Best-Performing Cities 2010

Best-Performing Cities 2010
Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained
Five of Top 10
Metro Areas Lie Deep
in the Heart of Texas
Ross C. DeVol,
Armen Bedroussian,
Kevin Klowden, and
Candice Flor Hynek
October 2010
Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained
Ross C. DeVol,
Armen Bedroussian,
Kevin Klowden, and
Candice Flor Hynek
October 2010
About the Milken Institute
The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank whose mission is to improve the lives and economic conditions
of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify
and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity. We put research to work with the goal of revitalizing
regions and finding new ways to generate capital for people with original ideas.
We focus on:
human capital: the talent, knowledge, and experience of people, and their value to organizations, economies, and
society; financial capital: innovations that allocate financial resources efficiently, especially to those who ordinarily
would not have access to them, but who can best use them to build companies, create jobs, accelerate life-saving
medical research, and solve long-standing social and economic problems; and
social capital: the bonds of society that underlie economic advancement, including schools, health care, cultural
institutions, and government services.
By creating ways to spread the benefits of human, financial, and social capital to as many people as possible—by
democratizing capital—we hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.
We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and publicly supported.
© 2010 Milken Institute

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................................................ 5
The Biggest Gainers................................................................................... 9
The Biggest Decliners............................................................................... 11
The Best-Performing Large Cities........................................................... 13
America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance.............................................. 29
The Best-Performing Small Cities............................................................ 37
Complete Results: 2010 Best-Performing Large Cities ......................... 45
Complete Results: 2010 Best-Performing Small Cities ......................... 47
Appendix .................................................................................................. 49
Endnotes . ................................................................................................. 55
About the Authors ................................................................................... 60

Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Our Best-Performing Cities index is updated on an annual basis to provide an objective,
comprehensive measure of economic performance across metropolitan areas of the country.
In most years, it gives a good indication of the underlying structural performance of regional
economies.
While the 2010 edition still sheds light on structural factors underpinning the economic growth
process, the severity of the recent recession brings more cyclical factors to bear. For example,
several of this year’s best-performing cities had military bases that benefited from Defense Base
Realignment and Consolidation (BRAC) actions. A best-performing city in this context should be
viewed as one that was able to minimize the job losses and economic dislocations in the midst of a
severe national recession. We include measures of job, wage, and technology performance over a
five-year period to capture the structural elements.
Among this year’s key findings:
• Texas metros dominated the rankings even more impressively than last year. The state claimed
three of the top 5 positions; five of the top 10 positions and 11 of the top 25 among the
nation’s 200 largest metros.
• Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, moved past Austin–Round Rock, Texas, to secure first
among the 200 largest metros in the country.
• Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV, was the top performer among the 10
largest metros and an impressive sixth in the overall rankings.
• Fargo, North Dakota–Minnesota, was first on the small cities list, and Bismarck, North
Dakota, was second.
• Clarksville, Tennessee–Kentucky, moved up 97 spots from last year to 39th, recording the
biggest gain among metros.
Only a handful of cities eked out job gains in 2009. Through April 2010, just a few more cities
managed increases in employment. The 2007-2009 recession came to an end in June 2009, but its
effects continue to sting. Real GDP declined 4.1 percent from peak to trough, the most severe in the
post-war period, eclipsing the previous record of 3.7 percent in the 1957-1958 recession.
While virtually no sector of the economy went unscathed, the magnitude of the contraction in
business investment and manufacturing explains much of the severity in the recent period relative
to other recessions. The bursting of the housing bubble, retrenching consumers, a severe drop in
exports, and a slashing of business inventories cut across a wide swath of industries.
The ultimate measure of the severity of the recession is its impact on labor markets, and here the
toll of the “Great Recession” was devastating and continues to this day. Based on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics establishment survey, a total of 8.4 million jobs were lost during the recent recession, and
the unemployment rate hit 10.1 percent.
1
Some economists are predicting that the economy is in store for a so-called double-dip recession,
but they remain in the minority. The U.S. economy faces many headwinds, but it seems most likely
that moderate, but disappointing, growth is the most likely outcome. It will be disappointing in the
sense that job growth will not be sufficient to bring down the unemployment rate to where it was
before the recent crisis.
The top performers shared many of the same characteristics as last year. None experienced a large
correction in housing markets. In many cases, the excesses of the housing bubble years were
largely avoided and overall economic performance was more stable than in other metros. One
factor that was more vital than last year was a low dependence on durable goods manufacturing.
As the production of capital equipment and consumer durable goods plummeted, metros without
much of this activity were largely shielded. Another characteristic of top performers was a relatively
small presence of financial services, an industry that experienced large job losses due to bank
consolidation and losses on their loan portfolios.
Several metros with diversified technology bases—including high-tech manufacturing as well as

high-tech services—were among the best performers. Most of the top-ranking metros have an
employment mix that relies heavily on services, which experienced a smaller decline than most
other sectors. Several metros had a large military presence and benefited from BRAC actions. A few
of the best-performing metros had a dependence on energy exploration, services, and alternative
energy investments. With just a few exceptions, the top-ranked metros had low business costs and
favorable business climates.
The Top 25 Best-Performing Cities
Texas metros dominated the 2010 rankings, eclipsing even last year’s stellar performance. Lone
Star State metros occupied 11 of the top 25 positions among the 200 largest metros in the country
and five of the top 10. For the second year running, the same two Texas cities claimed the top two
spots, except Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood edged past Austin–Round Rock to take first among the 200
largest metros. Another way to highlight Texas’ dominance is that just two of the state’s 13 metros
didn’t make the top 25, with the lowest-ranking metro coming in at 57th overall.
As highlighted throughout this report, Texas metros have benefited from a low reliance on durable
goods manufacturing, a low cost of doing business, a favorable business climate, the benefits of
BRAC activities, greater reliance on trade with Mexico and South America (which declined less than
trade with other parts of the world), and ongoing energy exploration activities and alternative fuels
research. Throw in their aggressive recruitment of businesses from out of state, and you have the
ingredients for a very successful recipe.
North Carolina had three metros in the top 25; Raleigh–Cary at seventh, Durham at 15th and
Fayetteville at 18th. These metros shared many of the same attributes as the Texas metros. No other
states had more than one metro in the top 25.
Led by Texas, the South held 21 of the top 25 positions. The Northeast and West each had two
metros in the top 25.
2
Executive Summary
Table 1. Best-performing cities: Top 25 large metros

Rank according to 2010 index
2010 2009
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 1 2
Austin-Round Rock, TX 2 1
Huntsville, AL 3 8
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 4 4
Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA 5 6⁺
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 6 25
Raleigh-Cary, NC 7 10
Anchorage, AK 8 40
El Paso, TX 9 14
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 10 5
Lafayette, LA 11 9
Trenton-Ewing, NJ 12 46
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 13 70
San Antonio, TX 14 11
Durham, NC 15 6
Amarillo, TX 16 35
Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 17 13
Fayetteville, NC 18 31
Charleston-North Charleston, SC 19 30
Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick, MD* 20 51
Oklahoma City, OK 21 26
Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA* 22 45
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX* 23 12
Lubbock, TX 24 29
Provo-Orem, UT 25 28
*Indicates metropolitan division
⁺Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA MSA moved to the large cities list. It ranked sixth in the best-performing small cities in 2009.
Source: Milken Institute.
This Year’s Best-Performing City

Table 6. Top 10 best-performing small cities
Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, claimed the top spot in our 2010 Best-Performing Cities index,
Rank according to 2010 index*
edging up from second last year. The area, which experienced a devastating tragedy at Fort Hood
in 2009, should be heralded for its economic performance amid a severe 2010 national recession.
2009 The
metro area’s job growth
Metropolitan ranked
statistical in(MSA)
area the top 10 last year and over the five
rankyears from 2004-2009,
rank but
its overall performance was fueled by its first-place position in wage and salary growth over the
Fargo, ND-MN 1 10
Bismarck, ND 2 7
five-year (2003-2008)
Jacksonville, NCand one-year (2007-2008) periods examined. Additionally,
3 it ranked
n.a. third in
year-over-year job growth inTXthe 12 months ending April 2010. Expansion
College Station-Bryan, 4 at Fort Hood,
14 with the
associated economicStewart,
Hinesville-Fort ripple effects,
GA is the primary catalyst for this stellar
5 performance. n.a.
Morgantown, WV 6 27
Tyler, TX 7 4
Las Cruces, NM 8 9
Iowa City, IA 9 22
Lawton, OK 10 n.a.
*Among 179 small metros
3
The Ten Largest Cities
America’s largest metropolitan areas face unique challenges to growth, including high density
and minimal space for expansion. For this reason, it is appropriate to break out their performances
separately. It isn’t reasonable to expect cities like Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago to grow at the
same rate as Austin, Raleigh, or Huntsville. However, the big metro areas could take new cues from
the favorable business climates promoted by these fast-growing areas.
Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV–MD, was the top-performing metro

among the 10 largest metros based on population and ranked sixth overall on this year’s list. The
federal government was by far the primary driver of the region’s job growth from 2008 to 2009,
adding nearly 11,000 positions. Last year’s stimulus package, known as The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, provided a significant boost to the metro’s economy. Of the awards
distributed, D.C. received nearly 10 times as much stimulus per capita as the national average.1
The Biggest Gainers
There are several commonalities among the biggest gainers on the 2010 Best-Performing Cities
index. The most significant theme was a heavily service-based economy with little durable
goods production. This is because the service sector tends to be less sensitive to business cycles.
Conversely, metros with a heavier reliance on durable goods manufacturing, which took a dramatic
hit during the recession, witnessed the largest declines in output and employment. Among the
biggest gainers, a majority also didn’t experience an extreme housing bubble earlier in the decade,
allowing them to avoid a severe correction.
Gains were recorded across the country. Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, California, and Florida
each landed two metros on the list. Columbus, GA–AL, made its second consecutive appearance on
the list, leaping 67 spots to claim 45th. The metro experiencing the largest gain was Clarksville, TN–
KY, which moved up 97 spots to 39th place. BRAC shifts to Fort Benning (Columbus) and increased
defense spending at Fort Campbell (Clarksville) were key drivers of growth in those regions.
The Best-Performing Small City
Fargo, North Dakota, jumped to first among the best-performing small metros in 2010, after
finishing 10th the previous year. Fargo experienced a very mild recession and quickly recovered. The
unemployment rate was below 4 percent, one of the lowest in the nation. The tight labor market
elsewhere resulted in an increase of new residents. The increased global demand for agricultural
commodities such as wheat, corn, and soybeans, which the state grows in abundance, has benefited
the region in recent years. A growing presence in the technology sector, and biosciences in
particular, has diversified the area’s economy.
In this year’s release, an appendix was added to give further background on the methodology
and weighting scheme we developed. The appendix attempts to validate the methods used for
determining relative metropolitan growth and its corresponding strength as exemplified by the
existing weights. The regression model developed using the variables included in our ranking
explains 88 percent of the total variation in real GDP growth among 379 metros from 1990 to 2008,
a high degree of explanatory power.
4
Introduction
Introduction
The Best-Performing Cities index was designed to measure objectively which U.S. metropolitan areas
are most successful in terms of job creation and retention, the quality of jobs being produced,
and overall economic performance. Specifically, it pinpoints where jobs are being created and
maintained, where wages and salaries are increasing, and where economies and businesses are
growing and thriving.
The index allows businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors,
academics, government officials, and public policy groups to assess, monitor, and gain insight
into each metro’s relative performance. It also provides benchmarking data that can be used in
developing strategies to improve and maintain a metro’s economic performance. Moreover, it
is a tool for understanding consumer markets and business expansion opportunities. In today’s
recessionary climate, it helps determine which regions may present the lowest risk. The 2010 index
applies the methodology used in previous indexes.
In a year when robust growth was in painfully short supply, the top-performing cities posted only
mild increases in employment. Few cities actually experienced meaningful job growth in 2009.
Coming out of the worst recession in the post-war era, the emphasis is not as much on job creation
as on job retention. As a result, this year’s index will hinge on a metro’s degree of sensitivity to
business cycles, highlighting those that were better able to the weather the storm of the recession.
In this kind of environment, it is even more important to evaluate each city’s performance in relation
to the nation as a whole and in relation to each other.
We have employed geographic terms and definitions used by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), which in turn uses data from the 2000 census. The OMB defines a metropolitan
statistical area (MSA) as a region generally consisting of a large population nucleus and adjacent
territory with a high degree of economic and social integration, as measured by community ties.2
Using these parameters, the agency identifies 374 metropolitan statistical areas.3 County population
growth accounts for the creation of new MSAs.
If specific criteria are met, an MSA with a single nucleus and a population of 2.5 million or more
is further divided into geographic areas called metropolitan divisions. There are currently 29
metropolitan divisions. For example, two metropolitan divisions (Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale
and Santa Ana–Anaheim–Irvine) make up the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana MSA. We include
the smaller metropolitan divisions in the index to reflect more accurate geographic growth patterns.
Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based
The components shown in the following table are used to calculate our index rankings. The index
measures growth in jobs, wages and salaries, and technology output over a five-year span (2004–
2009 for jobs and technology output and 2003-2008 for wages and salaries) to adjust for extreme
variations in business cycles. It also incorporates the latest year’s performance in these areas (2008–
2009 for jobs and technology output and 2007–2008 for wages and salaries). Lastly, it includes
12-month job growth performance (April 2009 to April 2010) to capture relative recent momentum
among metropolitan economies.4
5
Employment growth is weighted most heavily in the index because of its critical importance in
determining community vitality. Wage and salary growth also measures the quality of the jobs being
created and sustained. Technology output growth is another important element in determining the
economic vibrancy of cities.
We have incorporated other measures to reflect the concentration and diversity of technology
industries within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients (LQs, which measure the concentration
of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the national average) are included to
indicate a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.5 We also measure the number of
specific high-tech industries (out of a possible 25) whose concentrations in an MSA are higher than
the national average.
The Best-Performing Cities index is solely an outcomes-based measure. It does not incorporate
explicit input measures (business costs; cost-of-living components, such as housing; and other
quality-of-life measures, such as commute times or crime rates). Static input measures, although
important, are subject to large variations and can be highly subjective, making them less
meaningful than more objective indicators of outcome.
Businesses choose to locate in particular areas for various reasons. Some, for instance, opt to
remain in high-cost cities despite the availability of lower-cost locations. The output measures used
for this index include the benefits of situating in expensive locations. Theoretically, a prospering
region will raise wages and rents as its businesses tap into more human capital and available space.
Nevertheless, holding all other factors constant (such as the productivity associated with being in
one location versus another), a company will generally choose to locate where business costs are
lower and employees enjoy higher living standards.
Table 2. Components of the Best-Performing Cities index
Component Weight
Job growth (I=2004) 0.143
Wage and salary growth (I=2003) 0.143
Short-term job growth (Apr09-Apr10) 0.143
Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2004) 0.071
High-tech GDP location quotient 0.071
Number of high-tech industries with GDP LQ>1 0.071
Note: I refers to the beginning year of index.
6
Introduction
National Economic Conditions
The painful 2007-2009 recession came to an end in June 2009, but its reverberations are still
being felt. Real GDP declined 4.1 percent from peak to trough, the most severe in the post-war
period, eclipsing the previous record of 3.7 percent experienced in the 1957–1958 recession. While
virtually no sector of the economy went unscathed, the magnitude of the contraction in business
investment and manufacturing explains much of the severity in the recent period relative to other
recessions. However, what triggered the recession was the bursting of the housing and mortgage
finance bubble as it cascaded throughout the financial system, ultimately leading to government
intervention to stave off an even more serious economic contraction.
Overextended consumers facing heavy debt-servicing burdens on mortgages and credit cards,
paired with wealth declines from losses in the stock market and the collapse in home values,
deferred purchases of discretionary items such as cars and other consumer durables. Services tied
to travel and tourism also witnessed a severe retrenchment. Foreign purchases of U.S. products and
services fell, and a massive destocking of inventories combined with the fall in business investment
caused industrial production to contract 14.8 percent from December 2007 to June 2009. The peak-
to-trough decline in orders for manufacturing was 27.2 percent.6
The ultimate measure of the severity of the recession is its impact on labor markets, and here the
toll of the “Great Recession” was devastating and continues to this day. Based on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics establishment survey, a total of 8.4 million jobs were lost during the recent recession, and
the unemployment rate hit 10.1 percent. Small businesses accounted for a disproportion share of
the losses, and few hired new workers during the recession. In most recessions, a number of small
establishments continue to expand payrolls despite cutbacks at others.
The central question looking forward is what will be the strength of the recovery. Some economists
are predicting a so-called double-dip recession, but they remain in the minority. The U.S. economy
faces many headwinds, but it seems that moderate but disappointing growth is the most likely
outcome. It will be disappointing in the sense that job growth over the next few years will not be
sufficient to reduce the unemployment rate to pre-crisis levels.
7
The Biggest Gainers
The Biggest Gainers

Those cities experiencing the biggest gains in the 2010 Best-Performing Cities index share important
similarities. The most significant theme among the gainers was a heavily service-based economy
with little durable goods production. Because the service sector tends to be less sensitive to
business cycles, metros with a larger share of their economic activity in that sector typically are
less likely to suffer major declines in their economy. Conversely, metros with a heavier reliance on
durable goods manufacturing, which took a dramatic hit during this past recession, witnessed the
largest declines in output and employment. A majority of the biggest gainers also didn’t experience
an extreme housing bubble earlier in the decade, allowing them to avoid a severe correction. For
most metros, however, it was simply a case of not deteriorating as rapidly as the national economy.
Gains were recorded across the country. Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, California, and Florida
each landed two metros on the list. Columbus, GA–AL, made its second consecutive appearance
on the list of biggest gainers, leaping 67 spots to claim 45th. The metro experiencing the largest
gain was Clarksville, TN–KY, which moved up 97 spots to 39th place. Defense Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) shifts to Fort Benning (Columbus) and increased defense spending at Fort
Campbell (Clarksville) were key drivers of growth in those regions.
Table 3. Biggest gainers

Change in rankings
2010 2009 Spots

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank climbed
Clarksville, TN-KY 39 136 +97
St. Louis, MO-IL 44 128 +84
Charleston, WV 61 144 +83
Pittsburgh, PA 32 109 +77
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 73 149 +76
Green Bay, WI 102 171 +69
Columbus, GA-AL 45 112 +67
Lexington-Fayette, KY 100 161 +61
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 115 173 +58
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 13 70 +57
Visalia-Porterville, CA 70 124 +54
Jackson, MS 66 113 +47
Honolulu, HI 55 100 +45
Lincoln, NE 54 97 +43
Tallahassee, FL 88 129 +41
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 116 157 +41
Duluth, MN-WI 122 163 +41
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 113 153 +40
Richmond, VA 79 118 +39
Chattanooga, TN-GA 133 172 +39
9
The Biggest Decliners
The Biggest Decliners

The ripple effects of the housing crisis are still evident across the biggest decliners’ list. Housing
prices have yet to stabilize in most of these metros as inventory remains high and delinquencies
continue to engulf neighborhoods. Several of these metros are also dependent on travel and
tourism, which endured a substantial decline and slow recovery.
This year, California had both the biggest decliner—Santa Barbara–Santa Maria–Goleta,
California—and the most metros on the list, at four. The Santa Barbara area’s low housing
affordability will delay its housing correction for some time while budgetary problems at the state
level will likely impede growth at its University of California campus. The metro’s dependence on
tourism will only add to economic woes until the recovery picks up.
Table 4. Biggest decliners

Change in rankings
2010 2009 Spots

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank down
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 138 43 -95
Fort Smith, AR-OK 150 62 -88
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 132 50 -82
Greeley, CO 101 20 -81
Eugene-Springfield, OR 160 81 -79
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 93 23 -70
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 107 37 -70
New Haven-Milford, CT 153 88 -65
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 111 49 -62
Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 136 77 -59
Wichita, KS 72 15 -57
Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI* 152 95 -57
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 164 107 -57
Ocala, FL 159 104 -55
Peoria, IL 87 33 -54
Reno-Sparks, NV 196 143 -53
Worcester, MA 129 79 -50
Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA* 172 122 -50
Salt Lake City, UT 49 3 -46
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 146 103 -43
*Indicates metropolitan division
11
The Best-Performing Large Cities

Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, moved into the top spot in our 2010 Best-Performing Cities
index, edging up from second last year. The area, which experienced a devastating tragedy at Fort
Hood in 2009, should be heralded for its economic performance amid a severe national recession.
The metro area recorded top 10 finishes in job growth over the five-year and one-year periods, but
its overall performance was spurred by its first-place position in five-year and one-year wage and
salary growth. Additionally, it ranked third on year-over-year job growth measured through April
2010. Expansion at Fort Hood, with the associated economic ripple effects, is the primary catalyst for
this stellar performance.
The area’s economy has benefited from the base consolidations ordered in 2005. Based on estimates
from the Defense Department, this long-term repositioning should transfer more than 8,000 military
personnel to Fort Hood from 2006 through 2011. Military compensation has been rising faster
than federal non-military and private-sector compensation over the last decade.7 Average military
pay surpassed $70,000 in 2009, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Base-related
activity in local service sectors, such as professional and business services and many others, has
provided stability to the area’s economy during the severe national recession.
Recognizing that the stimulus from Fort Hood will wane, the area is focused on diversifying its
economy. Its location on the central I-35 trade corridor with Mexico provides such an opportunity. In
the Killeen metro area, tangible results such as employment in support activities for transportation
are more than twice as important to the local economy as they are to the U.S. economy overall.
A combination of less over-extension of mortgage credit in earlier years and more stability in
employment during the recession mitigated the downturn in the housing market. Although
new-home construction fell, prices didn’t plummet as in many other parts of the country. Higher
education is an area where the metro has seen growth and is anticipating further advances. Central
Texas College has already seen increased enrollment, and Texas A&M University Central Texas has
broken ground on a new campus. This provides the metro an opportunity to establish new research-
related jobs and further diversify its economy.8
Figure 1. Wage growth

