

798

.72

138

1.47

2212

979

855

7.85

141

136

Gre

ensb

oro-

Hig

h P

oint

, NC

MS

A98

.45

132

99.8

497

94.7

316

799

.19

134

1.17

%54

88.0

715

897

.22

166

0.63

124

672

698

557.

97

142

173

Eva

nsvi

lle, I

N-K

Y M

SA

93.7

818

698

.69

173

98.2

912

898

.42

158

0.63

%94

106.

6248

102.

6541

1.14

445

9135

056

3.29

143

118

San

ta R

osa-

Pet

alum

a, C

A M

SA

96.6

815

599

.57

118

93.1

217

598

.96

140

0.10

%12

883

.13

171

102.

7639

1.16

4210

2146

456

4.17

144

141

Mem

phis

, TN

-MS

-AR

MS

A99

.28

117

99.7

210

699

.83

110

99.5

910

90.

23%

118

93.9

712

999

.69

109

0.42

181

216

91,

281

564.

44

145

22V

alle

jo-F

airf

ield

, CA

MS

A10

0.08

101

97.5

918

910

6.13

5499

.17

135

-1.2

3%17

910

7.95

4297

.85

154

0.63

124

672

409

564.

89

146

149

Linc

oln,

NE

MS

A99

.01

122

100.

0185

99.1

311

998

.15

168

1.99

%22

71.5

619

483

.36

200

0.57

141

314

429

256

5.22

147

119

Oak

land

-Fre

mon

t-H

ayw

ard,

CA

MD

95.4

317

199

.10

158

97.3

513

899

.42

119

-0.8

9%17

396

.85

106

101.

2264

1.49

2015

32,

484

566.

35

148

144

Dav

enpo

rt-M

olin

e-R

ock

Isla

nd, I

A-I

L M

SA

97.9

813

999

.37

141

99.8

410

999

.23

131

0.18

%12

210

5.18

6010

0.02

980.

5215

74

121

376

568.

76

149

160

Har

tford

-Wes

t Har

tford

-Eas

t Har

tford

, CT

MS

A96

.13

163

99.4

113

797

.31

139

98.4

715

61.

28%

4988

.99

152

99.3

012

00.

8674

591

1,18

957

0.42

150

101

Birm

ingh

am-H

oove

r, A

L M

SA

99.2

012

099

.80

104

101.

7292

99.1

313

7-0

.14%

147

83.6

016

996

.34

177

0.75

945

911,

108

572.

19

151

186

New

Orle

ans-

Met

airie

-Ken

ner,

LA M

SA

80.4

020

010

6.20

188

.66

192

93.7

019

81.

91%

2581

.74

174

105.

5913

0.46

171

314

41,

030

573.

25

152

125

St.

Loui

s, M

O-I

L M

SA

96.4

516

099

.42

134

95.9

015

498

.26

166

-0.4

2%16

210

7.70

4410

1.78

551.

0752

932

2,82

857

4.32

153

123

Hun

tingt

on-A

shla

nd, W

V-K

Y-O

H M

SA

100.

9485

99.9

388

98.0

912

998

.67

151

0.70

%86

88.6

915

497

.34

164

0.38

190

216

928

457

9.80

154

137

Jack

son,

MS

MS

A10

0.52

9299

.13

156

102.

4987

100.

3484

0.48

%10

271

.13

195

95.2

618

50.

5415

01

188

534

581.

36

155

132

Roc

kfor

d, IL

MS

A97

.99

138

101.

0240

93.9

217

210

0.32

86-0

.53%

165

94.0

212

798

.27

148

0.51

161

412

135

258

1.40

156

146

Wor

cest

er, M

A M

SA

96.7

415

399

.69

108

94.2

517

198

.77

145

-0.2

2%15

290

.82

144

99.9

210

11.

2041

1114

781

581.

67

157

162

Milw

auke

e-W

auke

sha-

Wes

t Alli

s, W

I MS

A96

.72

154

99.6

811

095

.63

156

99.4

811

70.

08%

131

104.

7762

97.6

315

80.

7987

412

11,

544

583.

36

158

157

Por

tland

-Sou

th P

ortla

nd-B

idde

ford

, ME

MS

A97

.92

141

99.5

811

710

0.41

101

98.2

216

70.

49%

101

93.6

913

296

.03

180

0.62

127

672

513

583.

50

159

87P

ough

keep

sie-

New

burg

h-M

iddl

etow

n, N

Y M

SA

98.7

013

098

.71

171

100.

1710

497

.81

174

0.10

%12

985

.64

166

101.

2165

0.89

718

4767

058

3.87

160

152

Chi

cago

-Nap

ervi

lle-J

olie

t, IL

MD

96.6

015

699

.69

108

94.4

617

099

.52

114

0.31

%11

089

.25

148

99.0

412

90.

7987

591

7,95

358

5.61

161

158

Scr

anto

n--W

ilkes

-Bar

re, P

A M

SA

97.4

914

599

.26

151

94.5

416

996

.97

190

0.39

%10

710

6.60

4910

0.59

820.

7889

932

549

587.

74

162

115

Mod

esto

, CA

MS

A10

0.61

9098

.99

162

104.

4473

97.5

517

6-0

.56%

166

154.

573

98.5

914

20.

5116

13

144

511

589.

93

163

168

New

ark-

Uni

on, N

J-P

A M

D95

.73

169

99.2

515

296

.60

148

99.2

413

0-0

.05%

138

84.2

316

899

.98

100

1.23

3910

212,

129

596.

18

164

159

Rea

ding

, PA

MS

A98

.76

128

99.4

812

997

.05

141

101.

7245

-0.5

7%16

985

.42

167

98.2

115

10.

5714

13

144

402

603.

82

165

178

Gre

en B

ay, W

I MS

A99

.25

119

99.4

213

499

.23

118

97.9

416

90.

09%

130

102.

1171

102.

0051

0.40

185

118

830

160

6.72

166

127

Col

umbu

s, G

A-A

L M

SA

96.1

316

398

.40

182

99.8

710

899

.05

139

-0.1

5%14

996

.39

113

96.6

817

31.

