Best-Performing Cities 2008

Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained September 2008 Best-Performing Cities 2008 Ross DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Soojung Kim PROVO-OREM, UTAH Best-Performing City Best-Performing Cities 2008 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained September 2008 Ross DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Soojung Kim About Greenstreet Real Estate Partners Greenstreet Real Estate Partners is an investment and asset management company operating throughout the United States since 1983. Its principals apply creative, entrepreneurial strategies that consistently deliver strong operating results and financial returns. Greenstreet has developed a streamlined approach to investment with an opportunistic focus on highgrowth markets and value creation acquisitions. Greenstreet’s principals possess extensive experience navigating volatile and distressed markets that uniquely positions the firm to take advantage of market turbulence. Because the firm invests the equity and capital of its principals, it can execute transactions quickly and apply its investment strategies to a diverse range of property types. Greenstreet’s proficiency in asset management is an ideal complement to its investment expertise. Through financial structuring, adroit leasing strategies, renovation, repositioning, or redevelopment, Greenstreet consistently optimizes property value within its hold periods. Greenstreet’s asset management portfolio includes more than 800 educational facilities owned by Knowledge Learning Corporation, operating as KinderCare and Knowledge Beginnings centers. Greenstreet’s principals and executive team have completed more than $15 billion in transactional volume in public and private structures. About the Milken Institute The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank whose mission is to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity. We put research to work with the goal of revitalizing regions and finding new ways to generate capital for people with original ideas. 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. © 2008 Milken Institute Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 The Biggest Gainers ........................................................................................................ 9 The Biggest Losers.........................................................................................................11 The Best-Performing Large Cities ..........................................................................13 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance ........................................................29 The Best-Performing Small Cities ..........................................................................39 Complete Results: 2008 Best-Performing Large Cities ................................48 Complete Results: 2008 Best-Performing Small Cities ................................50 References .........................................................................................................................53 About the Authors .........................................................................................................55 Executive Summary Best-Performing Cities 2008 Executive Summary Over the past decade, the Milken Institute has regularly analyzed U.S. metropolitan areas to determine which cities are most successful at creating and sustaining jobs. Global, national, and regional economic trends are reflected in the annual rankings, shedding light on where businesses are thriving or struggling, and where wages are growing or lagging. In the Milken Institute and Greenstreet Real Estate Partners’ Best-Performing Cities 2008 index , we see a continuation of trends that were already becoming evident in last year’s figures, along with new developments that are affecting the outlook for communities across the country. As regional growth rates diverge, human capital shifts from areas with weaker growth to locations experiencing more rapid gains. Cities with large concentrations of technology firms have been performing quite well, as have metros that are highly dependent on export-intensive industries. Rising energy prices have hindered the performance of cities where industries with high energy use are the key drivers, while benefiting those regions with significant oil and gas production and exploration activities. Faced with weaker job and wage growth, along with losses in home equity and rising commodity prices, consumers have cut back their expenditures on discretionary items such as cars, appliances, and other durable goods—and metros that are heavily dependent on the production of consumer durables have seen their economies falter. As businesses, labor, investors, and public officials plan their next moves, the Best-Performing Cities index provides important benchmarks for charting a course. The combination of long- and short-term measures provides an indicator of whether each city is developing a prosperous, competitive economy and a stable society. National Conditions U.S. economic growth weakened in 2007. Real GDP rose 2.1 percent in 2007, down from the 2.9 percent increase achieved in 2006, and most of that growth occurred in the early part of the year. Job growth slowed to 1.1 percent in 2007, a decline from the 1.8 percent recorded in 2006. International trade kept the economy from experiencing an even more dramatic slowdown in 