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood vs. United States
Wages, percent change from preceding year
15
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood
United States
10
-5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute.
13
Slipping one spot to second overall, consistent performer Austin–Round Rock, Texas, also ranked
second on job growth over the five-year period. It ranked in the top 25 on almost all growth
performance categories. This is an impressive achievement when you consider that Austin is
highly dependent on computers and information technology equipment, which was devastated
by the recession. Dell and several of its chip producers suffered major declines as domestic and
international IT markets collapsed. The presence of the University of Texas, Austin, and Austin’s role
as the state capital helped insulate it from further damage. Austin’s low dependence on traditional
durable goods manufacturing and tourism provided further stability. Austin’s housing market
witnessed far less severe declines than most metro markets did.
Although employment fell in 2009, Austin’s unemployment rate peaked at 7.3 percent, roughly
3 percentage points less than the national figure. Austin’s relatively low cost of doing business for a
leading knowledge-based economy hub, combined with a favorable business climate and access to
an educated workforce, makes it a very attractive location to start or expand a business. Austin’s net
population increased by 32,000 in 2009, according to the Census Bureau, compared with a peak of
48,000 in 2006.
Austin hopes to encourage more high-tech services, recognizing that hardware and chip makers
will create fewer jobs in the future. That said, Samsung intends to add a production line in Austin
that will employ 500 workers to make logic chips, demonstrating that Austin remains a key center
of U.S. chip manufacturing and will attract new incremental capacity in the future.9 On the high-tech
service side, one recent success is Apple’s acquisition of Intrinsity Inc., which designed key parts of
a chip for Apple’s iPad. Intrinsity had around 100 employees at the time of the acquisition, but it is
likely that Apple will make additional investments and add more employees.10 Apple already has
around 2,500 employees in central Texas. Many other high-tech service firms such as Google and
Facebook are adding employees in Austin.
Figure 2. Unemployment rate

Austin-Round Rock vs. United States
Percent
10
Austin-Round Rock
United States
9
3
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
14
Huntsville, Alabama, jumped from eighth to third, holding its own in the top 10. Like Killeen,
Huntsville is benefiting from base consolidation decisions made in 2005 but adds high-tech to
the mix of reasons it is a consistent performer. The Redstone Arsenal is home to NASA’s Marshall
Space Flight Center, the Missile Defense Agency, and more than 60 government agencies and
organizations with more than $50 billion in total annual budgets.11 Slightly more than half of the
35,000 people who work behind the Redstone Arsenal’s gates every day are civilian government
employees, and the remainder are government contractors.
Aerospace contractors are major employers in the metro area with over 4,400 jobs in total. Boeing,
Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin all have a major presence and spawn thousands of jobs
in other industries. Huntsville is reported to have the nation’s highest concentration of engineers per
capita. Excluding federal, state, and local government, three of the top five private-sector industries
are high-tech services. Due to real estate space limitations behind the arsenal’s gates, construction
recently began on the Redstone Gateway office park to house the next expansion.12 The cancellation
of the Constellation Project, which was to develop two space vehicles that could bring humans and
cargo to the moon, was a blow to further expansion.13 However, the area seems likely to get a slice
of new NASA research funding.14
Figure 3. Professional, scientific, and technical services

Huntsville vs. United States
Jobs, percent change from preceding year
15
Huntsville
United States
10
-5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, Texas, held on to fourth, anchored in the upper echelon of metros

by such key measures as job and wage and salary growth. McAllen is a consistent performer,
remaining first in five-year job growth, matching last year’s position. For 2009, McAllen placed fifth
in job growth overall among the 200 largest metros and second in 12-month job growth from April
2009 to April 2010. The metro area suffered during the recession in 2009, but the downturn was
substantially milder than in the nation overall. McAllen continued to have high population growth.
McAllen’s location on the Mexican border has made it a key trade and logistics site. The number
of cargo trucks crossing into Hildalgo County has more than tripled since the early 1990s.15
15
Neighboring Reynosa, Mexico, is an important maquiladora location, attracting many leading

multinational firms. A trade-driven logistic infrastructure has developed. Low business costs
make the McAllen area an attractive location for further expansion as firms remain focused on
cost containment. Another key source of growth has been in the area’s role as a regional health-
care center. Edinburg Regional Medical Center, McAllen Medical Center, and Rio Grande Regional
Hospital are three of the top four private employers in the metro area.16
Figure 4. Health-care and social assistance services

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission vs. United States
14
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission
United States
12
10
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Kennewick–Pasco–Richland, Washington, was fifth this year. Population gains propelled the
Kennewick metro area from the small metro list onto the list of the 200 largest metros. Kennewick
has recorded some impressive feats: It was first in job growth in both the 2008-2009 and in April
2009-April 2010 measures. The stability of its economy in 2009 led to the large influx of new
residents.
Many of the area’s job opportunities are tied to the Department of Energy’s Hanford environmental
remediation project. Massive amounts of federal funding are streaming into the area. Last year’s
federal stimulus legislation—formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA)—appropriated significant funding for the Hanford project, which is attempting
to demonstrate that an area with extensive nuclear contamination can be remediated and partly
reclaimed. Much of the plutonium production for nuclear weapons was housed at the Hanford site.
The Hanford project will last several decades, and the centerpiece is the construction of a
$12 billion vitrification plant, a facility that turns radioactive waste into glass for more stable
storage.17 This work supports construction, a wide range of professional services such as engineering
and architectural design, and manufacturing.
The region is home to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Lab, operated
by Battelle. Several large engineering firms—Bechtel National and Fluor Hanford among them—
provide contract consulting services to the federal government. Another reason for stability in the
region’s economy is its large share of food manufacturing jobs, an area that didn’t decline much
16
during the recession. Kennewick has 45 percent of all manufacturing jobs in food production versus
the national average of 12 percent.18 The housing market has seen just a modest decrease in prices,
largely due to the region’s better job performance.
Figure 5. Population growth

Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA
Thousands
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Ranked 25th last year, Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV–MD, jumped to sixth

place on this year’s list. The metro ranked 11th in 2008–2009 job growth, and its jobs base grew by
0.27 percent—13th in the nation—in the April 2009–April 2010 period. The federal government
was by far the primary driver of 2008-2009 job growth, adding nearly 11,000 positions. Last year’s
stimulus package provided a significant boost to the metro’s economy. In fact, of the awards
distributed, the District of Columbia received nearly 10 times as much stimulus per capita as the
national average.19 The impacts from this federal spending have provided stability during the
downturn, resulting in a milder recession in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria area.
Figure 6. Federal government

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria vs. United States
4
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria
United States
3
-1
-2
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
17
Support from the federal government has fueled growth across a spectrum of high-tech industries,
providing $78.5 billion of contract work in the region.20 Northrop Grumman recently announced
that it will relocate its corporate headquarters to Northern Virginia, creating nearly 300 executive
positions.21 In 2009, the number of U.S. companies engaged in government services rose to 335,
an increase of 33 percent. More than half of them are based in Maryland, Virginia, and the District
of Columbia.22 One of those companies, headquartered in McLean, Virginia, Booz Allen Hamilton
(BAH) will be focusing on its civil aviation operations in an effort to meet the FAA’s objectives of
implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation System.23 This move, while drawing from
existing BAH employees, should help sustain jobs in the area.
Raleigh–Cary, North Carolina, placed seventh this year, improving by three spots. A sign of its
sustainable economic presence, Raleigh–Cary recorded the third highest job growth in the nation
over the five-year period. The metro placed 16th in five-year wage and salary growth, an indication of
the quality of jobs produced. Its vast high-tech presence includes biotech, IT, software, and telecom,
and includes major players like GlaxoSmithKline, SAS Institute, Cisco Systems, Verizon, and Nortel
Networks. The combination of giant tech anchors and reputable research-oriented universities (Duke
and North Carolina State universities) makes Raleigh-Cary an attractive business location. The recent
collaboration of IBM and North Carolina State on streamlining the commercialization process sheds
light on the region’s entrepreneurial spirit and long-term growth potential.24
Despite some restructuring of firms during the downturn, the region’s Research Triangle, a tightly
integrated network of high-tech firms, places the metro in better position for fast recovery. Raleigh–
Cary’s high-tech cluster provides long-term stability to its nationally recognized biopharmaceutical
industry. The metro has witnessed robust population growth since 2000, attracting a sea of young
professionals.
Anchorage, Alaska, leapfrogged 32 positions to capture eighth overall on this year’s index. It
posted the second highest 2008-2009 job growth, when federal, state, and local governments
combined added nearly 850 jobs. Much of the job growth has been triggered by federal stimulus
funds; Alaska received the second highest amount per capita.25 Despite the downturn experienced
in most parts of the nation, the number of non-farm jobs in the Anchorage area increased
0.41 percent from April 2009 through April 2010.
Figure 7. Oil and gas extraction
Anchorage vs. United States
15
Anchorage
United States
10
-5
-10
-15
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
18
Oil and gas extraction and transportation, both key drivers of growth in the metro, have recently
experienced modest gains. While production in most energy-producing regions across the country
cooled off as prices stabilized, exploration in Alaska has remained healthy.26 In addition, since many
of the industry’s administrative offices are based in Anchorage, the metro has benefited through
the secondary impacts of stable production. Headquartered in Anchorage, ASRC Energy Services
employs approximately 2,100 in the metro.27 BP Exploration Alaska and Conoco Phillips also conduct
operations in the region. Anchorage serves as the transportation hub for the entire state. As the
recovery picks up, the metro is poised to capitalize on increased cargo activity at the port.
Gaining five spots this year, El Paso, Texas, ranked ninth on the overall index. Military construction
stemming from the BRAC-initiated expansion at Ford Bliss continues to contribute to the metro’s
overall growth. El Paso has remained in the upper echelon in terms of both job creation and wage
and salary growth. From 2008 to 2009, jobs in the metro grew nearly 2.5 percentage points faster
than the national average—the 17th highest rate in the nation. Trade and commerce along the
Mexican border are among the biggest drivers of growth in the area, and due largely to the strength
in the Mexican peso, activity is gradually starting to pick up. Having generated almost $28 billion
in trade through May 2010, the Port of El Paso has witnessed a 47 percent increase in trade value
compared to the same time last year.28 In addition, the increasing number of truck crossings along
the border, coupled with an increase in maquiladora activity in Juarez, indicates improved auto-
related demand and production.29
El Paso vs. United States
8
El Paso
United States
6
-2
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Another bright spot in El Paso’s economy is an 80 percent increase in trade of computer products with
Mexico in the year ending May 2010, an industry that accounts for the majority of the metro’s trade with
its southern neighbor.30 Approximately 150 jobs were created in the area’s computer and electronic
product manufacturing industry, a rise of nearly 20 percent from April 2009 through April 2010.
19
Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, slipped five spots to tenth place. Led by the energy
exploration sector, the metro’s five-year job growth ranked fifth. Capitalizing on its proximity to the
Gulf of Mexico, Houston has successfully established itself as a center for trade and export. Major
companies with operations in the area—including Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, Chevron, and BP—employ
thousands in engineering and professional jobs that support exploration-related activities. The rise
in oil prices in 2009 helped jumpstart upstream activities. On the other hand, work at refineries has
slowed during the downturn but is expected pick up gradually as the recovery continues.31
Houston is also leading efforts with respect to alternative energy. Just recently, Thermal Energy
Corporation debuted its combined heat and power plant at Texas Medical Center, an investment
expected to generate over 400 jobs.32 Another key source of growth in the metro comes from health
care. Ambulatory health-care services added nearly 6,000 jobs in the area in the year from 2008
to 2009, helping offset declines in other sectors stemming from the global slowdown. Leveraging
its pool of talent and reputable medical research centers, Houston is developing its biotech and
medical equipment manufacturing sector into a national leader.33
Lafayette, Louisiana, managed to maintain its ranking among the top performers, dropping just
two spots to 11th. Over the past few years, the metro has not only benefited tremendously from
post-Katrina migration trends but has also successfully capitalized on increased energy exploration
in the Gulf of Mexico. The influx of new residents helped fuel jobs in health care and education.
Lafayette’s biggest industry, support activities for mining, employs over 13,000 people, roughly
9 percent of the metro’s total employment base. The industry’s huge presence in the area has
broader impacts across a variety of local manufacturing suppliers, ranging from chemicals to
fabricated metal products. Lafayette ranked sixth in five-year job growth and second in five-year
wage growth.
Figure 9. Support activities for mining

Lafayette, Louisiana
As percent of total employment
10.2
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
20
However, the number of jobs has declined 1.4 percent in the year ending April 2010. Since energy
prices began falling from their peak levels, support activities for drilling appear to have tapered off.
Furthermore, a drilling moratorium stemming from the recent oil spill in the gulf could threaten
thousands of jobs in the metro area,34 potentially creating negative ripple effects in a region whose
economy depends on energy exploration.
Trenton–Ewing, New Jersey, improved 34 spots, capturing 12th place on this year’s index. The
metro’s resilience in biotech R&D has contributed to its growing high-skilled labor pool. One of
biotech’s biggest players, Bristol-Myers Squibb, has one of its primary R&D sites in the metro. The
industry’s generally high pay has delivered a boost to wages, with Trenton ranking tenth in wage
growth for the 2007–2008 period. Wages in the metro during that time grew over four percentage
points more than the national average. Trenton’s high concentration of biotech employment and
proximity to life sciences attractions have lured entrepreneurs and researchers to the area.
While industries such as health care and education services have largely benefited from the metro’s
high per-capita wage structure, a downward trend has begun. Employment declined 1.2 percent
in the year ending April 2010. Like many states, New Jersey is facing budgetary woes.35 Although
a reduction in public spending is likely to curb growth in the near term, the metro’s high-tech
presence and other key attributes will keep it afloat in the long term.
Brownsville, Texas, skyrocketed a remarkable 57 spots this year to 13th. It ranked first in high-tech
output growth, largely driven by telecommunication services, in 2008-2009 and second in the five-
year period. The metro’s lower costs have attracted satellite telecom carriers and call centers such
as Convergys and Advanced Call Center Technologies. The latter recently decided to expand its
operation in the area and add 150 jobs.36 Government efforts at the federal, state, and local levels
continue to support the region’s trade and transportation infrastructure, creating a positive outlook
for growth. In fact, the public sector added more than 650 jobs from 2008 to 2009. Health care has
been another driver of growth in the region, mitigating some of the downturn’s effects.
Figure 10. Telecommunications

Brownsville vs. United States
10
Brownsville
United States
-5
-10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
21
The metro, which serves as a transportation hub, is largely dependent on cross-border trade
with Mexico. With the economy in recovery mode, a broad spectrum of industries linked to
transportation and warehousing will benefit extensively from increased trade activity. It is
noteworthy that support activities for transportation are twice as important to the region as they
are to the nation as a whole. Its role in transportation and its attractive climate are reasons the
region’s first biodiesel terminal opened in Brownsville.37 Venturing further into clean tech can give
Brownsville another tool for long-term stability and growth.
San Antonio, Texas, finished 14th on this year’s index, slipping three positions. In the 2004-2009
period, San Antonio’s employment base grew over 10 percentage points faster than the national
average, resulting in a ninth place finish for five-year job growth. BRAC-related growth has been the
biggest driver. Because of base consolidations, the metro is evolving into a large-scale medical hub
for military personnel, most notably the expansion of the Brooke Army Medical Center. Increased
federal funding will boost demand for local suppliers and attract more private-sector support.
Recently, Medtronic, which supplies products for diabetes patients, expanded its operations in San
Antonio, a move that is expected to generate 1,400 high-paying jobs over the next five years.38
The metro’s solid position in the rankings also reflects its lesser exposure to the housing crisis. Prices
fell only moderately during the downturn, and more military employment has boosted demand
and kept prices stable. San Antonio’s reputation as a trade and distribution hub with a low-cost
environment will open doors to more business opportunities in the long term.
Durham, North Carolina, dropped nine spots to 15th, still among the leaders. In 2009, the
metro had the fourth highest concentration of high-tech output in the country—more than 2.5
times the national average. Duke University and IBM create important anchors for the region’s
information sector, supplying an abundance of human capital to the Research Triangle, one of the
nation’s most reputable biopharmaceutical and medical centers. The largest biotech company in
the Triangle, Talecris Biotherapeutics, was recently acquired by Grifols, the largest maker of blood
plasma products in Europe. Despite the acquisition, plans by Talecris to expand its blood plasma
therapeutics plant in Clayton, also part of the Research Triangle, are still on target and expected to
generate nearly 260 jobs in the area.39
Figure 11. Wages per employee

Durham vs. United States
US$ thousands
55
Durham
United States
50
45
40
35
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
22
While some restructuring has taken place during the downturn, leading to job losses particularly
among its key sectors, Durham has held up relatively well. Higher per capita income growth relative
to the U.S. as a whole has kept housing prices from falling so rapidly, while leading to healthier
spending in such sectors as education and health services. Public support has provided further
stability to the region, as witnessed by a 4 percent increase in government employment in the
previous year since January 2010.
Amarillo, Texas, climbed up the rankings, from 35th last year to 16th on this year’s index. Like
many Texas metros, Amarillo avoided the housing bubble and didn’t experience the severe bust
that ensued. In fact, broad-based job growth has provided more stability to the local economy. A
surge in wage growth was behind the big jump in rankings; the metro recorded the second highest
growth in wages and salaries from 2007 to 2008. Much of this stems from its energy exploration
sector, which has long been a key performer in the area. The Amarillo area also benefits from rich
and abundant farmland and extensive livestock operations, providing another source of wealth to
the region. Tyson Foods is the largest employer, with a workforce of more than 3,500.40
Increased demand for helicopters has been another bright spot. Bell Helicopter and Boeing,
who partner on certain aircraft, are likely to benefit from the defense contracts, and increasing
production will lead to more jobs in the metro.41
With its highly diverse high-tech industry mix, Dallas–Irving–Plano, Texas, maintains its lead
among the top performers, coming in at 17th this year, versus 13th a year ago. The metro ranked
sixth in high-tech diversity (as measured by the number of high-tech industries with location
quotients—or relative concentrations—above 1.0, which represents the national average). The
area’s innovative IT and telecom sector includes major players like AT&T (which recently moved
its headquarters to Dallas), Verizon, Texas Instruments, and Hewlett-Packard, just to name a few.
Increased global demand for tech products and, in particular, the move to 4G networks will spark
additional demand from equipment makers in the area. Locally based companies such as Sprint and
MetroPCS will build out the network, while Nokia and Ericsson will provide the equipment.42
Figure 12. Warehousing and storage

Dallas-Plano-Irving vs. United States
30
Dallas-Plano-Irving
United States
20
10
-10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
23
Because of its central location, Dallas is a distribution hub. Even during the downturn, its warehousing
industry, which capitalized on its cost advantages, managed to expand slightly, adding roughly 110
jobs from 2008 to 2009. The metro will benefit further as international trade begins to recover.
Fayetteville, North Carolina, gained 13 spots, ranking 18th in the index. Fort Bragg, the primary
driver of growth in the area, has benefited significantly from base consolidation. The added
military personnel have stimulated demand across a broad array of supplier industries. As a result,
Fayetteville’s employment base grew more than 4 percentage points faster than the national
average to rank third in 2008–2009. It is anticipated that Fort Bragg will be the largest Army post
after 2011, with approximately 65,000 jobs.43 In the near term, expansion of various base facilities
and the need for additional housing will likely lift the metro’s construction sector. The area will also
benefit from the fact that the homebuyers’ tax credit, which expired in April 2010 for the general
population, was extended for one year for military personnel who have been serving outside the
country for 90 days or more.44 Furthermore, the federal stimulus package will accelerate various
infrastructure projects around the base.45
Charleston–North Charleston, South Carolina, climbed to 19th from 30th last year. The metro’s
well-balanced industry mix helped carry it through much of the downturn. Once the main catalyst
for growth, tourism is on the decline, so Charleston has turned to its vibrant aerospace sector, health
services, and stable military presence for growth. Its emerging aerospace industry added more
than 1,000 jobs from 2004 to 2009, contributing to Charleston’s coming in 19th in high-tech output
for that period. Boeing recently decided to build an assembly plant for its 787 Dreamliner that is
expected to employ 3,800 workers in the area.46
As the economy rebounds, increased inbound cargo activity at the Port of Charleston should help
sustain long-term growth. A $98 million grant awarded to Clemson University to build a wind
turbine drivetrain testing facility in North Charleston underscores the metro’s attractiveness as a
destination for clean tech.47
Figure 13. Aerospace and health-care driving growth

Charleston-North Charleston
As percent of total employment As percent of total employment
0.50 10.2
Aerospace manufacturing - L
Health-care services - R
10.0
0.40
9.8
0.30
9.6
0.20
9.4
0.10
9.2
0.00 9.0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
24
Bethesda–Gaithersburg–Frederick, Maryland, leaped 31 positions this year to 20th. The

headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Bethesda’s strengths lie in defense-related applications. Increased
federal spending on military products has provided steady job growth, mitigating some of the
losses from the downturn. From 2008 to 2009, the U.S. government was responsible for adding
nearly 2,000 jobs in the area.

Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick vs. United States
5
Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick
United States
4
-1
-2
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Establishments engaged in medical research and biotech have contributed to the metro ranking
18th in high-tech diversity. The National Institutes of Health headquarters has been a magnet for
federally funded R&D as well as venture capital for biotech. Not surprisingly, the region’s high-tech
output grew 10 percentage points faster than the national average from 2008 to 2009 to rank third.
In addition, the National Naval Medical Center recently broke ground on a facility that will focus on
soldiers with traumatic brain injuries and psychological issues.48
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, jumped five spots to take 21st place. The metro was among the few
that experienced a short downturn and are in recovery. Relatively little exposure to subprime
mortgages shielded it somewhat from the housing collapse. In addition, the housing market
benefited from the presence of Tinker Air Force Base, the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, and a
number of aerospace suppliers. Oil and natural gas extraction— a big presence in the metro area—
has begun to recover from the recession and falling energy prices. The active rig count in Oklahoma
was 133 as of August 2010. The state had 94 active rigs in 2009, about half as many as in 2008.49 Like
most states, Oklahoma is facing a budget crisis; its tax revenues fell 26.9 percent over the past year,
more than any other state’s.
Another bright spot for Oklahoma City was the July 2010 opening of a $1.8 million, 6,000-square-
foot terminal for corporate jets and private charters. Capable of handling 10,000 flights a year, the
terminal replaces an older facility. AAR Corp., which operates the terminal, runs a maintenance
hangar, and has fueling contracts at Will Rogers World Airport, employs 615 full-time workers and
has an annual payroll of $30 million.50
25
The top job creator in Oklahoma City was government, which added 1,850 jobs from 2008 to
2009. In the same period, the area’s large health-care industry created 1,300 jobs, and oil and gas
extraction added 730 positions.
Figure 15. Oil and gas extraction

Oklahoma City vs. United States
20
Oklahoma City
United States
15
10
-5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Cambridge–Newton–Framingham, Massachusetts, leaped 23 spots, landing at 22nd on the list of

the 200 largest metros. It is home not only to world-renowned universities but also a large number
of high-tech, health-care, defense, and financial firms. The diverse economy and highly skilled labor
force, as well as the state’s targeted business tax initiatives, make the region highly competitive. In
2008, Massachusetts launched a $1 billion, 10-year initiative that includes incentives for life sciences
companies to expand, research grants for scientists, and other infrastructure investments to support
the industry. Pharmaceuticals giant Sanofi-Aventis, one of 56 companies to apply for related tax
credits this year, has announced a $65 million expansion in Cambridge expected to create 300
jobs.51 Defense spending has also helped the local economy, benefiting university research and
defense contractors such as Raytheon, which is headquartered in the metro. As the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan wind down, cutbacks in defense spending will be offset by gains in other industries as
the economy improves.
Health-care services had a strong year, adding 1,780 jobs from 2008 to 2009. Management of companies
was responsible for creating 730 jobs, while the federal government created 200 jobs in the area.
Fort Worth–Arlington, Texas, tumbled sharply from 12th last year to 23rd this year. The lower-
cost Forth Worth continues to capitalize on spillover from Dallas and is experiencing robust
population growth. As the economy recovers and natural gas prices improve, the area will likely
see improved growth in energy exploration. Other key industries in Forth Worth such as aerospace
and auto manufacturing are feeling the effects of the recovery. GM’s light truck production plant
expanded its existing shift, while Bell Helicopter’s deliveries of V-22 Ospreys and H-1 helicopters
increased, offsetting some of the pullback in F-22 orders.52 The finance industry is growing, with
credit intermediation services adding more than 1,700 jobs from 2008 to 2009. The metro’s overall
employment growth, driven by energy exploration and health-related services, fared better than the
national average from 2008 to 2009, with Fort Worth at 45th.
26
Employment declined by just 1.1 percent in the year ending April 2010. Anchor firms American
Airlines, which is headquartered in the metro; Texas Health Resources; and Lockheed Martin, which
maintains a major presence there, provide longer-term stability for the area.
Figure 16. Credit intermediation and related activities

Fort Worth-Arlington vs. United States
10
Fort Worth-Arlington
8
United States
6
-2
-4
-6
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Lubbock, Texas, captured the 24th spot, a slight improvement from 29th. Lubbock is one of the few
metros that are faring better than the nation as a whole, with unemployment at 6.7 percent in July
2010.53 Lubbock’s housing market is fairly stable because the region did not experience a housing
bubble. Texas Tech University provides the biggest economic engine in the region, with over 13,000
employees and an annual economic impact of $1.15 billion in Lubbock County.54 However, state
budget woes resulting in a 5 percent reduction ($30 million) in state funding for the university
through 2011 will pose some challenges for the local economy.55 Health care has played a role in job
creation, with ambulatory health-care services adding 700 jobs in 2008-2009. The metro is a large
cotton grower, so improving cotton prices and better weather could help bolster incomes. Still, the
area’s wage and salary growth ranked 13th in the 2007-2008 period.
Provo–Orem, Utah, climbed three spots to take 25th in the index. The area’s economy has been
creating jobs faster than the national average for several years. From 2004 to 2009, Provo-Orem’s
employment base expanded 10.2 percentage points faster than the U.S. average, ranking 10th
overall in this indicator, while five-year wage growth ranked fourth. High-tech information services
and hardware are driving much of the growth. Provo-Orem has benefited from increased research
and spin-offs from Brigham Young University, the largest employer in the metro. Construction of a
$1 billion National Security Agency data center near Lehi will also improve the region’s employment
outlook.56 The housing industry is still reeling, especially the market for second homes.
Data processing, hosting, and related services added 510 jobs in 2008-2009. Local government
added 490 workers, and education services created 360 jobs.
27
America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

Among America’s 10 largest metropolitan areas, the rise of Washington–Arlington–Alexandria
from 41st place to sixth over the past two years and the continued decline of many large non-Texas
cities in the Sun Belt are the main stories. The two largest cities in Texas still hold a place in the top
25 despite some minor declines: Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown fell five places but remains in
the top 10, and Dallas–Plano–Irving dropped four places to a still respectable 17th place. (The
Washington, Houston, and Dallas metro areas were profiled earlier in the section on the top 25 best-
performing cities.)
Significant declines continue to hit former high fliers. The formerly booming metros of Phoenix–
Mesa–Scottsdale, Arizona; Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta, Georgia; and Riverside–San
Bernardino–Ontario, California, have all fallen from the top 100. California’s problems are further
illustrated by Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale coming in last among the 10 largest cities. One
other key factor bolstering many of the major metros has been the significant declines in population
flight to the suburbs and fewer people moving to formerly thriving Sun Belt metros. For instance,
Chicago saw its fastest population growth in a decade.57
Table 5. Performance of the 10 largest metros

Rank according to 2010 index
2010 2009 Spots

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank up/down
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 6 25 +19
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 10 5 -5
Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 17 13 -4
New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ* 48 38 -10
Philadelphia, PA* 83 96 +13
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 117 93 -24
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 126 106 -20
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 146 103 -43
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL* 148 148 0
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA* 158 139 -19
* Indicates metropolitan division
29
Although it edged down 10 places overall, New York–White Plains–Wayne, New York–New Jersey,
held its position at fourth among the 10 largest cities. In a year where its most prominent industry,
securities and investment trading, has been hit hard, New York has weathered the economic
downturn better than most cities on this list. Employment has been recovering faster than most
major cities, helped significantly by its largest banks receiving nearly half of all disbursed funds from
the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).58
However, despite the banks’ recovery, securities and investment trading has taken a significant
hit, with securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities
declining by more than 9 percent over the past year. That sector lost more than 20,000 jobs, nearly
offsetting the gain of 23,000 positions over the previous four years. The most significant year-over-
year decline occurred in professional, scientific and technical services, a sector in which the New
York metro had outperformed the nation in the previous two years. Although employment in the
sector only declined by slightly more than 5 percent, this amounted to 22,000 lost jobs. Even New
York has not been immune to the housing slowdown; specialty trade contractors shed more than
15,600 jobs in the past year, wiping out a gain of over 12,100 jobs during the previous four years.
Over the past five years, and last year, the metro’s largest job creator has been in the ambulatory
health-care sector. That sector grew by more than 21 percent and 43,700 jobs in the five-year period.
Despite its recent losses, professional, scientific, and technical services still netted over 37,300 jobs
from 2004 to 2009. Educational services performed well in the past year, adding over 6,200 jobs, and
in the past five years, adding 25,700 jobs.
The outlook for next year is anemic, given that much of the New York metro’s job growth occurred in
the first four years of the five-year period we examined.
Figure 17. Professional, scientific, and technical services

New York-White Plains-Wayne vs. United States
6
New York-White Plains-Wayne
United States
4
-2
-4
-6
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
30
The past year has been better for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, than for the country as a whole.
Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., are the only two large metros to move up in the overall large city
rankings. Philadelphia gained 13 places to 83rd overall and surpassed Phoenix to rank fifth among
the 10 largest metros, while Washington took first in the largest city rankings versus third last year.
Corporate management continues to be a significant source of job creation for Philadelphia. From
2004 to 2009, the region netted over 11,270 jobs in the management of companies and enterprises.
But growth stalled in 2009, and the sector lost 150 positions. Still, overall prospects appear solid.
Another leader in job creation was social assistance, which added slightly more than 2,500 jobs in
2008-2009 and nearly 16,300 jobs in the five-year period, growing at a rate of more than 44 percent.
On the down side, administrative and support services lost 9,000 jobs in the past year—the most job
losses in any category. These losses wiped out the modest gains of the previous four years, for a net
loss of 7,700 jobs in 2004-2009—the most job losses in any category for that period.
Philadelphia’s outlook is in many ways more solid than other large metros’, but recent signs of
lethargy in a number of sectors suggest that, while the metro may continue to rise in next year’s
rankings, the ascent may come at a slower pace.59
Figure 18. Management of companies and enterprises

Philadelphia vs. United States
20
Philadelphia
United States
15
10
-5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
The slide in the rankings continues for Phoenix–Mesa–Scottsdale, Arizona, which fell 24 more
places to 117th overall in 2010 after plunging 61 spots in the 2009 index. The housing and economic
slumps continue to affect the metro, which was fourth overall as recently as 2007. Among the
largest metros, Phoenix now sits in sixth place, having fallen behind Philadelphia.
Specialty trade contractors shed nearly 29,500 jobs in 2009 and almost 33,400 over the five-year
period as gains from 2005 and 2006 disappeared. Building construction saw a further loss of 8,000
jobs in 2009. Administrative and support services, which gained 14,300 jobs from 2004 to 2008,
reversed course dramatically, losing 26,100 jobs in 2009.
31
Job growth in the Phoenix metro has outpaced the U.S. average in two sectors that have thrived
nationally despite the recession: ambulatory health-care services and educational services. Health
care, which gained 2,300 jobs over the past year, expanded even faster over the five-year period,
growing by 33 percent and adding more than 22,700 jobs at a pace of nearly 5,000 a year in 2004–
2008, before slowing in 2009. As the home of the University of Phoenix and other online educators,
the metro has benefited from a gain of 2,500 education jobs in 2009—a leader in this category—
and 10,100 jobs in the five-year period.
Figure 19. Specialty trade contractors

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale vs. United States
20
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
United States
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Atlanta–Shady Springs–Marietta, Georgia, remains one of the fastest-growing metros in the

country, although the recent downturn has stalled the pace of job growth. The city’s overall ranking
dropped 20 places, from 106th to 126th, but it rose one spot to seventh among the 10 largest cities
due to even steeper declines in the Riverside, California, metro.
Though the downturn has affected a number of sectors, Atlanta’s previous gains can’t quickly be
erased. Professional, scientific and technical services lost 9,650 jobs in 2009 but still netted an
impressive 19,700 jobs for 2004–2009. Local government shed over 1,900 jobs in 2009, but still
gained a metro-leading 22,900 jobs for the five-year period. One sector that performed unusually
well during the downturn was the category “religious, grantmaking, civic, professional, and similar
organizations,” which gained over 5,400 jobs in 2009, more than twice those gained in the second
best sector, educational services.
Atlanta has benefited as a center of transportation and warehousing. Unlike the rest of the country,
Atlanta’s air transportation sector is growing, adding 440 jobs in 2009. In addition, a proposed bond
issue to improve freight movement in the metro, which is already home to UPS, should improve
matters further.60 However, local manufacturing in transportation continues to decline, losing more
than 7,090 jobs in 2004–2009—2,350 of them in the past year.
32
Figure 20. Transportation equipment manufacturing

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta vs. United States
10
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta
United States
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
The downturn in homebuilding and the state economy weighed heavily on Riverside–San
Bernardino–Ontario, California, which plunged 43 places to 146th overall, the largest decline
among the 10 largest metros. It is hard to believe that as recently as 2007, Riverside ranked third
among large metros; this year it ranks eighth. Employment in the specialty trade contractor sector,
the largest part of the home construction industry, has plummeted more than 43 percent since
2004, shedding more than 35,800 jobs—16,500 of them in the past year. The ripple effect of the
weak housing market is reflected in the fact that, of the 87 industrial sectors tracked in the index,
just 13 added jobs in 2009, with educational services leading the pack at a mere 680 positions.
Only telecommunications, ambulatory health-care services, the federal government, and hospitals
managed to gain at least 500 jobs.
Many sectors that were significant job creators in 2004–2008 changed course in 2009. The downturn
in international trade has affected the boom area of warehousing and storage, which lost 220 jobs
last year after gaining nearly 8,000 in the previous four years. Administrative and support services,
which added nearly 4,500 jobs in 2004–2008, lost over 6,600 jobs in 2009. Local government added
over 12,000 jobs in 2004–2008, only to eliminate over 3,100 jobs in 2009 as fiscal pressures and state
budgetary problems affected their revenues. Even food services and drinking places, which created
a leading 13,900 jobs in 2004–2008, lost over 5,000 jobs in 2009 as disposable income shrank.
One piece of good news: While local home sales continue to stagnate, the foreclosure rate fell
throughout 2010, suggesting the crisis is past its peak.61
33
Figure 21. Warehousing and storage

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. United States
40
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
United States
30
20
10
-10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Chicago–Naperville–Joliet, Illinois, holding steady at 148th overall, jumped from 10th to ninth
place among the biggest cities, largely because the Los Angeles area continued to slide. Chicago
has been affected by the recession and housing downturn in a number of areas, which has helped
push many suburbanites back into the city.
Reflecting the housing slump, more than 20,800 specialty trade contractor jobs were lost in 2009,
second only to administrative and support services. That category lost more than 34,300 jobs last
year, after gaining nearly 12,000 jobs from 2004 to 2008. Conversely, employment in education
in the metro has outperformed the national average in the past five years, with over 21,600 jobs
gained in 2004–2009, including 5,600 positions in the last year alone.
Over the past year, just five sectors added jobs, led by educational services, followed by ambulatory
health-care services (4,340) and nursing and residential care (2,080). In Chicago, those three sectors
accounted for 85 percent of the jobs created in the tracked sectors in 2009.
Figure 22. Educational services

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. United States
6
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet
United States
5
1
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
34
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale, California, continued its slide from last year, falling 19 spots
to 158th overall and to last place among the 10 largest metros. With an unemployment rate of
12.6 percent as of August 2010, Los Angeles County lost 37,400 non-farm jobs between June and
July alone.62 In the past year, the metro lost more than 31,000 jobs in administrative and support
services—an eighth of the sector’s total workforce—moving that sector into the lead for five-year
job losses at over 28,000 lost jobs
Job growth in management of companies and enterprises continues to suffer in Los Angeles. Over
the past five years, the sector lost more than 18,700 jobs, a 26 percent decline. One ongoing area
of concern is motion picture and sound recording. The sector made gains in 2004, 2007, and 2008,
after the writers’ strike, but losses in 2009 outpaced the nation as a whole.
On the upside, educational services added 6,400 jobs in the past year and over 16,000 jobs during
the five-year period. Although water transport gained just 1,500 jobs over the five-year period, that
marks a dramatic 106 percent increase.
Figure 23. Motion picture and sound recording industries

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale vs. United States
10
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale
United States
-5
-10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
35
The Best-Performing Small Cities

In addition to ranking the 200 largest metro areas in the United States, we also have created a
companion index of the best-performing small cities. The 2010 index is composed of 179 small
metros, which is 55 more than the 2009 index. Due to budget cuts, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) was unable to gather data for the additional metros in the past year.
The big winners in the 2010 small cities index have at least one (or a combination) of these three
assets: energy-related natural resources, a major university, and a military base. These metros
avoided a housing bubble and the effects of its collapse, so their downturns were mild and short.
Some benefited from the government stimulus package and the preceding private investment.
It would be interesting to see how these metros fare next year as the stimulus winds down and
defense spending and state budget cuts continue.
Unlike the 2009 small cities index that Texas clearly dominated with four metros in the top 10, the
2010 index was mixed. While College Station–Bryan and Tyler, Texas, were in the top 10, North
Dakota grabbed the top two spots with Fargo followed by Bismarck (both made last year’s top 10).
Las Cruces, New Mexico, is on the list for the second year in a row.
At the other end of the spectrum, many small cities in the upper Midwest, particularly those in
Michigan and Wisconsin, did not fare well, placing in the bottom ranks.
Table 6. Top 10 best-performing small cities

Rank according to 2010 index*
2010 2009
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank
Fargo, ND-MN 1 10
Bismarck, ND 2 7
Jacksonville, NC 3 n.a.
College Station-Bryan, TX 4 14
Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA 5 n.a.
Morgantown, WV 6 27
Tyler, TX 7 4
Las Cruces, NM 8 9
Iowa City, IA 9 22
Lawton, OK 10 n.a.
*Among 179 small metros
37
Fargo, North Dakota, jumped nine spots to become the best-performing small metro in 2010.
The metro experienced a very mild recession and a quick recovery. Unemployment was less than
4 percent, one of the lowest rates in the nation. Tight labor markets elsewhere resulted in new
residents moving to the region.
Growing global demand for wheat, corn, soybeans. and other agricultural commodities has
benefited the region in recent years and has increased local incomes. However, commodity prices
were depressed in the past year due to the global downturn and higher yields. Besides agriculture,
Fargo has a growing technology cluster that includes Microsoft, Navtech, and Aldevron, to name a
few. The region has four higher education institutions to support the technology cluster, particularly
the bioscience sector: North Dakota State University and Rasmussen College, as well as Minnesota
State University and Concordia College in the neighboring city of Moorhead, Minnesota.
Fargo is seen as a business-friendly city, offering an R&D tax credit, biodiesel tax credit, and
biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind energy credits. The metro has a diverse economy, with the
traditional agricultural and manufacturing base plus a growing services sector. From 2004 to 2009,
the management of companies sector added more than 1,200 jobs. In addition, the professional,
scientific, and technical services sector added more than 1,000 positions.
Figure 24. Management of companies and enterprises

Fargo vs. United States
25
Fargo
United States
20
15
10
-5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Bismarck, North Dakota, rose to second place from seventh among small cities. The energy-rich
metro, which has large reserves of lignite coal, oil, and natural gas, is home to four lignite coal mines,
which produce over 30 million tons annually.63 The wind energy industry is expanding rapidly
in North Dakota, and the state offers attractive tax incentives to those developers.64 Agriculture
is another important sector in Bismarck’s economy, with wheat as the No. 1 crop and corn and
soybean acreage on the rise. Commodity prices were depressed in the past year as supply increased
due to better yields in other crop-producing countries and the recession’s effects on global demand.
However, drought has caused the Russian government to stop exporting wheat,65 which could be
good news for North Dakota and U.S. as a whole.
38
The Northern Plains Commerce Centre, which serves as an industrial, distribution, and technology
park and has immediate access to land, rail, and air transportation, has expanded the region’s trade
capacity. The park is home to a 100,000-square-foot manufacturing support facility for Bobcat
Company.66
From 2008 to 2009, overall job growth was 1.3 percent. Unemployment was better than the national
average at less than 4 percent.67 The three leading job creators in the past year were state and local
government, which expanded by 550 jobs; health and social assistance services with 450 positions;
and professional, scientific, and technical services with 50 new jobs.
Figure 25. Health-care and social assistance services

Bismarck vs. United States
5.0
Bismarck
United States
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Jacksonville, North Carolina, claimed the third spot on the 2010 small cities index. (Data for the
prior year was unavailable so the city wasn’t ranked in 2009.) It was one of the fortunate metros to
experience a very mild recession, largely because of BRAC-related expansion at Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune. More than 12,000 soldiers and their families have moved to the region in recent
years.68This robust population growth has kept demand healthy across a broad range of industries.
Jacksonville is also home to Marine Corps Air Station New River along with several defense
contractors that include Humphrey Mechanical. Both bases have a large economic impact, with
Camp Lejeune contributing close to $3 billion69 and New River contributing roughly $469 million to
the local economy.70 The troops’ presence provides steady demand for housing, helping the region
avoid the housing bubble and bust.
In terms of job creation, federal, state and local government combined added 1,940 positions in
2004–2009. Accommodations and food services generated nearly 1,300 jobs in that same period.
Jacksonville ranked fifth among small cities for wage and salary growth in 2007-2008.
39
Figure 26. Population growth

Jacksonville, NC
Thousands
6
-2
-4
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
College Station–Bryan, Texas, jumped 10 spots to fourth place among small cities. Like many
Texas metros, the region lacked a housing bubble and experienced a very shallow recession.
Unemployment hovered around 6 percent in the past year—far better than nearly 10 percent for
the nation as a whole—while overall employment grew by 1.8 percent.71 Texas A&M University is
the main economic flagship; enrollment grew to 48,700 students in the 2009-2010 school year, and
staff hiring increased as well. This bodes well for retail and food services. The university also is home
to the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, which attracted more than 142,100 visitors
in 2009.72 College Station’s location in the center of the Houston– Dallas/Fort Worth–Austin triangle
puts it within 200 miles of 80 percent of Texas’ population.
State and local government expanded their workforces by 2,030 between 2008 and 2009.
Food services and drinking places created 380 jobs in that period.
Figure 27. Texas A&M University student enrollment

