Best Performing Cities

Tampa

Daytona Beach

Orlando

LakeOkeechobee

Sarasota

75

4

95

75

MelbournePalm Bay

by Ross DeVol, Lorna Wallaceand Armen Bedroussian

Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained

February 2006

Best Performing Cities2005

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

© 2006 Milken Institute

Best Performing Cities 2005


by Ross DeVol, Lorna Wallace and Armen Bedroussian

February 2006

The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank whose mission is to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the U.S. 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 fi nding new ways to generate capital for people with original ideas.

We do this by focusing on human capital – the talent, knowledge and experience of people, and their value to organizations, economies and society; fi nancial capital – innovations that allocate fi nancial resources effi ciently, especially to those who ordinarily would not have access to it, but who can best use it to build companies, create jobs and solve long-standing social and economic problems; and social capital – the bonds of society, including schools, health care, cultural institutions and government services, that underlie economic advancement.

By creating ways to spread the benefi ts of human, fi nancial and social capital to as many people as possible – the democratization of capital – we hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.

We are nonprofi t, nonpartisan and publicly supported.


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

II. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5

III. Best Performing Cities Index is Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based ............... 7

IV. Best Performing Cities: Largest 200 Cities List ............................................... 9

V. America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance .................................................... 21

VI. Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List ....................................................... 27

About the Authors .................................................................................................. 36

Table of Contents

1

Executive Summary

National Economic Conditions

In 2005, the U.S. economy was battered by hurricanes, high oil and natural gas prices, rising interest rates and a deteriorating foreign trade balance—all on the heels of relatively subdued jobs recovery in 2003 and early 2004. Yet between November 2004 and November 2005, nearly 2 million jobs were created, and job growth is continuing at a rate that will sustain current economic expansion. In 2004, real GDP (the value of goods and services produced) rose a healthy 4.2 percent, and when the fi nal 2005 fi gures are released in March, we will likely see growth of 3.6 percent.

The housing market, which was robust in 2004 and the fi rst half of 2005, has only recently displayed signs of moderation. Homeowners refi nanced and extracted equity to maintain solid gains in consumer spending activity for the year. In the business sector, employment gains reduced vacancy rates in offi ce-using industries and spurred new construction. Businesses increased their overall investment spending by near double-digit rates amid renewed confi dence that sales, capacity utilization and profi ts would expand, and that they could resume their postponed investment in information technology.

Top 20 Best Performing Cities

A remarkable fi nding of this year’s index is that six of the top 10 best performing cities are located in Florida. Another six Florida metros scored in the top 30. In the 2004 index, seven Florida metros ranked in the top 20. Such high rankings over the past two years demonstrate the consistency of Florida’s metro placements.

In both 2004 and 2005, Florida experienced extraordinarily severe hurricane seasons. Yet despite the disruption they caused, the state’s economy is creating jobs at a prodigious rate. With expanded tourism, strong migration into the state, storm-related reconstruction under way and minimal heavy manufacturing to slow it down, Florida seems poised to see many of its metros remain among the top performers. A slowdown in new-home and condominium construction should restrain growth but will not be acute enough to derail the state’s top-tier performance.

The Southwest also scored well in 2005, with six metros among the top 20 best performing cities, three in California and two in Arizona.

The Northeast landed two metros in the top 20. By contrast, no Midwestern metro made it into the top 20, and just one scored in the top 50 (Madison, Wis., at No. 35). The next Midwestern metro doesn’t emerge until No. 72 on the list, and just six count among the top 100. Weakness in manufacturing, caused by the recent recession and loss of competitiveness with foreign fi rms (particularly in China), had devastating consequences for the economies of Middle America. Midwestern metros—fi ve from Michigan and four from Ohio—occupy nine of the bottom 10 spots on the index.

Executive Summary Best Performing Cities 2005

2

The Southern and Mountain states have numerous metros in the top 50. This partly refl ects lower business costs, fewer regulatory burdens and an entrepreneurial-driven new business paradigm that is a catalyst for job creation.

California’s metros in the top 20 are Riverside at 10th, Santa Barbara at 16th and Santa Ana (formerly Orange County) at 17th. The Washington, D.C., metro area is seventh this year (and fi rst on the largest cities list), up from 11th place in 2004. Las Vegas, Tucson and Phoenix remain in the top 20. A rebound in high-tech exports and renewed domestic investment in IT and communi-cations hardware and software should improve the position of several technology centers in the 2006 index.

The broadly defi ned service sector—a sector in which the United States demonstrates high productivity—was a consistent factor among metros that rank high on the 2005 index. In particular, business and professional services have been a key source of strength for many metropolitan areas. These services include accounting, legal services, engineering, and computer systems design and related services. A rebound in tourism is also boosting metro job growth within the leisure and hospitality service sectors. Population growth, attributable to economic opportunity that lures migrants from other regions, supports job growth in residential construction and retail trade in many metros. America’s aging population, especially the growing number of retirees, is a channel for growth in health care services

Note that in this year’s index some metros changed their geographic composition. In 2005, the federal Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) updated its defi nitions of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), based on information from the 2000 census. Under these defi nitional changes, direct comparison with the 2004 index for a particular metro area may not be possible. In the tables, we have noted which MSAs are new to the list and highlighted those that underwent geographic defi nitional changes by the OMB.

Best Performing City: Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FloridaThis metropolitan area, located on the state’s central eastern coast, holds the distinction of best performing city in our 2005 index, improving from 31st place in 2004. The area’s economy has expanded at a brisk pace over the past two years, with job growth rising to 5.3 percent in 2004. Although the region’s economic roots lie in space exploration, it has developed a more diversifi ed economy, and business and professional services show strong growth.

Best Performing Cities 2005Executive Summary

3

2005Rank

Rank, Year Ago Metro Index

1 31 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 100.002 1 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 126.813 15 Naples-Marco Island, FL 137.054 18 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 150.555 51 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 161.876 29 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 165.607 111 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division 166.978 71 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO 168.269 9 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division 173.3710 8 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 180.3111 21 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 187.5712 79 Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL 194.2413 98 Ocala, FL 202.3414 17 Tucson, AZ 209.3015 3 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 209.8716 53 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA 220.9417 35 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division 235.8718 122 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA 246.7119 NA Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division 263.3120 462 Clarksville, TN-KY 268.29

1 Added/Subtracted County(s)2 Indicates this city's position on last year's 2004 smallest metros list

Composite Index, 2005Top 20 Best Performing Cities

Source: Milken Institute


Ten Largest CitiesConcentrations of fi rms and people enhance economic competitiveness. In addition, greater employment density and effi cient transportation systems directly benefi t productivity. It is unreasonable, for example, to expect New York City, with the densest population in the country, to experience job growth at the same pace as Prescott, Ariz. For these reasons and others, we analyze and compare America’s largest metropolitan areas as a distinct class.

The popularity of cities is growing again after decades of decline, thanks to two factors: increased migration, especially among Hispanic and Asian populations; and an aging population that is spending more on health care, an important sector of big-city economies.

For the third year in a row, the best performing city among the 10 largest metros is the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area (Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV). The metro improved its overall performance from 11th last year to seventh on this year’s index. It is also the only major Northeastern metropolitan area among the top performers. The presence of the federal government helps stabilize the regional economy during national downturns and is a long-term source of expansion. It is also a major customer for many local private fi rms. One of the government’s largest procurement areas is in information and communications technology services. A recent study by the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University found that nearly 72 percent of federal procurement spending in the region occurred in technology-related services, and

Executive Summary

4

that research and development procurement spending had grown by double-digit amounts over the past several years. High-tech activity in the area is nearly 70 percent greater than that for the nation overall. Excluding the government, computer systems design and related services constitute the largest employment sector in the metro area.

The Washington-area offi ce market vacancy rate has declined below 10 percent, driving construction activity higher. Job gains and positive net migration propelled housing prices upward. And the tourism sector, which has rebounded over the past few years, continued to boost the region’s fortunes. That recovery, as well as strong income growth among residents, has helped retail activity. Nearly all major employment categories witnessed gains in 2005.

Top Five Best Performing Small Cities The cutoff for making it to the 2005 largest 200 cities list was a population of 229,000. As a result, 179 metros—62 more than last year because of the new metropolitan-area designations—fall under the small-cities category.

Florida leads this list, as well, with Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, whose high-tech manufacturing industry escalated over the past fi ve years. Centered around Eglin Air Force Base, the metro’s aerospace product- and parts-manufacturing sector has been a major contributor to the area’s high-tech development. The tourism, leisure and hospitality sector picked up dramatically as the beaches of the Emerald Coast became a popular destination.

Best Performing Cities 2005Executive Summary

5

Introduction

The Milken Institute Best Performing Cities Index measures which metropolitan areas of the United States are the most successful at job creation and exhibit the best economic performance. Specifi cally, it measures where:

• jobs are being created • jobs are being maintained • wages and salaries are increasing • economies are growing • businesses are thriving The index allows businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors, academics, and government and public policy groups to assess and monitor a metro’s performance based on objective information. It also provides benchmarking data for use in developing strategies to improve and maintain a metro’s economic performance. The 2005 index applies the same methodology used in previous indexes, including the rankings published with Forbes magazine in its annual “Best Places for Business” edition (through 2003), thus permitting a consistent performance evaluation.

This year’s index incorporates recent changes to the geographic defi nitions of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) defi nes a metropolitan statistical area using data from the 2000 census. The OMB uses detailed criteria to defi ne an MSA; in general, each MSA consists of a large population nucleus combined with adjacent territory that has a high degree of economic and social integration with the nucleus, as measured by community ties.1 As defi ned by OMB, there are 361 metropolitan statistical areas.

Increased population growth within counties accounts for the creation of new metropolitan statistical areas. Additionally, because of internal growth patterns, some counties have been added to MSAs or moved from one MSA to another. If specifi ed criteria are met, an MSA with a single nucleus and a population of 2.5 million or more is further divided into geographic areas referred to as metropolitan divisions. There are currently 29 metropolitan divisions. We include the smaller metropolitan divisions in our index to better refl ect geographic growth patterns within large regions.

With these new MSA defi nitions, direct comparison with the 2004 ranking for a particular metro area may not be possible. We have noted which MSAs are new to the list and highlighted those that underwent geographic defi nitional changes by the OMB in the tables.

Introduction Best Performing Cities 2005

6

7

Best Performing Cities Index Is Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based

The components shown in the table below are used to calculate the rankings. The index includes measures of job, wage and salary, as well as technology output growth over the past fi ve years (1999-2004) and the latest year’s performance (2004). We also incorporated the latest 12-month job-growth performance.2 Employment growth is given the greatest weight in the index because of its critical importance in determining the vitality of America’s communities. Wage and salary growth, meanwhile, measures the quality of the jobs being created. Technology output growth is included because of its important role in determining the economic vibrancy of cities.

We use fi ve-year growth averages to smooth out the business cycle impacts and to ensure that no city is penalized heavily for a weak performance in the most recent year. We also use the latest year’s performance to provide a sense of the relative momentum among metropolitan economies.

We added other technology measures to refl ect the concentration and diversity of technology industries within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients—which measure the concentration of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the industry average across the nation—were included as an indicator of a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.3 We also measured the number of specifi c high-tech sectors (out of a potential of 25) whose concentration in a metro was higher than that in the nation as a whole.

The Best Performing Cities Index is an outcomes-based measure, not one that incorporates explicit input measures of business costs; cost-of-living components (housing, for example); or other quality-of-life measures, such as crime rates. Such static input measures, although important, are subject to large variations and can be highly subjective, making them less meaningful than outcome measures.

Businesses locate in particular areas for specifi c reasons. Some, for instance, choose to remain in high-cost cities, even when lower-cost locations are available. The output measures used for this index include the benefi ts of situating in expensive locations.

Best Performing Cities 2005Outcome-Based, Not Cost-Based

Component WeightJob Growth (1999–2004) 0.143Job Growth (2003–2004) 0.143Wage & Salary Growth (1998–2003) 0.143Wage & Salary Growth (2002–2003) 0.143Short-Term Job Growth (July 2004–July 2005) 0.143Relative High-Tech GDP Growth (1999–2004) 0.071Relative High-Tech GDP Growth (2003–2004) 0.071High-Tech GDP Location Quotient 0.071Number of High-Tech GDP LQ>1 0.071Source: Milken Institute

2005 Milken Institute Best Performing CitiesComponents

8

Theoretically, a prospering region will raise wages and rents as both human capital and available space are more fully utilized. Nevertheless, holding all other factors constant (such as the productivity associated with being in one location versus another), a company will choose to locate where business costs are lower and their employees’ standard of living is higher.

National Economic Conditions

After experiencing a relatively subdued jobs recovery in 2003 and early 2004, the U.S. economy is now creating jobs at a pace that will sustain its current expansion. Nearly 2 million jobs where created between November 2004 and November 2005. The economy has withstood the devastating impacts of hurricanes, high oil and natural gas prices, rising interest rates and a deteriorating external trade balance. Real GDP (the value of goods and services produced) expanded at a healthy 4.2 percent in 2004, and when the fi nal 2005 fi gures are released in March, we will likely see growth of 3.6 percent.

The housing market, which was robust in 2004 and the fi rst half of 2005, is only recently displaying signs of moderation. Homeowners refi nanced and extracted equity to maintain healthy gains in consumer spending activity. Employment gains in offi ce-using industries reduced vacancy rates and spurred new construction. Businesses regained confi dence that sales would continue to expand, along with rising capacity utilization, record profi ts and a resumption of postponed investment in productivity-enhancing information technology, as refl ected by the increased overall investment spending by near double-digit rates.

Because of their different economic makeups and employment bases, America’s metropolitan areas respond differently to changes in monetary and fi scal policies. For example, the last U.S. economic slowdown—when the Internet and IT bubble burst—affected cities in strikingly different ways. Some areas, such as Silicon Valley, are struggling still to recoup their losses. The current business cycle has had some fortuitous dimensions for many communities, however, such as a remarkably strong housing sector that continues to drive increases in consumer spending.

The global economy, with the United States as its leading participant, presents opportunities to those geographic areas able to respond quickly to both shocks and opportunities. The rankings show that metros with low business costs and knowledge-based economies are most likely to create jobs.

Best Performing Cities 2005Outcome-Based, Not Cost-Based

9

Best Performing Cities: Largest 200 Cities List

The top 20 best performing cities share the following attributes:

• Each has a strong services sector. Business and professional services, in which the United States demonstrates high productivity, have been key sources of strength for metropolitan areas. • Most have experienced a robust recovery in tourism that is driving job growth in leisure and hospitality services. • Each has population growth that supports employment gains in home construction and related consumer industries. • Many have a growing population of retirees who are spurring growth in the health care services sector.

As in last year’s index, none of the country’s top 20 research universities are located in the 2005 top 20 best performing cities.4 To sustain growth, however, these cities must move up the tech-based research-and-development value chain. A number of studies exist, including those of the Milken Institute,5 that stress both the desirability and necessity of a knowledge-based economy for geographic areas to maintain and expand long-term competitiveness. Because the Best Performing Cities Index uses outcome-based components measured over time, the tendency exists for the data to emphasize growth in jobs, wages and salaries, and high-value-added GMP (gross metro product). Hence, previously high-fl ying tech centers, such as Denver—which also lacks a premier research university—do not appear among the top 20 best performing cities after the burst of the dot-com, technology and telecom bubbles in late 2000. Current best performing cities may be unable to sustain their standings over the long run without a solid university R&D base and strong commercialization links with the private sector.

A remarkable fi nding of this year’s index is that six of the top 10 metros, and another six in the top 20, are located in Florida. The state had seven metros in last year’s top 30 listing. Despite the disruptions caused by hurricanes, Florida’s economy is creating jobs at a prodigious rate. With the expansion of tourism, strong migration into the state, hurricane-related reconstruction under way and minimal heavy manufacturing, Florida seems poised to see many of its metros remain among the top performers. A slowdown in new-home and condominium construction should restrain growth but will not be severe enough to derail Florida’s top-tier performance.

California comes in second, with three metros in the top 20: Riverside ranked 10th, and Santa Barbara and Santa Ana (formerly Orange County) scored 16th and 17th, respectively.

Only one major metro area, Washington, D.C., ranks in the top 20, at an impressive seventh, up from 11th last year. Las Vegas, Tucson and Phoenix remain in the top 20.

Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List

10

A rebound in high-tech exports and renewed domestic investment in information technology and communications hardware and software should improve the position of several technology centers in the 2006 index.

Here is a look at the top 20 best performing cities:

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, Florida holds the distinction of best performing city in our 2005 index, improving from 31st in 2004. The area’s economy has expanded at a brisk pace over the past two years, with job growth rising to 5.3 percent in 2004. Although its economic roots lie in space exploration, the MSA has developed a more diversifi ed economy, with strong growth in business and professional services. Its healthy labor market and below-average cost of living (although recently eroded by rapid home-price appreciation) resulted in strong net migration into the area. The Palm Bay metro area, in particular, has attracted more retirees, as well. Durable manufacturing— chiefl y aerospace and defense-related manufacturing—accounts for 95 percent of overall manufacturing employment in the metro area, compared to a U.S. average of 62 percent. Defense contractors have benefi ted from strong federal anti-terrorism spending. Space-related tourism is another important component of the local economic base.