2837

932

283

607.

71

167

175

Dul

uth,

MN

-WI M

SA

97.3

814

699

.89

9295

.24

161

98.3

016

11.

30%

4899

.29

8694

.48

193

0.47

169

019

927

461

5.65

168

138

Roa

noke

, VA

MS

A95

.10

175

99.4

013

898

.03

131

99.3

212

20.

28%

114

91.5

114

198

.90

135

0.74

983

144

297

620.

91

169

165

For

t Way

ne, I

N M

SA

97.6

814

399

.20

154

91.1

418

698

.35

159

-2.0

9%19

511

5.40

2610

1.09

680.

8379

591

410

641.

38

170

150

Pro

vide

nce-

New

Bed

ford

-Fal

l Riv

er, R

I-M

A M

SA

96.8

415

198

.84

166

100.

2110

398

.62

152

-1.5

9%18

896

.77

107

98.6

914

00.

8085

591

1,60

164

2.67

171

170

Pea

body

, MA

MD

94.2

518

099

.11

157

92.7

217

898

.92

141

-0.9

4%17

583

.27

170

100.

1196

1.88

812

973

364

3.65

172

155

Akr

on, O

H M

SA

99.6

710

998

.98

163

98.8

212

297

.01

187

-0.1

8%15

097

.48

100

101.

0170

0.53

155

216

969

964

6.81

173

167

Cin

cinn

ati-M

iddl

etow

n, O

H-K

Y-I

N M

SA

98.1

313

599

.64

114

97.0

114

297

.20

184

0.13

%12

596

.67

110

97.7

615

50.

7110

51

188

2,13

464

7.32

174

180

Gar

y, IN

MD

97.6

214

499

.81

100

95.9

115

397

.76

175

0.08

%13

310

2.72

6999

.11

127

0.40

185

216

969

964

8.00

175

161

Lanc

aste

r, P

A M

SA

98.7

912

799

.47

130

98.6

812

597

.36

180

0.59

%97

61.7

120

099

.04

129

0.46

171

314

449

864

8.45

176

145

Nor

wic

h-N

ew L

ondo

n, C

T M

SA

96.5

315

799

.24

153

96.8

414

397

.33

181

-0.0

5%13

987

.23

161

98.8

213

61.

3929

591

267

649.

31

177

140

Cha

rlest

on, W

V M

SA

96.1

216

699

.29

145

96.2

215

199

.22

133

0.26

%11

682

.74

172

96.7

317

10.

5913

65

9130

465

8.56

178

124

Wilm

ingt

on, D

E-M

D-N

J M

D98

.00

136

99.4

313

310

0.86

9898

.47

156

-0.1

5%14

879

.24

184

95.1

018

70.

5913

63

144

694

658.

70

179

181

Erie

, PA

MS

A96

.27

162

99.2

914

592

.97

177

97.8

217

30.

30%

113

86.4

916

398

.51

144

0.67

113

672

279

671.

99

180

183

Buf

falo

-Nia

gara

Fal

ls, N

Y M

SA

94.6

317

899

.10

158

93.8

517

398

.27

165

0.22

%12

189

.24

149

98.9

313

40.

8576

591

1,12

867

4.74

181

182

Roc

hest

er, N

Y M

SA

95.1

217

499

.33

143

91.3

018

597

.27

183

0.14

%12

477

.24

188

96.4

817

41.

1642

847

1,03

068

4.34

182

177

Spr

ingf

ield

, MA

MS

A94

.61

179

98.8

416

695

.01

162

97.4

917

8-0

.43%

163

100.

5881

102.

0849

0.60

135

412

168

368

8.80

183

187

Spa

rtan

burg

, SC

MS

A96

.48

159

98.6

117

595

.37

157

99.8

899

0.63

%93

69.5

019

689

.05

199

0.35

195

216

927

670

2.18

184

172

New

Hav

en-M

ilfor

d, C

T M

SA

95.4

917

098

.76

170

94.9

916

397

.85

172

-1.3

6%18

379

.93

180

96.9

417

01.

2438

847

845

711.

54

185

188

Kal

amaz

oo-P

orta

ge, M

I MS

A93

.95

182

99.2

814

991

.91

181

96.9

319

1-0

.25%

154

67.2

319

898

.49

145

0.88

724

121

323

744.

10

186

185

Sou

th B

end-

Mis

haw

aka,

IN-M

I MS

A93

.91

183

98.5

517

793

.75

174

96.6

519

20.

60%

9681

.89

173

95.6

218

40.

6412

03

144

317

748.

87

187

179

Atla

ntic

City

, NJ

MS

A97

.06

148

96.3

919

810

0.03

107

98.4

815

5-0

.28%

158

68.0

619

791

.86

197

0.38

190

216

927

175

5.19

188

191

You

ngst

own-

War

ren-

Boa

rdm

an, O

H-P

A M

SA

92.2

719

197

.53

193

91.9

418

098

.34

160

-0.2

7%15

789

.02

150

101.

3462

0.44

177

314

457

175

9.02

189

190

Day

ton,

OH

MS

A90

.85

194

97.7

518

790

.84

187

96.9

818

9-1

.28%

181

85.7

516

597

.07

168

0.83

7910

2183

676

3.89

190

192

Gra

nd R

apid

s-W

yom

ing,

MI M

SA

93.8

718

598

.83

168

91.9

617

997

.00

188

-0.0

9%14

581

.58

176

100.

1196

0.52

157

118

877

777

6.05

191

199

Hic

kory

-Len

oir-

Mor

gant

on, N

C M

SA

91.0

919

398

.52

178

86.9

119

598

.61

153

0.07

%13

593

.90

130

90.3

819

80.

3918

83

144

360

782.