College Station, TX
Thousands
49
48
47
46
45
44
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: Texas A&M University Office of Institutional Studies and Planning.
40
Hinesville–Fort Stewart, Georgia, captured fifth among small metros in 2010. (Data for the prior
year was unavailable so the city wasn’t ranked in 2009.) The metro is home to the Fort Stewart
Army base and Hunter Army Airfield, employing more than 25,200 military personnel combined.73
Investment in the metro and surrounding communities poured in when it was announced in late
2007 that a new brigade combat team of nearly 3,500 troops would be stationed at Fort Stewart,
along with their families and other support personnel for a total of 10,000 new residents. The
anticipated expansion brought new residential and nonresidential construction and infrastructure
to accommodate the growing population. It resulted in employment growth of 5.5 percent
between 2007 and 2008, and 0.6 percent the following year, a period when most places were
shedding jobs. Bad news came in June 2009, when the Department of Defense rescinded plans
for the new brigade.74 The state’s congressional delegates secured $40 million in the 2010 defense
appropriations bill to help offset some of the infrastructure costs incurred.75
The airfield supports a number of repair and maintenance shops. From 2008 to 2009, repair and
maintenance services added 370 positions. The federal government created 280 jobs in the same period.
Morgantown, West Virginia, leaped 21 spots to land at sixth in the 2010 small cities index. The
metro had a very mild recession, with unemployment at 5.1 percent in 2009, roughly half the national
average. The metro’s economy is anchored by West Virginia University and many health-care facilities
and research centers. The university is scheduled to receive more than $19 million in federal stimulus
funding over the next two years, the majority of it going toward health research projects.76 This will
offset some of the cuts in state funding and losses in the university’s endowment. State government
was the dominant job creator, adding 1,277 positions in 2004–2009, while hospitals created 1,222 jobs.
Tyler, Texas, slid three spots to seventh on this year’s index. Located in northeast Texas, it serves
as a distribution hub for several major regional markets, with Dallas; Houston; Austin; Shreveport,
Louisiana; Little Rock, Arkansas; Oklahoma City, and New Orleans all less than 500 miles away.77
Tyler also has an emerging service industry that could potentially compete with Dallas and Houston
because of Tyler’s lower costs. Health care is the largest employer in the region, with 7,300 workers
employed at the East Texas Medical Center and Trinity Mother Frances Hospital in 2009.78 Together,
ambulatory health-care services and hospital industries created 780 jobs, while management of
companies added 140 new positions in 2008–2009. However, overall job growth fell 3.0 percent
during the same period, and unemployment peaked at 8.3 percent in late 2009.79
Figure 28. Ambulatory health-care services

Tyler vs. United States
9 Tyler
United States
8
1
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
41
Las Cruces, New Mexico, in the southwest corner of the state, made its second consecutive
appearance on the small cities list, improving one spot to land at eighth. New Mexico State
University, White Sands Missile Range, and NASA’s White Sands Test Facility continue to be the
region’s economic engines. Spaceport America, the world’s first commercial spaceport, is being
developed there with Virgin Galactic as the anchor tenant. A New Mexico State University economic
impact study projected that within five years of operations, Spaceport America will employ 2,300
people with a payroll of $300 million.80 With the growing aerospace engineering program at NMSU,
a growing number of aerospace firms, and the low cost of doing business, Las Cruces is poised to
become a top location for aerospace and space-related technology R&D firms.
Professional, scientific and technical services created more than 1,000 jobs in 2004–2009, followed
by ambulatory health-care services and social assistance, with 840 and 770 new positions,
respectively. Its proximity to El Paso and position on the Rio Grande trade corridor gives it access to
the consumer and business markets in border cities in Texas and Mexico. With its low cost of living
and health-care services, Las Cruces is a growing destination for retirees, which is a positive sign for
the housing sector.81
Iowa City, Iowa, vaulted into ninth on the small cities list from 22nd the previous year. The
University of Iowa, the metro’s largest employer, and the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics
employ a combined 35,000 people.82 Unlike many metros, Iowa City did not experience a housing
bubble, and its downturn was relatively mild. Unemployment, hovering at or below 5 percent,
remains below the state and national average. Though state budget cuts posed a big concern to the
university, that revenue is more than offset by $53 million in federal stimulus money it is scheduled
to receive for 141 projects. In addition, the university received $430 million in research grants and
contracts.83 The funds would allow the university to increase hiring to accommodate the growing
student enrollment and would have a positive economic impact to the region.
Chemical manufacturing was the biggest job creator, adding 570 jobs in 2008–2009. Health-care
and social assistance services added 260 employees, and the federal government hired 300 workers
that same year.
Figure 29. Educational services
Iowa City vs. United States
8
Iowa City
United States
7
1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
42
Lawton, Oklahoma, captured 10th on the small cities index. (Data for the prior year was unavailable
so the city wasn’t ranked in 2009.) Lawton’s economic anchor is the Army’s Fort Sill, which employs
about 22,000 people and has an annual economic impact of $1.3 billion.84 BRAC-related expansion
in Fort Sill began in 2006 and should continue into next year when the 10,000 soldiers, families,
and other government employees will complete their relocation from Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas.85
The surge in population bodes well for the housing and other consumer goods-related industries.
The army has spent $210 million constructing the new Air Defense Artillery School, which officially
opened May 2010 at Fort Sill.86 The second largest employer in Lawton is the Good Year Tire &
Rubber Company, with 2,400 workers.87 The metro also has a large workforce training program at the
Great Plains Technology Center.
Lawton’s recession was mild: Unemployment was 5.2 percent in 2009, far below the national
average, and residents’ personal income increased by 4.3 percent from 2008 to 2009. The biggest job
creators in the past year were federal and local governments, which added 480 positions, and food
services and drinking places with 150 jobs.
43
2010 Best Performing Metros
Largest 200 Cities List
Complete Results: 2010 Best-Performing Large Cities

5-yr job growth 1-yr job growth 5-yr wages/salaries 1-yr wages/salaries Job growth 5-yr relative HT GDP 1-yr relative HT GDP High-Tech # of HT GDP Population
2010 2009 2004–2009 2008–2009 growth 2003–2008 growth 2007–2008 (Apr 09–Apr 10) growth 2004–2009 growth 2008–2009 GDP LQ 2009 LQs over 1 2009 2009 Overall
rank rank Metropolitan area 2009 Value* Rank 2009 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank 2008 Value* Rank Growth Rank 2009 Value* Rank 2009 Value* Rank 2009 Value* Rank 2009 Value* Rank (thousands) index**
1 2 Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA 110.75 7 103.84 4 122.72 1 106.18 1 1.52% 3 148.17 4 104.96 12 1.05 76 6 100 379 100.0
2 1 Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA 114.09 2 102.17 19 110.06 15 101.89 34 -0.09% 24 103.68 53 101.68 44 1.87 16 15 6 1,705 137.5
3 8 Huntsville, AL MSA 108.72 12 101.98 22 106.22 33 103.35 17 0.14% 18 104.54 48 103.67 21 2.57 6 11 28 406 137.6
4 4 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 117.75 1 103.54 5 115.15 5 103.57 14 1.61% 2 110.69 32 105.53 9 0.38 196 4 146 741 195.1
5 6† Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA MSA 111.75 4 105.84 1 102.75 60 104.84 5 4.55% 1 87.19 157 105.19 11 1.56 35 5 116 246 206.0
6 25 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MD 104.51 41 102.81 11 105.36 42 101.59 41 0.27% 13 95.69 109 102.81 34 1.87 16 9 54 4,277 227.9
7 10 Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA 111.85 3 100.13 84 109.82 16 101.15 51 -0.90% 56 109.14 34 101.48 53 1.83 19 13 12 1,126 241.3
8 40 Anchorage, AK MSA 106.64 21 104.22 2 104.30 48 103.25 20 0.41% 9 104.39 49 101.23 57 0.92 103 4 146 375 248.1
9 14 El Paso, TX MSA 106.26 26 102.26 17 104.47 45 102.59 29 -0.04% 23 113.53 23 100.93 63 0.84 120 7 80 751 253.3
10 5 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA 111.30 5 101.81 28 118.15 3 104.21 9 -1.57% 101 106.76 40 100.56 67 1.06 74 6 100 5,867 256.5
11 9 Lafayette, LA MSA 111.29 6 101.50 40 118.50 2 104.10 12 -1.41% 87 119.64 18 109.02 4 0.87 114 4 146 263 257.8
12 46 Trenton-Ewing, NJ MSA 102.39 60 101.78 30 103.92 52 104.14 10 -1.22% 77 120.48 17 102.98 31 1.63 30 10 42 366 259.2
13 70 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX MSA 107.90 17 102.62 13 103.59 53 103.45 16 0.64% 6 160.26 2 115.68 1 0.51 183 2 185 396 259.8
14 11 San Antonio, TX MSA 110.28 9 102.30 16 106.87 30 101.73 36 -1.40% 86 100.78 74 99.42 91 1.10 70 11 28 2,072 276.3
15 6 Durham, NC MSA 108.03 16 101.96 23 106.18 34 100.26 105 -0.28% 29 113.36 24 96.54 151 2.64 4 11 28 501 278.3
16 35 Amarillo, TX MSA 104.54 40 102.22 18 110.52 12 105.42 2 -0.63% 42 93.03 125 103.43 23 0.60 167 5 116 246 294.6
17 13 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX MD 106.38 25 100.36 73 106.16 35 101.04 61 -0.62% 41 100.83 73 98.68 103 1.80 21 15 6 4,326 301.6
18 31 Fayetteville, NC MSA 109.61 11 104.18 3 111.75 10 104.68 6 0.15% 16 103.44 56 92.63 186 0.53 179 0 200 360 318.3
19 30 Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA 104.86 36 99.49 117 108.06 24 100.82 73 0.25% 15 119.60 19 103.88 20 0.97 90 9 54 659 319.6
20 51 Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick, MD MD 100.47 88 101.81 28 100.94 77 99.94 117 0.02% 20 106.71 41 109.89 3 1.84 18 12 18 1,200 332.1
21 26 Oklahoma City, OK MSA 104.44 42 101.62 37 106.43 32 104.56 8 -1.22% 78 96.38 105 105.26 10 0.80 124 5 116 1,227 335.3
22 45 Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA MD 101.93 67 100.55 68 101.95 64 101.22 49 -0.91% 58 100.58 77 100.08 72 3.25 3 18 1 1,505 343.1
23 12 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MD 107.39 19 101.35 45 105.69 38 101.08 56 -1.08% 66 90.76 139 99.06 96 1.30 49 8 64 2,121 356.4
24 29 Lubbock, TX MSA 104.60 39 103.35 6 101.30 71 103.72 13 -0.46% 37 88.09 154 94.70 171 1.30 49 6 100 277 360.5
25 28 Provo-Orem, UT MSA 110.17 10 99.39 124 116.80 4 100.91 70 -1.84% 118 104.70 47 100.89 64 1.71 25 11 28 556 366.0
26 18 Baton Rouge, LA MSA 108.67 13 103.31 7 112.06 9 105.00 4 -1.50% 94 104.89 46 94.85 170 0.61 164 2 185 787 366.1
27 36 Bakersfield, CA MSA 108.06 15 100.07 86 110.36 14 102.72 26 -2.13% 132 130.66 9 101.75 40 0.81 121 5 116 807 372.8
28 57 Cedar Rapids, IA MSA 106.15 27 102.50 14 103.54 54 102.72 26 -1.59% 102 95.48 112 91.99 189 1.25 55 9 54 256 383.2
29 16 Corpus Christi, TX MSA 106.50 24 101.60 38 107.71 25 104.63 7 -0.45% 35 82.85 171 96.63 148 0.59 168 5 116 416 384.8
30 64 Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA 100.94 82 101.03 55 101.15 74 100.15 108 -0.65% 44 108.81 35 104.87 14 1.36 44 9 54 2,691 391.6
31 63 Madison, WI MSA 101.36 77 101.64 36 99.13 100 101.29 48 -1.72% 110 121.67 13 102.64 35 1.43 41 10 42 570 391.7
32 109 Pittsburgh, PA MSA 99.23 115 101.89 24 97.08 133 101.43 45 -0.40% 31 114.45 22 101.66 45 1.04 77 10 42 2,355 395.5
33 53 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA MSA 106.60 23 102.13 21 104.22 50 101.08 56 -1.16% 71 100.20 81 100.27 70 0.71 146 4 146 563 396.1
34 24 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA 104.30 44 101.72 33 102.33 62 102.07 32 -1.52% 97 128.49 10 98.95 97 0.77 133 5 116 392 399.5
35 60 Lynchburg, VA MSA 101.89 69 99.54 114 100.18 88 100.98 66 0.29% 12 149.67 3 104.03 18 1.01 83 6 100 247 404.5
36 7 Olympia, WA MSA 107.69 18 100.96 58 105.57 40 101.86 35 -0.69% 46 112.50 26 96.19 155 0.57 173 3 171 251 411.1
37 17 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA MD 105.34 33 99.05 134 104.45 46 100.62 83 -2.08% 127 106.42 42 104.86 15 2.58 5 11 28 2,611 420.1
38 19 Tulsa, OK MSA 105.47 31 99.60 110 107.04 28 102.80 24 -2.13% 134 110.94 30 101.54 49 0.88 111 6 100 929 423.1
39 136 Clarksville, TN-KY MSA 100.43 89 101.34 47 114.67 7 103.51 15 0.37% 10 69.07 196 100.31 69 0.49 185 3 171 269 427.9
40 39 Savannah, GA MSA 105.33 34 99.31 125 107.35 26 100.30 104 -0.99% 61 138.80 7 110.94 2 1.17 65 2 185 343 429.9
41 72 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA 100.24 95 102.34 15 94.23 168 102.86 22 -0.83% 52 99.35 84 101.10 59 1.53 36 7 80 858 431.7
42 61 Boston-Quincy, MA MD 101.03 81 100.87 61 101.60 67 100.93 69 -1.03% 64 96.80 101 101.82 39 0.97 90 9 54 1,918 433.9
43 27 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO MSA 106.63 22 100.82 62 109.60 17 101.71 37 -1.35% 84 96.89 100 99.73 85 0.58 172 3 171 465 434.9
44 128 St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 98.71 122 100.20 81 97.42 126 103.26 19 -0.90% 57 104.18 50 102.07 37 1.22 57 12 18 2,853 436.0
45 112 Columbus, GA-AL MSA 98.24 132 101.12 52 99.93 90 101.49 43 -0.85% 54 98.62 90 99.81 82 2.08 10 8 64 293 443.0
46 66 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA MSA 104.34 43 102.16 20 99.60 95 100.98 66 -1.21% 76 100.62 76 97.57 127 0.97 90 6 100 850 444.7
47 21 Tacoma, WA MD 105.83 28 100.21 79 111.63 11 102.69 28 -1.95% 125 112.66 25 97.13 138 0.71 146 4 146 797 446.3
48 38 New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ MD 102.26 63 101.23 48 108.34 22 99.52 135 -0.92% 59 98.82 88 99.96 76 0.93 101 7 80 11,732 447.6
49 3 Salt Lake City, UT MSA 108.54 14 99.61 109 110.48 13 100.04 114 -2.40% 155 104.02 51 100.04 73 1.29 52 12 18 1,130 450.3
50 22 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA 104.15 45 101.20 50 99.08 101 100.60 85 -1.72% 109 102.64 60 98.80 99 1.68 27 10 42 298 452.0
51 34 Wilmington, NC MSA 110.30 8 99.07 133 112.64 8 99.85 121 -2.22% 140 144.39 5 104.39 16 1.13 68 5 116 355 459.7
45
52 69 Nassau-Suffolk, NY MD 99.13 117 101.40 44 97.94 120 100.33 102 0.86% 5 95.27 113 101.03 61 1.29 52 10 42 2,876 468.0
53 32 Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA 105.37 32 100.39 71 102.49 61 99.54 132 -1.45% 90 110.94 30 104.24 17 0.88 111 5 116 542 468.9
54 97 Lincoln, NE MSA 103.67 48 102.65 12 96.65 139 100.79 77 -1.11% 70 99.71 82 98.74 100 0.95 95 7 80 298 470.0
55 100 Honolulu, HI MSA 102.29 62 101.03 55 103.32 56 101.03 62 -0.32% 30 95.55 110 101.47 54 0.56 175 1 194 908 475.7
56 44 Boulder, CO MSA 101.93 67 99.49 117 99.83 92 100.66 82 -1.44% 88 99.32 85 97.91 118 3.30 1 16 5 303 493.8
57 67 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA 103.89 46 100.44 69 108.29 23 105.17 3 -2.43% 158 101.96 64 91.21 193 0.74 139 5 116 378 496.9
58 54 Utica-Rome, NY MSA 99.47 108 103.02 9 94.95 157 101.00 65 0.15% 17 85.50 164 95.60 160 1.21 58 11 28 293 502.6
59 59 Mobile, AL MSA 103.17 52 99.01 137 105.27 43 101.97 33 -3.12% 182 121.20 16 107.37 6 0.79 128 7 80 412 504.1
60 52 Kansas City, MO-KS MSA 101.83 70 100.92 60 98.98 103 101.03 62 -1.49% 93 91.18 137 98.17 111 1.51 38 8 64 2,068 504.6
61 144 Charleston, WV MSA 100.34 92 101.69 34 100.48 82 103.34 18 -1.81% 116 94.10 119 102.97 32 0.79 128 3 171 304 507.9
62 47 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC MSA 105.50 30 98.33 161 105.70 37 99.09 147 -0.66% 45 109.81 33 101.64 47 0.89 105 5 116 1,746 511.5
63 55 Denver-Aurora, CO MSA 103.05 55 99.91 92 101.44 68 101.03 62 -2.43% 159 97.05 99 96.88 145 1.93 14 13 12 2,552 512.0
64 42 Albuquerque NM MSA
Albuquerque, 102 80
102.80 56 100 31
100.31 77 100 90
100.90 78 100 56
100.56 87 -1 61%
-1.61% 104 70 58
70.58 194 97 69
97.69 125 2 05
2.05 11 11 28 858 520 8
520.8
65 56 Columbia, SC MSA 100.91 83 99.52 115 101.19 73 100.37 98 -0.46% 36 101.01 71 103.18 28 0.65 158 6 100 745 523.0
66 113 Jackson, MS MSA 99.17 116 101.43 43 98.89 105 100.59 86 -0.28% 28 96.15 106 101.74 41 0.72 143 4 146 541 534.0
67 68 Springfield, MO MSA 104.76 37 100.61 66 100.65 81 100.36 99 0.37% 11 81.92 174 97.18 136 0.72 143 3 171 431 542.4
68 58 Salem, OR MSA 102.53 58 100.16 83 101.72 65 100.76 78 -0.82% 51 89.84 142 97.16 137 0.81 121 4 146 396 544.4
69 86 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA 98.63 125 101.89 24 92.15 180 100.68 80 -0.22% 27 92.08 130 100.00 75 1.19 61 7 80 1,124 545.9
70 124 Visalia-Porterville, CA MSA 103.41 51 99.04 135 104.43 47 102.83 23 -1.49% 92 101.35 67 99.42 91 0.38 196 3 171 430 546.7
71 82 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC MSA 98.32 130 101.18 51 95.21 155 101.64 39 -0.57% 39 119.20 20 96.57 149 0.79 128 6 100 539 548.9
72 15 Wichita, KS MSA 103.63 49 99.17 130 103.22 57 102.10 31 -4.09% 197 105.78 44 92.97 185 2.19 7 8 64 613 550.6
73 149 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA 99.46 109 101.60 38 98.15 118 102.79 25 -0.77% 48 121.45 14 96.41 152 0.42 194 1 194 286 550.7
74 41 Spokane, WA MSA 105.06 35 100.08 85 104.24 49 101.05 59 -2.66% 168 101.41 66 97.45 129 0.76 134 5 116 469 554.2
75 111 Peabody, MA MD 99.46 109 101.45 42 93.50 174 100.10 109 -0.49% 38 87.99 155 97.84 123 2.17 8 14 8 743 555.1
76 83 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA 97.92 135 98.90 140 100.42 83 100.89 71 -1.98% 126 108.51 36 99.91 79 1.95 13 17 2 3,054 556.5
77 78 Tucson, AZ MSA 101.81 71 99.16 131 106.14 36 100.32 103 -1.73% 112 85.53 163 98.37 109 1.32 47 12 18 1,020 557.2
78 87 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA 98.99 118 100.79 63 98.30 115 99.64 128 -1.01% 62 99.32 85 103.64 22 0.93 101 8 64 1,674 557.9
79 118 Richmond, VA MSA 100.58 86 100.19 82 101.64 66 99.48 136 -1.84% 119 103.47 54 101.54 49 0.97 90 7 80 1,238 561.0
80 74 Syracuse, NY MSA 99.31 113 101.77 31 93.29 176 100.38 97 -0.44% 34 88.98 151 97.05 140 1.40 42 12 18 646 561.6
81 91 Rockingham County-Strafford County, NH MD 100.08 96 99.59 112 98.38 113 99.17 146 0.03% 19 95.49 111 99.45 90 1.11 69 13 12 423 562.3
82 73 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY MSA 99.27 114 101.82 26 95.86 146 101.09 55 -1.48% 91 89.02 150 98.09 113 1.18 62 7 80 677 568.7
83 96 Philadelphia, PA MD 99.86 100 101.07 54 98.47 110 100.56 87 -1.20% 75 85.80 161 95.07 167 1.30 49 10 42 4,013 569.5
84 98 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN MSA 101.66 75 99.50 116 105.59 39 100.05 111 -1.73% 111 89.61 145 99.30 95 0.89 105 11 28 1,582 572.4
85 48 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT MSA 103.73 47 102.88 10 98.60 108 99.04 148 -1.84% 117 98.17 92 95.71 159 1.14 67 6 100 1,196 572.7
86 90 Gainesville, FL MSA 99.72 103 99.96 90 107.23 27 98.89 152 0.00% 21 83.19 169 98.48 108 0.71 146 7 80 261 577.3
87 33 Peoria, IL MSA 102.49 59 98.42 156 108.45 20 101.36 47 -2.39% 153 103.00 58 100.43 68 0.67 153 4 146 376 580.3
88 129 Tallahassee, FL MSA 103.12 54 101.73 32 96.69 137 98.50 158 -0.81% 50 91.82 133 97.49 128 0.88 111 8 64 360 581.6
89 89 Rochester, NY MSA 98.75 121 101.82 26 91.73 182 100.44 93 -0.44% 33 84.98 166 97.35 133 1.62 31 7 80 1,036 591.6
90 76 Manchester-Nashua, NH MSA 97.86 138 99.68 104 98.75 106 100.40 95 -1.23% 79 91.97 131 98.73 101 1.70 26 12 18 406 592.0
91 94 Norwich-New London, CT MSA 97.92 135 99.58 113 95.74 148 101.62 40 0.47% 8 92.81 127 97.06 139 1.74 24 4 146 267 593.3
92 119 Knoxville, TN MSA 100.05 97 99.95 91 100.25 86 100.46 92 -0.59% 40 79.83 180 97.86 122 0.86 116 6 100 699 595.7
93 23 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR MSA 103.55 50 101.66 35 101.28 72 97.87 164 -2.29% 149 91.34 136 97.78 124 1.06 74 8 64 685 599.7
94 71 York-Hanover, PA MSA 101.31 78 99.79 96 98.98 103 100.62 83 -1.25% 80 97.38 96 97.37 132 0.74 139 6 100 429 603.5
95 105 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ MSA 101.31 78 101.10 53 97.80 122 99.46 137 -0.84% 53 86.70 158 96.91 144 0.94 97 8 64 816 604.4
96 110 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA MSA 100.52 87 101.47 41 94.29 167 100.22 106 -1.85% 121 107.79 37 97.99 117 0.94 97 9 54 537 604.9
97 102 Montgomery, AL MSA 101.74 72 99.70 101 98.28 116 101.05 59 -1.93% 123 101.22 68 97.88 120 0.80 124 6 100 366 606.8
98 99 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL MSA 104.71 38 97.97 171 107.00 29 97.91 163 -2.45% 161 106.14 43 101.85 38 1.04 77 7 80 2,082 611.0
99 101 Colorado Springs, CO MSA 100.65 85 100.36 73 99.05 102 100.81 75 -2.88% 176 81.45 175 96.71 147 1.96 12 13 12 626 613.3
100 161 Lexington-Fayette, KY MSA 100.41 90 100.32 76 97.23 130 99.45 138 0.25% 14 89.34 147 95.04 168 0.89 105 9 54 471 613.8
101 20 Greeley, CO MSA 106.80 20 99.40 122 109.28 19 103.06 21 -4.13% 198 99.47 83 90.54 194 0.53 179 2 185 255 627.2
102 171 Green Bay, WI MSA 97.78 140 100.56 67 95.02 156 101.14 52 -1.10% 69 105.23 45 101.66 45 0.54 177 3 171 305 630.1
103 85 San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA MD 100.66 84 98.82 143 103.06 59 99.77 125 -3.60% 193 97.16 98 99.71 86 1.81 20 13 12 1,785 638.9
104 80 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL MSA 98.47 127 99.25 127 100.81 79 101.11 53 -2.21% 139 103.79 52 103.25 26 0.67 153 4 146 379 639.7
105 126 Roanoke, VA MSA 99.44 111 100.07 86 97.63 124 100.19 107 -1.60% 103 100.71 75 101.27 56 0.85 118 5 116 300 639.7
106 75 Asheville, NC MSA 102.00 65 98.75 145 100.20 87 99.34 141 -1.78% 115 125.55 12 100.03 74 0.75 135 6 100 413 639.9
Largest 200 Cities List
Complete Results: 2010 Best-Performing Large Cities