The area has undergone a mini-construction boom, primarily in housing. Single- and multifamily housing permits more than doubled between 2000 and 2004; numerous Florida metro markets experienced similar white-hot housing markets, propelled by job growth and the associated high in-migration, along with low interest rates. The state’s metro housing market is starting to cool, but median home prices are still up over 25 percent from a year ago.

20042003200220012000

6

4

2

0

-2

Percent Change, Year Ago

Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute

Annual Job GrowthPalm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville vs. United States

Palm Bay-Melbourne-TitusvilleUnited States


11

The MSA is home to operational centers of several high-tech defense-related fi rms, such as Lock-heed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Defense and surveillance-related communications fi rms, such as Harris and DRS Technologies, have grown substantially; Harris alone employs 6,400 people in the metro. The area ranks 13th for high-tech output growth over the past fi ve years and 13th overall in the concentration of high-tech activity. The expansion of such fi rms has caused strong demand for locally produced business and professional services. The rapid increase in numbers of retirees has boosted demand for health care, and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Melbourne is expanding its operations.

Longer term, the winding down of the shuttle program and the emergence of competing space exploration centers in Alabama, Mississippi and New Mexico will pose challenges for maintaining its high pace of economic growth, but the area should continue to rank in the upper tier of performers.

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Florida, our top performer in the 2004 index, maintained its position among the country’s elite but slipped into second place this year.. Still, the MSA has ranked no lower than third over the past three years. The area recorded job growth of 6.7 percent in 2004 but witnessed a modest deceleration in 2005. Nonetheless, the region is experiencing a virtuous, self-reinforcing pattern of growth. Retirees are increasingly fi nding the area to be an attractive location. More than 25 percent of its population is over 65, double the national average, and that percentage is expected to rise. The local travel and tourism sector is thriving. Growth in fi nancial services and back-offi ce operations, such as call centers, has created new jobs. High-tech manufac-turing has been another growth engine.

Rapid local job and population growth has resulted in one of the country’s strongest construction markets. Single-family housing permits tripled between 2000 and 2004. Construction employment constitutes 11.2 percent of the MSA’s total jobs—more than double the national average. New-home construction will slow down but remain at high levels. The sharp population growth has also caused a rapid increase in the demand for health care services. Overall, the region’s wage and salary growth was second in the country over the past fi ve years.

Naples-Marco Island, Florida, on the Gulf Coast, ranks third on our 2005 index of best performing cities, thanks to broad-based job and salary growth, the highest in the nation over the past fi ve years. Its population is well-off, with per capita income at $41,500, or $10,000 above the national average. Increases in foreign travel and tourism—the result of waning concerns over terrorism in the United States and a weak dollar—are creating jobs. Domestic tourism is rebounding, as well. Strong retirement growth has supported positive net migration and fueled housing demand, though the rapid increase in housing prices has reduced the area’s affordability and poses a risk to growth.


12

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, moved to fourth place in this year’s ranking, up from 18th in our 2004 index. The area has witnessed rapid expansion in cross-border trade with Mexico and has become a major distribution center. Moreover, McAllen’s sister city across the border, Reynosa, has posted strong maquiladora activity and helped to boost retail trade as workers cross the bor-der north to make purchases. Financial, business and professional services have all experienced stellar job growth. The area continues to experience a high rate of net migration, both domestically and from foreign sources. With many jobs being created in lower-paying sectors (such as retail), the area’s wage and salary growth has increased only slightly, and per capita income remains low. Nevertheless, the region is seeing expansion in new sectors, which keeps it among the top areas for job growth in the country.

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, Florida, on the state’s central Atlantic coast, ranks fi fth in our 2005 list. Under the new MSA defi nition, the metro lost Flagler Country to the north (Flagler is no longer included in any MSA) and now comprises just Volusia County. The area’s economy is witnessing strong growth due to greater tourism activity and its attendant impact on retail trade activity, rapid growth in health care, growing appeal as a retirement area and expanding professional services. The region has diversifi ed its travel and tourism base, away from spring break revelers and more toward families and NASCAR enthusiasts. (Daytona is among the fi nal three potential locations for the new NASCAR Hall of Fame.) Even so, the area’s dependence on travel and tourism has fallen by more than 20 percent over the past decade. The growth in its retirement population has spurred increased demand for health care. Virtual-reality training technology is among the metro’s growth sectors, propelled by demand from the military as it prepares troops to operate in hostile environments. The commercial applications of these technologies appear promising, as well, and fi rms in the fi eld, such as Raydon Corp., are expanding in Daytona.


20042003200220012000

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0



Wage and Salary GrowthNaples-Marco Island vs. United States

Naples-Marco IslandUnited States

13


Orlando-Kissimmee, Florida, jumped to sixth place, up from 29th on last year’s index. Its economy is growing at a strong pace, with expansion in domestic travel and a return of international visitors. Disney World added attractions to its lineup, and theme park receipts are growing between 7 percent and 10 percent. Tourism is a huge portion of the area’s economy; employment in the leisure and hospitality services sector represents nearly 19 percent of the MSA’s overall employment base, compared to just 9.5 percent for the nation. But the region’s overall outstanding performance is attributable to more than just a recovery in tourism; fi nancial activities, professional and business services, education and health services, construction, manufacturing and trade are all experiencing robust job gains.

The region also boasts a burgeoning core of technology and telecommunication services fi rms. In defense-related technology, Lockheed Martin is a major employer, and AT&T has signifi cant operations in the area. With fewer zoning and land-development restrictions than other large Florida metros, the area is a magnet for new migrants. In 2004, net migration was 48,000, according to Census Bureau information. Housing prices have soared over the past year, and single-family housing permits have doubled since 2000. Robust gains in offi ce-related employment caused commercial vacancy rates to fall, resulting in new offi ce construction.

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, has improved to seventh place on this year’s index, up from 11th in 2004. The Washington area is the only major Northeastern MSA to rank among the top performers in the nation. The presence of the federal government helps stabilize the region’s economy during national downturns and is a long-term source of expansion. The federal government is also a major customer for many private fi rms in the area. One of its largest procurement areas is in information and communication technology services. A recent study by the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University found that nearly 72 percent of federal procurement spending in the region was in technology-related services, and that research and development procurement spending has grown by double-digit amounts over the past several

Largest 200 Cities List

200520042003200220012000

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4


Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute

Leisure and Hospitality EmploymentDeltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach vs. United States

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond BeachUnited States

14

years. High-tech activity in the Washington metro was nearly 70 percent greater than for the nation overall in 2004. Excluding the government sector, computer systems design and related services constitute the largest employment category in the metro area.

The offi ce vacancy rate, meanwhile, has declined below 10 percent, driving construction activity higher. Housing prices have also been propelled higher by job gains and positive net migration. Retail activity has risen, aided by strong income growth among residents and a recovery in tourism. Nearly all major employment categories are witnessing gains.

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO, remains in our top 10 best performing cities, positioned at eighth this year. Although it scored seventh last year, the MSA has ranked in the top 10 for the past three years. The area’s economy is seeing growth across an assortment of industries. Wal-Mart remains the cornerstone of its economy, but the region’s success story is based on more than just the success of the retail giant. Many of Wal-Mart’s vendors (among them Fortune 500 fi rms) have established offi ces in Rogers and Bentonville to facilitate interaction with the retailer. The MSA remains a trucking and logistics headquarters for such fi rms as JB Hunt, in Lowell. Poultry and food production is an important component of the region’s economy, with Tyson Foods and Pinnacle Foods, which lists Swanson frozen foods and Duncan Hines among its brands. The University of Arkansas is developing a new research park and has enhanced its standing as a research university in recent rankings. The quality of the jobs being created has improved, as well; the MSA has recorded the third-fastest wage and salary gains in the nation over the past fi ve years. In-migration continues at a high rate, driving the demand for new housing and retail activity. The growing consumer and business base has led to an expansion of banking operations.

United StatesWashington-Arlington-Alexandria

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

Percent Share of Total Employment


High-Tech Employment2004


15


Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfi eld Beach, Florida, is ninth on our 2005 index, the same position it occupied in 2004. Business and professional services, such as accounting and legal services, add employment at a high rate, with growth reaching 6.5 percent on a year-over-year basis in recent months. Demand for professionals with these skills has been so strong that recruitment has extended beyond the area. Tourism expansion is refl ected in the low double-digit gains in passenger traffi c at Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Local retirees don’t represent as large a share of the population base as they did 15 years ago but are still are an important component of the economy and spur higher demand for health care. Housing activity has been strong, with rapid gains in median prices. New-home building activity is surging, but housing affordability has fallen, harming the ability to attract workers from outside the region.

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, California, places 10th on the index, down two slots from last year. It remains the fastest-growing metro area in California and continues to have high in-migration from coastal southern California. Much of the migration has been driven by improved housing affordability and new supply availability. Due to rapidly rising home prices, however, the area is no longer as attractive on a cost basis. Nevertheless, with little new housing supply being developed along the coast, new inland construction should remain at a fairly high level. The area has become an important transportation and logistics center, and is capturing a large share of air cargo shipments from Asia. Ontario International Airport has room for expansion. The MSA has important rail linkages with the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and is adding wholesale and industrial space at a high rate. The area is creating more professional service employment, but income levels are low, relative to coastal areas and the nation overall. Nevertheless, the area ranks fourth in the country in terms of wage and salary growth over the past fi ve years.

20042003200220012000

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0



Total Housing PermitsRiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. California

Riverside-San Bernardino-OntarioCalifornia


16

Las Vegas-Paradise, Nevada, metro fi nished 11th on this year’s list. Low business costs and housing prices spurred population growth into this city of entertainment. Tourism, the metro’s “bread and butter” also experienced robust growth, largely driven by employment in construction and the leisure and hospitality sector, which grew by 16.3 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively, from July 2004 to July 2005. Total employment rose by 7.5 percent during the same period—the fastest growth in the country in terms of job momentum. Additionally, the unemployment rate fell to 4.4 percent. Gaming revenue rose 16 percent from the previous year, while visitor volume increased by 7 percent. Overseas visitors numbered 1.6 million in 2004, a 24 percent increase from 2003.

Despite rising interest rates, strong housing demand fueled outstanding gains in residential construction. The recent trend in Las Vegas real estate includes non-gaming, high-rise condos and hotels catering toward demand for large-scale conventions, business travelers and upscale tenants. The city’s gaming industry will continue to expand; construction of new hotels and casinos is under way both on and off the Strip.

Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, Florida, jumped to 12th this year, with marked improvement from its 79th position in 2004. Employment in Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce grew nearly 5 percent above the U.S. average between 2003 and 2004, exhibiting the fourth-highest growth in the country. Increasing numbers of retirees, many from southern Florida, boosted the MSA’s population. In addition, the area benefi ted from strong migration trends. The elderly population also helped fuel demand for health care services, and rebuilding after a season of hurricanes generated a 6 percent increase in construction jobs from July 2004 to July 2005. Finally, ports throughout the region were responsible for nearly $32 billion in exports and imports.

2004200320022001

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

Migrants, Ths.


Net Domestic MigrationPort St. Lucie-Fort Pierce


17

Ocala, Florida, ranked 13th in this year’s index, up from 98th place last year. Its low cost of living, relative to other Florida cities, has been a major driver of population growth. Meanwhile, local employment growth scored 4 percent above the national average over the past year. The construction industry contributed most toward the metro’s overall economic performance. Lockheed Martin created a tremendous opportunity for high-tech growth in the region. Indeed, the area’s high-tech GDP growth over the past year ranked third in the nation. Ocala’s manufacturing sector will expand as MRI parts supplier Pro-Fab Plastics builds a 15,000-square-foot facility in the area.

The Tucson, Arizona, metro pulled three spots ahead of last year, ranking 14th on our index. Tucson’s employment base grew 4 percent from July 2004 to July 2005 and outperformed the national average by 4.7 percent over the past fi ve years. With major players like Raytheon and IBM, its high-tech industry gave the metro an added boost in overall rankings; and higher-paying technology jobs spread wealth across other industries. Despite its cyclical nature, defense spending continues to benefi t the metro signifi cantly. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base currently employs more than 7,600. Finally, housing has been an integral part of the local economy, creating tremendous equity for homeowners.

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, ranks 15th on this year’s index, slipping from third position a year ago. On the upside, in late 2005, Intel, the world’s largest chipmaker, spent $2 billion to reopen an existing factory in Chandler as a semiconductor manufacturing plant, adding 800 employees to its 10,000 local work force. Although Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale suffered job losses in the telecomm industry, the MSA regained some momentum, largely due to construction and defense spending. Between July 2004 and July 2005, the metro’s total employment rose 4.3 percent. As it has in Tucson, home equity here has created a wealth effect that spreads across other industries. In addition, the metro’s low business costs continue to attract California fi rms. The regional population increased by 3.4 percent over the previous year; migration from California has been a key driver of population growth.


United StatesTucson

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1


Sources: Economy.com, Census Bureau

Computer and Peripheral Equip. MFG Employment2004


18

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, California, leapt to 16th position, up 37 spots from 53rd place last year. The local military presence includes Vandenberg AFB, which employs more than 4,500. The University of California, Santa Barbara, is the largest employer in the metro, with more than 9,500 workers. With the presence of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, high-tech GMP in Santa Barbara-Santa Maria has outgrown the U.S. average by 4 percent. The metro’s skilled labor force benefi ts from higher payrolls, especially with respect to professional services. Wage and salary growth rose 7.6 percent faster than the national average over the last fi ve years. The metro’s quality of life, along with its beautiful climate, has attracted many wealthy retirees to the region.

Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, California, improved 18 spots, to reach 17th position on this year’s Best Performing Cities Index. The metro, formerly defi ned as Orange County, is home to 18 high-tech sectors with location quotients that exceed 1.0. In other words, the metro has a higher concentration of employment in those sectors than the nation on average, and its high-tech output is on average 55 percent more concentrated than high tech is in the nation’s economy as a whole. Professional and business services paid high wages to a growing service sector. Global ties, through such companies as Ingram Micro in Santa Ana, generated strong international business investment. Furthermore, the metro’s broad-based economy has created high per capita income and consumption. Walt Disney, Boeing and the University of California, Irvine, are among the largest employers.

Bremerton-Silverdale, Washington, ranked 18th on this year’s index, moving up 104 spots from last year’s ranking. The area’s military presence is the primary driver of its economic performance. Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Station Bremerton employ more than 25,000. The economic impacts from naval activity has spread across other sectors. Also, the lower cost of living on the island, relative to nearby Seattle, has attracted many wealthy retirees. A new federal transportation bill may help fund an underground tunnel, allowing easier access to Seattle and thus promoting increased economic activity between the two areas. Over the past fi ve years, high-tech GMP in Bremerton-Silverdale has outpaced the nation by 32 percent, while the MSA’s total employment grew 12 percent faster than the national average.


200520042003200220012000

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6



Professional and Scientific Services EmploymentSanta Ana-Anaheim-Irvine vs. United States

Santa Ana-Anaheim-IrvineUnited States

19

Camden, New Jersey, fi nished 19th this year. Last year, the metro area was part of the Philadelphia primary MSA. This year, under changes in metro defi nitions, Camden has become its own metropolitan statistical division. Its waterfront area has grown into a major tourist attraction and a source of wealth for the local economy. Employment within leisure and hospitality services grew by 4 percent from July 2004 to July 2005. Lower costs of living, relative to Philadelphia and nearby suburbs, have had a positive impact on population growth. Health care and defense-related industries also contributed toward the metro’s overall growth. Lockheed Martin (7,100) and Virua Health (5,400) are among the biggest employers. Finally, the port of Camden serves as an essential component of its industry mix.

Clarksville, TN-KY, came in 20th overall in 2005, up 16 spots from last year’s ranking. Under the new OMB defi nitions, the Clarksville MSA now comprises four counties, instead of two. Employment from 1999 to 2004 rose 6 percent faster than the national average. Fort Campbell is a major driver of the local economy, accounting for 29 percent of employment. Federal defense spending may increase, depending on the situation in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Low business costs and proximity to Nashville provide further incentives for businesses.


200520042003200220012000

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4



Leisure and Hospitality EmploymentCamden vs. United States

CamdenUnited States

20

21

America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

Concentrations of fi rms and people enhance economic competitiveness. In addition, greater employment density and effi cient transportation systems directly benefi t productivity. Land-consuming manufacturing is largely absent from many of the top-ranked largest metropolitan areas, making increased concentrations of fi rms and people possible. For these reasons and others, we analyze and compare America’s largest metropolitan areas as a distinct class. It is unreasonable, for example, to expect New York City, with the densest population in the country, to experience job growth at the same pace as Prescott, Ariz.

Metro populations are growing again after decades of decline. This is attributable to, among other things, increased immigration (especially among Hispanic and Asian populations) and an aging population that is spending more on health care—an important sector of big-city economies.