2007, as the falling dollar and continued strong economic expansion abroad produced robust gains in exports and substantially diminished increases in imports. Business investment in structures (and, to a lesser extent, in equipment) was strong in 2007. The primary culprit behind the economic slowdown was the bursting of the bubble in the housing market. In 2007, existing home sales dropped 13.0 percent, new home sales declined 26.0 percent, housing starts plunged by 25.0 percent, and residential fixed investment fell 17.0 percent. Economic conditions deteriorated even further in the first half of 2008 under the weight of multiple challenges: the contraction of the housing market, rising agricultural and commodity prices, oil prices above $120 per barrel, overall inflation exceeding wage growth, a continuing credit crunch, declining employment figures, and consumers facing excessive debt-servicing burdens. The U.S. economy slowed to a crawl, at best, though it is more likely that the nation actually entered a mild recession in 2008. These factors will further change the patterns of economic growth around the country and will surely impact next year’s rankings. 1 Executive Summary Best-Performing Cities 2008 The Top 25 Best-Performing Cities Texas performed particularly well in the 2008 index, with six cities placing in the top twenty-five large metros (more than any other state). Thanks to its heavy concentration of oil and gas operations, Texas was a clear beneficiary of rising energy prices and renewed activity in the industry. Additionally, several Texas metros received a boost from continued strength in technology hardware and services. While the housing downturn has been severe in states such as Florida, California, Arizona, and Nevada, Texas has not experienced a similar decline. Table 1. Best-performing cities: top twenty-five large metros Rank in 2008 index 2008 rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2007 rank 8 10 18 20 16 2 7 50 37 12 5 17 33 24 43 32 77 42 11 29 74 61 59 34 58 *Indicates Metropolitan Division Source : Milken Institute Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Provo-Orem, UT Raleigh-Cary, NC Salt Lake City, UT Austin-Round Rock, TX Huntsville, AL Wilmington, NC McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Tacoma, WA* Olympia, WA Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Bakersfield, CA Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX Lafayette, LA San Antonio, TX Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA* Ogden-Clearfield, UT Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC Greeley, CO Durham, NC Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* Savannah, GA Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA All three of Utah’s largest metros ranked among the nation’s top twenty-five performers. In fact, Utah claimed two of the top three spots in the index, and Provo-Orem emerged as the best-performing city of 2008. Two other states, North Carolina and Washington, placed three metros among the top twenty-five. Most of these cities witnessed strong growth in their technology industries. All the technology centers in the top echelon improved their ranking from last year. South Carolina was the only other state with more than one metro in the top twenty-five. The South had sixteen metros among the top twenty-five in the nation, surpassing last year’s performance by one despite the falloff experienced in Florida. The West had eight metros in the top tier. (Only one California metro, Bakersfield, remains on the list.) 2 Executive Summary Best-Performing Cities 2008 There was a ray of good news for the heartland: Des Moines –West Des Moines, Iowa, cracked the top twenty-five, a change from last year’s index, in which no metros from the Midwest made the list. Unlike most other Midwest metros, Des Moines has produced growth in professional services, with financial services as the primary engine of its job creation. At the other end of the spectrum, nine Midwest metros finished in the bottom ten of the 200 largest metros in the country—and all are in Michigan or Ohio. The Northeast again failed to place a single city in the top twenty-five this year. Its best-ranked metro, Trenton-Ewing, New Jersey, placed 62nd overall. This Year’s Best-Performing City: Provo-Orem, Utah Provo-Orem, Utah, jumps into the no. 1 ranking, an improvement from last year’s 8th-place finish. The area’s economy has been generating jobs at a pace far above the national average over the past five years. Its job growth performance remained strong in 2007 at 5.0 percent, placing the metro 3rd in the nation in this indicator. The quality of jobs being created has been high as well, a fact borne out by its 3rd-place position in wage and salary growth in 2006. Much of the area’s economic growth has been fueled by a remarkable recovery in high-tech information services and hardware. Provo-Orem has benefited from increased research and associated spin-off activity at Brigham Young University (BYU). Superior job growth has led to high rates of migration to the area, spurring housing and non-residential construction building activity. The Ten Largest Cities Because America’s largest metropolitan areas are characterized by high density, with minimal room for expansion, we have broken out their performances separately. It isn’t reasonable to expect cities like Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago to grow at the same rate as Provo, Raleigh, or