90

192

184

Ann

Arb

or, M

I MS

A91

.45

192

97.5

918

993

.05

176

95.9

219

4-1

.77%

192

75.5

219

196

.13

179

1.03

566

7235

078

8.58

193

193

Cle

vela

nd-E

lyria

-Men

tor,

OH

MS

A93

.72

188

98.5

217

891

.32

184

97.4

817

9-0

.61%

170

93.4

713

397

.48

161

0.57

141

216

92,

096

794.

30

194

196

Tole

do, O

H M

SA

92.9

518

997

.59

189

91.7

118

297

.33

181

-1.2

1%17

888

.83

153

101.

7855

0.40

185

118

865

179

9.98

195

194

Flin

t, M

I MS

A87

.61

198

96.1

920

082

.55

200

96.3

019

3-5

.56%

199

78.2

018

610

0.53

840.

6212

75

9143

581

6.43

196

200

Lans

ing-

Eas

t Lan

sing

, MI M

SA

90.0

619

698

.07

185

91.6

118

398

.91

142

-0.5

3%16

476

.53

190

95.7

218

30.

4417

71

188

456

819.

16

197

198

Can

ton-

Mas

sillo

n, O

H M

SA

89.9

019

798

.71

171

87.0

719

494

.84

197

-0.2

9%16

074

.08

193

100.

8475

0.28

198

118

840

782

3.99

198

195

War

ren-

Tro

y-F

arm

ingt

on H

ills,

MI M

D90

.61

195

97.4

019

486

.75

196

93.6

719

9-1

.52%

187

76.9

618

996

.28

178

0.96

644

121

2,48

282

4.89

199

189

Hol

land

-Gra

nd H

aven

, MI M

SA

94.6

617

797

.15

196

90.4

718

895

.24

196

-1.4

0%18

680

.54

177

95.1

818

60.

5016

53

144

259

845.

82

200

197

Det

roit-

Livo

nia-

Dea

rbor

n, M

I MD

86.7

119

996

.40

197

84.0

019

993

.38

200

-3.6

1%19

679

.11

185

92.5

219

50.

7693

412

11,

985

851.

96

* In

dica

tes

this

city

’s p

ositi

on o

n la

st y

ear’s

sm

all m

etro

s lis

t.


50

Complete Results: 2008 Best-Performing Small Cities

2008

rank

2007

rank

Met

ropo

litan

are

aP

opul

atio

n20

07O

vera

llin

dex

2007

Val

ueR

ank

2007

Val

ueR

ank

2006

Val

ueR

ank

2006

Val

ueR

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k(T

hous

ands

)

13

Mid

land

, TX

MS

A11

3.75

610

3.13

812

3.50

511

0.89

33.

45%

914

6.80

897

.93

870.

7726

710

126

100.

002

6C

oeur

d'A

lene

, ID

MS

A11

8.80

310

1.75

2212

1.83

710

4.77

95.

86%

215

0.98

698

.26

800.

6651

533

134

132.

663

1B

end,

OR

MS

A12

5.32

210

1.94

1812

9.81

210

7.24

51.

27%

4412

0.34

2110

0.39

510.

7533

710

154

133.

384

2S

t. G

eorg

e, U

T M

SA

135.

441

102.

3513

147.

451

110.

094

2.41

%15

124.

5018

107.

747

0.45

883

7913

413

4.66

518

Gra

nd J

unct

ion,

CO

MS

A11

3.15

810

4.58

211

4.95

1510

4.50

114.

42%

510

0.32

7010

5.92

120.

5764

533

139

135.

236

10W

arne

r R

obin

s, G

A M

SA

113.

507

102.

5411

117.

5112

100.

6830

1.01

%54

158.

474

100.

3951

0.87

156

2213

116

6.26

730

Long

view

, TX

MS

A10

9.56

1810

3.02

911

2.92

2010

4.82

82.

09%

2511

4.99

3497

.98

850.

7922

622

204

167.

568

14B

ellin

gham

, WA

MS

A11

2.04

910

2.02

1611

3.49

1910

0.33

363.

24%

1010

6.64

5510

0.19

590.

7726

456

193

195.

039

7P

resc

ott,

AZ

MS

A11

6.93

410

0.34

5112

8.68

310

5.54

61.

64%

3510

8.56

4911

2.94

30.

4883

456

213

201.

8210

27O

dess

a, T

X M

SA

111.

2013

103.

029

117.

8410

111.

862

5.24

%3

87.6

899

108.

996

0.36

109

111

012

720

6.02

1117

Las

Cru

ces,

NM

MS

A10

7.81

2510

0.49

4911

7.78

1110

0.88

281.

53%

3817

1.51

199

.61

700.

9410

622

199

210.

4712

47C

heye

nne,

WY

MS

A10

6.70

2910

1.79

2111

6.28

1410

4.55

102.

77%

1496

.41

8510

1.06

410.

5275

533

8621

2.60

1332

Yum

a, A

Z M

SA

116.

555

100.

3750

119.

018

101.

3524

2.01

%27

161.

893

115.

872

0.30

114

379

191

221.

0614

81S

anta

Fe,

NM

MS

A10

5.15

3810

1.36

3010

9.18

3010

1.81

161.

24%

4614

1.32

1010

2.06

310.

6258

710

143

222.

9415

42B

ism

arck

, ND

MS

A10

8.03

2410

0.97

3811

0.83

2210

0.55

332.

17%

2210

4.90

5910

5.49

130.

6454

533

103

226.

9316

33H

oum

a-B

ayou

Can

e-T

hibo

daux

, LA

MS

A10

9.39

2010

4.49

311

8.22

911

4.37

11.

61%

3698

.31

7910

5.03

140.

2911

62

9820

123

0.55

1736

Far

go, N

D-M

N M

SA

107.

1528

101.

1235

109.

5926

100.

6331

1.70

%34

114.

0536

102.

3526

0.69

425

3319

223

1.17

1812

Cha

rlotte

svill

e, V

A M

SA

107.

6726

101.

8819

109.

4628

101.

6820

0.35

%81

104.

9158

103.

2023

0.92

128

619

323

2.35

1929

Aub

urn-

Ope

lika,

AL

MS

A11

1.61

1110

1.33

3111

7.06

1310

1.84

153.