As the table below shows, among America’s 10 largest cities, the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division has the top-performing economy. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario ranks second, and Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale scores third of the country’s 10 largest cities. The economic activities of these metros were addressed previously in this report because they also place among our top 20 best performing cities. Below are profi les of the other seven metros.

Note that the geographical boundaries of fi ve of the metros in the table below were adjusted by the federal Offi ce of Management and Budget, affecting the statistical compilation of data on which our ranking is based.

Best Performing Cities 2005America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

2005 Largest

Rank2005Rank

2004Rank Metro

1 7 11* Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division2 10 8 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA3 15 3 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ4 118 72* Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA5 124 140 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division6 125 114* Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division7 128 84* Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division8 129 105* Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 9 161 127/113/169 New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ Metropolitan Division

10 183 166 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division*Notes: The Washington, D.C. metropolitan division excludes Berkeley, Frederick, Montgomery, Culpeper and King George counties

The Atlanta metropolitan area includes Butts, Dawson, Haralson, Heard, Jasper, Lamar, Meriwether and Pike counties

Top 10 Largest Cities by Population Size2005


The Dallas metropolitan division includes Delta but excludes Henderson County

The Philadelphia metropolitan division excludes Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Salem counties (they are now part of Camden, NJ, and Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ metropolitan divisions)

The Houston metropolitan area includes Austin and San Jacinto counties

22

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Georgia, ranks fourth among the Milken Institute’s 2005 10 largest metros. The metro’s 118th rank overall is considerably below its 72nd position on our 2004 index. And signifi cant challenges face the MSA in the near future: Congestion hinders economic growth in Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. Job losses are expected with the closures of Fort McPherson, Fort Gillem and the ATL Naval Air Station. Delta Airlines’s bankruptcy position creates uncertainty, and the economy is vulnerable to offshoring and mergers associated with the area’s large telecom services sector. This unfavorable mix of industries in its economic base has harmed recent economic performance, but the MSA still has favorable long-term structural fundamentals. Travel and tourism are recovering into and through Atlanta, a major airline hub, and leisure-related employment is bouncing back. The metro’s strengths have been its diverse economy and above-average per capita income. Population growth is fueled by strong in-migration, and the metro is poised to capture substitute convention activity from New Orleans.

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, California, is fi fth among the 10 largest metros on our 2005 index. Its position as 124th on the Best Performing Cities Index is up from 140th in 2004. This immense, ethnically diverse city benefi ts from a falling U.S. dollar that attracts more tourists and fi lm production to the area. Defense contracts are revitalizing the region’s satellite and space industry. But population growth and expanded international trade via the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach burden an already congested, aged public infrastructure. Lengthy commutes and skyrocketing real estate created high costs of living and doing business, and widened the gap between high- and low-income households. Inevitable slowdowns in the real estate market will hit the area particularly hard. The metro remains, however, one of the world’s premier centers of economic and cultural activity. Its size, demographic diversity and history of innovation provide a strong foundation for the economy. Improving the city’s ability to compete globally will only be possible if its fi rms have access to advanced technology and a well-educated, fl exible work force. The metro’s top seven employers are: Kaiser Permanente, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Ralphs, Tenent Healthcare, the University of Southern California and Target Corporation. Encouraging the development of high-tech business and nurturing the ongoing growth of smaller enterprises remain signifi cant challenges.

200520042003200220012000

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6



Telecommunications EmploymentAtlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta


23

Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, ranked sixth among the 10 largest metros on the 2005 index. The metro far outpaces the overall diversifi cation of large metros, refl ecting “hyper-growth” of the Latino population and Dallas’s new status as a major immigrant gateway. It is a hub for fi nance and service sectors, and a well-positioned distribution center for the southwestern United States. The industrial chemicals company Celanese announced the move of its international headquarters from Frankfurt, Germany, to Dallas, adding up to 500 new jobs. Logistics opportunities expanded: UPS announced the construction of one of six new air freight hubs in the metro; Fluor Corp. (the global engineering and construction giant) is moving its headquarters from California to the MSA to be closer to its many energy clients and to capitalize on the growing Dallas-Fort Worth airport; and a massive inland freight facility is planned to support the Port of Houston. The defense industry will contribute to job and income growth. The Dallas-Plano-Irving metro has a high per capita income. The area, which competes closely with other regional centers like Houston and Atlanta, is seeing its cost advantages erode, potentially constraining future expansion. Further consolidation of the telecom industry undermines growth in this sector.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ranks seventh among this year’s 10 largest metros. The region has witnessed modest gains in employment as manufacturing continues to shed jobs. Thus far, growth in business and health services has barely offset declines elsewhere. In the Greater Philadelphia region, the life sciences industry is a clear potential source of comparative advantage for the region’s economy over the long term. Retention of locally developed human capital (from institutions of higher learning, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson University and Temple University) will provide a deeper pool of workforce talent. The city clearly does an excellent job at graduating degree holders in important specialties but lags in related professional fi eld employment. Another area of focus should be on life sciences startups and the associated risk capital, from pre-seed to venture fi nance support. Economic risk to Philadelphia includes consolidation in


200520042003200220012000

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1



Warehousing and Transportation EmploymentDallas-Plano-Irving vs. U.S.

Dallas-Plano-IrvingUnited States

24

the pharmaceutical industry, which hits the metro’s top employers, and rising energy prices that threaten its manufacturing industry. Personal bankruptcies in Philadelphia are declining, as are delinquency rates. The resulting improved credit situation can stimulate consumer spending and provide some insulation against the impact of rising interest rates.

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas, ranks eighth among the 10 largest metros on this year’s index. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown is a global leader in oil and gas technology. The booming energy sector and mining employment fuel its economy. The metro, which was a major evacuation site for Gulf Coast refugees, has signifi cant trade and export links, relatively affordable housing, low business costs and favorable migration trends. Construction activity remains healthy, and residential real estate price growth has been steady but moderate. The metro’s top employers are: Shell Oil, ExxonMobil, Administaff, Continental Airlines and Halliburton Company. Consolidation in the energy and airline sectors weigh on the economy overall, and the real estate market especially. Several large-scale expansions at and around the Port of Houston area, headlined by Wal-Mart’s huge new distribution center, are set to invigorate the local economy.

New York-White Plains-Wayne, New York and New Jersey, remained ninth in 2005 among the 10 largest metros. Four years after the devastation of 9/11, the New York City economy is healthy, with world-renowned Broadway productions that, among other cultural attractions, draw tourists from around the world and create jobs in the metro. New York-White Plains-Wayne is the nation’s fi nancial capital. Its three largest employers are New York Presbyterian Healthcare Network, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. The surge in investment banking and merger activity is providing the metro with a personal income boost, strengthening current expansion. The metro’s future real estate market is an area of concern. The current record pace of residential permitting is not sustainable, although few signs of slowing are evident. Double-digit price increases have become the norm, increasing the risk of a correction as the market slows and making the city’s budget diffi culties more apparent. Barring windfall revenues, some combination of higher taxes, reduced services or further deterioration of infrastructure seems likely, all of which will limit the metro area’s growth potential.

The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Illinois, metro area ranked 10th among this year’s Milken Institute largest metros. Compared to the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, Chicago-Naperville-Joliet has about average housing affordability. Chicago’s downtown leads the country in a widespread revival of residential urban centers. Empty nesters, young entrepreneurs and retirees embrace accessibility to high-quality cultural amenities, restaurants and public services. The metro is also a popular convention center, boasting a high per capita income and well-educated work force. Convention activity in the metro is set to benefi t not only from the expansion of McCormick Place, to be completed in 2007, but also at the expense of New Orleans. The metro lost manufacturing jobs at a faster rate than the nation between 1970 and 2000. The biggest concentration of employment, which used to be in the manufacturing sector, is now in the service sector. A crucial ingredient to expansion will be retention of global headquarters’ operations. One success story, Offi ceMax, will consolidate its Chicago-area headquarters in Naperville, moving 700 jobs from Ohio. Expansion of


25

O’Hare International Airport, with construction to begin immediately, various road projects and federal funding assistance for a huge reconfi guration of freight railroad lines and road intersections are designed to reduce bottlenecks.

200520042003200220012000

2.0

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0



Manufacturing EmploymentChicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. U.S.

Chicago-Naperville-JolietUnited States


26

27

Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List

The cutoff for making it onto the 2005 largest 200 cities list was a population of 229,000. As a result, 179 metros fall under the small cities category. Among this year’s small cities, Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, Florida, tops the list. Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin’s high-tech manufacturing industry escalated over the past fi ve years. Centered around Eglin AFB, the metro’s aerospace product and parts manufacturing sector has been a major contributor toward the area’s high-tech development. Its tourism, leisure and hospitality sector picked up dramatically as the beaches of the Emerald Coast became a more popular destination.

Bend, Oregon, came in second on this year’s list. The newly established metro offers tourists many outdoor recreational activities, such as skiing in the Mt. Bachelor area. The metro’s attractive health care system and dry climate spurred population growth into the region. St. Charles Medical Center employs more than 1,800.

Third on this year’s small cities list is Prescott, Arizona. Health care and social assistance account for nearly 12 percent of total metro employment. Together, Yavapai Regional Medial Center and VA Medical employ nearly 1,800 workers. Prescott’s beautiful climate and historical attractions enhance its leisure and hospitality sector.

Scoring fourth this year is Panama City-Lynn Haven, Florida, improving 46 spots from 2004. Tourism served as the engine of growth for the metro’s fast-growing service sector. A plan for a new beachfront resort should help improve the area’s economy. Low housing costs attracted migrants and investors into the region.

2005Rank

RankYear Ago Metro Index

1 16 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL 100.002 NA Bend, OR 111.913 NA Prescott, AZ 131.494 50 Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL 139.385 NA St. George, UT 148.52


Composite Index, 2005Top 5 Best Performing Small Cities

Best Performing Cities 2005Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List

28

St. George, Utah, a new metro by OMB standards, ranks fi fth on this year’s list. The metro’s geographic position provides access to major markets on the West Coast. Its low cost of living and doing business helped boost population growth. One of the nation’s fastest-growing cities, St. George, boasts a low unemployment rate of 3.8 percent.

Best Performing Cities 2005Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List

29

2004

Ran

k20

05R

ank

Met

roC

ode

MSA

Pop

ulat

ion

2004

Ove

rall

Inde

x20

04 V

alue

Ran

k20

04 V

alue

Ran

k20

03 V

alue

Ran

k20

03 V

alue

Ran

kG

row

thR

ank

2004

Val

ueR

ank

2004

Val

ueR

ank

2004

Val

ueR

ank

2004

Val

ueR

ank

(in

Tho

usan

ds)

311

MP

AL

Pal

m B

ay-M

elbo

urne

-Titu

svill

e F

L10

9.86

1810

4.11

610

7.51

3510

4.36

62.

60%

3212

9.33

1310

4.2

151.

8513

149

519

100.

001

2M

CC

FC

ape

Cor

al-F

ort M

yers

FL

122.

903

105.

522

126.

062

107.

071

4.68

%2

123.

7024

102.

2737

0.52

156

774

514

126.

8115

3M

NA

PN

aple

s-M

arco

Isla

nd F

L12

6.27

110

4.05

712

9.70

110

4.49

44.

43%

612

8.05

1611

1.18

50.

4218

16

9629

713

7.05

184

MM

CA

McA

llen-

Edi

nbur

g-M

issi

on, T

X

123.

182

103.

819

118.

566

104.

197

4.56

%4

170.

211

132.

461

0.4

185

412

665

815

0.55

515

MD

EL

Del

tona

-Day

tona

Bea

ch-O

rmon

d B

each

FL

112.

0411

102.

6818

110.

1822

103.

859

2.94

%23

133.

219

103.

5926

0.75

101

694

479

161.

8729

6M

OR

LO

rland

o-K

issi

mm

ee, F

L10

8.78

2510

3.62

1010

9.18

2710

2.96

234.

13%

911

0.49

6310

3.21

280.

9470

856

1862

165.

6011

17

DM

WA

SW

ashi

ngto

n-A

rling

ton-

Ale

xand

ria,

DC

-VA

-MD

-WV

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n11

0.41

1410

1.53

3111

0.20

2110

1.90

373.

24%

1610

9.49

6510

1.43

511.

6617

937

4000

166.

9771

8M

FA

YF

ayet

tevi

lle-S

prin

gdal

e-R

oger

s A

R-M

O11

8.11

710

2.19

2312

1.87

310

3.39

143.

64%

1313

0.20

1110

4.53

130.

5315

45

114

391

168.

269

9D

MF

OT

For

t Lau

derd

ale-

Pom

pano

Bea

ch-D

eerf

ield

Bea

ch, F

L M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

110.

0515

102.

0724

110.

3720

103.

1318

2.99

%21

124.

8122

101.

1460

0.86

817

6517

5517

3.37

810

MR

IVR

iver

side

-San

Ber

nard

ino-

Ont

ario

CA

120.

135

103.

4212

121.

234

104.

365

1.66

%74

127.

5719

104.

5711

0.63

127

684

3793

180.

3121

11M

LAS

Las

Veg

as-P

arad

ise

NV

120.

324

105.

571

116.

048

105.

803

7.54

%1

114.

6349

103.

6524

0.45

176

217

716

5118

7.57

7912

MP

SL

Por

t St.

Luci

e-F

ort P

ierc

e F

L11

9.18

610

4.76

411

3.15

1210

3.46

134.

41%

711

8.99

3610

4.36

140.

4617

53

167

365

194.

2498

13M

OC

AO

cala

FL

109.

5420

103.

898

106.

9840

105.

892

2.52

%34

129.

2914

113.

83

0.66

124

414

629

120

2.34

1714

MT

UC

Tuc

son

AZ

104.

7453

101.

9925

106.

5745

101.

6449

3.98

%10

108.

8966

101.

3155

1.68

1613

1090

720

9.30

315

MP

HO

Pho

enix

-Mes

a-S

cotts

dale

AZ

107.

7628

102.

2322

106.

9939

101.

8641

4.33

%8

97.3

512

910

2.52

351.

4435

938

3715

209.

8753

16M

SA

TS

anta

Bar

bara

-San

ta M

aria

, CA

103.

9561

100.

5660

107.

5934

102.

3427

2.44

%39

119.

1535

104.

0219

1.48

3013

1340

222

0.94

3517

DM

SN

TS

anta

Ana

-Ana

heim

-Irv

ine,

CA

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n10

6.48

3910

1.02

4610

8.70

2910

3.60

101.

68%

7110

4.74

8710

0.87

711.

5526

182

2988

235.

8712

218

MB

RE

Bre

mer

ton-

Silv

erda

le W

A11

2.16

1010

2.42

1910

8.52

3010

0.76

842.

93%

2413

2.18

1010

7.93

80.

9176

317

523

924

6.71

NA

19D

MC

AM

Cam

den,

NJ

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n10

5.02

4510

1.03

4310

3.79

6010

2.44

262.

19%

4511

6.11

4610

1.53

470.

8682

1030

1238

263.

3146

420

MC

LAC

lark

svill

e T

N-K

Y10

6.17

4110

2.75

1610

9.95

2410

3.07

201.

79%

6214

3.54

310

5.76

100.

4816

84

149

239

268.

2926

121

MR

EN

Ren

o-S

park

s N

V10

8.99

2410

3.06

1310

7.22

3610

3.19

174.

45%

510

2.35

106

100.

777

0.55

148

413

838

426

9.12

5722

MC

HS

Cha

rles

ton-

Nor

th C

harle

ston

SC

106.

2640

102.

2721

110.

4718

101.

8442

2.69

%30

112.

6358

103.

7323

0.60

133

316

158

327

6.78

371

23M

PR

VP

rovo

-Ore

m U

T10

7.27

3110

3.51

1110

2.57

7110

0.68

903.

50%

1499

.26

121

104.

0917

1.34

407

7741

228

2.05

624

MS

AR

Sar

asot

a-B

rade

nton

-Ven

ice

FL

113.

059

104.

943

110.

4219

99.2

514

94.

64%

312

2.88

2710

2.47

360.

5614

44

127

652

286.

3412

25M

TA

MT

ampa

-St.

Pet

ersb

urg-

Cle

arw

ater

FL

108.

5726

102.

7117

106.

6944

100.

2510

72.

72%

2811

1.88

6099

.61

100

1.02

639

3925

8828

9.01

4126

MG

AI

Gai

nesv

ille

FL

106.

6338

101.

5730

102.

8168

103.

2016

2.46

%36

101.

0411

310

4.57

120.

5913

86

9823

930

1.45

427

DM

WE

SW

est P

alm

Bea

ch-B

oca

Rat

on-B

oynt

on B

each

, FL

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n11

4.13

810

2.29

2011

2.26

1310

1.08

672.

59%

3391

.91

153

100.

398

60.

6911

75

103

1243

302.

8127

28M

HU

NH

unts

ville

AL

104.

5355

100.

8751

103.

5263

103.

5711

1.64

%75

112.

9556

98.9

912

32.

415

947

362

303.