Austin. However, the big metro areas could learn something from the favorable business climates promoted by these fast-growing areas. The best performer among the nation’s largest metros, with an overall ranking of 16th place, Houston– Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, expanded its job base by a whopping 3.2 percent between March 2007 and March 2008, the second-largest increase in the nation. The one-year indicators for job and wage growth also showed robust gains, rising 3.0 and 4.0 percentage points faster, respectively, than the national average. Opportunities stemming from the energy industry, specifically with respect to oil exploration in the Gulf, have been a key engine of growth. Industries that support oil exploration have also been performing well. The heavy and civil engineering construction sector expanded by 5,700 jobs, while specialty trade contractors added another 7,800 workers in 2007. The Biggest Gainers The biggest gainers on the 2008 index rose for a variety of reasons, but they do share some commonalities. Most of these metros never experienced a housing-price bubble, so they are now being spared the pain of a major correction and its attendant ripple effects. Some have benefited from increased energy-related activity, while others improved due to the continued strength in the technology sector. Several rose courtesy of more aircraft production over the past couple of years. Metros dependent on industries with rising exports have risen in the rankings, courtesy of the depreciating dollar. 3 Executive Summary Best-Performing Cities 2008 The most improved metro, El Paso, Texas, climbed an impressive eighty-five spots to place 37th overall. El Paso saw a boost in economic activity due to a major expansion of the U.S. Army base at Fort Bliss under the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program. Nearly 21,000 soldiers are expected to transfer from other bases, with more than 7,000 having already arrived so far. The Best-Performing Small City Midland, Texas, was the best performer among the 124 small cities in our 2008 index, improving from last year’s 3rd-place finish. (Note that last year’s small-city index ranked 179 metros.) In our one-year indicator for job growth, which covers 2006 to 2007, employment increased by 4.3 percent in this region, outpacing the national average by 3.2 percentage points. Oilfield services—including the drilling of oil and gas wells and oil and gas operations—provide almost 6,900 jobs (or 10.4 percent of total jobs in Midland); this industry recorded an 11.3 percent average annual increase between 2002 and 2007. 4 Introduction Best-Performing Cities 2008 Introduction The Best-Performing Cities index was designed to measure which U.S. metropolitan areas are most successful in terms of job creation and retention, the quality of jobs being produced, and overall economic performance. Specifically, it pinpoints where jobs are being created and maintained, where wages and salaries are increasing, and where economies and businesses are growing and thriving. The index allows businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors, academics, and government and public policy groups to assess, monitor, and gain insight into each metro’s relative performance. It also provides benchmarking data that can be used in developing strategies to improve and maintain a metro’s economic performance. Moreover, it is a tool for understanding consumer and business expansion opportunities. In today’s economic slowdown, it helps determine which regional markets may have the lowest risk. The 2008 index applies the methodology used in previous indexes. The index employs geographic terms used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which in turn uses data from the 2000 Census. The OMB defines a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as a region generally consisting of a large population nucleus and adjacent territory with a high degree of economic and social integration, as measured by community ties.1 Using these parameters, the agency identifies 361 metropolitan statistical areas. County population growth accounts for the creation of new MSAs. If specific criteria are met, an MSA with a single nucleus and a population of 2.5 million or more is further divided into geographic areas called metropolitan divisions. There are currently twenty-nine metropolitan divisions. For example, two metropolitan divisions (Dallas-Plano-Irving and Fort Worth– Arlington) make up the Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington MSA. We include the smaller metropolitan divisions in the index to reflect more accurate geographic growth patterns. Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based The components shown in the following table are used to calculate our index rankings. The index measures growth in jobs, wages and salaries, and technology output over a five-year span (2002–2007) to adjust for extreme variations in business cycles. It also incorporates the latest year’s performance in these areas. Lastly, it includes the latest twelve-month job growth performance (March 2007 to March 2008) to capture the relative recent momentum among metropolitan economies.2 Employment growth is weighted most heavily in the index because of its critical importance in determining community vitality. Wage and salary growth measures the quality of the jobs being created and sustained. Technology output growth is also an important element in determining the economic vibrancy of cities. We have incorporated other measures to reflect the concentration and diversity of technology industries within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients (LQs, which measure the concentration of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the national average) are included to indicate a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.3 We also measure the number of specific hightech industries (out of a possible twenty-five) whose concentrations in an MSA are higher than the national average. The Best-Performing Cities index is solely an outcomes-based measure. It does not incorporate explicit input measures (such as business costs; cost-of-living components, such as housing; and other quality-oflife measures, such as commute times or crime rates). Static input measures, although important, 5 Introduction Best-Performing Cities 2008 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 highcost 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 Job growth (I=2002) Job growth (I=2006) Wage and salary growth (I=2001) Wage and salary growth (I=2005) Short-term job growth (Mar 07-Mar 08) Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2002) Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2006) High-tech GDP location quotient Number of high-tech GDP LQ>1 Note: I refers to the beginning year of the index. Source : Milken Institute Weight 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 National Economic Conditions The U.S. economy slowed substantially in 2007 and may have entered a recession by year-end. Real GDP rose 2.1 percent in 2007, down from the 2.9 percent increase in 2006, and most of that growth occurred earlier in the year. Job growth was 1.1 percent in 2007, a decline from the 1.8 percent recorded in 2006. International trade kept the economy from experiencing an even more dramatic slowdown in 2007 as a falling dollar and continued strong economic expansion abroad resulted in robust gains in exports and substantially diminished increases in imports. Business investment in structures was strong in 2007, as was (to a lesser extent) investment in equipment. Just as the end of the dot-com and technology bubble sparked the 2001 recession, today it is the bursting of the housing bubble that has precipitated a decline in economic activity.4 The correction in housing started to unfold in 2006, with residential fixed investment spending falling by 4.6 percent. The correction accelerated in 2007, with existing home sales dropping by 13.0 percent, new home sales declining by 26.0 percent, housing starts plunging by 25.0 percent, and residential fixed investment falling another 17.0 percent. As the initial teaser rates on adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) reset and housing prices plummet, foreclosure rates are skyrocketing, further weakening prices. Many homes were purchased with little or no down payment, and due to falling home prices, their loan-to-value ratios are over 100, making it difficult for homeowners to refinance mortgages. Housing market activity will contract by an even greater percentage in 2008 and is unlikely to bottom out until sometime in 2009. This will cause dramatically disparate impacts on metros around the country. 6 Introduction Best-Performing Cities 2008 Rising energy prices, especially in oil and refined petroleum products, is another strong headwind that slowed economic growth in late 2007 and has taken a major toll in 2008. As higher crude prices filter into downstream prices for gasoline, jet fuel, home heating oil, and other refined-petroleum products, energy costs are eating up a greater share of household income. This has forced consumers to cut purchases of discretionary items such as autos, furniture, appliances, and other durable goods. Higher energy prices have also harmed energy-intensive industries, such as airlines and chemical producers. Metros with a high concentration of energy-reliant industries have been harmed. On the other hand, metros with significant oil and gas production and exploration activities have seen higher energy prices acting as a stimulus. Exports of goods and services were the strongest segment of the U.S. economy in 2007. Real exports of goods and services rose by 8.1 percent in 2007, a minor decrease from the 8.4 percent gain of 2006. Rapid growth in exports has mitigated the impact of declining domestic sales of manufactured goods. Metros with high concentrations of exporters have benefited from rising international demand for U.S. products. U.S. economic conditions deteriorated even further in the first half of 2008, as growth slowed to a crawl (at best) or, more likely, a mild recession took hold. Multiple challenges converged simultaneously: the continued contraction of the housing market, rising agricultural and commodity prices, a sharp spike in oil prices, overall inflation exceeding wage growth, a continuing credit crunch, declining employment figures, and a consumer increasingly squeezed by excessive debt-servicing burdens. These factors will further impact the patterns of economic growth around the country in the months to come and will surely impact next year’s rankings. 