51%

812

6.17

1698

.51

770.

3710

81

110

131

241.

9920

54G

aine

svill

e, G

A M

SA

111.

6012

103.

217

104.

7345

101.

4023

2.13

%23

96.5

284

101.

1040

0.46

874

5618

025

2.56

215

Win

ches

ter,

VA

-WV

MS

A10

8.36

2299

.56

8410

9.88

2510

0.79

292.

09%

2412

6.89

1599

.69

680.

7140

86

121

258.

2722

43G

reen

ville

, NC

MS

A10

9.80

1610

4.16

410

2.51

6010

0.36

352.

33%

1784

.48

104

104.

4016

0.82

182

9817

225

9.44

2335

Sio

ux F

alls

, SD

MS

A10

5.46

3510

1.84

2010

7.98

3510

0.58

322.

35%

1658

.64

121

104.

8015

0.61

595

3322

726

1.56

2441

Bill

ings

, MT

MS

A10

8.12

2310

2.41

1210

9.41

2910

0.25

371.

41%

4111

3.31

3897

.70

910.

5667

456

150

278.

1325

25Io

wa

City

, IA

MS

A10

3.39

4910

1.52

2710

3.50

4899

.34

580.

77%

6217

1.08

211

0.11

40.

8120

622

147

278.

8726

38Ty

ler,

TX

MS

A10

3.83

4510

0.73

4110

6.32

3910

0.08

401.

07%

5211

6.95

2899

.66

690.

7630

86

199

294.

7027

56W

aco,

TX

MS

A10

0.03

6810

1.55

2610

2.79

5698

.39

803.

14%

1114

7.81

710

1.67

340.

8715

533

228

296.

9428

24M

orga

ntow

n, W

V M

SA

110.

8014

101.

5227

108.

8531

101.

0926

1.97

%28

97.4

182

100.

4849

0.42

962

9811

829

9.21

2969

Ken

new

ick-

Pas

co-R

ichl

and,

WA

MS

A10

6.43

3110

3.68

510

4.80

4495

.55

119

5.19

%4

81.1

010

810

3.37

221.

253

456

229

309.

0730

13P

anam

a C

ity-L

ynn

Hav

en, F

L M

SA

111.

7710

99.3

888

122.

696

101.

7419

0.48

%72

142.

239

92.9

311

90.

6845

533

164

309.

5331

31H

attie

sbur

g, M

S M

SA

106.

1432

100.

6942

110.

0724

104.

997

2.29

%18

106.

6854

96.8

995

0.41

991

110

138

313.

1432

20F

ort W

alto

n B

each

-Cre

stvi

ew-D

estin

, FL

MS

A10

6.58

3097

.24

117

125.

164

99.3

259

0.06

%88

140.

1511

106.

5510

1.12

59

118

132

4.24

3346

Bow

ling

Gre

en, K

Y M

SA

108.

9721

101.

7423

110.

6223

99.7

651

2.27

%19

111.

7841

97.7

889

0.27

120

012

011

633

3.92

3457

Ann

isto

n-O

xfor

d, A

L M

SA

103.

1550

101.

0537

108.

6232

99.4

156

0.36

%78

132.

2813

97.6

192

0.73

367

1011

334

1.49

3551

St.

Jose

ph, M

O-K

S M

SA

109.

6917

103.

356

100.

1072

101.

2925

0.28

%84

112.

9039

100.

2756

0.63

561

110

123

347.

3436

16H

arris

onbu

rg, V

A M

SA

104.

0043

98.9

599

101.

0069

100.

9927

1.26

%45

116.

0430

100.

9843

0.70

419

111

835

4.11

3779

Ath

ens-

Cla

rke

Cou

nty,

GA

MS

A10

4.04

4210

0.62

4410

2.70

5999

.82

461.

35%

4310

7.17

5212

6.09

10.

5863

298

187

354.

2738

67C

olle

ge S

tatio

n-B

ryan

, TX

MS

A10

0.06

6799

.42

8710

7.63

3610

1.44

220.

84%

5911

9.89

2410

0.16

610.

7726

533

203

356.

6139

26M

edfo

rd, O

R M

SA

107.

1827

100.

5347

108.

5633

99.0

468

0.60

%66

118.

1827

94.3

511

30.

6356

622

199

363.

6340

78A

bile

ne, T

X M

SA

99.9

769

98.8

010

210

5.11

4310

1.67

212.

21%

2010

9.18

4610

2.34

270.

5372

456

159

369.

4241

23S

alis

bury

, MD

MS

A10

5.47

3499

.30

8910

8.19

3499

.81

480.

29%

8310

7.32

5110

0.56

470.

7533

86

120

370.

6942

50T

usca

loos

a, A

L M

SA

105.

3536

100.

8539

109.

5827

101.

7718

0.50

%70

108.

3850

96.8

896

0.34

111

298

205

381.

3543

130

Pue

blo,

CO

MS

A10

1.39

5710

2.01

1795

.87

9399

.05

661.

13%

4797

.81

8110

3.84

200.

5569

710

155

384.

5944

28La

redo

, TX

MS

A11

0.59

1510

1.14

3411

4.74

1699

.70

520.

82%

6010

1.89

6698

.11

830.

2412

20

120

233

386.

4345

109

Pas

cago

ula,

MS

MS

A99

.83

7110

1.19

3296

.73

8897

.45

9414

.10%

112

4.59

1794

.90

109

0.75

336

2215

239

1.36

4675

Roc

hest

er, M

N M

SA

101.

0358

100.

0366

103.

7247

99.1

563

1.79

%32

80.1

411

099

.24

730.

7922

622

181

394.

3147

88S

tate

Col

lege

, PA

MS

A97

.18

8999

.79

7410

3.36

5099

.12

651.

91%

2999

.86

7298

.71

760.

9311

91

145

402.

3748

70Jo

hnso

n C

ity, T

N M

SA

104.

1541

100.

1261

101.

0168

98.9

871

1.08

%50

119.

4925

85.2

412

10.