4616

29M

SA

NS

an D

iego

-Car

lsba

d-S

an M

arco

s C

A10

7.12

3310

0.35

7111

5.51

910

0.99

701.

48%

8510

6.25

7699

.43

107

1.63

1916

429

3230

3.94

9030

MB

AK

Bak

ersf

ield

CA

109.

4621

100.

5959

106.

2048

102.

2430

2.12

%47

124.

7623

101.

8342

0.55

147

412

373

530

4.80

4031

MS

TO

Sto

ckto

n C

A11

0.68

1310

0.6

5811

4.11

1110

2.32

282.

03%

5511

4.16

5110

2.13

400.

4317

93

159

650

310.

2813

132

MB

OI

Boi

se C

ity-N

ampa

ID10

8.57

2710

1.86

2710

6.86

4299

.50

139

3.69

%12

148.

662

100.

2091

1.72

153

162

525

312.

7967

33M

LAE

Lake

land

FL

109.

6719

104.

695

100.

1810

010

1.82

433.

03%

2012

9.56

1210

5.79

90.

3619

21

192

524

318.

5622

34M

SA

CS

acra

men

to--

Ard

en-A

rcad

e--R

osev

ille

CA

109.

0323

100.

0787

114.

5110

102.

0932

1.28

%99

104.

7586

101.

2956

1.1

586

8520

1732

2.19

431

35M

MA

DM

adis

on W

I10

4.82

5110

1.02

4710

9.65

2610

1.68

480.

84%

129

113.

8953

101.

8143

0.96

699

4453

233

2.25

1936

MT

RE

Tre

nton

-Ew

ing

NJ

109.

3422

100.

6256

107.

0538

100.

8977

1.57

%79

93.7

915

010

3.08

291.

1751

946

365

335.

7632

37D

MT

AC

Tac

oma,

WA

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n10

4.28

5810

1.33

3510

8.14

3310

3.54

122.

70%

2998

.04

126

102.

7433

0.47

170

217

974

534

4.12

3038

MO

XN

Oxn

ard-

Tho

usan

d O

aks-

Ven

tura

CA

106.

0942

99.1

714

711

7.09

710

4.01

80.

62%

139

107.

1871

100.

679

1.88

1215

779

835

0.43

1122

39M

OG

DO

gden

-Cle

arfie

ld U

T10

6.09

4310

1.27

3710

4.90

5210

1.49

562.

08%

5011

8.85

3798

.93

126

0.66

123

511

247

735

7.57

471

40M

FR

EF

resn

o C

A10

6.99

3599

.97

9411

0.09

2310

0.64

912.

16%

4611

9.91

3210

9.02

70.

5016

15

105

867

361.

5323

141

MV

AL

Val

lejo

-Fai

rfie

ld C

A11

1.59

1299

.94

9712

0.00

510

3.08

190.

89%

124

138.

447

98.4

313

70.

7211

14

134

413

369.

5014

142

MP

OR

Por

tland

-Sou

th P

ortla

nd-B

idde

ford

, ME

104.

8848

101.

5332

105.

1251

101.

9136

1.26

%10

410

5.32

8299

.996

0.71

114

775

511

372.

0220

43M

ALB

Alb

uque

rque

NM

104.

8350

100.

9549

102.

9267

101.

2561

1.71

%68

67.5

220

099

.16

118

2.22

713

1178

137

9.09

128

44M

KIL

Kill

een-

Tem

ple-

For

t Hoo

d T

X10

3.64

6410

1.03

4510

6.56

4610

3.05

211.

46%

8612

2.95

2510

1.07

660.

5614

63

169

346

380.

5334

245

MR

AL

Ral

eigh

-Car

y N

C10

2.95

7110

0.98

4810

8.24

3210

0.12

109

2.04

%54

99.1

412

298

.82

128

1.59

2310

3291

538

2.05

133

46M

FO

CF

ort C

ollin

s-Lo

vela

nd C

O10

7.09

3410

0.95

5010

8.27

3198

.21

181

1.94

%57

115.

3847

100.

8173

1.57

257

8226

938

2.27

7347

MM

OD

Mod

esto

CA

106.

7737

100.

1680

110.

7715

101.

4657

0.61

%14

213

8.71

611

4.05

20.

5913

64

130

498

383.

3761

/541

48M

PO

UP

ough

keep

sie-

New

burg

h-M

iddl

etow

n N

Y10

4.46

5699

.89

102

106.

4947

101.

7047

1.33

%95

106.

7174

101.

0667

1.15

547

7366

439

4.06

211

49M

AN

CA

ncho

rage

AK

109.

9316

100.

6654

103.

4464

102.

0333

2.06

%52

103.

2810

097

.28

162

0.67

122

414

234

539

4.14

NA

50M

MN

CM

anch

este

r-N

ashu

a N

H10

0.36

109

100.

1681

103.

1965

102.

3229

1.82

%60

91.1

215

810

2.83

301.

4633

778

399

404.

2348

151

MJA

CJa

ckso

nvill

e F

L10

4.84

4910

1.76

2810

1.89

8510

2.62

242.

86%

2691

.38

156

94.6

018

80.

6811

94

121

1225

412.

0368

152

MN

AH

Nas

hvill

e-D

avid

son-

-Mur

free

sbor

o T

N10

2.08

8010

1.04

4199

.62

106

100.

8381

1.66

%73

128.

615

101.

0863

0.73

106

767

1396

415.

04N

A53

DM

BE

TB

ethe

sda-

Gai

ther

sbur

g-F

rede

rick

, MD

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n10

3.92

6299

.54

128

110.

5517

101.

5951

1.20

%10

611

2.88

5796

.66

170

1.47

31

1031

1139

416.

5736

154

MK

NO

Kno

xvill

e T

N10

6.79

3610

0.52

6110

2.65

7010

1.71

461.

32%

9611

7.75

4297

.96

146

0.74

104

511

064

741

7.48

4255

MP

EN

Pen

saco

la-F

erry

Pas

s-B

rent

FL

104.

0859

102.

8614

97.0

014

010

0.45

971.

79%

6311

3.47

5510

1.08

640.

7510

28

6143

742

1.11

6356

MH

ON

Hon

olul

u H

I10

4.80

5210

1.04

4299

.05

114

101.

8838

2.90

%25

101.

9610

910

0.76

740.

5016

03

156

900

425.

8278

157

MS

AZ

San

Ant

onio

TX

102.

5677

100.

0886

105.

7049

101.

5354

1.56

%81

97.9

812

899

.42

108

0.93

749

4118

5442

7.89

6458

MA

US

Aus

tin-R

ound

Roc

k T

X10

2.87

7210

0.86

5210

2.27

7599

.74

126

2.09

%48

83.8

718

710

0.21

901.

7514

1216

1412

431.

3011

7159

MW

IMW

ilmin

gton

NC

106

4410

1.96

2610

2.36

7310

1.50

551.

78%

6598

.612

499

.55

105

0.68

120

218

730

343

4.33

5660

MB

AL

Bal

timor

e-T

owso

n M

D10

1.50

8799

.92

9810

5.47

5010

0.70

891.

27%

101

117.

6243

101.

5845

0.99

657

6226

3943

6.48

7461

MS

LOS

an L

uis

Obi

spo-

Pas

o R

oble

s C

A10

7.44

3099

.82

109

110.

8514

100.

3410

41.

18%

108

103.

5496

103.

7922

0.64

126

697

255

438.

5944

162

MD

ES

Des

Moi

nes

IA10

0.78

100

101.

0344

102.

1677

101.

6350

1.69

%70

102.

9310

210

3.65

250.

5814

04

129

512

441.

3012

5263

MR

ICR

ichm

ond

VA

103.

1769

101.

2736

101.

9384

99.7

812

22.

95%

2210

1.46

112

98.2

142

0.75

100

770

1154

446.

1545

164

MV

IRV

irgin

ia B

each

-Nor

folk

-New

port

New

s V

A-N

C10

3.78

6310

0.49

6310

4.88

5310

1.02

690.

97%

118

104.

5989

99.2

711

50.

7894

766

1644

448.

7814

2165

MO

KL

Okl

ahom

a C

ity O

K10

0.87

9610

0.5

6210

2.12

7910

1.10

662.

09%

4910

3.29

9997

.75

150

0.73

107

858

1144

457.

6713

1166

MA

LAA

lban

y-S

chen

ecta

dy-T

roy

NY

101.

1994

99.8

810

410

2.74

6910

0.89

761.

67%

7210

3.81

9210

0.24

881.

2050

860

845

458.

8449

67M

VIS

Vis

alia

-Por

terv

ille

CA

107.

629

99.8

710

610

9.88

2510

0.39

101

1.40

%88

121.

3428

109.

046

0.3

195

119

640

245

9.69

711

68M

AM

AA

mar

illo

TX

103.

5965

101.

1338

99.1

911

010

0.93

741.

34%

9212

7.99

1710

1.20

580.

4916

64

150

236

470.

4650

169

MC

HR

Cha

rlot

te-G

asto

nia-

Con

cord

NC

-SC

102.

5976

100.

0389

103.

1866

99.5

213

63.

77%

1198

.19

125

101.

2857

0.69

116

510

114

7547

2.89

931

70M

ALL

Alle

ntow

n-B

ethl

ehem

-Eas

ton

PA

-NJ

102.

9870

99.8

410

810

1.60

8810

0.97

711.

78%

6499

.50

120

101.

0765

0.77

967

7278

047

3.03

871

71M

CO

OC

olor

ado

Spr

ings

CO

100.

8698

100.

2976

103.

9258

99.3

514

52.

45%

3796

.49

136

97.1

716

42.

079

1219

576

473.

5180

72M

LIN

Linc

oln

NE

101.

3192

99.6

412

010

1.98

8310

0.15

108

2.35

%41

102.

6110

410

0.67

781.

1752

948

278

479.

3977

73D

MM

IAM

iam

i-Mia

mi B

each

-Ken

dall,

FL

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n10

1.74

8510

1.11

3910

1.82

8699

.78

121

1.58

%78

104.

7088

101.

1061

0.72

108

510

02

364

481.

2238

74M

NO

WN

orw

ich-

New

Lon

don

CT

104.

9846

100.

1383

99.7

310

499

.91

117

1.82

%59

87.7

517

499

.42

109

1.34

419

4926

648

7.74

461

75M

PR

OP

rovi

denc

e-N

ew B

edfo

rd-F

all R

iver

RI-

MA

101.

3990

99.6

312

210

3.68

6110

1.95

350.

54%

150

114.

4850

100.

5582

0.8

908

5716

2948

9.66

9676

DM

NA

SN

assa

u-S

uffo

lk, N

Y M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

101.

6886

99.7

511

510

1.38

9110

1.28

601.

01%

116

103.

3597

101.

4650

1.01

648

5428

1549

2.16

621

77M

SP

MS

prin

gfie

ld M

O10

2.61

7510

0.01

9210

1.75

8710

1.78

442.

07%

5112

5.99

2095

.68

182

0.62

131

218

439

149

7.18

5278

MS

AV

Sav

anna

h G

A10

4.32

5710

2.75

1598

.57

117

101.

4658

0.90

%12

370

.719

810

1.01

680.

7410

55

116

311

502.

19

5-yr

Job

Gro

wth

1999

- 2

004

1-yr

Job

Gro

wth

2003

- 2

004

5-yr

Wag

es &

Sal

arie

s G

row

th 1

998

- 20

031-

yr W

ages

& S

alar

ies

Gro

wth

200

2 -

2003

# of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s O

ver

1Jo

b G

row

th(J

uly0

4 -

July

05)

5-yr

Rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

G

row

th 1

999

- 20

041-

yr R

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

Gro

wth

200

3 -

2004

Hig

h-T

ech

GD

P L

Q

2005

Bes

t P

erfo

rmin

g C

itie

s L

arge

st 2

00 C

ities

Lis

t


30


2004

Ran

k20

05R

ank

MSA

Po p

ulat

ion

2004

Ove

rall

Inde

xN

A79

MH

AS

Hag

erst

own-

Mar

tinsb

urg

MD

-WV

103.

5367

99.5

013

210

4.20

5610

0.96

731.

18%

107

117.

3544

103.

9720

0.49

165

414

824

551

0.72

951

80D

MF

TW

For

t Wor

th-A

rling

ton,

TX

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n10

0.85

9999

.95

9610

3.66

6298

.08

186

1.48

%84

119.

9631

101.

3753

1.32

436

8618

8751

9.40

1561

81M

FA

EF

ayet

tevi

lle N

C99

.30

123

100.

1184

104.

2355

103.

2215

0.77

%13

212

0.16

3010

0.71

760.

4118

43

168

348

522.

3959

82M

TA

LT

alla

hass

ee F

L10

1.39

9110

0.33

7410

1.33

9310

0.00

113

1.59

%77

100.

2411

610

1.57

460.

711

55

115

332

527.

5082

83M

MIN

Min

neap

olis

-St.

Pau

l-Blo

omin

gton

MN

-WI

100.

1911

499

.69

117

102.

2676

100.

2810

61.

37%

8910

6.84

7299

.97

950.

9866

853

3116

528.

6366

184

MJA

MJa

ckso

n M

S10

4.91

4710

1.45

3397

.73

129

102.

2131

1.60

%76

86.9

217

896

.21

176

0.58

139

218

151

753

4.08

1071

85M

LUB

Lubb

ock

TX

102.

3379

100.

2379

98.5

511

899

.24

151

0.88

%12

714

1.71

410

3.4

271.

2646

511

825

853

4.22

744

86D

MLE

CLa

ke C

ount

y-K

enos

ha C

ount

y, IL

-WI M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

103.

4968

99.4

113

610

6.85

4398

.44

171

1.33

%94

114.

0352

99.2

511

61.

4534

691

851

539.

6911

2287

MS

AY

Sal

t Lak

e C

ity U

T10

0.87

9710

0.43

6697

.71

131

98.2

817

83.

09%

1894

.97

141

98.9

312

51.

0561

1217

1019

542.

41N

A88

DM

ED

IE

diso

n, N

J M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

104.

6754

99.5

512

510

1.50

9010

0.48

960.

75%

134

95.3

113

897

.42

155

1.60

2111

2522

9154

7.76

103

89D

MO

AK

Oak

land

-Fre

mon

t-H

ayw

ard,

CA

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n99

.42

122

98.4

918

210

6.95

4199

.01

158

1.56

%82

100.

3811

510

2.65

341.

6518

173

2464

549.

4825

90M

MC

DM

erce

d C

A10

7.17

3210

0.34

7310

9.04

2810

1.74

450.

89%

126

82.7

419

193

.72

191

0.42

182

317

623

755

1.13

751

91D

MW

ILW

ilmin

gton

, DE

-MD

-NJ

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n98

.29

134

100.

2877

101.

3294

100.

7286

2.66

%31

91.5

415

598

.40

138

0.72

110

510

868

055

4.66

9992

MB

LDB

ould

er C

O10

0.26

112

99.9

210

093

.91

169

97.5

319

03.

05%

1910

8.15

6899

.57

102

3.05

216

627

955

6.85

5593

MS

PO

Spo

kane

WA

102.

4678

99.7

611

499

.00

115

100.

8579

2.50

%35

102.

5910

596

.517

10.

6213

05

113

436

557.

1010

6194

MLI

TLi

ttle

Roc

k-N

orth

Litt

le R

ock

AR

100.

6110

410

0.15

8298

.23

121

101.

2262

0.24

%16

811

3.81

5410

0.02

941.

1356

692

637

561.

4312

095

MP

OT

Por

tland

-Van

couv

er-B

eave

rton

OR

-WA

98.0

414

110

0.6

5796

.00

151

98.9

016

42.

31%

4310

2.33

107

100.

3687

1.52

289

4020

6456

3.17

8196

ME

UG

Eug

ene-

Spr

ingf

ield

OR

98.9

012

710

0.66

5596

.31

148

99.7

812

32.

36%

4094

.65

146

99.7

299

0.81

887

8033

257

3.00

1461

97M

LEX

Lexi

ngto

n-F

ayet

te K

Y96

.69

162

99.7

111

699

.75

103

100.

6492

2.28

%44

117.

9838

97.2

916

00.

891

776

425

573.

1424

98M

BR

WB

row

nsvi

lle-H

arlin

gen

TX

109.

8917

99.8

111

110

7.06

3710

0.33

105

2.45

%38

80.4

819

389

.38

198

0.26

198

019

937

257

3.97

331

99M

GR

BG

reen

Bay

WI

102.

6774

101.

7429

102.

3374

100.

9772

-0.9

0%19

510

5.76

7710

0.20

920.

3519

33

171

295

581.

6870

100

MS

AE

Sal

em O

R10

1.45

8810

1.36

3499

.96

102

100.

9275

0.18

%17

197

.26

130

101.

3454

0.6

134

316

536

958

2.65

NA

101

DM

RK

IR

ocki

ngha

m C

ount

y-S

traf

ford

Cou

nty,

NH

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n10

1.88

8399

.51

131

104.

1757

98.4

317

20.