7 The Biggest Gainers Best-Performing Cities 2008 The Biggest Gainers The biggest gainers on the 2008 Best-Performing Cities index rose for a variety of reasons, but they do share some commonalities. The majority of these metros didn’t experience a drastic housing-price bubble and an overbuilt market, so they haven’t seen a major correction in new home construction and the attendant loss of construction employment, along with the ripple effects on their economies. Some have benefited from increased energy-related activity, while others improved due to the continued strength in the technology sector. Several rose courtesy of more aircraft production activity over the past couple of years. Metros dependent on industries producing rising exports have improved in the rankings, courtesy of a depreciating dollar. Upward revisions to previous job gain estimates were reported in many of these metros as well. The most-improved metro, El Paso, Texas, climbed an impressive eighty-five spots to place 37th overall. El Paso saw a boost in economic activity due to a major expansion of the U.S. Army base at Fort Bliss under the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program. Nearly 21,000 soldiers are expected to transfer from other bases, with more than 7,000 having already arrived so far.5 Table 3. Biggest gainers Change in rankings 2008 rank 37 46 45 67 85 44 17 50 21 68 127 35 96 8 93 121 49 136 22 71 77 81 2007 rank 122 117 114 131 148 106 77 108 74 121 174 81 139 50 135 163 89 176 61 110 116 120 Spots climbed +85 +71 +69 +64 +63 +62 +60 +58 +53 +53 +47 +46 +43 +42 +42 +42 +40 +40 +39 +39 +39 +39 *Indicates Metropolitan Division Source : Milken Institute Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) El Paso, TX Asheville, NC Wichita, KS Shreveport-Bossier City, LA New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ* Denver-Aurora, CO Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA* Oklahoma City, OK Durham, NC Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC Syracuse, NY Spokane, WA Nassau-Suffolk, NY* Tacoma, WA* Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Amarillo, TX Pittsburgh, PA Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN Lynchburg, VA Kansas City, MO-KS Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 9 The Biggest Losers Best-Performing Cities 2008 The Biggest Losers Most of the metros experiencing the most precipitous declines in the 2008 rankings were the epicenters of the housing decline. Many experienced a rise in home sales and prices far in excess of the underlying fundamentals earlier this decade. Some had a high share of sub-prime mortgage loan issuance over the past several years, and as interest rates on ARMs adjusted higher, delinquency and foreclosure rates soared. Housing prices have plummeted in the majority of these markets and new home construction has ground to a halt. Additionally, several had a high concentration of mortgage originators and have experienced a dramatic decline in financial services employment. Thirteen out of the twenty biggest decliners are in Florida, California, or Nevada, reflecting the severity of the housing downturn in those markets. Vallejo-Fairfield, California, saw the biggest plunge, falling a precipitous 123 spots to 145th. This metro area has taken one of the hardest hits in the nation from recent housing woes. The economic and financial consequences have been so severe, in fact, that the city of Vallejo was forced to declare bankruptcy. Table 4. Biggest losers Change in rankings 2008 rank 145 140 133 120 83 159 98 105 75 92 106 104 178 94 53 150 162 109 102 112 2007 rank 22 27 26 13 6 87 28 36 9 30 49 48 124 40 3 101 115 62 56 71 Spots down -123 -113 -107 -107 - 77 - 72 -70 - 69 - 66 -62 - 57 - 56 - 54 - 54 - 50 - 49 - 47 -47 - 46 - 41 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Reno-Sparks, NV Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Naples-Marco Island, FL Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Lakeland-W inter Haven, FL W est Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL* Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA* Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL W ilmington, DE-MD-NJ* Honolulu, HI Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Birmingham-Hoover, AL Modesto, CA Camden, NJ* Richmond, VA Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-W V *Indicates Metropolitan Division Source : Milken Institute 11 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 The Best-Performing Large Cities Provo-Orem, Utah, jumps into the no. 1 ranking in the 2008 Best-Performing Cities index, posting a solid improvement from last year’s 8th-place finish. The area’s economy has been generating job growth far in excess of the national average over the past five years. From 2002 to 2007, Provo-Orem has seen its employment base expand 16.5 percentage points faster than the U.S. average, ranking 5th overall in this indicator. Its job-growth performance remained strong in 2007 at 5.0 percent, placing the metro 3rd in the nation in this measure. The quality of jobs being generated has been high as well, highlighted by its 3rd-place position in wages and salary growth in 2006. Much of its economic growth has been fueled by a remarkable recovery in high-tech information services and hardware. Provo-Orem has benefited from increased research and associated spin-off activity at Brigham Young University (BYU). Superior job growth has sparked high rates of migration to the area, further spurring housing and non-residential construction building activity. Figure 1. High-tech employment 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 2001 index =100 Provo-Orem vs. United States Provo-Orem United States Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Like