9114

533

194

402.

7749

45D

over

, DE

MS

A10

9.49

1999

.81

7311

1.45

2198

.77

74-0

.61%

100

151.

275

98.1

982

0.72

373

7915

240

3.77

5090

Gra

nd F

orks

, ND

-MN

MS

A10

3.52

4710

0.04

6510

3.29

5298

.29

811.

87%

3011

5.97

3110

4.08

190.

4390

298

9840

9.37

5112

6F

lore

nce,

SC

MS

A97

.44

8810

2.26

1495

.89

9299

.97

423.

77%

698

.68

7610

1.65

350.

4296

298

199

409.

6552

52C

hico

, CA

MS

A10

0.14

6699

.89

7010

2.95

5410

0.43

340.

94%

5710

3.52

6297

.80

880.

5372

710

219

412.

5253

73V

aldo

sta,

GA

MS

A10

5.93

3310

0.30

5410

6.06

4099

.05

660.

57%

6899

.11

7499

.52

710.

4296

533

130

413.

4054

39D

ubuq

ue, I

A M

SA

103.

9044

99.6

182

104.

1246

98.5

579

0.36

%80

135.

5412

100.

3754

0.59

617

1092

415.

4755

98B

loom

ingt

on, I

N M

SA

98.3

280

99.7

077

97.9

279

97.4

195

1.54

%37

118.

4526

102.

0332

1.39

17

1018

441

8.84

5693

Eau

Cla

ire, W

I MS

A10

3.46

4810

0.34

5199

.76

7310

0.02

410.

36%

7910

6.75

5310

0.63

460.

6748

379

158

420.

8757

140

Bur

lingt

on, N

C M

SA

96.7

592

102.

1315

91.1

711

099

.35

571.

38%

4210

8.87

4810

2.14

290.

5471

533

145

422.

5958

95S

t. C

loud

, MN

MS

A10

2.30

5410

1.18

3310

1.90

6399

.89

441.

07%

5181

.90

106

96.6

599

0.51

774

5618

642

9.83

5964

Red

ding

, CA

MS

A97

.69

8698

.77

103

103.

3451

99.8

845

1.05

%53

101.

3368

106.

579

0.65

526

2217

942

9.99

6091

Jopl

in, M

O M

SA

102.

7551

100.

6145

98.1

278

99.9

343

0.48

%71

116.

8329

100.

1760

0.47

843

7917

143

0.14

6110

8W

ichi

ta F

alls

, TX

MS

A96

.26

9699

.00

9897

.79

8210

2.18

141.

12%

4810

5.86

5799

.92

661.

017

622

148

430.

5162

40M

isso

ula,

MT

MS

A10

4.40

4010

0.24

5710

5.29

4299

.81

48-0

.69%

103

88.2

096

102.

5025

0.53

723

7910

644

2.57

6321

Fla

gsta

ff, A

Z M

SA

104.

4839

99.8

871

113.

8118

101.

8017

-0.3

4%95

79.7

511

273

.81

124

0.60

603

7912

744

3.75

6497

Ithac

a, N

Y M

SA

100.

8060

99.9

269

100.

9670

98.7

873

1.08

%49

90.1

693

95.7

710

70.

988

710

101

446.

9365

72C

olum

bia,

MO

MS

A10

3.68

4610

0.24

5710

1.73

6499

.14

640.

71%

6492

.52

9110

1.57

380.

5079

379

162

455.

5366

92R

apid

City

, SD

MS

A10

0.48

6410

0.13

6010

3.19

5398

.66

752.

18%

2174

.03

116

100.

4550

0.44

893

7912

045

6.92

6778

*B

rem

erto

n-S

ilver

dale

, WA

MS

A10

5.31

3798

.68

106

113.

8317

99.8

246

0.58

%67

63.1

011

995

.55

108

0.65

524

5623

745

7.43

6876

Yak

ima,

WA

MS

A10

0.60

6299

.77

7610

2.21

6110

0.23

392.

80%

1387

.55

100

97.7

490

0.26

121

111

023

347

8.99

6913

4W

ater

loo-

Ced

ar F

alls

, IA

MS

A98

.86

7710

0.12

6110

1.12

6798

.19

831.

84%

3111

1.22

4310

2.86

240.

3610

91

110

163

480.

0070

86D

otha

n, A

L M

SA

100.

8459

100.

6942

102.

9554

99.2

262

-1.0

0%11

410

1.25

6910

0.23

580.

4784

456

139

482.

6771

60N

apa,

CA

MS

A99

.29

7310

0.11

6310

3.40

4998

.63

760.

97%

5691

.38

9295

.96

104

0.56

675

3313

348

3.09

7277

Gle

ns F

alls

, NY

MS

A10

1.48

5699

.25

9210

2.05

6298

.00

861.

47%

3992

.58

9093

.78

116

1.06

64

5612

948

7.35

7311

9G

ulfp

ort-

Bilo

xi, M

S M

SA

93.0

211

210

7.93

195

.75

9494

.63

122

2.81

%12

99.0

875

100.

2955

0.50

794

5623

249

2.05

7411

2La

ke C

harle

s, L

A M

SA

100.

6161

101.

4329

99.1

775

100.

2438

-0.6

1%10

181

.32

107

99.3

472

0.43

903

7919

249

6.43

7515

2Ja

nesv

ille,

WI M

SA

98.4

978

98.4

111

198

.80

7610

2.77

13-0

.57%

9910

8.99

4710

1.86

330.

4390

533

160

497.

4876

85F

lore

nce-

Mus

cle

Sho

als,

AL

MS

A10

2.47

5310

0.57

4697

.46

8498

.97

720.

86%

5811

1.76

4210

0.10

620.

3011

40

120

143

500.

6377

128

Kin

gsto

n, N

Y M

SA

94.2

610

998

.71

105

102.

7857

103.

7312

-0.6

4%10

275

.25

115

102.

1230

0.67

489

118

250

1.16

7884

Ale

xand

ria, L

A M

SA

102.

0955

100.

8440

106.