92%

121

96.6

213

410

1.17

590

.94

7311

2841

158

2.78

6510

2M

LAC

Lanc

aste

r P

A10

2.69

7310

0.34

7210

0.56

9910

1.54

530.

42%

156

94.9

014

399

.55

104

0.58

141

413

148

758

3.36

NA

103

MW

OR

Wor

cest

er M

A98

.91

125

99.0

615

799

.10

113

100.

7385

0.31

%16

412

0.99

2910

0.97

701.

3342

1127

779

597.

1060

110

4M

IND

Indi

anap

olis

IN10

3.57

6610

0.37

6997

.81

124

99.5

113

80.

22%

169

105.

1184

99.3

311

21.

3144

689

1622

598.

6913

0110

5M

DE

ND

enve

r-A

uror

a C

O98

.44

133

99.7

811

310

3.85

5998

.15

182

1.80

%61

87.2

617

697

.80

148

1.61

2011

2423

3059

9.80

342

106

MD

UR

Dur

ham

NC

97.9

514

210

0.44

6510

2.06

8099

.02

157

0.82

%13

184

.76

185

100.

5781

2.58

49

4545

160

0.37

121

107

MS

AA

San

ta R

osa-

Pet

alum

a C

A10

1.21

9399

.79

112

104.

4554

96.5

019

20.

59%

144

107.

969

95.3

118

41.

4732

1312

468

609.

4517

2110

8M

GU

LG

ulfp

ort-

Bilo

xi M

S10

0.66

103

99.3

113

810

2.47

7210

1.99

34-0

.93%

197

119.

3234

104.

0618

0.45

178

317

425

361

1.19

158

109

MS

AX

San

ta C

ruz-

Wat

sonv

ille

CA

97.0

915

210

0.26

7897

.75

126

94.0

120

01.

70%

6995

.28

139

101.

4849

1.26

4713

1425

161

4.51

1191

110

MA

UG

Aug

usta

-Ric

hmon

d C

ount

y G

A-S

C10

0.66

102

100.

4268

97.7

213

010

1.19

640.

53%

151

105.

4680

99.2

911

30.

5115

94

128

515

618.

3615

0111

1M

SH

RS

hrev

epor

t-B

ossi

er C

ity L

A98

.912

610

0.79

5396

.82

143

101.

8840

1.16

%11

086

.29

182

100.

7575

0.46

174

413

938

261

9.75

831

112

MC

HT

Cha

ttano

oga

TN

-GA

100.

2711

099

.91

101

98.0

212

210

1.11

651.

08%

112

117.

7641

100.

6080

0.37

191

119

349

062

4.45

1491

113

MS

YR

Syr

acus

e N

Y96

.69

161

99.0

216

195

.56

155

99.2

015

22.

33%

4211

6.71

4510

1.5

481.

2149

942

654

625.

7811

6111

4M

OM

AO

mah

a-C

ounc

il B

luff

s N

E-I

A10

0.58

105

99.2

114

310

1.15

9510

0.84

801.

56%

8094

.914

294

.39

190

0.72

109

510

680

463

5.82

184

115

MY

AK

Yak

ima

WA

99.4

612

199

.17

148

100.

9997

103.

0122

1.53

%83

122.

9226

94.8

818

70.

2220

00

200

229

636.

45N

A11

6D

ME

SS

Ess

ex C

ount

y, M

A M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

97.2

615

098

.41

184

102.

0381

100.

0111

20.

61%

141

119.

7333

96.7

416

91.

9610

1218

739

642.

0616

5211

7M

WIS

Win

ston

-Sal

em N

C98

.13

137

99.9

893

94.9

916

199

.46

141

3.24

%15

94.7

314

510

4.14

160.

418

64

133

442

644.

6372

111

8M

AT

LA

tlant

a-S

andy

Spr

ings

-Mar

ietta

GA

99.7

011

910

0.10

8510

2.02

8299

.00

159

0.40

%15

796

.93

131

98.4

413

61.

1653

851

4708

645.

3586

111

9M

MO

NM

ontg

omer

y A

L98

.46

131

100.

0291

100.

7698

101.

5652

1.76

%66

87.8

517

392

.18

194

0.54

153

218

635

564

7.26

891

120

MH

AI

Har

risbu

rg-C

arlis

le P

A10

0.08

117

99.5

412

997

.89

123

100.

5095

0.67

%13

795

.25

140

99.4

510

60.

7699

1034

519

647.

7912

612

1M

YO

RY

ork-

Han

over

PA

100.

1411

510

1.09

4097

.12

139

100.

4298

1.27

%10

084

.88

184

98.1

114

50.

5913

74

136

402

649.

2015

7112

2M

LYN

Lync

hbur

g V

A95

.88

171

99.8

211

092

.17

181

99.3

914

41.

34%

9311

7.93

3910

0.53

841.

1455

1221

233

654.

8880

112

3M

CE

DC

edar

Rap

ids

IA97

.57

147

99.6

611

994

.71

163

99.7

412

80.

31%

163

127.

5818

103.

8121

1.35

387

8324

565

6.22

140

124

DM

LOS

Los

Ang

eles

-Lon

g B

each

-Gle

ndal

e, C

A M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

97.8

514

499

.10

154

97.4

213

499

.41

142

1.02

%11

510

2.30

108

100.

8472

1.59

2211

2299

3865

6.86

1141

125

DM

DA

LD

alla

s-P

lano

-Irv

ing,

TX

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n98

.67

128

100.

0290

99.1

611

197

.83

187

0.83

%13

090

.53

162

99.1

411

91.

5724

148

3813

657.

83

1091

126

MK

AN

Kan

sas

City

MO

-KS

97.3

014

999

.63

121

99.5

710

798

.67

167

1.35

%90

103.

0810

198

.16

143

1.29

457

6419

2566

4.28

941

127

DM

SE

AS

eattl

e-B

elle

vue-

Eve

rett,

WA

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n96

.22

166

99.8

710

595

.48

158

98.3

317

63.

14%

1776

.62

194

99.0

512

22.

226

763

2421

667.

4884

112

8D

MP

HI

Phi

lade

lphi

a, P

A M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

98.4

513

298

.79

171

99.6

610

510

1.02

680.

45%

155

101.

6511

196

.79

167

1.34

398

5238

8366

8.34

1052

129

MH

OU

Hou

ston

-Sug

ar L

and-

Bay

tow

n, T

X

101.

9382

99.4

813

310

1.04

9698

.09

185

1.17

%10

994

.84

144

99.2

811

40.

8879

599

5180

674.

3114

8113

0M

SW

BS

cran

ton-

-Wilk

es-B

arre

PA

98.6

312

999

.15

151

96.3

114

799

.87

120

0.01

%17

910

5.63

7811

1.68

40.

8780

943

552

679.

4815

413

1M

SA

LS

alin

as C

A10

0.44

107

97.9

119

511

0.59

1610

0.72

87-0

.20%

186

103.

7294

101.

8841

0.39

188

218

241

569

0.94

911

132

MB

AT

Bat

on R

ouge

LA

101.

8284

100.

4864

96.2

215

010

0.39

100

-0.1

7%18

510

3.84

9197

.57

153

0.52

155

412

472

969

1.71

118

133

ME

LPE

l Pas

o T

X10

0.26

111

99.5

612

497

.12

138

99.8

711

91.

42%

8794

.10

147

97.6

215

20.

6212

95

107

713

693.

3117

8113

4M

CO

SC

olum

bia

SC

99.7

211

810

0.42

6798

.42

119

100.

7983

0.31

%16

593

.90

148

97.3

215

90.

5115

83

158

679

707.

0113

8113

5M

CO

UC

olum

bus

OH

100.

5410

699

.11

152

101.

3592

99.2

914

80.

57%

148

96.9

113

298

.30

140

0.83

866

8816

9471

2.04

160

136

MR

EA

Rea

ding

PA

96.9

156

100.

3770

92.5

117

998

.47

170

2.02

%56

72.1

919

710

1.09

620.

6113

26

9539

271

6.03

163

137

MM

ILM

ilwau

kee-

Wau

kesh

a-W

est A

llis

WI

94.7

218

299

.11

153

95.2

315

999

.68

130

1.05

%11

411

1.19

6210

1.64

440.

7795

690

1516

724.

3816

813

8M

UT

IU

tica-

Rom

e N

Y96

.82

158

98.9

716

295

.84

152

99.2

415

00.

06%

176

110.

3664

102.

7631

1.06

6010

3529

973

2.47

1772

139

MB

RP

Bri

dgep

ort-

Sta

mfo

rd-N

orw

alk

CT

96.7

016

099

.15

149

96.4

014

699

.76

125

0.90

%12

296

.50

135

98.5

813

21.

0659

859

903

733.

1439

114

0D

MN

EA

New

ark-

Uni

on, N

J-P

A M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

100.

7310

198

.35

185

98.7

811

699

.32

147

-0.1

3%18

410

4.76

8596

.09

177

1.37

3710

2921

5373

5.36

1321

141

MP

ITP

ittsb

urgh

PA

98.9

312

498

.93

163

97.2

113

698

.94

160

0.25

%16

710

6.84

7398

.98

124

0.9

7711

2324

0273

6.68

NA

142

DM

CA

BC

ambr

idge

-New

ton-

Fra

min

gham

, MA

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n93

.48

192

97.8

919

699

.15

112

97.3

319

11.

29%

9810

5.31

8398

.56

133

2.95

320

11

465

737.

3112

3114

3M

LAA

Lafa

yette

LA

101.

4389

98.5

217

995

.75

154

99.5

513

50.

02%

178

111.

9059

102.

2338

0.65

125

511

924

674

2.30

1511

144

MS

TL

St.

Loui

s M

O-I

L97

.91

143

98.8

616

596

.43

145

99.6

213

11.

00%

117

91.0

415

998

.66

131

0.96

688

5527

8874

3.73

1611

145

ME

VA

Eva

nsvi

lle IN

-KY

98.5

413

098

.10

191

99.9

810

110

0.58

930.

64%

138

99.9

611

795

.92

180

0.89

784

141

348

746.

3117

314

6M

BU

FB

uffa

lo-N

iaga

ra F

alls

NY

96.9

115

499

.17

146

92.8

917

599

.76

124

0.62

%14

010

6.56

7598

.83

127

0.94

727

6911

5474

6.40

1771

147

MN

EH

New

Hav

en-M

ilfor

d C

T97

.66

145

99.0

915

696

.50

144

99.4

014

3-0

.10%

182

98.9

812

310

0.23

891.

4236

1033

846

746.

5897

114

8M

SO

US

outh

Ben

d-M

isha

wak

a IN

-MI

94.7

818

099

.92

9993

.24

173

100.

5494

2.05

%53

90.1

416

596

.02

179

0.58

142

414

431

874

8.45

115/

6914

9M

CIN

Cin

cinn

ati-

Mid

dlet

own

OH

-KY

-IN

99.6

912

099

.43

135

98.2

612

099

.87

118

0.39

%15

989

.80

166

99.3

611

00.

7111

33

153

2058

756.

0917

1115

0M

HU

TH

untin

gton

-Ash

land

WV

-KY

-OH

104.

0460

99.5

413

093

.91

168

100.

8878

0.33

%16

210

5.35

8195

.08

185

0.22

199

218

828

775

7.00

1391

151

MLO

ULo

uisv

ille

KY

-IN

96.0

317

099

.47

134

97.7

312

810

0.03

111

1.23

%10

510

1.71

110

98.2

614

10.

5414

93

155

1201

758.

1018

3115

2M

SP

IS

prin

gfie

ld M

A98

.26

135

98.8

416

799

.52

108

99.7

412

70.

45%

154

111.

3661

98.7

129

0.51

157

412

568

875

9.57

# of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s O

ver

1Jo

b G

row

th(J

uly0

4 -

July

05)

5-yr

Rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

G

row

th 1

999

- 20

041-

yr R

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

Gro

wth

200

3 -

2004

Hig

h-T

ech

GD

P L

Q5-

yr J

ob G

row

th19

99 -

200

41-

yr J

ob G

row

th20

03 -

200

45-

yr W

ages

& S

alar

ies

Gro

wth

199

8 -

2003

1-yr

Wag

es &

Sal

arie

s G

row

th 2

002

- 20

03

2005

Bes

t P

erfo

rmin

g C

itie

s L

arge

st 2

00 C

ities

Lis

t

31


2004

Ran

k20

05R

ank

MSA

Pop

ulat

ion

2004

Ove

rall

Inde

x12

4115

3M

BIR

Bir

min

gham

-Hoo

ver

AL

97.5

614

899

.85

107

99.3

210

910

0.06

110

-0.2

0%18

789

.05

167

96.0

617

80.

7698

510

410

8276

5.51

1551

154

MF

OR

For

t Sm

ith A

R-O

K10

0.09

116

100.

3275

97.5

213

210

0.00

114

0.58

%14

588

.53

171

97.3

715

70.

3019

61

197

282

771.

5817

915

5M

ER

IE

rie P

A96

.09

167

99.8

910

389

.59

188

97.6

918

81.

12%

111

104.

1390

99.7

598

0.75

103

781

282

772.

9910

51

156

MA

NN

Ann

Arb

or M

I98

.25

136

98.4

918

310

1.58

8999

.35

146

0.60

%14

388

.97

168

93.0

519

21.

1157

779

339

774.

2814

4115

7D

MB

OS

Bos

ton-

Qui

ncy,

MA

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n95

.86

172

98.5

118

010

2.12

7898

.27

179

0.92

%12

099

.51

119

97.5

315

40.

8089

687

1810

781.

3913

6115

8M

CO

RC

orpu

s C

hris

ti T

X10

0.41

108

99.1

015

597

.51

133

100.

3710

30.

16%

173

90.7

116

110

0.04

930.

5415

13

163

410

783.

1013

41

159

MM

EM

Mem

phis

TN

-MS

-AR

98.0

713

998

.83

168

97.2

213

599

.97

116

1.35

%91

103.

2998

97.2

816

10.

4218

02

178

1250

784.

1915

316

0M

AK

RA

kron

OH

98.1

013

899

.40

137

94.1

016

610

1.19

630.

34%

161

103.

8093

97.9

514

70.

4816

71

190

702

789.

1712

7/11

3/16

916

1D

MN

EY

New

Yor

k-W

hite

Pla

ins-

Way

ne, N

Y-N

J M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

97.0

015

399

.18

145

96.2

814

998

.28

177

1.06

%11

395

.88

137

99.5

610

30.

7893

412

011

450

789.

5911

11

162

MD

UL

Dul

uth

MN

-WI

98.0

614

099

.03

160

97.7

412

798

.65

168

0.75

%13

511

7.80

4010

1.00

690.

4916

41

198

276

791.

1816

716

3M

NE

ON

ew O

rlea

ns-M

etai

rie-

Ken

ner

LA97

.614

699

.612

394

.15

165

100.

7188

0.68

%13

686

.34

181

96.8

416

50.

4716

95

102

1320

791.

5817

616

4M

BIN

Bin

gham

ton

NY

94.0

918

798

.60

175

90.0

018

694

.78

199

-0.0

4%18

114

0.03

510

2.21

391.

9211

1220

249

792.

3119

316

5M

HA

RH

artfo

rd-W

est H

artf

ord-

Eas

t Har

tford

CT

96.2

416

599

.03

159

97.1

313

798

.55

169

0.46

%15

299

.87

118

99.2

411

70.

9471

768

1185

794.

3388

116

6M

AT

AA

tlant

ic C

ity N

J10

2.03

8199

.24

141

96.9

914

110

1.42

59-0

.79%

193

90.4

516

491

.01

196

0.38

190

317

326

979

9.48

180

167

MB

EA

Bea

umon

t-P

ort A

rthu

r T

X94

.86

179

98.0

319

488

.85

191

100.

8382

0.89

%12

510

7.83

7010

2.75

320.

5614

53

164

383

800.

3819

016

8M

PE

OP

eoria

IL96

.36

164

100.

0788

91.6

318

399

.11

156

0.55

%14

910

5.54

7999

.997

0.54

152

316

636

880

8.76

170

216

9M

KA

LK

alam

azoo

-Por

tage

MI

96.8

215

798

.28

187

95.4

915

710

2.50

250.

16%

172

88.7

216

986

.76

200

0.98

674

143

319

808.

9310

2117

0M

KIN

Kin

gspo

rt-B

risto

l-Bris

tol T

N-V

A96

.04

169

98.2

618

893

.96

167

100.

3810

20.

34%

160

125.

2521

96.3

417

40.

7797

511

730

181

1.88

921

171

MA

SH

Ash

evill

e N

C10

0.21

113

99.3

013

995

.76

153

100.

4199

0.16

%17

491

.18

157

97.2

116

30.

4717

24

137

387

812.

8916

52

172

MG

RN

Gre

ensb

oro-

Hig

h P

oint

NC

96.9

115

599

.15

150

91.6

518

299

.15

153

1.91

%58

88.5

617

095

.03

186

0.63

128

510

966

881

4.63

152

173

DM

SA

FS

an F

ranc

isco

-San

Mat

eo-R

edw

ood

City

, CA

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n88

.53

199

97.6

519

997

.80

125

95.9

219

50.