many high-tech areas of the country, Provo-Orem experienced a dramatic decline in employment at its leading firms when the technology bubble burst earlier this decade. However, while national high-tech employment has never regained the levels achieved in early 2001, Provo-Orem has actually managed to eclipse its previous peak. Its new Micron Technology/Intel flash memory plant has expanded employment in this high-paying sector.6 Software technology is another important driver for the area’s economy. Provo-Orem is 3.3 times more dependent on software employment than the national average, with Novell and Symantec as key anchors. BYU has also expanded its research budget, increased student enrollment, and has become the center of an emerging life sciences cluster. A number of companies have either been spun out or launched based on university-developed intellectual property. Broad-based job growth led to high rates of net migration into Provo-Orem. From a low of 1,600 in 2004, net migration rose to an estimated 10,000 in 2007.7 This population growth is self-reinforcing, as it drove higher consumer purchases and greater demand for housing. New residential construction activity was brisk (although it has fallen off in recent months), with building construction employment 13 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 rising by an average of 15.8 percent over the last five years. Construction generated more than 25 percent of all jobs created in 2006 and 2007. A retrenchment in new home construction will reduce future job growth in Provo-Orem, but national business investment in information and communication technology remains fairly strong despite the economic downturn and should mitigate the extent of the slowdown in Provo-Orem. Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina, leapt to 2nd place this year, up from 10th in last year’s rankings. At 5.5 percent, its job growth was 2nd in the nation in 2007. Despite some slowing this year, job growth over the twelve-month period from March 2007 to March 2008 was 1st in the nation at 3.6 percent. Like many tech centers, its economy took a hit in the national tech implosion of 2001; however, RaleighCary’s technology sectors have recovered and aided economic expansion. Professional and business services have witnessed robust growth, and state government employment provides some stability. Stellar economic growth was reinforced by high net migration, which rose to an estimated 36,000 in 2007. Figure 2. Professional, scientific, and technical services Raleigh-Cary vs. United States Jobs, percent change from preceding year 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 Raleigh-Cary United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute Raleigh-Cary has developed into one of the premier technology clusters in the nation. Top-notch universities (North Carolina State and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) serve as research anchors and provide high-quality talent at moderate wage levels relative to other U.S. tech centers.8 The relatively low cost of living is a major recruiting advantage for the area. Universities and other research centers interact with the business community to form a closely integrated network that aids economic development. IBM has a major presence in the area, employing more than 13,000 workers.9 SAS Institute, the statistical software giant, is also headquartered here, while Red Hat is another major player. The biopharmaceutical sector has been growing, with GlaxoSmithKline being the largest employer in this field. Overall, the region is more than 50 percent more dependent on the high-tech sector than the national average. The high knowledge content of the region’s economy is reflected in per capita income roughly $4,000 above the average for North Carolina as a whole. Raleigh-Cary won’t escape the national housing market correction, but it should avoid the steep declines in new construction activity and prices that other areas will experience. 14 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Salt Lake City, Utah, improved to take the 3rd spot this year, rising fifteen places from its 2007 ranking. While it lands in the top five in only one of the individual components that comprise the index, it consistently achieves upper-tier ranking. As with the top two metros, the high-tech sector played a role in propelling Salt Lake City up the list, but in this case, energy operations factored into the outcome as well. Computer systems and related design is an important driver of economic growth in the area’s economy. Salt Lake City has become an important regional financial center, with Zions Bancorporation employing 9,500 and Discover Financial Services basing major operations in the area.10 Figure 3. Computer systems design and related services Salt Lake City vs. United States Jobs, percent change from preceding year 20.0 Salt Lake City United States 10.0 0.0 -10.0 -20.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute Health care is an important component of the area’s economy; Intermountain Health Care employs more than 27,000 workers.11 The University of Utah is an important player in medical research, and the state has supported commercialization activities through its Centers of Excellence program funding. The state government is the largest employer—and while many state capitals are experiencing severe budget shortfalls, Utah’s finances have been managed in a fiscally prudent manner. This should allow Salt Lake City to avoid cutbacks in government employment. Travel and tourism activity is another vital sector for the area’s economy. The local housing sector is slowing, with building permits running at approximately one-half their peak level in 2005. Nevertheless, strong export markets and continued high levels of business investment in information technology leave Salt Lake City well positioned relative to other areas of the nation. 