107 37 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA MSA 102.33 61 98.23 165 103.12 58 100.05 111 -2.49% 164 100.96 72 91.78 191 2.11 9 10 42 2,242 642.2
108 108 Columbus, OH MSA 99.51 106 100.93 59 95.22 154 99.58 131 -1.56% 98 94.90 116 100.76 65 1.02 81 7 80 1,802 644.8
109 121 Camden, NJ MD 97.65 143 100.79 63 96.56 141 100.06 110 -1.77% 114 101.06 69 98.07 114 1.04 77 10 42 1,254 647.6
110 146 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV MSA 99.80 102 100.41 70 98.56 109 99.77 125 -2.24% 144 101.04 70 107.74 5 0.64 160 5 116 266 650.6
111 49 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MSA 96.64 160 98.37 158 101.39 69 96.88 181 -1.03% 63 102.81 59 101.69 43 1.36 44 9 54 901 656.0
112 125 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN MSA 99.88 99 99.77 98 97.13 131 100.34 101 -1.70% 108 80.82 176 98.04 115 1.48 39 8 64 1,744 658.1
113 153 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN MSA 99.85 101 100.25 78 96.00 145 98.93 151 -1.17% 73 102.50 61 101.56 48 0.67 153 5 116 1,259 660.8
114 130 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA MSA 99.57 105 99.69 102 101.06 76 100.40 95 -3.32% 186 95.05 114 103.04 30 0.75 135 7 80 267 666.7
115 173 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA MSA 95.91 169 99.89 93 99.65 94 101.52 42 -2.99% 178 86.65 159 103.34 24 0.98 88 8 64 407 666.8
116 157 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL MSA 97.43 149 99.64 107 99.50 97 97.78 167 -0.19% 26 96.05 107 101.72 42 0.89 105 4 146 455 668.8
117 93 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA 102.58 57 96.30 190 108.45 20 97.05 176 -2.08% 128 90.95 138 98.70 102 1.23 56 9 54 4,364 669.0
118 123 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI MSA 98.35 128 99.64 107 97.31 128 100.42 94 -1.93% 124 93.56 123 97.27 134 1.21 58 12 18 3,270 670.4
119 92 Winston-Salem, NC MSA 101.98 66 99.98 89 94.43 166 99.78 124 -1.38% 85 162.64 1 92.13 188 0.74 139 5 116 485 674.1
120 141 Jacksonville, FL MSA 101.70 74 98.53 153 100.71 80 96.91 180 -1.65% 105 96.66 102 106.47 8 0.89 105 5 116 1,328 679.4
121 132 Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA 99.50 107 101.35 45 93.99 171 99.98 116 -0.78% 49 72.36 189 91.27 192 0.85 118 10 42 549 679.6
122 163 Duluth, MN-WI MSA 99.33 112 100.21 79 94.79 159 101.20 50 -1.09% 68 91.75 134 94.56 174 0.61 164 5 116 276 682.6
123 84 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA MSA 84.90 199 103.25 8 92.14 181 104.13 11 -0.02% 22 82.23 172 93.58 180 0.55 176 3 171 1,190 689.9
124 115 Fresno, CA MSA 100.29 94 98.86 142 101.11 75 100.56 87 -3.01% 179 110.99 29 99.89 80 0.59 168 5 116 915 693.6
125 120 Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC MSA 103.15 53 97.32 179 103.38 55 95.46 191 0.96% 4 100.53 78 96.95 143 0.48 189 2 185 264 698.3
126 106 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA 101.48 76 98.65 150 98.25 117 97.73 168 -2.12% 130 96.41 104 99.67 87 1.38 43 10 42 5,475 698.9
127 127 Springfield, MA MSA 97.42 150 100.99 57 93.83 172 101.66 38 -2.20% 138 98.65 89 97.26 135 0.71 146 7 80 699 699.2
128 134 Salinas, CA MSA 96.66 159 99.60 110 96.44 142 101.42 46 -1.31% 82 101.58 65 99.33 94 0.52 182 4 146 410 701.3
129 79 Worcester, MA MSA 96.95 156 100.37 72 94.63 163 100.82 73 -2.68% 169 89.78 144 98.35 110 1.47 40 14 8 804 703.3
130 168 Gary, IN MD 97.64 144 98.88 141 96.83 136 102.30 30 -1.57% 100 92.74 128 103.90 19 0.49 185 4 146 704 708.1
131 133 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA MSA 98.59 126 99.78 97 95.41 152 100.97 68 -2.44% 160 100.48 79 94.64 173 0.95 95 11 28 306 708.9
132 50 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 99.69 104 97.76 173 102.14 63 96.69 185 -2.24% 142 97.24 97 96.01 157 3.30 1 14 8 1,840 716.4
133 172 Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA 95.97 168 97.00 184 95.35 153 99.31 143 -0.18% 25 137.94 8 103.25 26 0.74 139 7 80 524 717.3
134 147 Edison, NJ MD 98.14 133 99.71 100 95.50 150 99.92 119 -2.32% 151 92.39 129 98.51 107 1.80 21 10 42 2,335 719.9
135 116 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA 96.69 158 99.00 138 98.44 111 97.85 165 -2.18% 136 100.41 80 99.81 82 1.92 15 13 12 536 720.2
136 77 Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC MSA 99.93 98 97.38 178 98.72 107 100.35 100 -1.52% 96 93.80 121 98.63 106 1.01 83 4 146 640 723.4
137 140 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME MSA 98.65 123 100.76 65 96.92 135 101.08 56 -2.27% 148 88.11 153 92.31 187 0.72 143 7 80 517 724.5
138 43 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA MSA 97.51 146 99.48 120 98.39 112 100.00 115 -2.37% 152 97.39 95 93.91 179 1.64 29 11 28 407 727.0
139 151 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA 97.70 141 99.21 129 94.53 165 100.49 90 -2.18% 137 114.49 21 95.74 158 1.08 72 9 54 1,560 730.7
140 170 Evansville, IN-KY MSA 96.23 166 100.34 75 91.34 184 100.69 79 -0.76% 47 72.12 191 84.86 198 1.10 70 7 80 352 735.3
141 138 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN MSA 97.45 148 99.66 106 94.62 164 99.93 118 -1.56% 99 98.22 91 101.09 60 0.90 104 5 116 2,172 735.8
142 117 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA MSA 97.37 151 98.71 147 99.84 91 99.53 133 -3.26% 183 103.46 55 100.22 71 1.32 47 8 64 2,127 739.0
143 152 Fort Wayne, IN MSA 95.84 170 98.30 163 89.52 187 97.67 171 -0.88% 55 127.39 11 103.34 24 1.18 62 8 64 414 741.9
144 135 Reading, PA MSA 100.30 93 99.75 99 97.27 129 99.53 133 -1.08% 67 78.11 185 95.24 164 0.62 162 4 146 407 761.0
145 156 Lancaster, PA MSA 98.34 129 99.81 95 94.20 170 100.86 72 -1.05% 65 74.37 188 96.72 146 0.61 164 3 171 508 775.3
146 103 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA 97.99 134 96.67 187 105.41 41 97.29 173 -3.26% 184 107.39 38 101.18 58 0.78 131 8 64 4,143 775.6
147 164 Erie, PA MSA 97.10 153 99.89 93 96.24 144 100.81 75 -1.18% 74 66.76 199 90.21 195 0.70 151 5 116 280 778.9
148 148 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL MD 97.47 147 99.03 136 96.63 140 99.33 142 -2.24% 141 93.02 126 99.47 89 0.99 86 11 28 7,998 780.9
149 150 Port St. Lucie, FL MSA 100.37 91 97.72 174 109.51 18 94.08 195 -2.31% 150 97.75 93 99.82 81 0.59 168 4 146 406 781.7
150 62 Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA 101.18 80 98.70 148 100.26 85 99.81 123 -3.35% 187 94.03 120 104.90 13 0.37 198 2 185 293 789.7
151 179 Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL MD 98.86 119 98.64 151 99.47 98 98.60 154 -1.28% 81 85.06 165 97.64 126 0.65 158 5 116 2,501 793.6
152 95 Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI MD 98.83 120 99.12 132 99.34 99 97.73 168 -3.57% 191 82.94 170 97.90 119 1.57 34 8 64 878 810.3
46
153 88 New Haven-Milford, CT MSA 95.46 174 98.42 156 93.50 174 99.85 121 -1.17% 72 82.23 172 93.09 184 1.58 33 11 28 848 812.0
154 114 Boise City-Nampa, ID MSA 105.71 29 97.25 181 104.79 44 95.55 189 -2.26% 147 51.15 200 83.47 199 0.98 88 4 146 606 812.3
155 169 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 96.33 163 98.45 155 98.01 119 97.11 174 -2.12% 131 93.66 122 97.88 120 1.20 60 11 28 2,747 813.7
156 131 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL MD 98.65 123 97.22 182 100.41 84 96.93 178 -2.75% 173 91.85 132 99.61 88 1.04 77 10 42 1,766 815.9
157 195 Lansing-East Lansing, MI MSA 93.40 187 99.40 122 88.27 189 100.47 91 0.61% 7 84.00 168 98.67 104 0.57 173 1 194 454 820.3
158 139 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA MD 96.25 165 98.35 159 97.38 127 99.31 143 -2.41% 157 89.10 149 96.38 153 1.61 32 12 18 9,848 831.6
159 104 Ocala, FL MSA 97.12 152 95.11 197 106.58 31 97.01 177 -4.24% 199 121.36 15 98.01 116 0.94 97 5 116 329 832.5
160 81 Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA 98.31 131 96.11 192 99.99 89 98.88 153 -1.33% 83 76.90 187 77.68 200 1.02 81 6 100 351 835.4
161 191 Ann Arbor, MI MSA 94.02 181 101.23 48 83.40 197 94.54 194 -0.94% 60 72.27 190 95.57 162 1.08 72 7 80 348 835.6
162 181 Spartanburg, SC MSA 96.32 164 97.31 180 96.43 143 100.67 81 -1.84% 120 94.51 118 102.96 33 0.46 191 3 171 287 846.8
163 142 Newark-Union, NJ-PA MD 95.58 171 99.68 104 94.21 169 98.95 150 -2.24% 143 80.01 179 97.41 131 1.34 46 8 64 2,126 849.3
164 107 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA 102.10 64 94.64 200 114.88 6 97.84 166 -4.62% 200 91.54 135 98.66 105 0.45 192 1 194 1,903 850.5
165 182 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ MD 97.69 142 99.69 102 94.64 162 98.59 155 -1.65% 106 88.73 152 96.99 141 0.78 131 4 146 702 853.3
166 178 Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA 97.83 139 99.24 128 95.59 149 98.42 159 -3.01% 180 102.36 62 106.63 7 0.62 162 3 171 1,305 857.5
167 137 Lakeland, FL MSA 101.74 72 98.93 139 101.33 70 97.64 172 -2.80% 174 86.37 160 98.12 112 0.40 195 1 194 583 858.0
168 184 Merced, CA MSA 96.64 160 99.30 126 99.60 95 101.45 44 -2.70% 170 87.53 156 91.93 190 0.36 199 2 185 245 860.0
169 183 Dayton, OH MSA 90.89 192 98.75 145 85.40 194 97.11 174 -1.66% 107 89.81 143 99.93 78 1.18 62 12 18 835 863.6
170 189 Kalamazoo-Portage,
Kalamazoo Portage, MI MSA 95.46 174 100.03 88 88.09 190 101.10 54 -2.72%
2.72% 171 71.95 192 96.56 150 0.97 90 4 146 327 865.9
171 167 Akron, OH MSA 96.98 154 98.54 152 94.76 160 99.90 120 -3.40% 189 111.23 27 99.41 93 0.71 146 5 116 700 866.5
172 122 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA MD 94.54 178 96.74 186 97.87 121 97.68 170 -2.10% 129 89.17 148 93.94 178 1.53 36 17 2 3,027 866.6
173 192 Atlantic City, NJ MSA 92.79 188 98.12 167 92.64 179 99.27 145 -0.43% 32 89.45 146 100.60 66 0.49 185 5 116 272 867.4
174 162 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL MSA 95.57 172 98.03 169 99.68 93 96.25 188 -2.72% 172 94.97 115 103.05 29 0.80 124 7 80 496 868.4
175 187 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA 94.35 179 99.49 117 92.89 178 99.59 130 -2.86% 175 90.73 140 98.89 98 0.99 86 8 64 1,601 872.8
176 154 Greensboro-High Point, NC MSA 96.84 157 97.84 172 94.70 161 99.03 149 -2.51% 165 98.94 87 96.15 156 0.89 105 11 28 715 889.9
177 177 Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA 97.57 145 98.31 162 98.38 113 99.61 129 -3.29% 185 79.00 184 101.52 51 0.86 116 3 171 1,131 892.1
178 145 Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA MD 94.81 177 98.03 169 95.48 151 98.31 160 -3.63% 194 90.29 141 95.24 164 1.77 23 17 2 2,533 911.6
179 194 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI MSA 94.07 180 98.35 159 88.50 188 98.27 161 -1.51% 95 96.60 103 99.81 82 0.68 152 4 146 778 918.7
180 158 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA 96.48 162 98.66 149 94.89 158 94.73 193 -2.63% 167 77.73 186 93.40 182 1.66 28 14 8 803 924.8
181 188 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI MSA 92.00 190 97.67 175 90.82 185 100.05 111 -2.25% 145 80.49 178 101.51 52 0.81 121 6 100 318 925.1
182 175 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL MD 96.16 167 97.17 183 96.67 138 93.94 196 -2.39% 154 94.77 117 101.45 55 0.80 124 5 116 1,280 936.5
183 186 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA 93.74 184 98.80 144 89.63 186 98.13 162 -1.44% 89 93.21 124 95.59 161 0.75 135 4 146 2,091 939.6
184 200 Flint, MI MSA 85.81 197 98.13 166 73.10 200 93.11 197 -2.14% 135 111.03 28 102.60 36 0.94 97 4 146 424 940.8
185 160 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA MSA 95.57 172 99.46 121 91.54 183 96.64 187 -2.13% 133 69.17 195 93.23 183 1.01 83 7 80 256 956.3
186 166 Stockton, CA MSA 96.98 154 98.48 154 97.09 132 99.42 139 -2.40% 156 79.23 183 95.23 166 0.44 193 3 171 675 978.2
187 180 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA 97.88 137 96.36 189 103.99 51 91.76 198 -3.55% 190 67.71 198 96.99 141 0.48 189 4 146 587 987.7
188 165 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA 93.73 186 96.84 185 93.69 173 98.57 156 -3.78% 195 79.75 181 93.49 181 1.27 54 12 18 472 997.5
189 155 Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA 93.87 182 95.43 194 97.47 125 90.17 200 -3.39% 188 97.60 94 100.94 62 0.54 177 5 116 319 998.8
190 174 Rockford, IL MSA 93.83 183 95.08 198 93.00 177 98.57 156 -2.25% 146 101.99 63 94.86 169 0.75 135 4 146 354 1,001.3
191 176 Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL MSA 92.53 189 96.63 188 96.95 134 91.22 199 -2.46% 162 103.35 57 94.04 177 0.66 157 6 100 688 1,002.2
192 193 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA MSA 90.52 194 97.54 177 84.10 196 95.50 190 -0.64% 43 84.31 167 94.33 175 0.53 179 5 116 563 1,002.7
193 159 Modesto, CA MSA 95.31 176 98.06 168 95.78 147 99.75 127 -1.89% 122 68.57 197 85.18 197 0.49 185 2 185 510 1,005.4
194 190 Canton-Massillon, OH MSA 91.91 191 98.26 164 88.02 191 99.38 140 -2.93% 177 140.89 6 97.44 130 0.36 199 1 194 408 1,011.1
195 198 Toledo, OH MSA 90.57 193 97.67 175 86.43 193 96.93 178 -1.76% 113 96.02 108 99.94 77 0.51 183 2 185 672 1,011.9
196 143 Reno-Sparks, NV MSA 93.74 184 94.67 199 97.79 123 95.32 192 -3.05% 181 85.56 162 95.37 163 0.59 168 5 116 419 1,061.2
197 185 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC MSA 88.21 196 95.29 195 87.82 192 96.68 186 -2.46% 163 107.23 39 86.30 196 0.63 161 5 116 365 1,065.5
198 197 Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI MD 85.68 198 95.20 196 81.61 198 96.84 182 -3.80% 196 80.71 177 96.31 154 1.15 66 5 116 2,478 1,100.1
199 196 Holland-Grand Haven, MI MSA 88.27 195 95.54 193 84.67 195 96.83 183 -2.55% 166 79.28 182 94.14 176 0.67 153 4 146 262 1,130.2
200 199 Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI MD 84.86 200 96.26 191 81.00 199 96.81 184 -3.59% 192 71.18 193 94.65 172 0.87 114 3 171 1,926 1,157.6
* "Values" are benchmarked against the national average, which is set to 100.
** Index scores are benchmarked against the top performer, which is set to 100. Lower index scores indicate stronger performance.
†
Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA MSA moved to the large cities list. It ranked 6th in the best-performing small cities in 2009.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute.
Small 179 Cities List
Complete Results: 2010 Best-Performing Small Cities