9837

99.4

555

0.53

%69

77.6

311

494

.84

110

0.29

116

012

015

050

4.35

5-yr

job

grow

th20

02–2

007

1-yr

job

grow

th20

06–2

007

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

001–

2006

1-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

005–

2006

# of

HT

GD

P

LQs

over

1Jo

b gr

owth

(3/0

7–3/

08)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

gr

owth

200

2–20

071-

yr r

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

grow

th 2

006–

2007

Hig

h-Te

ch

GD

P L

Q


51

2008

rank

2007

rank

Met

ropo

litan

are

aP

opul

atio

n20

07O

vera

llin

dex

2007

Val

ueR

ank

2007

Val

ueR

ank

2006

Val

ueR

ank

2006

Val

ueR

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k20

07 V

alue

Ran

k(T

hous

ands

)

5-yr

job

grow

th20

02–2

007

1-yr

job

grow

th20

06–2

007

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

001–

2006

1-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

005–

2006

# of

HT

GD

P

LQs

over

1Jo

b gr

owth

(3/0

7–3/

08)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

gr

owth

200

2–20

071-

yr r

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

grow

th 2

006–

2007

Hig

h-Te

ch

GD

P L

Q

7915

0D

ecat

ur, A

L M

SA

* In

dica

tes

this

city

’s p

ositi

on o

n la

st y

ear’s

larg

e m

etro

s lis

t.98.2

881

101.

5625

91.5

410

898

.15

841.

74%

3310

9.25

4598

.38

790.

4199

298

149

510.

5980

142

Blo

omin

gton

-Nor

mal

, IL

MS

A93

.60

111

100.

0564

96.7

089

99.6

453

0.11

%87

128.

9614

98.7

275

0.77

263

7916

452

0.94

8110

4Te

xark

ana,

TX

-Tex

arka

na, A

R M

SA

98.8

976

99.6

280

105.

4641

99.5

854

1.43

%40

99.7

073

83.9

612

20.

2811

80

120

134

526.

8482

149

Ban

gor,

ME

MS

A95

.26

106

99.6

280

94.9

599

97.7

190

2.04

%26

92.6

189

100.

9444

0.69

424

5614

953

6.94

8387

App

leto

n, W

I MS

A99

.75

7299

.61

8297

.20

8797

.21

100

-0.2

0%94

109.

4444

100.

7345

0.69

425

3321

853

7.71

8412

7Le

wis

ton-

Aub

urn,

ME

MS

A96

.39

9410

0.29

5599

.28

7498

.99

700.

11%

8612

0.29

2299

.72

670.

3211

33

7910

753

9.89

8511

3Ja

ckso

n, T

N M

SA

100.

5563

99.7

077

97.9

080

98.1

085

0.78

%61

115.

3832

93.5

911

70.

4784

379

113

542.

3886

83P

ittsf

ield

, MA

MS

A96

.46

9310

0.01

6797

.23

8697

.55

92-1

.02%

115

123.

5719

104.

2918

0.78

243

7913

054

4.04

8712

2C

ham

paig

n-U

rban

a, IL

MS

A94

.23

110

99.4

585

94.5

210

197

.80

87-0

.41%

9612

2.63

2010

3.46

210.

7237

710

221

544.

2388

125

Bur

lingt

on-S

outh

Bur

lingt

on, V

T M

SA

96.8

391

99.1

995

97.3

585

99.0

269

0.45

%74

79.8

511

197

.13

941.

342

533

207

555.

1389

99W

ausa

u, W

I MS

A99

.85

7099

.09

9610

1.34

6698

.57

78-0

.55%

9798

.38

7810

0.24

570.

4390

533

130

557.

1590

136

Jeffe

rson

City

, MO

MS

A98

.47

7910

0.31

5395

.00

9896

.87

105

0.46

%73

106.

4156

101.

4439

0.57

642

9814

655

7.67

9194

John

stow

n, P

A M

SA

99.2

674

99.0

397

96.4

190

98.2

782

-0.0

1%89

104.

9059

98.0

584

0.82

184

5614

556

1.98

9210

0B

lack

sbur

g-C

hris

tians

burg

-Rad

ford

, VA

MS

A97

.94

8398

.12

113

102.

7458

99.7

750

-4.9

6%12

497

.99

8097

.42

930.

7630

533

158

567.

6493

106

Roc

ky M

ount

, NC

MS

A97

.54

8710

1.59

2489

.10

118

97.6

091

-0.7

9%10

780

.30

109

76.0

112

30.

959

91

146

569.

7094

143

Par

kers

burg

-Mar

ietta

-Vie

nna,

WV

-OH

MS

A95

.50

102

99.2

194

92.7

010

698

.62

770.

98%

5510

2.66

6410

1.59

370.

5177

456

161

572.

8695

133

Terr

e H

aute

, IN

MS

A92

.49

115

99.2

393

96.0

591

96.8

910

4-1

.41%

119

115.

2633

107.

328

1.18

46

2216

957

8.15

9613

2E

lkha

rt-G

oshe

n, IN

MS

A10

2.51

5297

.05

120

106.

8738

96.4

611

4-1

.23%

118

92.8

887

104.

4016

0.49

824

5619

858

4.80

9717

7N

iles-

Ben

ton

Har

bor,

MI M

SA

90.1

112

010

0.14

5990

.47

113

97.7

788

3.63

%7

84.1

810

596

.03

103

0.38

106

456

160

594.

2398

105

Alb

any,

GA

MS

A97

.94

8398

.92

100

93.9

710

395

.78

118

-0.1

8%93

114.

6435

100.

3951

0.64

547

1016

459

5.03

9914

5O

shko

sh-N

eena

h, W

I MS

A10

0.42

6599

.69

7994

.47

102

96.7

010

9-0

.11%

9112

0.23

2398

.23

810.

5275

379

162

597.