15 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Austin–Round Rock, Texas, a thriving example of a 21st-century knowledge-based community, soars sixteen places from last year’s ranking to stand at 4th overall in 2008. Its economy has recently gained forward momentum as evidenced by two job growth indicators: one showing growth from 2006 to 2007 and another measuring the twelve months from March 2007 to March 2008. Austin placed 4th in the nation in both of these categories, while its five-year job growth ranking from 2002 to 2007 was 21st. Austin–Round Rock ranks 10th in the nation in terms of the importance of the high-tech sector to its local economy. Among high-tech industries, its highest concentration is in computer and electronic product manufacturing; it is four-and-a-half times more dependent on this sector than the nation overall. Dell is the major computer manufacturer, along with IBM; electronic component firms Applied Materials, Advanced Micro Devices, Flextronics, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, and others play a major role in the area’s economy.12 Even Google recently announced that it chose Austin for the site of a new satellite software engineering office that will be home to some 100 engineers.13 With the University of Texas, Austin, producing high-quality science and engineering graduates, and the relative attractiveness of the area to talent from other parts of country, many tech firms have established operations. Governor Perry is even pushing harder for UT-Austin to create more start-up firms and include commercialization of research as a criterion in granting tenure. Figure 4. Computer and electronic product manufacturing Austin-Round Rock vs. United States Percent share of total employment 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 Austin-Round Rock United States 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute The Austin economy isn’t built on high tech alone, but is based on a diverse group of industries. A wide array of professional and business services provide high-paying jobs to the area’s residents. Austin is well known for its music scene, and its economy has a related travel and tourism component. New residents far outnumber those who leave the area; Austin’s net migration total was more than 48,000 in 2007. This causes a ripple effect in new home construction and related retail and other non-residential construction. Additionally, Austin’s role as the state capital positions state and local government as the largest employer. While the area won’t escape the national slowdown, it is poised to remain among the top performers. 16 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Huntsville, Alabama, climbs to 5th place this year, an improvement of eleven spots from last year’s ranking. The Huntsville economy is among the most dependent on high-tech industries in the country, ranking 7th overall; the area is more than twice as tied to the sector as the nation overall. Computer and electronic product manufacturing has the highest concentration of any industry in the metro, closely followed by transportation equipment manufacturing. Government employment is the third most concentrated in Huntsville, closely followed by another tech sector: professional, scientific, and technical services. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center is an important anchor for the area and will play a vital role in mankind’s return to the moon on the Ares 1.14 Many aerospace contractors are establishing or expanding operations in hopes of securing additional work on the program. Aerospace giants Boeing and Northrop Grumman have an important presence in the metro area. Figure 5. Professional, scientific, and technical services Huntsville vs. United States Percent share of total employment 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 Huntsville United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute The Redstone Arsenal, a major U.S. Army post, will benefit from the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program over the next several years. The Army Space Missile Defense Command recently completed its move from Arlington, Virginia,15 and the Missile Defense Agency is slated to relocate more than 2,200 employees here over the next couple of years. Huntsville is also beginning to establish new growth in the life sciences as the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology opened its doors late last year. Strong service sector growth has resulted in gains in consumer spending. New office construction has been driven by all of the business expansion activity; residential construction has increased demand for workers, but the number of permits has recently fallen off. Nevertheless, Huntsville seems well-positioned for continued growth despite the national contraction. Wilmington, North Carolina, ranks 6th this year, slipping just four slots from 2007. Although its momentum has been slowing in recent months, the metro has recorded job growth rates