1 10 Fargo, ND-MN MSA 110.72 14 103.65 11 110.34 16 105.14 14 0.17% 36 111.80 31 102.75 42 0.88 41 5 56 200 100.0
2 7 Bismarck, ND MSA 112.01 10 105.85 2 107.34 31 103.54 27 1.47% 14 105.95 51 101.20 59 0.73 67 6 42 106 109.9
3 n.a. Jacksonville, NC MSA 116.97 2 105.55 3 132.32 4 109.98 5 3.58% 3 126.25 14 98.43 96 0.41 156 2 144 173 125.7
4 14 College Station-Bryan, TX MSA 111.75 11 106.38 1 108.15 26 104.25 19 2.30% 8 92.94 95 101.66 54 0.73 67 3 114 212 130.5
5 n.a. Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA MSA 115.67 4 105.11 4 121.01 9 109.58 6 3.72% 2 91.96 99 91.33 156 0.58 109 5 56 74 133.1
6 27 Morgantown, WV MSA 113.01 9 105.02 6 110.19 20 105.33 13 2.07% 10 103.18 60 100.43 69 0.52 127 3 114 120 137.8
7 4 Tyler, TX MSA 105.20 39 101.38 68 106.96 33 104.04 20 0.00% 43 130.59 11 104.26 31 1.04 21 7 24 205 140.4
8 9 Las Cruces, NM MSA 109.14 20 102.25 33 110.28 18 103.92 21 -0.29% 59 76.86 147 101.14 61 1.17 11 8 14 206 152.0
9 22 Iowa City, IA MSA 106.86 31 103.17 17 103.03 54 103.42 30 0.11% 40 125.70 15 99.56 80 1.00 26 4 77 152 154.1
10 n.a. Lawton, OK MSA 108.33 25 105.04 5 105.02 45 103.31 31 2.30% 7 117.63 23 101.96 52 0.55 120 2 144 113 160.4
11 16 Cheyenne, WY MSA 108.72 23 102.19 37 106.48 35 102.92 38 -0.46% 67 106.55 50 105.08 29 0.64 88 6 42 89 173.2
12 25 Ithaca, NY MSA 104.57 45 103.99 9 96.71 98 104.67 15 0.94% 23 90.34 106 96.36 118 1.21 8 11 2 102 174.6
13 12 Sioux Falls, SD MSA 109.22 19 102.55 28 105.88 39 102.69 43 -0.22% 54 116.74 25 98.63 93 0.75 60 4 77 238 176.5
14 18 Waco, TX MSA 101.67 80 103.17 17 99.41 78 101.78 64 1.04% 20 157.14 5 100.03 74 1.05 20 8 14 233 179.6
15 2 Longview, TX MSA 108.78 22 100.17 107 119.50 10 106.56 9 -0.84% 80 114.60 28 100.24 70 0.84 49 6 42 207 183.5
16 57 Bloomington, IN MSA 102.98 64 104.17 8 95.54 111 102.05 56 0.85% 25 95.42 85 102.33 47 1.80 3 9 8 186 191.0
17 32 State College, PA MSA 103.50 58 103.07 19 101.00 67 102.32 49 1.50% 13 88.11 111 93.37 141 1.16 12 10 5 146 193.6
18 8 Warner Robins, GA MSA 115.13 5 104.57 7 104.95 48 99.56 129 0.00% 43 98.37 74 105.22 27 0.86 45 4 77 136 195.4
19 n.a. Logan, UT-ID MSA 106.85 33 100.94 82 107.22 32 104.43 17 -0.58% 72 106.91 48 92.91 148 1.09 19 9 8 128 197.7
20 26 Charlottesville, VA MSA 108.07 26 101.56 59 106.54 34 100.16 109 -0.70% 76 105.03 57 106.59 18 1.15 14 8 14 197 202.5
21 39 St. Joseph, MO-KS MSA 109.89 17 102.21 36 102.57 57 101.72 65 3.09% 5 84.55 125 98.03 100 0.66 83 4 77 127 211.6
22 51 Columbia, MO MSA 105.59 35 102.84 23 100.58 69 101.09 86 0.77% 26 105.26 54 99.25 85 0.76 59 4 77 166 214.1
23 21 Abilene, TX MSA 104.94 42 101.38 68 104.99 46 103.51 29 -1.21% 94 111.00 37 100.92 65 0.71 71 7 24 160 214.8
24 n.a. Hanford-Corcoran, CA MSA 111.72 12 101.84 50 105.88 39 103.89 23 -0.27% 57 111.42 35 87.85 171 0.53 125 4 77 149 218.7
25 42 Grand Forks, ND-MN MSA 104.31 48 102.78 24 98.96 84 101.97 59 0.95% 22 111.45 34 102.69 43 0.58 109 3 114 97 220.0
26 11 Pascagoula, MS MSA 108.00 27 101.43 65 115.95 11 112.12 2 -3.76% 167 95.93 82 101.45 58 0.83 51 4 77 156 230.9
27 n.a. Wenatchee, WA MSA 106.86 31 100.65 91 104.29 52 102.46 48 0.00% 43 109.25 42 105.14 28 0.59 105 3 114 110 232.9
28 23 Glens Falls, NY MSA 101.10 89 103.18 16 96.78 97 101.45 75 1.11% 18 91.36 100 96.19 119 1.45 5 8 14 129 235.5
29 47 Hattiesburg, MS MSA 107.51 28 102.06 41 104.35 51 99.77 124 0.68% 28 125.10 16 100.57 68 0.44 148 4 77 143 242.5
30 24 Billings, MT MSA 108.58 24 102.24 34 108.77 25 100.89 95 -2.75% 148 101.44 65 105.25 26 0.70 73 5 56 155 248.1
31 19 Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA MSA 113.27 8 100.71 90 131.78 5 106.42 11 -2.32% 133 113.45 29 108.96 13 0.35 169 1 171 203 248.9
32 60 Athens-Clarke County, GA MSA 105.53 36 99.49 122 101.19 64 103.25 32 -0.25% 55 117.28 24 120.48 5 0.64 88 2 144 192 250.0
33 38 Joplin, MO MSA 104.14 51 101.85 49 99.57 75 102.31 50 -1.39% 101 92.98 94 128.19 4 0.60 101 6 42 174 254.1
34 n.a. Fairbanks, AK MSA 102.70 66 103.48 12 106.19 37 102.52 47 1.06% 19 90.23 107 99.16 88 0.37 164 0 176 99 254.6
35 69 Missoula, MT MSA 103.16 63 101.70 56 100.53 71 101.05 88 2.15% 9 98.07 75 98.70 92 0.67 80 4 77 109 255.3
36 34 Auburn-Opelika, AL MSA 105.16 40 100.41 97 107.46 30 100.66 98 0.19% 34 176.66 4 106.37 20 0.42 150 2 144 136 260.5
37 29 Rapid City, SD MSA 104.30 49 102.76 25 99.29 80 102.85 39 0.17% 37 83.46 129 99.52 81 0.49 135 3 114 125 261.0
38 13 Bellingham, WA MSA 104.45 47 98.90 136 110.50 15 102.99 36 -3.58% 164 108.84 44 102.93 40 0.92 37 9 8 200 263.4
39 1 Midland, TX MSA 117.88 1 98.90 136 150.99 1 114.29 1 -3.56% 162 85.32 119 93.18 143 0.85 47 6 42 132 271.0
40 85 Harrisonburg, VA MSA 101.52 83 101.83 51 99.52 77 101.32 77 0.65% 29 94.56 87 94.36 131 0.84 49 5 56 120 272.2
41 41 Greenville, NC MSA 109.37 18 100.60 94 104.97 47 101.58 71 -0.13% 49 92.84 96 90.72 161 0.93 35 3 114 180 274.0
42 17 Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR MSA 103.60 56 101.73 55 105.88 39 102.15 53 -0.88% 82 111.60 33 99.24 86 0.37 164 3 114 137 274.9
43 n.a. San Angelo, TX MSA 101.48 84 102.01 42 96.37 103 104.43 17 -0.45% 65 90.11 108 91.50 155 1.20 9 4 77 110 276.1
44 36 Bloomington-Normal, IL MSA 100.87 91 101.98 44 93.25 140 102.95 37 -0.78% 77 99.38 71 106.93 15 0.93 35 4 77 168 277.8
45 33 Pueblo, CO MSA 105.09 41 101.98 44 100.31 72 103.05 34 -1.39% 100 96.73 80 93.35 142 0.62 98 4 77 157 278.3
46 83 Yakima, WA MSA 102.85 65 102.09 39 101.05 66 104.44 16 2.60% 6 64.97 167 99.72 79 0.26 177 0 176 239 279.0
47 n.a. El Centro, CA MSA 111.39 13 101.30 72 105.32 43 103.82 25 -3.27% 157 105.71 53 103.92 35 0.38 163 3 114 167 280.1
48 n.a. Great Falls, MT MSA 107.13 30 103.99 9 101.75 62 102.29 51 -3.09% 152 117.91 22 98.49 95 0.42 150 3 114 82 281.2
47
49 70 Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL MSA 103.21 61 100.28 102 102.60 56 97.96 158 0.55% 30 115.07 27 102.16 49 1.02 23 4 77 165 281.9
50 5 Odessa, TX MSA 115.68 3 97.78 153 144.17 2 110.62 4 -4.47% 173 141.40 6 106.68 17 0.41 156 2 144 135 282.4
51 52 Lake Charles, LA MSA 103.56 57 100.21 104 108.82 24 106.17 12 -2.70% 146 89.74 110 102.82 41 0.64 88 4 77 194 285.0
52 111 Altoona, PA MSA 97.98 123 102.34 31 93.37 136 99.78 122 1.16% 16 99.47 70 106.57 19 0.91 38 7 24 126 286.7
53 n.a. Elizabethtown, KY MSA 99.74 100 99.28 128 98.09 92 101.33 76 1.37% 15 129.09 13 101.49 56 0.74 64 4 77 113 293.8
54 53 Champaign-Urbana, IL MSA 98.99 113 101.26 74 95.05 119 103.01 35 -1.17% 93 115.29 26 100.05 73 0.88 41 7 24 226 293.8
55 44 Dubuque, IA MSA 103.30 59 101.75 54 100.00 74 101.61 68 -0.55% 69 97.55 78 90.00 166 0.69 76 4 77 93 297.1
56 31 Alexandria, LA MSA 107.31 29 101.51 62 109.48 21 102.67 44 -1.53% 110 82.28 133 103.71 37 0.32 175 0 176 154 299.1
57 3 Grand Junction, CO MSA 113.34 7 98.04 151 129.55 6 110.77 3 -5.42% 179 93.46 92 101.46 57 0.62 98 3 114 146 299.4
58 65 Oshkosh-Neenah, WI MSA 101.12 88 100.98 79 94.15 129 101.14 84 0.11% 41 110.45 40 104.19 32 0.70 73 4 77 163 302.9
59 n.a. Kankakee-Bradley, IL MSA 102.32 71 101.60 57 93.63 134 100.90 92 0.23% 33 81.11 136 96.83 114 0.94 31 8 14 113 304.1
60 84 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA MSA 102.22 72 102.38 29 101.97 60 102.76 41 -0.90% 83 90.50 104 97.79 104 0.42 150 2 144 165 304.6
61 58 Valdosta, GA MSA 102.54 69 99.73 116 102.22 58 103.58 26 -2.38% 136 113.11 30 101.84 53 0.53 125 5 56 136 305.6
62 n.a. Cumberland, MD-WV MSA 99.90 97 102.95 22 95.70 110 102.15 53 -2.54% 141 93.42 93 111.65 8 0.69 76 5 56 100 307.1
63 20 Laredo, TX MSA 113.47 6 100.92 83 108.09 28 101.23 80 -0.68% 75 90.05 109 97.07 112 0.26 177 2 144 241 308.5
64 n.a. Binghamton, NY MSA 99.20 111 101.25 75 95.50 113 101.83 61 -1.16% 92 101.75 62 96.60 116 2.04 2 11 2 245 309.2
65 n.a. Ames, IA MSA 101.98 75 102.66 27 99.53 76 102.57 46 -1.69% 116 100.21 69 93.72 138 0.64 88 3 114 87 309.6
66 48 Tuscaloosa, AL MSA 104.85 43 99.24 129 106.19 37 100.90 92 -0.95% 88 110.89 38 101.10 62 0.48 137 4 77 211 310.7
67 67 Bowling Green, KY MSA 103.89 53 98.75 140 104.92 49 101.99 57 -0.85% 81 124.62 17 105.46 24 0.42 150 2 144 121 311.5
68 77 Johnstown, PA MSA 101.39 85 101.45 64 96.67 99 101.48 74 -1.49% 108 90.39 105 100.74 66 1.01 25 6 42 144 312.5
69 n.a. Victoria, TX MSA 104.07 52 98.97 135 106.46 36 102.77 40 -2.23% 132 91.98 98 95.40 124 0.85 47 6 42 115 313.2
70 n.a. Lebanon, PA MSA 103.82 55 101.27 73 100.55 70 101.15 83 -1.23% 95 85.85 117 94.85 128 0.66 83 7 24 131 314.0
71 92 Burlington-South Burlington, VT MSA 99.47 105 102.09 39 96.62 100 101.80 63 -1.64% 111 82.80 131 96.91 113 1.52 4 7 24 208 315.3
72 66 Springfield, IL MSA 100.51 93 102.75 26 93.29 139 102.23 52 -1.26% 96 83.82 128 98.09 99 1.10 17 5 56 208 316.4
73 72 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL MSA 97.33 128 101.88 48 98.94 85 97.29 164 -0.25% 56 105.06 55 100.02 75 1.36 6 8 14 178 316.7
74 95 Wheeling, WV-OH MSA 99.62 102 102.37 30 96.08 105 103.88 24 0.15% 38 92.17 97 96.63 115 0.48 137 1 171 145 317.7
75 n.a. Casper, WY MSA 108.79 21 99.69 118 133.84 3 106.84 7 -4.05% 170 101.60 64 97.14 111 0.34 172 2 144 75 320.8
76 n.a. Elmira, NY MSA 98.71 116 99.77 113 98.14 90 103.91 22 1.02% 21 69.30 162 94.36 131 0.77 56 5 56 88 321.0
77 63 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA MSA 101.72 78 101.56 59 99.01 83 101.19 81 -0.36% 62 55.15 177 103.67 38 0.69 76 3 114 241 321.6
78 n.a. Idaho Falls, ID MSA 106.10 34 99.16 130 108.05 29 99.26 138 -1.43% 103 55.79 176 102.59 44 0.94 31 8 14 126 322.4
79 n.a. Jonesboro, AR MSA 101.82 77 103.19 14 99.40 79 102.59 45 -1.44% 105 78.32 142 93.44 139 0.46 143 4 77 120 324.2
80 79 Anniston-Oxford, AL MSA 98.77 115 98.79 139 105.10 44 100.93 91 -0.80% 78 101.73 63 103.57 39 0.96 29 4 77 114 325.1
81 80 Kingston, NY MSA 95.36 144 101.82 52 99.13 82 100.63 100 -0.16% 50 68.56 163 100.22 71 0.86 45 7 24 181 329.8
82 74 Appleton, WI MSA 99.58 103 100.54 96 95.17 116 99.45 131 -1.13% 91 120.37 19 106.88 16 0.96 29 7 24 222 331.1
83 40 Yuma, AZ MSA 104.47 46 97.69 155 110.31 17 100.46 104 -4.51% 174 204.85 2 117.64 6 0.64 88 4 77 197 331.7
84 n.a. Goldsboro, NC MSA 103.20 62 101.92 47 95.32 114 99.59 128 -3.36% 160 208.07 1 110.91 10 0.58 109 7 24 114 332.1
85 46 Rochester, MN MSA 101.61 82 102.16 38 95.20 115 100.17 108 -0.38% 64 73.31 156 97.27 109 0.80 54 6 42 186 334.2
86 55 St. Cloud, MN MSA 102.67 68 100.76 89 98.14 90 100.53 101 0.10% 42 67.45 165 97.60 105 0.59 105 7 24 189 335.3
87 106 Flagstaff, AZ MSA 104.63 44 99.77 113 109.27 22 99.33 136 -1.44% 104 97.80 76 110.93 9 0.46 143 3 114 130 335.7
88 90 Jefferson City, MO MSA 100.45 94 102.24 34 94.45 124 101.83 61 0.13% 39 84.75 122 94.85 128 0.66 83 2 144 147 335.7
89 n.a. Madera, CA MSA 101.84 76 100.95 81 110.28 18 101.59 70 -0.30% 60 73.99 153 82.51 176 0.60 101 2 144 149 336.4
90 82 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD MSA 104.19 50 101.43 65 94.86 120 103.52 28 -1.34% 98 87.26 112 98.23 97 0.47 141 3 114 144 337.1
91 89 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL MSA 103.85 54 101.54 61 98.86 87 99.38 133 -0.90% 84 132.24 10 117.32 7 0.40 160 1 171 144 337.4
92 n.a. Fond du Lac, WI MSA 93.93 155 97.57 159 94.78 121 101.89 60 0.00% 43 119.65 21 101.16 60 0.99 27 12 1 100 337.6
93 15 Coeur d'Alene, ID MSA 110.00 16 98.25 147 115.51 13 98.85 144 -0.92% 86 84.18 126 97.87 102 0.65 86 4 77 139 342.1
94 100 Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ MSA 96.06 136 101.99 43 95.72 108 100.75 97 0.00% 43 106.62 49 99.27 83 0.64 88 2 144 158 346.5
95 n.a. Owensboro, KY MSA 99.33 110 100.78 87 96.08 105 101.63 67 -0.20% 53 97.60 77 102.04 51 0.40 160 3 114 114 354.4
96 86 Barnstable Town, MA MSA 95.25 145 101.20 76 91.89 146 99.84 121 0.88% 24 84.61 124 102.17 48 0.94 31 7 24 221 356.1
97 43 Salisbury, MD MSA 100.31 95 100.09 108 101.88 61 100.13 111 -2.97% 149 95.07 86 99.96 76 0.90 39 9 8 120 357.9
98 101 Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH MSA 95.37 143 100.62 92 93.13 141 101.49 73 0.29% 32 100.53 67 98.76 91 0.74 64 4 77 161 358.9
99 73 Wichita Falls, TX MSA 96.96 133 99.89 111 96.84 96 102.72 42 -2.69% 145 103.83 58 95.68 123 1.16 12 7 24 147 361.9
100 59 Eau Claire, WI MSA 101.14 87 99.35 126 96.88 94 99.71 125 -1.01% 90 122.34 18 94.00 137 0.90 39 6 42 160 364.4
Small 179 Cities List
Complete Results: 2010 Best-Performing Small Cities