7610

013

1A

ltoon

a, P

A M

SA

97.1

490

99.8

372

94.6

910

096

.50

112

0.32

%82

98.5

977

97.9

586

0.67

485

3312

660

0.93

101

137

Bar

nsta

ble

Tow

n, M

A M

SA

96.2

895

98.7

610

410

0.52

7197

.31

97-1

.15%

117

87.8

497

100.

0464

0.81

206

2222

260

8.89

102

154

Mac

on, G

A M

SA

95.9

699

98.5

611

092

.65

107

96.8

610

60.

74%

6389

.13

9598

.81

740.

7824

533

230

621.

8210

313

8La

Cro

sse,

WI-

MN

MS

A98

.09

8298

.89

101

95.7

095

99.2

461

-0.1

3%92

97.2

883

94.3

811

20.

4390

456

131

625.

0510

410

7D

ecat

ur, I

L M

SA

95.2

010

799

.78

7593

.47

105

97.2

299

0.18

%85

103.

5361

100.

5548

0.41

994

5610

962

6.89

105

155

She

boyg

an, W

I MS

A98

.98

7599

.26

9097

.86

8197

.23

98-1

.09%

116

62.4

612

010

1.06

410.

4010

25

3311

563

1.98

106

158

Tope

ka, K

S M

SA

90.1

311

910

0.29

5590

.33

114

97.2

010

10.

42%

7778

.99

113

106.

4011

0.43

903

7922

963

6.68

107

121

Lafa

yette

, IN

MS

A95

.47

103

100.

0068

93.8

210

495

.98

117

0.44

%75

92.8

588

96.7

697

0.72

373

7919

264

1.85

108

146

Spr

ingf

ield

, IL

MS

A92

.83

113

99.2

690

90.7

411

296

.64

111

-0.0

9%90

85.4

710

398

.39

780.

9212

710

207

642.

2110

912

0M

onro

e, L

A M

SA

92.5

911

498

.29

112

95.7

095

99.2

860

0.42

%76

102.

1065

95.9

110

60.

5764

298

172

647.

9811

011

8V

inel

and-

Mill

ville

-Brid

geto

n, N

J M

SA

97.9

483

97.5

911

510

1.49

6597

.35

96-0

.97%

113

87.7

598

87.2

612

00.

5079

456

156

673.

9411

116

6S

ioux

City

, IA

-NE

-SD

MS

A95

.45

104

101.

0936

88.4

312

096

.82

108

-0.8

6%10

950

.73

123

99.9

765

0.38

106

456

143

677.

6011

215

9R

acin

e, W

I MS

A95

.86

100

98.5

810

995

.01

9797

.55

92-0

.87%

110

95.6

786

102.

2328

0.39

104

379

195

682.

4711

311

7D

alto

n, G

A M

SA

95.9

898

97.5

511

697

.51

8396

.50

112

-0.8

8%11

287

.16

102

95.9

610

40.

8617

379

134

698.

5911

416

3W

illia

msp

ort,

PA

MS

A95

.07

108

99.4

585

90.1

611

596

.44

115

-0.5

6%98

87.2

910

194

.46

111

0.59

615

3311

770

0.66

115

151

Mun

cie,

IN M

SA

90.2

211

898

.63

107

81.8

412

393

.86

124

-0.7

4%10

510

1.57

6710

0.08

630.

6845

533

115

708.

3111

616

5M

uske

gon-

Nor

ton

Sho

res,

MI M

SA

95.6

510

197

.18

119

89.8

811

696

.96

103

0.68

%65

52.5

012

293

.94

115

0.55

694

5617

471

1.91

117

164

Man

sfie

ld, O

H M

SA

89.5

112

296

.88

122

88.5

111

994

.99

121

-1.6

2%12

011

2.34

4010

1.62

360.

7630

456

126

712.

6411

811

1W

heel

ing,

WV

-OH

MS

A96

.01

9798

.62

108

98.4

477

96.8

410

7-0

.88%

111

100.

2671

96.3

110

10.

3910

42

9814

571

3.95

119

173

And

erso

n, S

C M

SA

95.3

110

510

0.52

4888

.21

121

97.7

788

-0.8

2%10

870

.52

117

93.4

711

80.

2012

31

110

180

731.

3112

017

9S

prin

gfie

ld, O

H M

SA

90.8

511

797

.66

114

80.7

512

497

.20

101

-0.7

6%10

633

.97

124

109.

585

0.20

123

111

014

077

2.30

121

168

Sag

inaw

-Sag

inaw

Tow

nshi

p N

orth

, MI M

SA

89.2

112

396

.89

121

82.7

812

296

.70

109

-3.5

1%12

390

.02

9496

.54

100

0.68

454

5620

277

5.15

122

167

Lim

a, O

H M

SA

91.3

211

696

.65

123

90.9

911

196

.14

116

-0.7

0%10

410

3.26

6394

.04

114

0.40

102

111

010

579

4.59

123

178

Bat

tle C

reek

, MI M

SA

90.0

012

197

.23

118

91.3

210

995

.37

120

-2.0

3%12

111

3.89

3796

.11

102

0.28

118

111

013

780

3.00

124

174

Jack

son,

MI M

SA

87.6

312

496

.61

124

89.2

311

794

.34

123

-2.2

1%12

268

.68

118

96.7

498

0.33

112

298

163

855.

37


53

References1. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Statistical and Science Policy Branch, Office of Management and

Budget, OMB Bulletin, no. 04-03.2. 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 2007 to March 2008). 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 2006 to 2007. 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.

3. An industry’s location quotient (LQ) measures the level of employment concentration in a given location (in this case, an MSA) relative to the industry average across the United States. A metro with an employment LQ higher than 1.0 in a high-tech industry, for example, has a greater concentration of 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.

4. Ross DeVol and Armen Bedroussian, The Economic Outlook for the United States and California: Slow Growth or Recession?, Executive Summary and Research Findings (California Center, Milken Institute, 2008).

5. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas El Paso Branch, “Crossroads: Economic Trends in the Desert Southwest,” no. 2 (2007), http://www.dallasfed.org/research/crossroads/2007/cross0702a.html.