86%

128

91.8

115

499

.57

101

1.55

2712

1516

8981

5.48

108

174

MC

OL

Col

umbu

s G

A-A

L93

.87

189

98.5

917

695

.53

156

99.1

415

4-0

.64%

192

103.

6795

100.

4285

1.23

4810

3628

081

9.27

1911

175

MF

OW

For

t Way

ne IN

95.7

217

499

.05

158

88.3

319

397

.57

189

1.31

%97

100.

6811

410

1.38

520.

7992

413

540

282

5.88

1521

176

MC

HW

Cha

rlest

on W

V10

0.92

9599

.55

127

93.7

517

298

.37

174

0.96

%11

983

.46

188

95.3

818

30.

6013

54

145

308

829.

24N

A17

7M

HO

LH

olla

nd-G

rand

Hav

en M

I97

.17

151

98.8

316

994

.64

164

98.8

016

50.

22%

170

136.

258

99.1

012

00.

6911

84

147

252

832.

4417

42

178

MG

RV

Gre

envi

lle S

C95

.80

173

99.1

914

494

.77

162

99.5

213

70.

40%

158

92.5

615

297

.36

158

0.84

846

9358

483

3.82

1811

179

MR

OA

Roa

noke

VA

96.0

816

898

.66

173

95.1

616

098

.23

180

1.72

%67

102.

7510

397

.38

156

0.72

112

317

229

183

5.30

1891

180

MT

UL

Tul

sa O

K96

.77

159

99.2

614

092

.34

180

95.9

119

61.

26%

103

84.1

818

698

.51

135

0.85

834

122

882

852.

9918

2118

1M

RO

HR

oche

ster

NY

94.9

117

898

.58

177

90.2

518

499

.60

133

-0.9

3%19

697

.99

127

98.5

513

41.

4829

771

1041

859.

6219

4118

2D

MG

AR

Gar

y, IN

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n94

.73

181

99.2

214

287

.12

197

101.

8839

-0.1

0%18

390

.76

160

99.0

612

10.

3419

42

180

692

876.

0216

618

3D

MC

HI

Chi

cago

-Nap

ervi

lle-J

olie

t, IL

Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n95

.18

176

98.6

517

493

.87

170

98.3

617

50.

58%

146

87.3

417

597

.62

151

0.83

858

5078

4887

8.22

1851

184

MD

AV

Dav

enpo

rt-M

olin

e-R

ock

Isla

nd IA

-IL

95.1

117

799

.67

118

89.8

418

799

.56

134

-0.5

6%19

110

8.65

6798

.68

130

0.50

162

218

537

588

4.13

1471

185

MS

AJ

San

Jos

e-S

unny

vale

-San

ta C

lara

CA

85.7

520

097

.86

197

93.2

017

495

.77

197

0.09

%17

586

.75

179

98.3

139

3.74

116

517

4190

6.11

1371

186

MM

OB

Mob

ile A

L94

.24

184

98.8

516

688

.69

192

98.3

917

32.

72%

2772

.86

196

91.5

719

50.

4517

72

183

401

915.

1418

8118

7M

DA

YD

ayto

n O

H93

.70

190

98.1

219

089

.48

189

99.1

215

5-0

.99%

198

93.8

414

997

.79

149

0.92

7511

2684

691

9.44

1742

188

MS

PA

Spa

rtan

burg

SC

94.0

818

898

.119

293

.85

171

98.7

316

61.

27%

102

87.1

917

710

0.53

830.

418

72

189

264

931.

4819

218

9M

WIC

Wic

hita

KS

94.2

218

599

.55

126

87.1

819

696

.06

194

-0.3

5%19

075

.88

195

95.7

518

12.

158

511

158

593

3.12

2001

190

MR

OC

Roc

kfor

d IL

92.5

619

598

.916

486

.35

198

98.1

218

40.

29%

166

115.

1748

99.3

411

10.

516

33

170

335

945.

0319

719

1M

HIC

Hic

kory

-Len

oir-

Mor

gant

on N

C88

.63

198

99.9

695

85.0

319

995

.56

198

0.58

%14

787

.94

172

98.1

314

40.

4118

34

140

353

947.

4818

6119

2D

MD

ET

Det

roit-

Livo

nia-

Dea

rbor

n, M

I Met

ropo

litan

Div

isio

n91

.81

196

98.0

419

389

.16

190

99.9

911

5-0

.87%

194

93.3

315

196

.30

175

0.82

873

154

2016

960.

0014

3219

3M

GR

AG

rand

Rap

ids-

Wyo

min

g M

I95

.34

175

98.5

018

192

.75

177

98.9

216

10.

45%

153

86.5

718

096

.45

173

0.54

150

315

776

896

4.24

1871

194

MC

LEC

leve

land

-Ely

ria-

Men

tor

OH

93.3

019

398

.80

170

90.0

818

599

.71

129

-0.3

1%18

982

.87

190

96.4

817

20.

5714

33

152

2137

978.

6218

6219

5D

MW

RE

War

ren-

Far

min

gton

Hill

s-T

roy,

MI M

etro

polit

an D

ivis

ion

94.6

518

397

.80

198

92.5

817

898

.91

162

-0.0

1%18

082

.32

192

94.4

318

91.

0462

315

124

7798

1.67

1951

196

MT

OL

Tol

edo

OH

94.1

818

698

.72

172

92.7

717

699

.61

132

0.03

%17

785

.66

183

96.8

116

60.

3818

91

191

658

989.

0816

419

7M

LAN

Lans

ing-

Eas

t Lan

sing

MI

96.5

716

397

.55

200

96.9

714

298

.91

163

-0.2

6%18

883

.14

189

89.7

197

0.47

171

119

445

610

08.7

219

619

8M

CA

NC

anto

n-M

assi

llon

OH

93.7

191

98.1

618

987

.69

194

96.5

019

30.

8%13

396

.91

133

96.7

616

80.

2919

71

195

411

1021

.20

1752

199

MY

OU

You

ngst

own-

War

ren-

Boa

rdm

an O

H-P

A92

.78

194

98.3

118

687

.23

195

99.4

614

0-1

.30%

200

90.4

616

392

.31

193

0.46

173

316

059

010

31.8

819

820

0M

FLI

Flin

t MI

91.2

519

798

.56

178

80.4

120

098

.15

183

-1.0

9%19

968

.48

199

88.7

319

90.

6712

14

132

444

1050

.87

Foo

tno

tes:

1A

dded

/Sub

trac

ted

Cou

nty(

s)2

Add

ed/S

ubtr

acte

d M

etro

(s)

3In

dica

tes

this

city

's p

ositi

on o

n la

st y

ear's

200

4 la

rges

t m

etro

s lis

t4

Indi

cate

s th

is c

ity's

pos

ition

on

last

yea

r's 2

004

smal

lest

met

ros

list

NA

New

Met

ro

5-yr

Job

Gro

wth

1999

- 2

004

1-yr

Job

Gro

wth

2003

- 2

004

5-yr

Wag

es &

Sal

arie

s G

row

th 1

998

- 20

031-

yr W

ages

& S

alar

ies

Gro

wth

200

2 -

2003

Job

Gro

wth

(Jul

y04

- Ju

ly05

)5-

yr R

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

Gro

wth

199

9 -

2004

1-yr

Rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

G

row

th 2

003

- 20

04H

igh-

Tec

h G

DP

LQ

# of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s O

ver

1

2005

Bes

t P

erfo

rmin

g C

itie

s L

arge

st 2

00 C

ities

Lis

t

32

2004

Ran

k20

05R

ank

Met

roC

ode

MSA

Pop

ulat

ion

2004

Ove

rall

Inde

x20

04 V

alue

Ran

k20

04 V

alue

Ran

k20

03V

alue

Ran

k20

03 V

alue

Ran

kG

row

thR

ank

2004

Val

ueR

ank

2004

Val

ueR

ank

2004

Val

ueR

ank

2004

Val

ueR

ank

(in

Tho

usan

ds)

161

MF

WB

For

t Wal

ton

Bea

ch-C

rest

view

-Des

tin F

L11

6.93

710

4.64

711

3.27

1410

8.24

34.

23%

1914

6.76

1210

1.61

600.

8728

625

181

100.

00N

A2

MB

ND

Ben

d O

R11

8.03

410

4.89

411

8.90

410

3.86

154.

68%

1512

5.62

4110

4.71

290.

6950

548

134

111.

91N

A3

MP

RE

Pre

scot

t AZ

116.

159

103.

4712

116.

825

104.

0412

4.29

%18

135.

4320

110.

373

0.64

613

100

191

131.

4950

4M

PA

NP

anam

a C

ity-L

ynn

Hav

en F

L10

8.83

3010

4.03

1010

7.31

4310

4.63

74.

13%

2218

1.37

110

9.63

60.

7639

543

158

139.

38N

A5

MS

AU

St.

Geo

rge

UT

133.

421

108.

41

120.

013

105.

076

7.30

%4

147.

7411

103.

0838

0.48

107

214

911

014

8.52

NA

6M

MA

RM

ader

a C

A12

2.61

310

4.8

611

1.61

2010

7.21

52.

51%

4698

.67

108

106.

1219

0.73

426

2813

915

8.67

297

MK

NE

Ken

new

ick-

Ric

hlan

d-P

asco

WA

113.

3513

101.

2648

114.

499

103.

3422

4.77

%14

132.

1825

98.8

710

91.

672

536

215

170.

80N

A8

MLO

ALo

gan

UT

-ID

113.

7712

102.

3821

106.

0248

102.

9826

3.68

%27

130.

6132

102.

5243

0.82

327

1711

017

4.51

69

MY

UM

Yum

a A

Z12

5.18

210

5.96

211

4.63

810

4.32

96.

84%

513

0.77

3010

5.14

250.

315

82

132

176

176.

06N

A10

MC

OE

Coe

ur d

'Ale

ne ID

117.

176

105.

613

109.

8230

102.

9427

7.47

%3

111.

6970

100.

3682

0.59

725

5312

218

4.30

NA

11M

IDA

Idah

o F

alls

ID11

2.30

1510

2.96

1610

6.02

4710

4.18

114.

41%

1791

.63

140

101.

4763

1.59

47

1611

019

3.39

6712

MB

EL

Bel

lingh

am W

A11

5.28

1010

2.30

2310

7.44

4210

4.20

105.

83%

711

1.90

6910

0.89

720.

6070

463

180

203.

4971

13M

FLA

Fla

gsta

ff A

Z10

7.36

4010

2.41

2010

7.61

4010

2.79

303.

73%

2514

6.17

1311

0.02

40.

9124

311

612

320

7.88

NA

14M

HA

NH

arris

onbu

rg V

A10

9.17

2910

1.59

3710

5.44

5310

1.95

523.

28%

3015

7.44

510

1.54

611.

307

122

111

212.

594

15M

DO

VD

over

DE

110.

9421

103.

7211

109.

5931

101.

9354

3.94

%24

105.

8789

104.

2730

0.52

905

4713

923

9.24

216

MLS

CLa

s C

ruce

s N

M11

1.06

2099

.96

100

109.

1235

104.

0413

2.89

%36

89.5

815

110

6.46

150.

9915

94

186

264.

0113

117

MIO

WIo

wa

City

IA10

7.12

4210

0.02

9511

1.46

2110

1.77

595.

10%

1213

3.28

2411

1.17

20.

7245

473

137

268.

1560

18M

YU

BY

uba

City

CA

106.

5247

100.

7368

113.

9512

102.

1548

6.08

%6

114.

8159

112.

371

0.58

743

107

151

268.

29N

A19

MS

AS

Sal

isbu

ry M

D10

7.84

3510

2.35

2210

2.51

6810

2.16

461.

76%

7211

4.16

6310

6.89

130.

7441

715

115

275.

33N

A20

MH

INH

ines

ville

-For

t Ste

war

t GA

117.

845

104.

049

111.

8618

108.

852

-0.5

2%16

112

5.57

4210

7.41

110.

5388

490

7327

6.36

NA

21M

WIN

Win

ches

ter

VA

-WV

110.

8522

102.

0826

108.

0537

100.

4310

45.

22%

1010

6.67

8610

1.86

570.

834

554

113

279.

9318

22M

PU

GP

unta

Gor

da F

L10

7.67

3610

3.45

1412

8.61

110

8.04

44.

07%

2394

.78

125

102.

3844

0.27

167

017

415

729

5.56

583

23M

OLY

Oly

mpi

a W

A10

8.66

3210

0.85

6110

9.47

3210

2.61

333.

57%

2811

9.95

5010

2.27

490.

412

83

9322

530

7.76

2024

MF

AR

Far

go N

D-M

N10

6.67

4610

1.82

3010

5.40

5410

2.39

441.

23%

9213

0.63

3110

3.08

370.

6365

540

182

314.

02N

A25

MW

AR

War

ner

Rob

ins

GA

108.

0933

100.

4876

113.

7413

103.

2124

0.23

%13

314

2.24

1610

6.07

210.

7936

477

124

315.

4312

26M

ME

DM

edfo

rd O

R10

7.97

3410

2.29

2410

7.94

3910

2.52

402.

57%

4411

6.1

5497

.96

125

0.56

803

9819

331

9.69

513

27M

BA

RB

arns

tabl

e T

own

MA

107.

0743

99.6

211

311

4.01

1010

2.76

311.

14%

9313

9.39

1710

1.10

690.

8033

621

229

320.

8110

128

MS

IUS

ioux

Fal

ls S

D10

4.32

6310

0.73

6711

0.07

2710

2.43

433.

07%

3310

2.62

9610

0.26

850.

7837

538

203

321.

34N

A29

MH

AF

Han

ford

-Cor

cora

n C

A11

3.09

1410

0.48

7411

4.88

710

2.25

452.

64%

4013

4.33

2210

3.72

340.

2417

42

141

143

325.

0021

30M

BS

MB

ism

arck

ND

106.

1049

101.

5839

107.

9838

104.

628

2.46

%48

87.5

415

698

.23

122

0.62

696

3598

331.

6614

1331

MG

RL

Gre

eley

CO

112.

2816

101.

928

112.

2317

100.

0611

84.

87%

1393

.81

129

108.

399

0.39

131

394

219

332.

1628

332

MLA

DLa

redo

TX

116.

338

101.

5740

112.

3216

102.

5934

1.93

%67

110.

4775

106.

2918

0.24

173

115

521

933

3.77

8133

MB

ILB

illin

gs M

T11

0.25

2310

1.44

4510

6.48

4610

1.62

651.

72%

7315

1.42

899

.67

980.

5777

472

144

337.

85N

A34

MIT

HIth

aca

NY

104.

4562

100.

0296

110.

1126

103.

6917

1.63

%78

104.

5690

98.3

212

01.

0014

89

100

352.

2031

35M

MY

BM

yrtle

Bea

ch-C

onw

ay-N

orth

Myr

tle B

each

SC

107.

3341

103.

3215

109.

3234

102.

9328

1.05

%96

116.

4753

100.

6980

0.36

142

395

218

354.

90N

A36

MB

OW

Bow

ling

Gre

en K

Y10

3.64

7010

1.17

5010

3.12

6510

3.38

212.

67%

3912

6.56

3810

5.62

240.

4013

03

121

109

357.

3098

37M

GR

JG

rand

Jun

ctio

n C

O10

9.52

2610

1.71

3210

7.58

4110

0.63

981.

14%

9411

4.94

5810

2.57

420.

5778

551

127

361.

14N

A38

MM

OV

Mou

nt V

erno

n-A

naco

rtes

WA

111.

5618

101.

5938

115.

346

101.

5369

5.21

%11

93.5

913

197

.27

134

0.32

155

311

811

136

5.08

1023

39M

JON

John

son

City

TN

103.

8169

102.

5218

96.9

510

610

0.26

113

1.77

%71

153.

646

105.

0027

1.00

136

2318

736

6.99

540

MC

AS

Cas

per

WY

112.

2317

103.

4613

111.

4123

103.

4520

2.36

%52

83.7

916

397

.68

129

0.28

166

215

469

382.

7042

141

MC

HV

Cha

rlotte

svill

e V

A10

4.24

6510

1.15

5210

5.53

5110

1.23

741.

05%

9710

8.42

8010

0.30

830.

9223

95

181

387.

139

42M

RE

DR

eddi

ng C

A10

9.91

2499

.19

127

111.

8019

101.

0680

2.08

%60

113.

0866

98.7

511

30.

7147

626

178

388.

2811

43M

TY

LT

yler

TX

105.

7155

100.

8263

100.

8777

101.

0779

1.52

%84

128.

5735

102.

1152

0.71

466

2418

638

9.02

7044

MA

UB

Aub

urn-

Ope

lika

AL

111.

5319

104.

048

105.

0056

103.

9514

0.81

%10

798

.40

110

101.

2067

0.35

148

214

412

138

9.83

NA

45M

MO

WM

orris

tow

n T

N97

.75

134

101.

3747

98.2

299

102.