101 93 Gulfport-Biloxi, MS MSA 94.54 149 101.51 62 96.03 107 101.17 82 -1.49% 107 96.01 81 105.82 23 0.56 116 5 56 239 367.2
102 37 Topeka, KS MSA 98.14 120 101.95 46 94.26 128 101.13 85 -0.18% 51 86.93 113 102.48 45 0.45 147 2 144 231 372.2
103 96 Monroe, LA MSA 97.03 130 102.31 32 92.91 143 99.71 125 -2.33% 134 100.35 68 109.33 11 0.77 56 5 56 174 375.6
104 n.a. Ocean City, NJ MSA 94.68 148 103.05 20 91.51 148 100.09 114 11.86% 1 84.74 123 104.91 30 0.33 174 2 144 96 379.0
105 45 Johnson City, TN MSA 99.34 109 99.55 120 100.89 68 100.36 105 -1.80% 118 67.51 164 97.43 107 1.10 17 9 8 197 380.2
106 n.a. Farmington, NM MSA 105.33 37 98.73 142 122.27 8 106.70 8 -5.30% 178 79.83 139 94.04 136 0.23 179 2 144 124 381.9
107 56 Gainesville, GA MSA 105.21 38 96.42 169 109.07 23 101.64 66 -2.49% 140 85.22 120 94.98 127 0.51 129 3 114 188 387.3
108 n.a. Rome, GA MSA 92.76 159 99.52 121 88.06 162 100.15 110 0.00% 43 139.66 7 99.20 87 0.77 56 7 24 96 388.5
109 n.a. Lawrence, KS MSA 98.06 121 103.19 14 93.97 132 100.11 112 1.55% 12 39.60 179 97.45 106 0.39 162 2 144 116 390.2
110 35 Santa Fe, NM MSA 101.25 86 99.02 133 108.15 26 101.60 69 -1.47% 106 63.82 170 85.61 174 0.57 112 4 77 148 390.3
111 n.a. Columbus, IN MSA 100.87 91 95.90 172 104.18 53 103.24 33 -1.64% 112 78.98 141 100.16 72 0.63 96 2 144 76 391.0
112 98 Albany, GA MSA 97.78 127 100.97 80 90.84 150 99.91 118 -0.80% 79 95.45 84 98.94 90 0.71 71 7 24 165 392.0
113 61 Pittsfield, MA MSA 98.49 118 101.37 71 94.62 123 99.78 122 -1.66% 113 86.76 114 102.08 50 0.87 43 4 77 129 392.2
114 49 Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA MSA 98.56 117 101.20 76 94.35 125 97.94 159 -0.57% 70 93.84 91 101.07 63 0.75 60 4 77 160 394.2
115 87 La Crosse, WI-MN MSA 100.97 90 100.78 87 94.73 122 102.06 55 -1.77% 117 91.06 101 99.96 76 0.52 127 2 144 133 395.3
116 28 Bend, OR MSA 103.22 60 94.82 175 115.72 12 96.11 167 -3.70% 165 103.34 59 92.57 149 1.02 23 10 5 159 396.9
117 30 St. George, UT MSA 110.51 15 96.04 171 126.59 7 95.40 171 -3.56% 163 110.00 41 99.73 78 0.64 88 2 144 137 399.8
118 62 Lafayette, IN MSA 101.68 79 100.20 105 96.50 102 101.52 72 -3.31% 158 72.10 158 95.21 126 0.73 67 7 24 196 400.3
119 88 Bangor, ME MSA 99.45 107 101.57 58 95.17 116 101.24 79 -2.55% 142 79.34 140 94.07 135 0.75 60 4 77 149 402.8
120 75 Burlington, NC MSA 95.59 141 97.66 156 94.03 130 100.11 112 -2.11% 125 136.60 9 103.79 36 0.94 31 7 24 150 406.9
121 123 Battle Creek, MI MSA 91.32 165 100.23 103 87.42 164 101.01 90 0.18% 35 105.90 52 147.78 1 0.43 149 3 114 136 407.0
122 n.a. Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA MSA 102.19 73 98.29 146 104.81 50 101.99 57 -5.13% 177 90.95 102 100.97 64 0.42 150 3 114 120 408.5
123 120 Lewiston-Auburn, ME MSA 99.46 106 100.55 95 93.98 131 101.04 89 -0.30% 61 111.78 32 88.08 170 0.37 164 3 114 107 410.7
124 n.a. Anderson, IN MSA 91.82 164 103.05 20 73.22 179 94.64 174 0.73% 27 82.59 132 97.35 108 0.79 55 7 24 131 411.8
125 n.a. Brunswick, GA MSA 99.57 104 97.92 152 101.45 63 100.66 98 -2.12% 126 85.69 118 99.27 83 0.47 141 6 42 104 418.3
126 94 Chico, CA MSA 99.85 99 99.67 119 100.27 73 100.51 102 -2.38% 137 77.55 146 98.21 98 0.60 101 4 77 221 421.6
127 54 Medford, OR MSA 96.04 137 97.09 163 98.04 93 96.74 165 -0.92% 85 108.85 43 95.71 122 0.99 27 9 8 201 423.2
128 n.a. Sherman-Denison, TX MSA 98.01 122 101.81 53 94.32 126 99.56 129 -1.86% 119 73.41 155 92.45 150 0.87 43 5 56 120 427.3
129 76 Napa, CA MSA 100.00 96 97.60 158 102.72 55 101.25 78 -2.61% 143 82.98 130 91.19 158 0.65 86 4 77 135 429.8
130 102 Williamsport, PA MSA 96.97 132 100.79 86 91.83 147 100.47 103 -0.57% 71 73.64 154 92.34 152 0.70 73 5 56 117 430.4
131 112 Terre Haute, IN MSA 95.62 140 101.38 68 90.23 154 100.06 117 -1.68% 115 80.00 138 90.44 164 1.13 16 8 14 170 432.6
132 64 Florence, SC MSA 97.89 124 99.38 124 93.36 137 98.17 155 -0.60% 73 102.56 61 101.60 55 0.51 129 5 56 201 434.7
133 119 Springfield, OH MSA 94.42 150 99.96 110 86.67 166 100.81 96 -0.99% 89 203.22 3 139.00 2 0.35 169 2 144 140 438.3
134 n.a. Corvallis, OR MSA 98.86 114 100.90 84 94.31 127 99.22 139 -3.46% 161 77.99 144 93.08 145 2.49 1 11 2 83 439.0
135 97 Dover, DE MSA 102.19 73 100.40 98 99.16 81 98.57 148 -0.95% 87 53.59 178 72.71 177 0.67 80 2 144 158 441.5
136 n.a. Gadsden, AL MSA 93.62 157 97.65 157 92.93 142 100.28 106 -1.68% 114 139.09 8 109.04 12 0.57 112 4 77 104 444.6
137 n.a. Cleveland, TN MSA 95.25 145 100.61 93 89.96 157 98.12 156 -0.51% 68 63.86 169 94.12 134 1.28 7 8 14 113 444.6
138 71 Decatur, IL MSA 98.44 119 100.18 106 98.18 89 100.08 115 -4.46% 172 105.06 55 102.36 46 0.54 122 2 144 108 446.5
139 n.a. Lewiston, ID-WA MSA 97.83 125 100.31 100 93.54 135 100.08 115 -1.53% 109 74.55 151 106.21 22 0.56 116 3 114 61 447.0
48
140 n.a. Hot Springs, AR MSA 102.36 70 101.43 65 95.06 118 99.35 135 -3.19% 155 77.95 145 98.57 94 0.48 137 3 114 98 448.3
141 n.a. Danville, IL MSA 93.35 158 100.30 101 89.20 159 100.90 92 -1.35% 99 97.34 79 90.62 162 0.69 76 5 56 80 452.8
142 50 Prescott, AZ MSA 101.67 80 95.79 173 111.75 14 96.01 169 -1.93% 121 83.98 127 89.35 167 0.50 132 5 56 216 454.0
143 99 Decatur, AL MSA 96.19 135 96.84 165 96.37 103 99.89 119 -2.01% 123 94.02 90 105.38 25 0.49 135 4 77 151 460.3
144 105 Muncie, IN MSA 92.57 160 98.99 134 80.56 174 98.31 151 -0.20% 52 99.11 72 99.35 82 0.73 67 5 56 115 460.9
145 68 Winchester, VA-WV MSA 99.43 108 99.49 122 101.17 65 98.25 152 -2.40% 138 75.49 148 92.43 151 0.63 96 5 56 124 461.2
146 n.a. Punta Gorda, FL MSA 102.68 67 98.09 150 102.02 59 94.40 175 -3.94% 169 119.93 20 106.25 21 0.35 169 0 176 157 462.7
147 n.a. Pocatello, ID MSA 99.89 98 101.13 78 98.49 88 99.38 133 -2.16% 127 58.20 175 90.02 165 0.57 112 2 144 90 467.4
148 78 Rocky Mount, NC MSA 95.58 142 98.19 149 90.21 155 97.91 160 -1.31% 97 107.20 47 82.66 175 1.19 10 10 5 147 467.9
149 n.a. Michigan City-La Porte, IN MSA 94.29 152 99.31 127 90.47 152 99.42 132 -0.45% 66 80.72 137 97.27 109 0.64 88 5 56 111 469.0
150 103 Mansfield, OH MSA 89.55 174 97.27 162 81.15 173 98.20 153 1.13% 17 110.59 39 95.33 125 1.15 14 3 114 124 469.8
151 104 Jackson, TN MSA 97.02 131 98.22 148 93.31 138 99.87 120 -2.07% 124 74.08 152 107.09 14 0.54 122 6 42 114 470.3
152 81 Macon, GA MSA 95.79 139 99.37 125 88.95 160 101.08 87 -1.97% 122 86.59 116 88.19 168 0.81 53 4 77 232 478.1
153 114 Lima, OH MSA 90.80 168 100.05 109 84.60 171 96.06 168 -0.38% 63 98.65 73 100.74 66 0.54 122 4 77 104 482.8
154 109 Sheboygan, WI MSA 96.27 134 97.42 161 93.75 133 99.11 140 -2.17% 128 108.62 46 96.37 117 0.57 112 6 42 115 486.5
155 n.a. Yuba City, CA MSA 99.00 112 99.08 131 98.90 86 99.29 137 -3.13% 153 90.91 103 91.04 160 0.59 105 3 114 166 489.3
156 n.a. Pine Bluff, AR MSA 93.94 154 103.25 13 89.97 156 99.10 141 -2.37% 135 81.87 134 96.00 120 0.34 172 3 114 101 494.3
157 122 Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI MSA 89.91 171 100.35 99 74.61 178 94.17 176 0.48% 31 73.13 157 94.52 130 0.74 64 4 77 200 494.6
158 n.a. Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL MSA 99.70 101 96.74 167 105.45 42 97.39 163 -3.79% 168 100.85 66 90.57 163 0.55 120 3 114 135 496.5
159 n.a. Danville, VA MSA 90.60 170 100.85 85 82.14 172 98.62 147 -2.75% 147 75.34 149 99.16 88 0.83 51 8 14 106 496.5
160 108 Dothan, AL MSA 97.25 129 98.88 138 96.53 101 97.46 162 -2.21% 131 78.21 143 97.86 103 0.50 132 4 77 143 505.6
161 n.a. Bay City, MI MSA 91.25 166 99.72 117 85.18 169 99.62 127 -1.91% 120 85.07 121 93.16 144 0.75 60 5 56 107 506.4
162 n.a. Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH MSA 94.92 147 98.37 145 92.18 145 106.46 10 -4.69% 176 94.05 89 87.75 172 0.41 156 2 144 121 514.0
163 117 Anderson, SC MSA 93.74 156 96.76 166 91.27 149 100.27 107 -3.18% 154 111.35 36 103.95 34 0.28 176 1 171 185 535.4
164 n.a. Longview, WA MSA 97.81 126 99.04 132 95.72 108 98.20 153 -1.40% 102 63.30 172 59.88 179 0.42 150 2 144 102 536.6
165 n.a. Carson City, NV MSA 94.32 151 97.78 153 96.85 95 98.09 157 -2.99% 150 86.74 115 91.21 157 0.51 129 4 77 55 537.8
166 115 Janesville, WI MSA 90.66 169 94.44 176 86.04 167 95.37 172 -2.42% 139 108.81 45 104.02 33 0.56 116 5 56 160 540.0
167 107 Racine, WI MSA 94.11 153 98.46 144 90.77 151 98.71 145 -3.03% 151 95.66 83 92.27 154 0.46 143 6 42 201 543.6
168 110 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI MSA 92.43 161 96.62 168 90.32 153 98.86 143 -2.65% 144 94.51 88 95.81 121 0.48 137 6 42 160 548.2
169 n.a. Sandusky, OH MSA 92.34 163 99.83 112 79.74 176 97.73 161 -0.28% 58 61.93 174 92.96 147 0.36 167 3 114 77 552.4
170 n.a. Kokomo, IN MSA 80.54 178 91.95 178 75.01 177 87.58 179 2.01% 11 63.25 173 93.43 140 0.67 80 3 114 99 555.7
171 116 Elkhart-Goshen, IN MSA 76.66 179 85.87 179 85.33 168 88.74 178 3.34% 4 70.17 161 88.11 169 0.50 132 4 77 201 556.2
172 118 Dalton, GA MSA 86.79 176 94.12 177 85.06 170 92.56 177 -0.60% 74 66.74 166 86.02 173 1.03 22 5 56 134 559.3
173 n.a. Monroe, MI MSA 86.28 177 96.09 170 80.17 175 94.92 173 -4.40% 171 129.59 12 133.27 3 0.56 116 3 114 153 563.1
174 113 Redding, CA MSA 92.42 162 98.60 143 92.38 144 95.60 170 -2.20% 129 64.95 168 92.34 152 0.60 101 3 114 181 577.9
175 n.a. Morristown, TN MSA 90.86 167 94.85 174 88.52 161 98.42 149 -3.71% 166 71.58 159 94.13 133 0.62 98 7 24 138 583.0
176 91 Wausau, WI MSA 95.92 138 97.44 160 95.53 112 98.64 146 -2.21% 130 63.65 171 61.75 178 0.36 167 1 171 132 585.6
177 124 Jackson, MI MSA 89.56 173 98.75 140 87.44 163 98.38 150 -3.26% 156 81.35 135 97.97 101 0.41 156 2 144 160 597.5
178 n.a. Sumter, SC MSA 89.55 174 99.77 113 89.75 158 96.60 166 -4.67% 175 70.60 160 92.97 146 0.46 143 3 114 104 607.5
179 121 Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI MSA 89.65 172 97.04 164 86.78 165 99.07 142 -3.32% 159 75.30 150 91.14 159 0.59 105 2 144 174 615.2
n.a. indicates that the metro was not ranked the previous year due to lack of data.
* "Values" are benchmarked against the national average, which is set to 100.
** Index scores are benchmarked against the top performer, which is set to 100. Lower index scores indicate stronger performance.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute.
Appendix
Appendix
Methodology: Determinants of economic growth and weight justification
The strength of local business clusters and the constant quest for innovation can explain much of
the variation across regional economic growth patterns.88 Metropolitan areas that regularly invest in
human capital and provide the necessary infrastructure are better positioned for long- term growth.
Examining a region’s innovation pipeline (i.e. ability to attract R&D funding, access to capital,
entrepreneurial prowess, concentration of human capital, and workforce quality, etc.) can provide
useful tools for projecting a metro’s ability to compete in the 21st century. A rich innovation pipeline
plays a pivotal role in a region’s industrial development, commercialization, competitiveness, and
ability to sustain long-term growth.89 However, while analyzing these attributes is certainly one way
to determine whether a metro is providing the necessary ingredients and infrastructure for long-
term growth, it doesn’t measure how successfully a metro has been at converting these assets into
viable economic output.
Energy and real estate costs, taxes, and other regulatory burdens also play a key role in determining
where businesses will seek to expand. While lower costs can be a competitive advantage, high-
cost cities tend to offer benefits such as higher concentrations of human capital, greater access to
markets, and more established infrastructure that caters to international commerce.90 Nevertheless,
if all other factors are equal, a company will generally choose to locate where business costs are
lower and employees enjoy higher living standards. Several other factors can influence variations in
regional economic growth. For instance, levels of educational attainment and the effects of “brain
drain” tend to correlate with labor quality or lack thereof, which can ultimately impact the direction
of future growth.91
The Best-Performing Cities index is solely an outcomes-based measure. It does not incorporate
explicit input measures, such as business costs; housing and other cost-of-living components; and
commute times, crime rates, or other quality-of-life measures. Static input measures, although
important, are subject to large variations and can be highly subjective, making them less
meaningful than more objective indicators of outcome.
Outcome-based measures such as job growth can successfully measure how well metros capitalize
on their existing assets. It is also a key determinant of community vitality. Other outcome-based
measures include growth in wages and salaries and output. Wage and salary growth measures the
quality of the jobs being created and sustained. Theoretically, a prospering region will raise wages
and rents as its businesses tap into more human capital and available space.
Growth in technology output is another important element in determining the economic vibrancy
of cities. In previous work conducted at the Milken Institute, multiple regression models were
utilized to confirm the robustness of high-tech industries in determining the relative economic
growth of metros.92 The findings highlight technology’s contribution to metros’ long-term economic
vitality. In addition, our research has shown that metros dedicated to growing their technology base
and human capital are better positioned to overcome short-term shifts in the economy.
49
We have incorporated other measures to reflect the concentration and diversity of technology
industries within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients (LQs, which measure the concentration
of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the national average) are included to
indicate a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.93 We also measure the number of
specific high-tech industries (out of a possible 22) whose concentrations in an MSA are higher than
the national average.
The current weight structure reflects the importance of job and wage growth in a metro’s overall
economic performance, while recognizing the contribution of high-tech activity in a metropolitan
region. To what extent do these components explain variations in regional economic growth
patterns? In this section we attempt to further validify the statistical significance of our existing
weights by a creating a model that explains key components of regional economic growth.
Using a pooled time series regression model, we incorporate variables indexed back to 1990 to
ensure that we account for more recent and previous business cycles. In total, 379 observations
comprised of metropolitan statistical areas and divisions are accounted for. The dependent variable
consists of metro real GDP growth (indexed from 1990 to 2008). Our explanatory variables, as
one might expect, resemble the inputs used to compile our Best-Performing Cities index. They are
composed of employment growth (from 1990 to 2008), wage growth (indexed from 1990 to 2008),
high-tech GDP growth (indexed from 1990 to 2008), high-tech GDP location quotient (1990), and
the number of LQs greater than one (1990).
Model specification
GDP growth= f (Job growth, wage per employee growth, high-tech GDP growth, high-tech GDP LQ,
high-tech diversity) Model [1]
Not only is indexing the series back to 1990 critical in assessing a metro’s long-term economic
performance, but it also reflects a metro’s ability to overcome business cycles. In many instances,
metros will see high growth one year (stemming from a particular industry) and none the next. This
phenomenon may leave metros vulnerable to cyclical corrections—another reason to use a pooled
time series regression model based on series indexed to 1990.
Furthermore, this growth-based regression analysis will allow us to determine whether it is better to
have several measures of high-tech diversity versus a few (at least statistically speaking). Similarly,
testing against high-tech GDP LQ will help determine whether possessing a higher concentration of
high-tech activity relative to the national average accelerated growth in output.
Regression Results
A log-linear transformation of our model (as specified in Model 1) concludes that four of the five
explanatory variables are statistically significant at the 1 percent level of significance.
Of the four statistically significant variables, the sizes of the actual coefficients vary considerably.
For instance, a 1 percent increase in job growth between 1990 and 2008 increases a metro’s GDP
by about 0.86 percent on average. Meanwhile, a 1 percent increase in per-employee wage growth
50
Appendix
between 1990 and 2008 boosted a metro’s GDP by about 0.44 percent on average. In this model,
with real GDP as the dependent variable, high-tech output growth and high-tech GDP LQ, with
coefficients of 0.11 and 0.06, respectively, had a lesser effect on overall GDP growth.
Model 1: Dependent variable: 2008 real GDP index (1990 =100)

Descriptive statistics
Standard
Variables Coefficients error t stat P value
2008 job index
(1990=100) 0.861 0.023 36.708 0.000
2008 real wages per emp index
(1990=100) 0.438 0.038 11.680 0.000
2008 high-tech real GDP growth
index (1990=100) 0.107 0.012 8.984 0.000
1990 high-tech GDP LQ 0.064 0.011 5.716 0.000
1990 high-tech diversity
(# of high-tech industries w/LQ>1) 0.008 0.011 0.727 0.468
Intercept -0.768 0.083 -9.235 0.000
In fact, the lower coefficient of high-tech real GDP growth suggests that, while statistically
significant, it is actually representative of the differential gain on real GDP growth (holding all other
factors constant). In other words, a reasonable portion of the impacts of technological growth on
real GDP is already being captured by job growth. A recursive approach suggests that, on average,
a 1 percent increase in high-tech real GDP would increase job growth by 0.23 percent (see Model 2).
This supports the premise that growth in high-tech GDP creates a number of additional jobs in non-
high-tech industries.94
Model 2: Dependent variable: 2008 job index (1990 =100)

Standard
Variables Coefficients error t Stat P value
index (1990=100) 0.230 0.022 10.366 0.000
1990 high-tech GDP LQ 0.104 0.022 4.658 0.000
1990 high-tech diversity
(# of high-tech industries w/LQ>1) -0.097 0.023 -4.262 0.000
Intercept 1.649 0.055 29.976 0.000
51
Similarly, the lower co-efficient of high-tech GDP LQ in Model 1 reflects the differential gain in
real GDP growth. As the results from Model 3 indicate below, a 1 percent increase in high-tech
GDP LQ leads to an increase of 0.13 percent in wages per employee on average. In theory, a metro
that produces a relatively higher concentration of high-tech output (or real GDP) would typically
demand higher wages.
Model 3: Dependent variable: 2008 wages per employee index (1990 =100)
Variables Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P value