6. Answers.com, “U.S. City Guide: Provo, Utah,” http://www.answers.com/topic/provo-economy.7. Census Bureau, “Population Estimates: Net Migration, PRV” (2007).8. Michael D. Helmar, “Précis Metro for Raleigh” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).9. Triangle Business Journal, Triangle Business Journal Book of Lists (2008).10. Economic Development of Corporation of Utah, “Utah Major Employers Guide” (2007).11. City-Data.com, “Salt Lake City: Economy,” http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-West/Salt-Lake-City-

Economy.html.12. Austin Chamber of Commerce, “Business & Industry,” http://www.austin-chamber.org/DoBusiness/

GreaterAustinProfile/business.html.13. Ibid.14. The University of Alabama, Alabama Economic Outlook 2008 (Center for Business and Economic Research,

Culverhouse College of Commerce, University of Alabama, 2008).15. Chamber of Commerce of Huntsville/Madison County, “2007 Aerospace/Defense Industry Profile: Huntsville/

Madison County Alabama” (2007).16. Michael D. Helmar, “Précis Metro for Wilmington” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).17. Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, “Cape Fear Future,” http://www.wilmingtonchamber.org/

capefearfuture.html.18. McAllen Chamber of Commerce, “McAllen Chamber Economic Profile” (2008).19. Ibid.20. City-Data.com, “Tacoma: Economy,” http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-West/Tacoma-Economy.html.21. Andrew Gledhill, “Précis Metro for Tacoma” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).22. ———, “Précis Metro for Olympia” (Moody’s Eonomy.com Inc., 2008).23. Morgan McGowan, “Précis Metro for Charleston” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).


54

24. Harry Wessel, “Nemours Orlando Children’s Hospital Gets Green Light,” Orlando Sentinel, February 20, 2008.

25. Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, “Major Employers in Kern County” (2008).26. Copperas Cove Economic Development Corporation, “Fort Hood, the ‘Great Place’” (2008).27. Glenn Wingard, “Précis Metro for Lafayette” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).28. Military Transformation Task Force, “Economic Impact of the U.S. Department of Defense in

San Antonio” (2006).29. Edward Freidman, “Précis Metro for Houston” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).30. Jessica Mintz, “Boeing Ups 20-Year Plane Market Forecast,” Seattle Times, July 9, 2008.31. Augustine Fauche, “Précis Metro for Ogden” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).32. Myrtle Beach International Airport, “MYR Airport Expansion Program” (2008).33. Sean Maher, “Précis Metro for Greeley” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).34. Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce, “Economic Profile” (2008).35. Alexander Miron, “Précis Metro for Nashville” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).36. Victor Godinez, “AT&T Moving Headquarters to Dallas from San Antonio,” Dallas Morning News,

June 28, 2008.37. Business Press, “Georgia Ports Equal Prosperity for Savannah,” WSAV.com, July 2, 2008.38. The Greater Des Moines Partnership, “Major Employers” (2008).39. Steven G. Cochrane, “Précis Metro for Riverside” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).40. “Fortune 500 List for ’08 Features 12 Georgia Companies,” Atlanta Business Chronicle, April 22, 2008.41. Maria Saporta, “Apparently, AT&T’s Heart Deep in Texas,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 3, 2008.42. Rebecca Seweryn, “Précis Metro for Atlanta” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).43. Steven G. Cochrane, “Précis Metro for Los Angeles” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).44. Ryan Sweet, “Précis Metro for Philadelphia” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).45. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Reductions to Current Employment Statistics Metropolitan Area Series,”

http://www.bls.gov/sae/msareductions.htm.46. Robert W. Gilmer and Charles James, “Spotlight: Midland and Odessa Permian Basin Cities Ride Oil Boom

Again,” Southwest Economy, no. 2 (2008).47. Mella McEwen, “Midland-Odessa Economy Stronger Than Thought,” http://www.mywesttexas.com/

articles/2008/04/02/news/top_stories/doc47f39af37ead0924068995.prt.48. Mike McLean, “2008 Economic Outlook: Strong Sectors to Keep Kootenai Growth on Track,” Journal of

Business 22, no. 26 (2007).49. Global Insight and National City Corporation, “Housing Prices in America” (2008).50. Glenn Wingard, “Précis Metro for Grand Junction” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).51. Gene Rector, “Commander: RAFB Rumors Are Baseless: Owen Uses Address to Reassure, Challenge Robins

Employees,” Macon Telegraph, November 1, 2007.52. Arnold Slesers, “Précis Metro for Longview” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).53. Andrew Gledhill, “Précis Metro for Bellingham” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008).54. Robert W. Gilmer and Charles James, “Spotlight: Midland and Odessa Permian Basin Cities Ride Oil Boom

Again,” Southwest Economy, no. 2 (2008).


55

About the AuthorsRoss 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, as well as 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. He also served as the head of 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, Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to U.S. and State Economies, 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, Bedroussian is also responsible for compiling 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, and has spoken and organized panels addressing the subject; 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 in the politics of world economy. Klowden also earned a master’s in economic geography from the University of Chicago.


56

Soojung Kim is a Senior Research Analyst in the Regional Economics group at the Milken Institute. Her research interests include regional economics, economic development, and infrastructure. Her expertise covers statistical analysis, econometric modeling, transportation network analysis, and GIS applications. Kim has co-authored An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease and the 2007 edition of Best-Performing Cities. She also has contributed to the Institute’s Cost-of-Doing-Business Index and its 2008 State Technology and Science Index. Kim received her Ph.D. in urban planning from the University of Southern California. She received a bachelor’s degree from Yonsei University and a master’s degree in city planning from Seoul National University in Korea.




1250 Fourth Street • Santa Monica, CA 90401Phone: 310.570.4600 • Fax: 310.570.4601E-mail: [email protected]



PROVO-OREM, UTAHBest-Performing City

Documents

Best-Performing Cities 2008 - CCSTccst.us/.../documents/BestPerformingCities2008.pdfBest-Performing Cities 2008 ... a decline from the 1.8 percent recorded in 2006. ... Most of these