4941

3.54

%29

162.

714

102.

9340

0.48

106

630

129

392.

07N

A46

MW

EN

Wen

atch

ee W

A10

1.98

8810

1.62

3510

4.55

5810

2.54

393.

73%

2612

8.57

3610

1.48

620.

3614

61

167

103

401.

6222

147

MR

OE

Roc

hest

er M

N10

6.99

4410

0.05

9411

0.22

2510

1.49

711.

66%

7697

.15

115

100.

288

0.93

214

6417

540

4.23

852

48M

MID

Mid

land

TX

105.

9951

100.

8462

90.2

815

510

0.56

101

2.43

%50

175.

713

108.

1810

0.89

266

3112

040

4.91

5449

MG

RE

Gre

at F

alls

MT

104.

6860

101.

5343

97.1

710

410

2.81

292.

50%

4712

3.84

4410

8.78

70.

3514

91

171

8041

6.91

4950

MG

LFG

lens

Fal

ls N

Y10

2.87

7810

0.82

6496

.68

108

101.

3673

1.33

%90

113.

7665

104.

9728

1.17

107

1412

842

0.38

1551

MC

HE

Che

yenn

e W

Y10

7.50

3810

0.14

9110

9.46

3310

3.07

252.

69%

3887

.73

155

90.6

617

30.

4511

65

5985

423.

64N

A52

ME

LCE

l Cen

tro

CA

109.

4727

98.1

515

911

1.44

2210

3.68

187.

66%

211

5.10

5794

.45

159

0.29

160

213

715

243

0.75

NA

53M

MO

GM

orga

ntow

n W

V11

4.98

1110

1.65

3411

1.17

2410

2.01

511.

64%

7777

.916

998

.611

50.

3215

42

145

114

434.

1066

54M

LAT

Law

ton

OK

103.

3172

100.

4877

99.9

585

103.

7816

2.44

%49

112.

7267

100.

8973

0.44

119

311

911

143

4.29

NA

55M

ELI

Eliz

abet

htow

n K

Y10

6.17

4810

0.39

8010

3.25

6410

3.29

230.

49%

124

136.

9719

98.8

111

10.

4611

25

5611

043

4.54

156

MM

ISM

isso

ula

MT

107.

6437

100.

9257

112.

4115

102.

5935

1.38

%89

110.

3476

90.2

817

40.

4910

21

169

9943

8.75

2557

MB

UR

Bur

lingt

on-S

outh

Bur

lingt

on V

T10

5.16

5810

1.12

5410

5.11

5510

0.70

96-0

.3%

151

102.

1798

101.

9155

1.62

38

720

444

1.65

1003

58M

LOG

Long

view

TX

103.

0976

101.

6833

95.7

411

710

0.72

952.

17%

5711

4.58

6110

0.75

770.

6266

539

200

444.

97N

A59

MLE

BLe

bano

n P

A10

9.26

2810

1.9

2910

2.00

7210

1.63

640.

45%

126

100.

6610

293

.52

165

0.65

605

5212

445

2.58

NA

60M

FA

IF

airb

anks

AK

108.

6831

101.

5741

105.

4752

102.

4942

0.94

%10

096

.94

117

99.2

010

30.

3714

13

126

8645

3.14

NA

61M

FA

MF

arm

ingt

on N

M10

5.77

5410

2.24

2510

3.00

6610

0.79

932.

41%

5111

7.07

5210

3.41

360.

2017

60

178

124

453.

7231

62M

SF

ES

anta

Fe

NM

104.

7459

100.

4875

105.

7149

99.6

213

02.

09%

5990

.24

146

106.

7614

0.51

916

2913

945

6.01

2763

MV

INV

inel

and-

Mill

ville

-Brid

geto

n N

J10

1.24

9610

0.89

5898

.48

9310

2.57

361.

09%

9512

6.29

3910

2.36

470.

4511

44

6915

145

6.49

NA

64M

VE

RV

ero

Bea

ch F

L10

9.61

2510

0.87

5911

3.96

1110

9.79

10.

43%

128

71.5

817

795

.56

149

0.36

144

311

412

445

8.63

261

65M

CS

BC

olle

ge S

tatio

n-B

ryan

TX

105.

7853

99.7

710

710

4.17

5910

1.76

602.

19%

5610

3.73

9399

.18

105

0.63

643

101

189

459.

7719

166

MR

AP

Rap

id C

ity S

D10

3.15

7410

0.76

6610

9.96

2910

1.85

561.

59%

7910

3.91

9294

.43

160

0.5

964

7811

746

0.02

NA

67M

CA

RC

arso

n C

ity N

V10

3.28

7310

1.5

4410

4.56

5710

1.59

663%

4593

.74

130

94.8

815

40.

4511

74

9156

472.

31N

A68

MB

SW

Bru

nsw

ick

GA

101.

4993

101.

2349

101.

2576

103.

6019

0.49

%12

511

9.69

5199

.01

106

0.41

127

557

9847

4.12

NA

69M

HO

TH

ot S

prin

gs A

R10

3.94

6810

1.17

5110

0.33

8410

0.94

894.

16%

2185

.71

158

100.

5981

0.44

120

486

9247

6.47

NA

70M

VA

DV

aldo

sta

GA

107.

4939

100.

1490

101.

7173

101.

8655

0.82

%10

612

1.34

4510

2.28

480.

3514

73

115

124

481.

2156

71M

GR

FG

rand

For

ks N

D-M

N10

2.87

7910

0.87

6097

.81

101

102.

6232

2.14

%58

106.

6287

102.

9839

0.39

134

117

096

484.

9941

172

MP

OC

Poc

atel

lo ID

103.

4571

101.

1553

94.8

812

010

0.81

923.

08%

3210

9.09

7998

.88

108

0.67

553

127

8349

1.88

1291

73M

AP

PA

pple

ton

WI

101.

6791

99.9

110

210

4.02

6010

1.03

811.

48%

8613

8.46

1810

1.45

640.

6363

212

921

349

6.19

5574

MLW

RLa

wre

nce

KS

104.

3264

100.

7865

102.

9067

98.3

915

31.

69%

7513

4.82

2198

.21

123

0.71

494

8410

350

1.09

NA

75M

GA

GG

aine

svill

e G

A10

5.54

5699

.02

134

110.

0328

101.

7063

1.04

%98

125.

6540

96.3

214

00.

4999

310

416

150

7.89

3476

MD

UB

Dub

uque

IA98

.07

125

100.

2483

94.3

112

910

2.16

471.

49%

8511

1.58

7110

5.90

220.

4910

37

2091

514.

2263

177

MT

US

Tus

calo

osa

AL

100.

0910

410

1.42

4698

.53

9210

0.35

107

5.33

%9

101.

4610

010

1.68

580.

3115

72

130

195

516.

62N

A78

MF

LWF

ond

du L

ac W

I10

0.04

108

100.

7069

88.5

416

099

.82

127

2.62

%41

151.

977

100.

8275

0.67

547

1999

519.

31

5-yr

Job

Gro

wth

1999

- 2

004

1-yr

Job

Gro

wth

2003

- 2

004

5-yr

Wag

es &

Sal

arie

s G

row

th 1

998

- 20

031-

yr W

ages

& S

alar

ies

Gro

wth

200

2 -

2003

# of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s O

ver

1Jo

b G

row

th(J

uly0

4 -

July

05)

5-yr

Rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

G

row

th 1

999

- 20

041-

yr R

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

Gro

wth

200

3 -

2004

Hig

h-T

ech

GD

P L

Q

2005

Bes

t P

erfo

rmin

g C

itie

s Sm

alle

st 1

79 C

ities

Lis

t

Best Performing Cities 2005Smallest 179 Cities List

33


2004

Ran

k20

05R

ank

MSA

Pop

ulat

ion

2004

Ove

rall

Inde

xN

A79

MB

LCB

lack

sbur

g-C

hris

tians

burg

-Rad

ford

VA

102.

0987

99.8

010

610

0.85

7810

0.12

116

-0.3

7%15

313

0.90

2910

1.96

541.

179

131

151

523.

0817

80M

LEW

Lew

isto

n-A

ubur

n M

E10

3.12

7599

.511

910

8.06

3610

1.54

681.

56%

8112

4.54

4310

0.23

860.

2717

03

122

107

524.

7323

381

MN

AA

Nap

a C

A10

6.7

4599

.54

118

120.

422

100.

9982

-0.1

7%14

388

.23

153

94.4

715

80.

7343

549

132

526.

5768

82M

JAS

Jack

sonv

ille

NC

99.8

511

010

2.79

1710

3.27

6310

1.56

670.

90%

103

96.1

012

210

5.87

230.

3215

20

175

154

530.

3735

183

MB

LMB

loom

ingt

on IN

99.7

011

210

0.15

8896

.70

107

101.

8058

-1.2

9%17

214

4.69

1410

0.15

901.

356

712

178

533.

2587

84M

CU

MC

umbe

rland

MD

-WV

105.

3357

99.9

799

97.4

410

299

.54

132

0.52

%11

811

5.72

5610

2.13

510.

6659

718

101

534.

8439

185

MD

OT

Dot

han

AL

97.4

213

610

1.06

5596

.48

110

101.

2375

3.05

%34

120.

3448

98.1

912

40.

4711

03

109

135

539.

1038

186

MG

VL

Gre

envi

lle N

C10

0.42

100

100.

6970

100.

5981

100.

7594

1.53

%83

110.

8473

94.7

815

60.

8827

310

516

154

1.87

2887

MS

TC

St.

Clo

ud M

N10

2.27

8510

0.13

9210

2.38

6999

.89

126

0.74

%11

012

9.73

3310

3.77

330.

671

213

117

954

8.85

431

88M

AB

IA

bile

ne T

X99

.25

116

99.6

111

497

.01

105

101.

0977

4.65

%16

100.

1210

310

0.90

710.

4910

03

106

159

550.

29N

A89

MC

LDC

leve

land

TN

97.7

613

310

1.54

4294

.44

128

100.

9785

-0.1

8%14

417

8.27

210

2.03

530.

8035

482

107

550.

9476

390

MW

AC

Wac

o T

X99

.94

109

100.

4678

98.9

690

100.

0312

12.

58%

4398

.79

106

98.8

112

0.53

844

6022

255

3.92

881

91M

OC

EO

cean

City

NJ

102.

8977

102.

5119

107.

2344

102.

5538

-18.

30%

179

81.1

216

610

1.28

660.

2916

32

153

101

561.

37N

A92

MA

ME

Am

es IA

97.7

913

298

.87

140

101.

5074

102.

0850

1.43

%87

96.2

812

110

8.64

80.

5583

488

8056

3.93

821

93M

WA

EW

ater

loo-

Ced

ar F

alls

IA10

1.47

9499

.65

112

94.4

512

710

0.13

115

1.70

%74

121.

1347

106.

4416

0.49

984

6616

256

6.38

3794

MC

HO

Chi

co C

A10

2.49

8397

.44

167

105.

6650

98.8

314

32.

00%

6399

.40

105

102.

1350

0.53

856

2221

356

7.61

911

95M

ST

JS

t. Jo

seph

MO

-KS

104.

4861

101.

0356

98.4

096

98.7

714

70.

80%

108

110.

0677

101.

8856

0.62

681

166

122

580.

2271

196

MW

IHW

ichi

ta F

alls

TX

97.2

314

098

.65

147

100.

3783

100.

3910

62.

23%

5514

8.5

1095

.61

147

0.96

174

7114

858

2.39

NA

97M

JEF

Jeff

erso

n C

ity M

O10

1.35

9599

.67

111

101.

3775

101.

7462

0.56

%11

611

6.07

5599

.87

950.

5094

116

214

258

9.47

5998

MA

NI

Ann

isto

n-O

xfor

d A

L97

.84

130

101.

6136

90.1

315

610

2.55

37-0

.63%

162

92.5

113

610

0.22

870.

8231

634

112

592.

5264

99M

JOB

Jone

sbor

o A

R10

0.43

9910

0.66

7297

.21

103

100.

5210

20.

83%

105

101.

1910

110

0.70

790.

4711

14

8011

259

3.60

NA

100

MK

ISK

ings

ton

NY

99.7

911

198

.15

158

99.5

687

100.

7097

2.97

%35

88.2

115

483

.85

176

0.92

228

818

259

4.97

511

101

MT

ER

Ter

re H

aute

IN95

.19

152

99.7

410

894

.67

124

101.

8157

0.51

%11

990

.87

143

101.

1468

0.89

256

2716

961

6.24

7210

2M

JAT

Jack

son

TN

98.4

912

110

0.68

7196

.25

113

100.

9488

0.64

%11

310

7.81

8398

.44

118

0.43

122

555

110

619.

0165

103

MT

EX

Tex

arka

na T

X-T

exar

kana

AR

100.

1210

399

.92

101

99.5

488

100.

6099

3.24

%31

96.3

212

099

.32

102

0.28

165

116

313

362

0.26

451

104

MA

TH

Ath

ens-

Cla

rke

Cou

nty

GA

100.

0910

599

.05

131

102.

2571

101.

7461

-0.1

9%14

510

2.88

9497

.56

131

0.47

108

541

174

623.

48N

A10

5M

PA

SP

asca

goul

a M

S87

.92

177

98.7

314

379

.33

178

101.

9353

5.51

%8

101.

6399

100.

2984

0.77

384

6715

662

6.43

3210

6M

WA

UW

ausa

u W

I10

1.6

9210

0.22

8410

0.78

7910

0.18

114

0.66

%11

297

.54

114

96.8

513

60.

4312

14

7512

862

6.83

611

107

MC

OM

Col

umbi

a M

O10

5.79

5299

.61

115

98.7

791

98.5

415

02.

01%

6210

2.30

9797

.69

128

0.45

113

213

815

163

0.30

5210

8M

ELK

Elk

hart

-Gos

hen

IN10

0.12

102

104.

825

94.2

813

010

1.52

700.

50%

121

76.1

517

692

.89

167

0.41

125

399

192

633.

1444

109

MS

TG

Sta

te C

olle

ge P

A10

2.39

8499

.412

110

2.34

7098

.79

146

0.29

%13

283

.42

164

97.2

813

30.

9916

96

140

634.

8130

110

MLA

RLa

Cro

sse

WI-

MN

99.6

611

310

0.14

8998

.47

9410

0.96

86-0

.10%

140

92.6

613

510

2.37

460.

4511

53

112

129

646.

5877

111

MS

HE

She

rman

-Den

ison

TX

94.9

615

698

.97

136

92.8

213

999

.64

129

4.17

%20

85.3

816

099

.994

0.96

186

3311

665

2.70

1293

112

MO

SH

Osh

kosh

-Nee

nah

WI

99.3

511

599

.56

117

95.7

711

698

.86

141

2.25

%54

113.

8964

100.

7478

0.47

109

213

615

965

6.01

831

113

MH

AT

Hat

tiesb

urg

MS

100.

0910

698

.92

138

100.

5082

100.

4710

31.

55%

8210

6.32

8810

2.37

450.

3015

91

164

130

658.

0313

5311

4M

JOH

John

stow

n P

A96

.06

146

98.7

914

294

.11

133

101.

1776

1.57

%80

110.

6774

94.4

715

70.

8429

470

148

661.

1075

115

MW

IIW

illia

msp

ort P

A98

.18

123

99.9

898

94.2

113

210

0.32

109

0.49

%12

396

.77

119

98.9

107

0.64

626

3211

966

3.81

NA

116

MR

OR

Rom

e G

A10

4.04

6698

.44

154

98.2

698

98.8

314

40.

54%

117

120.

1549

99.4

510

00.

3813

75

5894

669.

0986

117

MC

OV

Cor

valli

s O

R10

0.41

101

100.

2982

92.3

814

298

.88

140

0.38

%13

080

.44

168

96.7

913

72.

361

810

7967

0.96

NA

118

MC

ON

Col

umbu

s IN

91.6

317

110

2.07

2784

.63

175

100.

2711

21.

89%

6993

.19

134

99.3

610

10.

5779

489

7367

2.92

NA

119

MLE

TLe

wis

ton

ID-W

A10

1.97

8998

.64

148

94.6

812

310

0.00

123

0.22

%13

412

8.22

3710

0.91

700.

6852

312

859

677.

7410

512

0M

JAN

Jane

svill

e W

I95

.19

153

100.

1686

91.5

614

910

0.98

831.

42%

8891

.35

141

100.

1989

0.36

143

544

157

683.

5823

121

ME

AU

Eau

Cla

ire W

I10

0.60

9899

.70

109

96.2

611

299

.81

128

-0.2

9%14

893

.53

132

100.

0392

0.62

674

6815

369

0.01

481

122

MA

LEA

lexa

ndria

LA

98.9

211

910

1.71

3199

.61

8610

0.85

91-0

.16%

141

85.5

815

996

.12

141

0.29

161

116

114

769

3.20

531

123

MC

HA

Cha

mpa

ign-

Urb

ana

IL99

.45

114

97.8

416

410

3.67

6198

.30

154

-0.7

8%16

410

8.02

8210

4.07

320.