1990 high-tech real GDP LQ 0.131 0.010 13.102 0.000
index (1990=100) 0.090 0.014 6.449 0.000
Intercept 1.884 0.033 56.422 0.000
High-tech diversity (in Model 1) is the only explanatory variable not statistically significant at
those levels. Part of this stems from the fact that most of this high-tech activity is already captured
through high-tech GDP LQ.95 Nevertheless, it would be difficult to rule out that high-tech diversity
(the number of high-tech industries with LQs greater than one in 1990) did not significantly
influence (or correlate with) future economic performance.
This lends support to the existing weight structure assigned when compiling our Best Performing
Cities index (see table below). Holding all other factors constant, growth in jobs and wages tends to
correlate to growth in a metro’s GDP. The larger weights (of 14.3 percent) associated with jobs and
wage growth reflect the higher regression coefficients the model generates.
Component Weight
Short-term job growth (Apr09-Apr10) 0.143
High-tech GDP location quotient 0.071
Number of high-tech industries with GDP LQ>1 0.071
Note: I refers to the beginning year of index.
52
Appendix
Knowledge-based economies tend to form where high-tech activity is growing, creating more
incentives for businesses and entrepreneurs.96 Our first model exhibits the importance of job and
wage growth in metros’ economic vitality, while accounting for the differential gain stemming
from our high-tech components. As portrayed through our recursive approach in models 2 and 3,
portions of high-tech activity and growth are already accounted for through job and wage growth.
In attempting to capture such elements, four high-tech components are incorporated into the
index. Based on the composition and results stemming from our regression analysis, it would seem
reasonable to assign at least half the weight (or 7.1 percent) of job and wage growth categories to
our high-tech components.
Finally, in our regression analysis we examine where the model consistently under-predicted
or over-predicted actual metropolitan GDP growth. As expected, the model seemed to under-
predict a number of high-growth areas, especially among the smaller cities. This broad list includes
metros such as Odessa, Midland, and Longview, Texas; Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina; and Lafayette,
Louisiana. Conversely, it over-predicted places like Santa Fe, New Mexico, Anchorage, Alaska, and
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara and San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City in California.
The computed R-squared suggests that the explanatory variables (in Model 1) explain
approximately 88 percent of the growth dynamics with respect to metropolitan GDP. The Durbin-
Watson statistic in our application of slightly above 2.0 also confirms that there are no signs of
first-order autocorrelation, either positive or negative. That is, the error terms don’t appear to be
correlated, and the model appears to have been correctly specified. Incidentally, given the pooled
nature of the regression, random re-ordering of the observations confirmed no signs of auto-
correlation among error terms. Furthermore, our Durbin-Watson statistic rules out any reason to
interpret that the ordering of the metros has any influence.
Model 1: Regression summary
Measure Value
Multiple R squared 0.94
R squared 0.88
Adjusted R squared 0.87
Standard error 0.03
Observations 379
Durbin-Watson 2.03
53
Endnotes
Endnotes
1. Alec MacGillis, “Stimulus is boon for D.C. area contractors,” The Washington Post, December 3, 2009.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120204185.html
(accessed September 13, 2010).
2. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Statistical and Science Policy Branch, Office of Management and
Budget, OMB Bulletin No. 04-03.
3. Office of Management and Budget, OMB Bulletin No. 09-01, p. 3, November 20, 2008. Our index, however,
ranks 379 MSAs for which employment and wage data are available on a consistent basis.
We exclude those metropolitan areas that are composed of metropolitan divisions.
4. The latest 12-month job performance calculates the percentage change from the same month in the previous
year (e.g., the percentage change in jobs from April 2009 to April 2010). The percentage change is a measure of
recent momentum, capturing which metropolitan areas have improved their performance in recent months.
The annual growth rate measures the percentage change from calendar year 2008 to 2009. While annual growth
rate does not indicate whether high growth was achieved or diminished in the first or latter half of the year, the
12-month growth rate captures that aspect. Employment, wages, and gross metro product data are compiled
from various government agencies, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA), and the Census Bureau. More detailed coverage on individual sectors is derived from Moody’s
Economy.com.
5. An industry’s location quotient (LQ) measures the level of employment concentration in a given location (in
this case, an MSA) relative to the industry average across the United States. A metro with an employment LQ
higher than 1.0 in a high-tech industry, for example, has a greater concentration of that industry than the nation
has on average. It is an indication of whether a metro has successfully attracted an above-average mass of high-
tech industries. Metros that exceed the national average in high-tech industry LQ have an edge in attracting
and retaining high-tech firms because of their dense employment base and other positive agglomeration, or
clustering, factors.
6. Ross DeVol, “From Recession to Recovery: Analyzing America’s Return to Growth,” Milken Institute, July 2010, p 9.
7. Dennis Cauchon, “Rising pay, benefits drive growth in military towns,” USA Today, August 16, 2010.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-08-16-military-towns_N.htm (accessed August 17, 2010).
8 Matthew LeBlanc, “New president leads Texas A&M University Central Texas into a promising future,” WorldNow
and KYTX, July 13, 2010. http://www.centraltexasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12802719 (accessed September
24, 2010).
9. Lori Hawkins, “Yes, we have jobs (but not high pay),” Austin American-Statesman, August 8, 2010.
http://www.allbusiness.com/labor-employment/human-resources-personnel-management/14908557-1.html
10. Shonda Novak, “Sources: Apple adds to Austin-area office space for Intrinsity chip unit,” Austin American-
Statesman, August 5, 2010. http://www.statesman.com/business/real-estate/sources-apple-adds-to-austin-area-
office-space-842253.html?cxtype=rss_ece_frontpage (accessed September 27, 2010).
11. Kenneth Kesner, “Will federal in-sourcing of jobs cut what some see as overdependence on contractors?”
Huntsville Times, July 25, 2010. http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/07/post_367.html (accessed September 21, 2010).
12. Kenneth Kesner, “Groundbreaking celebrates beginning of work on huge Redstone Gateway office park,” Huntsville
Times, August 24, 2010. http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/08/post_398.html (accessed September 27, 2010).
13. Joel Achenbach, “Obama budget proposal scraps NASA‘s back-to-the-moon program,” Washington Post,
February 2, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102145.
html?hpid=topnews (accessed September 22, 2010).
14. Bill Harwood, “NASA unveils sweeping new programs,” CNN Tech, April 9, 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/
TECH/space/04/09/cnet.nasa.new.programs/index.html (accessed September 22,2010).
55
15. McAllen Chamber of Commerce, “McAllen Overview.” http://www.mcallen.org/Business-Community/McAllen-

Overview (accessed August 23, 2010).
16. McAllen Economic Development Corp., “Top Ten Employers.” http://www.mcallenedc.org/top_ten_employers.
php?sub=tte (accessed August 24, 2010).
17. Department of Energy, “Hanford’s Present Mission,” January 27, 2010. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/
HanfordsPresentMission (accessed September 13, 2010).
18. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Kennewick, April 2010.
19. Alec MacGillis, “Stimulus is boon for D.C. area contractors.”
20. Sarah Murray, “In Recession, D.C. Gets a Lift from Its Biggest Employer,” Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2010.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704534904575131770806611604.html
21. Governor Bob McDonnell, press release, “Governor McDonnell Announces Northrop Grumman Chooses
Virginia for Corporate Headquarters,” April 26, 2010. http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.
cfm?id=146 (accessed August 23, 2010).
22. “Booz Allen Hamilton Ranks in Top 5 by Revenue on Inc. 5000 List,” citybizlist Washington D.C., August, 24, 2010.
http://dc.citybizlist.com/yourcitybiznews/detail.aspx?id=90842 (accessed September 21, 2010).
23. Booz Allen Hamilton, press release, “Booz Allen Hamilton Continues to Expand and Strengthen its Civil
Aviation Practice to Help Achieve NextGen Objectives,” Booz Allen Hamilton, August 17, 2009.
http://www.boozallen.com/news/42482954 (accessed August 23, 2009).
24. Jaikumar Vijayan, “N.C. State turns to smart data analytics to find research partners,” ComputerWorld, August
12, 2010. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180623/N.C._State_turns_to_smart_data_analytics_to_find_
research_partners (accessed September 13, 2010).
25. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Anchorage, 2010.
26. Pat Forgey, “Alaska Leads the Nation in Job Creation,” Juneau Empire, July 23, 2010.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/072310/sta_681613928.shtml (accessed September 22, 2010)
27. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Anchorage, 2010.
28. Julian Aguilar, “Cross-border trade up: Texas’ ports of prosperity,” Texas Tribune, July 22, 2010.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-mexico-border-news/texas-mexico-border/texas-trade-ports-rebounding-
from-the-recession (accessed September 13, 2010).
29. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis El Paso, 2010.
30. Julian Aguilar, “Cross-border trade up: Texas’ ports of prosperity.”
31. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Houston, 2010.
32. Business Wire, “New Combined Heat and Power Plant Debuts at Texas Medical Center,” August 25, 2010.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825005920/en (accessed September 10, 2010).
33. Greater Houston Partnership, Economic Development: Biotechnology / Life Science, http://www.houston.org/
economic-development/industry-sectors/biotechnology-lifescience/index.aspx (accessed September 13, 2010).
34. Mark Clayton, “Offshore drilling moratorium: good for the Gulf, bad for the economy?” Christian Science
Monitor, July 27, 2010. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0727/Offshore-drilling-moratorium-good-
for-the-Gulf-bad-for-the-economy (accessed September 13, 2010).
35. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis, Trenton, 2010.
36. Harlingen Economic Development Corporation, press release, “Advanced Call Center Technologies adding
150 new jobs in Harlingen.” http://harlingenedc.com/news/1007457 (accessed June 21, 2010).
37. Earth Times, press release, “Gulf HydroCarbon Pioneers Brownsville as Home of the First Biodiesel Terminal in
the South Texas Area,” December 21, 2010. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/press/gulf-hydrocarbon-pioneers-
brownsville-as,1098679.html (accessed June 22, 2010).
56
Endnotes
38. “Medtronic opens San Antonio diabetes facility,” San Antonio Business Journal, November 17, 2009.
http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2009/11/16/daily10.html (accessed June, 22 2010).
39. Rick Smith, “Talecris execs ‘fully expect’ Clayton expansion to proceed,” Local Tech Wire, June 7, 2010.
http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/opinion/blogpost/7735299/ (accessed September 21, 2010).
40. Amarillo Economic Development Corporation, “Major Employers.” http://amarilloedc.com/node/64
41. Jim McBride, “Defense bill to aid Bell, Pantex,” Amarillo Globe News, May, 22, 2010.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/052210/new_news3.shtml (accessed June 22, 2010).
42. Victor Godinez, “Dallas-Fort Worth area becoming one of the hottest hubs for 4G,” Dallas Morning News,
September 19, 2009.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-4g_19bus.ART0.State.Edition1.3cf21d8.html
(accessed June 22, 2009).
43. Fayetteville-Cumberland County Chamber of Commerce, “Defense.”
http://www.fayettevillencchamber.org/econdefense.php (accessed June 23, 2010).
44. Christine Dugas, “Fort Bragg helps Fayetteville, N.C., real estate stay orderly,” USA Today, May 17,2010. http://
www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/closetohome/2010-05-17-real-estate-fayetteville_N.htm
45. North Carolina Military Business Center, “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Facilities Sustainment Restoration, and Modernization Projects - North Carolina.
https://www.ncmbc.us/docs/ARRA2009Projects-NC-BaseandSupplementalProjects.pdf (accessed June 23, 2010).
46. John Gillie, “Report: Boeing good for $6.1 billion boost to S. Carolina economy,” Tacoma News Tribune, May 25,
2010. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/05/25/1199771/boeing-good-for-61-billion-boost.html (accessed
September 14, 2010).
47. “Clemson to build $98M wind turbine test facility in North Charleston,” Charleston Regional Business Journal,
November 23 ,2009. http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/31828-clemson-to-build-98m-wind-turbine-test-
facility-in-north-charleston (accessed June 24, 2010).
48. David Dishneau, “Military opens brain injury center in Md.,” The Associated Press, June 24, 2010.
49. Baker Hughes North American Rotary Rig Counts. http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_counts/rc_index.cfm.
50. Susan Simpson, “Will Rogers World Airport debuts completed terminal,” The Oklahoman, July 27, 2010.
http://newsok.com/will-rogers-world-airport-debuts-completed-terminal/article/3479846
51. Todd Wallack, “Another drug giant bringing jobs to Mass.,” Boston Globe, July, 8, 2010. http://www.boston.
com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/07/08/another_drug_giant_bringing_jobs_to_mass/
52. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Fort Worth, March 2010.
53. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm.
54. Bradley T. Ewing, “The Economic Impacts of Texas Tech University on Lubbock County: Today and in the Year
2020,” Texas Tech University Rawls College of Business, July 2008. http://www.depts.ttu.edu/students/docs/EIS-
brochure-2.pdf (accessed September 14, 2010).
55. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Lubbock, March 2010.
56. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Provo, April 2010.
57. Conor Dougherty, “Cities Grow as Housing Bust Slows Movement to Suburbs,” Wall Street Journal,
June 23, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704853404575322751088506996.html
58. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis New York, May 2010
57
59. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Business Outlook Survey, July 2010. http://www.philadelphiafed.org/
research-and-data/regional-economy/business-outlook-survey/2010/bos0710.pdf (accessed September 15, 2010).
60. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Atlanta, March 2010
61. Leslie Berkman, “Foreclosure rate declines,” Press-Enterprise, August 18, 2010. http://www.pe.com/business/local/
stories/PE_Biz_D_foreclosures12.2b8b61d.html (accessed August 19, 2010).
62. State of California Employment Development Department. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/la$pds.pdf
63. Bismarck-Mandan Development Association, “Energy Resources.” http://www.bmda.org/energy/ (accessed
64. North Dakota Department of Commerce, “Financing and Tax Incentives for North Dakota Businesses.”
http://www.business.nd.gov/ShowPDF.asp?ID=1563012 (accessed September 16, 2010)
65. Andrew E. Kramer, “Russia, Crippled by Drought, Bans Grain Exports,” New York Times, August 5, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.html (accessed September 16, 2010).
66. Bismarck-Mandan Development Association, “Northern Plains Commerce Centre.” http://www.bmda.org/
npcc/index.asp (accessed September 16, 2010).
67. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Bismarck, June 2010.
68. Christine Dugas, “Military Bases Help Home Market in Jacksonville, N.C.,” USA Today, November 17, 2009.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/closetohome/2009-11-17-closetohome17_ST_N.htm
69. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, “About the Base.” http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/about/ (accessed
70. Marine Corps, “MCAS Economic Impact Statement 2009.” http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcasnewriver/
Documents/2009-EI-Statement.pdf (accessed September 16, 2010).
71. Real Estate Center, Texas A&M University, “2010 Texas Metro Market Overview.”
http://recenter.tamu.edu/mreports/ (accessed September 16, 2010).
72. “Bush Museum Ranks 7th Among Presidential Museum Attendance,” KBTX-TV and the National Archives and
Records Administration. http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/81938922.html (accessed September 16, 2010).
73. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Hinesville, March 2010
74. Fort Stewart Growth Management Partnership, “Fort Stewart/HAAF Regional Growth Plan.”
http://www.growfortstewart.com/index.aspx (accessed September 16, 2010).
75. Evan Glass, “Town Fears Army Decision Could Cost It Millions,” CNN, March 1, 2010.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/01/fort.stewart.promises/index.html (accessed September 16, 2010).
76. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Morgantown, March 2010.
77. Tyler Economic Development Council, “Location.” http://www.tedc.org/profile/pro_location.php
78. Tyler Economic Development Council, “Workforce.” http://www.tedc.org/profile/pro_workforce.php
79. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Tyler, March 2010.
80. New Mexico State University, “Business Plan for the Southwest Regional Spaceport.”
http://www.spaceportamerica.com/images/pdf/NMSU_Report.pdf (accessed September 16, 2010).
81. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Las Cruces, April 2010.
82. Iowa City Area Development Group Employment Survey (2009). http://www.locationone.com/lois/logon.
do?username=ia-icadc&appsection=metros&metro_id=7072&page=3.
58
Endnotes
83. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Iowa City, February 2010.

84. Lawton Fort Sill Chamber of Commerce, http://www.lawtonfortsillchamber.com/index.php?pr=Community_
Overview (accessed September 16, 2010).
85. “Is Lawton-Fort Sill Ready for BRAC,” U.S. Army, November 29, 2007. http://www.army.mil/-
news/2007/11/29/6358-is-lawton-fort-sill-ready-for-brac/ (accessed September 30, 2010).
86. Steve Robertson, “Air Defense School Ready for Training,” Lawton Constitution, May 23, 2010.
http://www.swoknews.com/main.asp?SectionID=11&SubSectionID=98&ArticleID=26264
87. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Lawton, March 2010.
88. Michael Porter, “The Economic Performance of Regions,” Regional Studies, 1360-0591, Volume 37, Issue 6, 2003,
pp. 545 -546.
89. Ross C. DeVol, Perry Wong, Junghoon Ki, Armen Bedroussian, and Rob Koepp, “America’s Biotech and Life
Science Clusters: San Diego’s Position and Economic Contributions,” Milken Institute, June 2004.
90. William D. Anderson and Kenneth M. Lusht, “Metropolitan area cost competitiveness, growth and real
estate performance,” Real Estate Issues. April 1995. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3681/is_199504/
ai_n8732281/ (accessed July 26, 2010).
91. Paul D. Gottlieb and Michael Fogarty, “Educational Attainment and Metropolitan Growth,” Economic
Development Quarterly, November 2003, Volume 17, No. 4, pp. 325-336.
92. Ross C. DeVol, “America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas,” pp.
48-54, Milken Institute, July 1999.
93. An industry’s location quotient (LQ) measures the level of employment concentration in a given location (in
this case, an MSA) relative to the industry average across the United States. A metro with an employment LQ
higher than 1.0 in a high-tech industry, for example, has a greater concentration of that industry than the nation
has on average. It is an indication of whether a metro has successfully attracted an above-average mass of high-
tech industries. Metros that exceed the national average in high-tech industry LQ have an edge in attracting
and retaining high-tech firms because of their dense employment base and other positive agglomeration, or
clustering, factors.
94. DeVol, “America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas,” pp. 48-54.
95. Using a recursive approach, a separate regression shows that high-tech diversity and high-tech concentration
(as measured by high-tech GDP LQ) are significantly correlated. A 1 percent change in high-tech diversity, on
average, produces a 0.75 percent change in high-tech GDP LQ.
96. Ross C. DeVol and Joel Kotkin, “Knowledge-Value Cities in the Digital Age,” Milken Institute, February 2001,
pp.18-19.
59
About the Authors

Ross C. DeVol is executive director of economic research and as well as executive director of the Centers
for Regional Economics, Health Economics and California at the Milken Institute. He oversees the Institute’s
research efforts on the dynamics of comparative national and regional growth performance. Since joining
the Institute, DeVol has put his group in the national limelight with groundbreaking research on technology
and its impact on regional and national economies. An expert on the new intangible economy and how
regions can prepare themselves to compete in it, DeVol examines the effects of technology, research and
development activities, international trade, human capital and labor-force skills training, entrepreneurship,
early-stage financing, and quality-of-place issues on the geographic distribution of economic activity. He is
ranked among the “Super Stars” of Think Tank Scholars by International Economy magazine.
Armen Bedroussian is a research economist with the Institute’s Economic Research group. His research
focuses on econometrics, statistical methods, and other modeling techniques. Before joining the Institute,
he was an economics teaching assistant in micro- and macroeconomics at the University of California,
Riverside. Bedroussian has co-authored numerous studies, including “The Impact of 9/11 on U.S. Metropolitan
Economies,” “Manufacturing Matters: California’s Performance and Prospects,” “Manufacturing 2.0: A More
Prosperous California,” “America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters: Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions
to U.S. and State Economies,” “The Greater Philadelphia Life Sciences Cluster,” and others. He co-authors the
annual “Best-Performing Cities” index. Bedroussian received a bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics and a
master’s degree in economics from UC Riverside.
Kevin Klowden is a managing economist at the Milken Institute, where he serves as director of the California
Center. He specializes in the study of demographic and spatial factors (the distribution of resources, business
locations, and movement of labor) and how these are influenced by public policy and in turn affect regional
economies. Klowden was the lead author of “The Writers’ Strike of 2007–2008: The Economic Impact of Digital
Distribution,” which analyzed the changing dynamics of the entertainment industry and measured the
economic impact of the writers’ work stoppage on the California economy. In addition to co-authoring reports
such as “California’s Highway Infrastructure: Traffic’s Looming Cost” and “North America’s High-Tech Economy,”
he coordinated the Institute’s two-year Los Angeles Economy Project, seeking public-policy and private-sector
solutions to challenges the region faces amid a growing unskilled labor pool. Klowden previously worked in
the field of interactive electronic entertainment development and as an adjunct professor of geography at
Santa Monica College. He served on the editorial board of Millennium, the international affairs journal of the
London School of Economics, where he earned a master’s degree in the politics of world economy. He earned
a bachelor’s degree in historical geography, as well as a master’s in economic geography, from the University
of Chicago.
Candice Flor Hynek is a senior research analyst with the Institute’s Economic Research group, where she has
contributed to such reports as “Jobs for America: Investments and Policies for Growth and Competitiveness”
and “Manufacturing 2.0: A More Prosperous California.” She was formerly associate economist of the LAEDC
Kyser Center for Economic Research, where she worked for more than eight years, and specialized in the
structure of leading industries in Southern California. She managed the Kyser Center’s major economic reports
and served as editor of the e-EDGE economic newsletter. The co-author of numerous reports, including “The
Business of Sports in Los Angeles County” and “The Creative Economy of the Los Angeles Region,” she has
contributed U.S. economic outlook articles to several industry newsletters. Flor Hynek is an active member of
the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) and was the 2008–2009 president of the Los Angeles
Chapter of NABE. She received her bachelor’s degree in business economics from California State University,
Long Beach.
60
1250 Fourth Street • Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310.570.4600 • Fax: 310.570.4601
E-mail: info@milkeninstitute.org
www.milkeninstitute.org
Cert no. XXX-XXX-XXXX
© 2010 Milken Institute

Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Where Jobs Are Created and Sustained

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Where Jobs Are Created and Sustained

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained

We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and publicly supported.

© 2010 Milken Institute

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

The Biggest Decliners............................................................................... 11

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

America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance.............................................. 29

The Best-Performing Small Cities............................................................ 37

Complete Results: 2010 Best-Performing Large Cities ......................... 45

Complete Results: 2010 Best-Performing Small Cities ......................... 47

About the Authors ................................................................................... 60

Among this year’s key findings:

Several metros with diversified technology bases—including high-tech manufacturing as well as

The Top 25 Best-Performing Cities

Table 1. Best-performing cities: Top 25 large metros

This Year’s Best-Performing City

The Ten Largest Cities

Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV–MD, was the top-performing metro

The Biggest Gainers

The Best-Performing Small City

Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based

Table 2. Components of the Best-Performing Cities index

National Economic Conditions

The Biggest Gainers

Table 3. Biggest gainers

2010 2009 Spots

The Biggest Decliners

Table 4. Biggest decliners

2010 2009 Spots

The Best-Performing Large Cities

Figure 1. Wage growth

Figure 2. Unemployment rate

Figure 3. Professional, scientific, and technical services

McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, Texas, held on to fourth, anchored in the upper echelon of metros

Neighboring Reynosa, Mexico, is an important maquiladora location, attracting many leading

Figure 4. Health-care and social assistance services

Figure 5. Population growth

Ranked 25th last year, Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV–MD, jumped to sixth

Figure 6. Federal government

Figure 9. Support activities for mining

Figure 10. Telecommunications

Figure 11. Wages per employee

Figure 12. Warehousing and storage

Figure 13. Aerospace and health-care driving growth

Bethesda–Gaithersburg–Frederick, Maryland, leaped 31 positions this year to 20th. The

Figure 14. Federal government

Figure 15. Oil and gas extraction

Cambridge–Newton–Framingham, Massachusetts, leaped 23 spots, landing at 22nd on the list of

Figure 16. Credit intermediation and related activities

America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

Table 5. Performance of the 10 largest metros

2010 2009 Spots

Figure 17. Professional, scientific, and technical services

Figure 18. Management of companies and enterprises

Figure 19. Specialty trade contractors

Atlanta–Shady Springs–Marietta, Georgia, remains one of the fastest-growing metros in the

Figure 20. Transportation equipment manufacturing

Figure 21. Warehousing and storage

Figure 22. Educational services

Figure 23. Motion picture and sound recording industries

The Best-Performing Small Cities

Table 6. Top 10 best-performing small cities