5582

461

215

700.

1433

124

MB

AN

Ban

gor

ME

102.

7282

99.2

812

599

.01

8998

.07

160

-0.8

6%16

510

7.73

8496

.00

143

0.66

575

4614

870

0.36

5712

5M

ALT

Alto

ona

PA

101.

0997

99.8

910

396

.21

115

100.

8890

-0.7

2%16

390

.27

145

95.7

014

40.

5875

476

127

701.

8092

112

6M

OW

EO

wen

sbor

o K

Y95

.65

149

99.0

513

293

.91

136

99.3

113

42.

25%

5313

1.36

2710

1.68

590.

3714

02

147

111

704.

2485

212

7M

OD

EO

dess

a T

X10

3.97

6710

0.21

8591

.76

146

101.

4272

0.38

%12

994

.77

126

93.0

716

60.

2916

21

165

124

719.

54N

A12

8M

LON

Long

view

WA

94.8

215

898

.73

144

91.5

215

097

.98

161

2.73

%37

114.

5662

100.

7776

0.5

974

8596

721.

81N

A12

9M

MU

SM

uske

gon-

Nor

ton

Sho

res

MI

102.

7780

100

9792

.05

144

98.8

913

8-0

.05%

138

109.

7778

99.1

910

40.

593

115

817

472

4.58

113

130

MP

UE

Pue

blo

CO

98.2

412

298

.28

156

96.5

110

999

.14

136

1.97

%65

76.6

517

597

.93

127

0.48

105

545

150

724.

9784

131

MS

PR

Spr

ingf

ield

IL95

.22

151

98.8

114

194

.21

131

95.5

417

80.

91%

102

112.

2968

99.7

597

0.94

205

3720

572

5.68

9613

2M

JOP

Jopl

in M

O97

.87

129

99.6

711

094

.94

119

100.

4110

50.

50%

122

97.0

111

610

0.87

740.

3713

82

134

164

726.

72N

A13

3M

DA

GD

alto

n G

A98

.05

126

99.0

313

397

.94

100

100.

5710

00.

00%

137

77.5

217

294

.04

163

1.48

53

111

130

731.

6693

134

MW

HE

Whe

elin

g W

V-O

H97

.88

128

99.6

111

696

.21

114

99.9

812

41.

95%

6683

.84

162

97.6

213

00.

3913

22

139

149

738.

4511

813

5M

FLR

Flo

renc

e-M

uscl

e S

hoal

s A

L92

.69

169

100.

5373

86.4

317

210

0.04

120

2.07

%61

91.1

814

210

6.08

200.

2716

92

142

142

740.

5258

113

6M

SA

OS

an A

ngel

o T

X97

.13

141

97.4

616

696

.31

111

100.

3310

81.

91%

6877

.18

174

90.8

817

21.

0712

312

310

674

3.17

NA

137

MB

UN

Bur

lingt

on N

C93

.90

161

99.1

312

991

.84

145

95.9

717

61.

81%

7098

.62

109

106.

9812

0.49

101

310

813

875

3.90

891

138

MP

AR

Par

kers

burg

-Mar

ietta

-Vie

nna,

WV

-OH

101.

9690

98.3

155

89.9

015

995

.67

177

0.73

%11

112

1.22

4699

.96

930.

5873

310

316

375

7.07

3513

9M

BLO

Blo

omin

gton

-Nor

mal

IL98

.09

124

96.9

117

110

6.72

4510

0.07

117

-0.3

3%14

910

4.47

9194

.17

162

0.52

891

159

158

762.

7414

140

MH

MT

Hou

ma-

Bay

ou C

ane-

Thi

boda

ux L

A10

6.07

5096

.73

172

100.

7780

100.

9487

-0.1

7%14

280

.48

167

93.9

716

40.

2317

51

156

199

767.

1581

141

MP

ISP

ittsf

ield

MA

98.9

911

898

.52

152

94.8

712

197

.12

170

-0.2

0%14

610

7.5

8510

1.37

650.

7148

311

013

276

7.36

3614

2M

SH

BS

hebo

ygan

WI

97.2

513

999

.16

128

98.3

697

100.

3011

00.

62%

114

77.7

317

070

.37

179

0.41

126

479

114

770.

1610

814

3M

SU

TS

umte

r S

C96

.78

143

98.8

813

994

.04

135

100.

9884

-0.4

2%15

613

3.62

2398

.26

121

0.42

124

215

110

677

1.92

941

144

MP

INP

ine

Blu

ff A

R98

.612

099

.83

105

94.5

712

510

0.29

111

1.31

%91

83.2

216

591

.16

171

0.33

150

215

210

677

5.25

1011

145

MM

AC

Mac

on G

A97

.89

127

99.4

812

091

.65

147

98.2

515

6-0

.90%

167

97.6

511

296

.59

139

0.68

517

1122

877

8.50

621

146

MM

OR

Mon

roe

LA10

2.14

8698

.18

157

98.4

395

97.1

316

9-0

.94%

168

130.

9928

95.1

515

10.

5386

213

317

177

8.68

731

147

MA

LNA

lban

y G

A96

.75

144

98.7

114

591

.63

148

99.9

312

50.

16%

135

93.1

913

398

.47

117

0.53

875

4216

378

9.89

1141

148

MM

AS

Man

sfie

ld O

H94

.24

160

97.1

716

992

.56

141

98.8

813

9-0

.47%

160

149.

179

96.7

313

80.

9519

474

128

792.

5688

149

MR

AC

Rac

ine

WI

95.0

215

510

0.05

9390

.06

158

101.

0878

-0.3

5%15

089

.66

150

98.6

611

40.

3215

13

9719

479

2.60

111

150

MD

NV

Dan

ville

VA

93.8

916

295

.74

179

90.9

615

499

.19

135

-3.5

6%17

813

2.06

2696

.06

142

1.23

810

310

880

0.33

951

151

MLA

KLa

ke C

harle

s LA

97.4

713

598

.54

151

87.9

616

597

.67

164

2.59

%42

90.8

514

495

.49

150

0.48

104

396

195

805.

15N

A15

2M

SA

DS

andu

sky

OH

100.

0810

799

.34

124

93.7

113

710

0.05

119

-1.2

7%17

111

4.59

6099

.78

960.

2717

21

172

7980

8.70

# of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s O

ver

1Jo

b G

row

th(J

uly0

4 -

July

05)

5-yr

Rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

G

row

th 1

999

- 20

041-

yr R

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

Gro

wth

200

3 -

2004

Hig

h-T

ech

GD

P L

Q5-

yr J

ob G

row

th19

99 -

200

41-

yr J

ob G

row

th20

03 -

200

45-

yr W

ages

& S

alar

ies

Gro

wth

199

8 -

2003

1-yr

Wag

es &

Sal

arie

s G

row

th 2

002

- 20

03

2005

Bes

t P

erfo

rmin

g C

itie

s Sm

alle

st 1

79 C

ities

Lis

t

34


2004

Ran

k20

05R

ank

MSA

Pop

ulat

ion

2004

Ove

rall

Inde

x19

9315

3M

SA

GS

agin

aw-S

agin

aw T

owns

hip

Nor

th M

I93

.72

165

97.0

517

087

.87

167

99.3

813

3-0

.25%

147

98.7

310

710

4.1

310.

6753

462

209

809.

9210

615

4M

GO

LG

olds

boro

NC

96.2

614

599

.35

123

94.7

412

298

.12

158

-0.0

9%13

911

1.03

7210

5.08

260.

1917

80

179

114

814.

6499

155

MD

EC

Dec

atur

IL88

.07

176

98.9

413

785

.15

174

99.5

513

10.

58%

115

129.

2534

102.

6541

0.36

145

214

811

181

7.14

781

156

MLI

MLi

ma

OH

97.2

813

898

.51

153

95.5

811

898

.85

142

0.92

%10

194

.29

127

98.3

611

90.

3813

62

150

107

817.

5210

915

7M

RO

MR

ocky

Mou

nt N

C93

.66

166

99.0

713

090

.12

157

98.7

914

5-0

.87%

166

89.9

214

795

.63

146

1.09

117

1314

582

2.21

NA

158

MD

AI

Dan

ville

IL92

.92

168

98.0

516

287

.50

168

102.

1349

0.90

%10

477

.55

171

86.6

617

50.

4312

34

8783

827.

2617

4315

9M

AN

EA

nder

son

SC

95.1

115

410

0.46

7992

.23

143

99.0

313

7-0

.44%

159

84.1

116

110

9.68

50.

1917

70

173

174

828.

2876

116

0M

VIC

Vic

toria

TX

95.3

115

098

.57

150

91.0

715

296

.33

174

1.97

%64

89.8

214

898

.55

116

0.58

762

146

113

831.

0585

116

1M

LAF

Lafa

yette

IN95

.79

148

99.8

410

490

.98

153

98.2

615

5-0

.41%

155

89.7

614

997

.35

132

0.66

563

102

182

832.

54N

A16

2M

MO

EM

onro

e M

I10

2.75

8196

.69

173

103.

6262

100.

0112

2-1

.69%

175

94.7

912

482

.42

177

0.27

168

017

615

383

2.79

691

163

MF

LOF

lore

nce

SC

97.8

313

199

.39

122

94.0

413

497

.95

162

0.34

%13

197

.78

111

100.

1091

0.31

156

115

719

783

4.98

NA

164

MB

CR

Bat

tle C

reek

MI

99.0

911

798

.66

146

87.9

416

696

.81

171

-1.1

0%16

914

2.62

1510

6.38

170.

2816

42

143

139

836.

4219

9116

5M

BC

YB

ay C

ity M

I97

.35

137

99.2

312

686

.81

171

98.4

615

1-2

.86%

177

99.4

110

496

.88

135

0.73

444

8110

984

1.25

107

166

MK

OK

Kok

omo

IN86

.93

179

97.6

616

584

.49

176

97.7

016

311

.36%

153

.25

178

95.6

114

80.

5192

312

410

185

0.51

1011

167

MT

OP

Top

eka

KS

97.0

514

298

.14

160

94.5

212

696

.51

173

0.95

%99

95.0

612

391

.22

170

0.38

135

392

228

855.

04N

A16

8M

AN

DA

nder

son

IN92

.22

170

97.3

016

882

.07

177

96.2

717

50.

78%

109

102.

7395

97.9

612

60.

6658

550

131

858.

7610

016

9M

KA

KK

anka

kee-

Bra

dley

IL96

.00

147

98.5

914

992

.77

140

97.3

016

7-1

.15%

170

97.5

711

391

.95

168

0.75

404

8310

786

8.79

110

170

MD

EZ

Dec

atur

AL

93.8

316

310

0.34

8188

.14

163

98.4

115

20.

51%

120

92.4

013

791

.55

169

0.39

133

116

014

887

1.30

9717

1M

GA

DG

adsd

en A

L94

.48

159

100.

1687

86.0

117

398

.62

149

-1.6

0%17

496

.93

118

103.

6135

0.27

171

116

810

388

0.11

NA

172

MM

ICM

ichi

gan

City

-La

Por

te IN

93.7

616

498

.12

161

91.3

315

197

.28

168

-0.4

3%15

710

8.05

8195

.07

152

0.56

813

120

110

907.

0690

173

MJA

KJa

ckso

n M

I94

.90

157

99.0

013

593

.59

138

96.7

217

20.

11%

136

86.9

215

795

.65

145

0.37

139

213

516

391

3.76

115

174

ME

LME

lmira

NY

88.7

117

596

.51

176

88.3

916

298

.11

159

-2.0

0%17

693

.84

128

98.8

211

00.

8430

312

590

930.

8479

175

MN

ILN

iles-

Ben

ton

Har

bor

MI

87.1

817

896

.57

175

88.3

916

197

.34

166

0.44

%12

788

.76

152

94.8

315

50.

412

94

6516

394

2.10

1121

176

MS

IOS

ioux

City

IA-N

E-S

D90

.95

173

96.6

117

486

.93

170

98.6

714

8-0

.36%

152

92.4

138

99.4

799

0.44

118

214

014

394

8.37

116

177

MM

UN

Mun

cie

IN91

.13

172

96.4

717

787

.09

169

98.1

615

7-1

.54%

173

92.1

513

994

.98

153

0.5

953

117

118

980.

0210

317

8M

WE

IW

eirt

on-S

teub

envi

lle W

V-O

H93

.616

795

.917

888

.04

164

97.3

716

5-0

.39%

154

77.2

617

394

.32

161

0.32

153

311

312

810

04.7

1N

A17

9M

SP

FS

prin

gfie

ld O

H90

.88

174

97.9

616

377

.15

179

95.1

217

9-0

.44%

158

18.9

217

976

.83

178

0.18

179

017

714

310

77.0

8

Foo

tnot

es:

1A

dded

/Sub

trac

ted

Cou

nty(

s)2

Add

ed/S

ubtr

acte

d M

etro

(s)

3In

dica

tes

this

city

's p

ositi

on o

n la

st y

ear's

200

4 la

rges

t met

ros

list

4In

dica

tes

this

city

's p

ositi

on o

n la

st y

ear's

200

4 sm

alle

st m

etro

s lis

tN

AN

ew M

etro

5-yr

Job

Gro

wth

1999

- 2

004

1-yr

Job

Gro

wth

2003

- 2

004

5-yr

Wag

es &

Sal

arie

s G

row

th 1

998

- 20

031-

yr W

ages

& S

alar

ies

Gro

wth

200

2 -

2003

Job

Gro

wth

(Jul

y04

- Ju

ly05

)5-

yr R

elat

ive

HT

GD

P

Gro

wth

199

9 -

2004

1-yr

Rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

G

row

th 2

003

- 20

04H

igh-

Tec

h G

DP

LQ

# of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s O

ver

1

2005

Bes

t P

erfo

rmin

g C

itie

s Sm

alle

st 1

79 C

ities

Lis

t

35

Best Performing Cities 2005Endnotes

1 Statistical and Science Policy Branch, Offi ce of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Offi ce of Management and Budget. OMB Bulletin No. 04-03.2 The latest 12-month job performance calculates the percentage change from the same month one year previous, e.g., the percentage change in jobs from July 2004 to July 2005. The 12-month percentage change is a measure of recent momentum and captures which metropolitan areas are improving their performance in recent months. The annual growth rate measures the percentage change from calendar year 2003 to 2004. Whereas the annual growth rate does not indicate whether high growth was achieved or diminished in the fi rst or latter half of the year, the 12-month growth rate captures that aspect.3An 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 has a denser concentration of that industry than the nation has, on average. It is an indication of how successful a metro is in being home to an above-average mass of high-tech industries. Metros that exceed the national average in high-tech industry LQs have an edge attracting and retaining high-tech fi rms because of their dense employment bases and other positive agglomeration, or clustering, factors.4 Th e Center. 2003. “The Top American Research Universities,” The Lombardi Program, November. 5 Please visit our web site at www.milkeninstitute.org

36

About the Authors Best Performing Cities 2005

About the Authors

Ross DeVol is director of regional economics at the Milken Institute. He oversees the institute’s research on the dynamics of comparative regional growth performance, and technology and its impact on regional and national economies. He is an expert on the intangible economy and how regions can prepare themselves to compete in it. He authored the ground-breaking 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 re-gions. He also created the “Best Performing Cities Index,” an annual ranking of U.S. metropolitan areas that shows where jobs are being created and economies are growing. His most recent work involves the study of biotechnology and other life-sciences clusters, and the impact these industries have on regional economies. Prior to joining the institute, DeVol was senior vice president of Glob-al Insight Inc. (formerly Wharton Econometric Forecasting), where he supervised the Regional Economic Services group. He was the fi rm’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 reports on behalf of the U.S. Macro Group. He is ranked among the “Super Stars” of think tank scholars by International Economy magazine.

Lorna H. Wallace is a research fellow in regional economics at the Milken Institute. Her expertise is in international business, especially the impact of foreign direct investment on the competitive-ness of subnational, national and regional economies. She designs, develops and performs research on international trade issues, particularly determining the relationship among the triad of global trade: imports, exports and foreign direct investment. Her research relates international business to workforce development, with an emphasis on the systemic role of government. Wallace has extensive work experience around the world in the public and private sectors; her award-winning research is widely published. She was educated in Canada (B. Admin.) and earned her M.B.A. and Ph.D. in international business from Rutgers University.

Armen Bedroussian is a senior research analyst with the Milken Institute. Bedroussian has exten-sive 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, River-side, where he taught intermediate micro- and macroeconomics to undergraduates. Since coming to the institute, Bedroussian has contributed to several projects and co-authored Manufacturing Matters: California’s Performance and Prospects, Th e Economic Contributions of Health Care to New England and America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, among others. Bedroussian earned his bachelor of science in applied mathematics and a master’s in economics from the University of California, Riverside.

Tampa

Daytona Beach

Orlando

LakeOkeechobee

Sarasota

75

4

95

75

MelbournePalm Bay

by Ross DeVol, Lorna Wallaceand Armen Bedroussian


February 2006

Best Performing Cities2005

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


Documents

Best Performing Cities