that are among the highest in the nation. Wilmington was 8th in job growth measured over the last five years and 5th in 2007 alone, but failed to place in the top forty for job growth as measured over the twelve months ending in March 2008. Increased port activity and the associated logistical support infrastructure have been a significant source of growth. A new, deeper channel has allowed the port to handle larger container ships 17 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 and establish a new shipping service with closer ties to Asia. Easy rail and interstate freeway access has made the area an important distribution center for big box retailers.16 The tourism sector is another key driver for Wilmington: Scenic and sightseeing transportation is the most concentrated industry in the area’s economy, while full-service restaurants and limited-service eating places are the second- and thirdlargest employers after state and local government. Job growth in professional and business services has bolstered the area’s economy. Development officials have adopted a strategy of growing knowledge-intensive industries that will diversify the local economy and improve per capita incomes.17 In support of that effort, Verizon Wireless has been expanding operations and now employs more than 1,200 workers. Over the past five years, telecommunications employment has risen by an annual average rate of 23.9 percent. The revival of the nuclear energy industry is creating opportunities for the region’s economy, too. GE Energy is consolidating many of its design operations in Wilmington. Rapid employment and population growth, along with strong demand for second homes, supported a high level of home construction, but Wilmington’s housing market is slowing and will remove this sector as a source of economic growth. Figure 6. Jobs in wireless telecommunications carriers* Wilmington vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 Wilmington United States *Excluding satellite 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, is holding steady in 7th place, retaining the same ranking it received last year. Although it has slipped somewhat in recent months, the metro’s job growth remains among the strongest in the nation. McAllen had the 3rd-highest job growth on a five-year basis, while the most recent data one-year job momentum indicator places it 10th in the nation. Its economy is closely linked to its sister metro across the border, Reynosa, Mexico.18 Burgeoning trade activity with Maquiladora facilities has allowed the area to become a key distribution/logistic center. For example, increased U.S.Mexican trade through McAllen is reflected in the 14.4 percent annual average increase over the past five years in truck transportation employment. Declining demand from the Big Three automakers due to weak sales has reduced imports of parts from Maquiladora plants. 18 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Another key source of growth has been new call centers. Converges and T-Mobile have established operations in the area.19 Nearly 1,200 jobs have been created in telecommunications services over the past five years, an average annual growth rate of 29.4 percent. The area has become a regional health services center with a strong position in home health care, now the second largest employment sector after state and local government. Health services provide a relatively stable source of job growth. McAllen has developed a major presence in retail trade, serving many consumers south of the border. Tacoma, Washington, leaps to 8th place, moving up from last year’s ranking of 50th. The area has enjoyed stable employment growth, coming in slightly above 3.0 percent for the period measured in our five-year indicator. Although its housing and business costs are close to the national average, they are inexpensive relative to nearby Seattle. Low housing costs have attracted many young families, including professionals who work in Seattle. As more professionals move into the area, firms have opened offices to tap into the labor pool.20 For example, Intel employs 1,100 in the metro division. Data processing, hosting, and related services enjoyed average annual job growth of 17.2 percent over the past five years. Figure 7. Job growth Tacoma vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 Tacoma United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute International trade plays an important role in the area’s economy as well. The Port of Tacoma specializes in inbound containers from Asia and has benefited from capacity constraints at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Its largest exports are wood products and apples. The industry category of support activities for transportation has the highest concentration of employment in the metro economy, and many other transportation-related categories rank among the leaders. The military also has a large presence in the Tacoma economy. The U.S. Army base at Fort Lewis is the largest employer, with 37,000 soldiers and workers; along with McChord Air Force Base, it provides a steady source of demand.21 A slowdown in construction activity will curtail growth in the local economy, but nevertheless, Tacoma should remain among the best performers in the country. 19 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Olympia, Washington, joins its neighbor Tacoma on the list of the nation’s top ten best performers, ranking 9th this year. In previous years Olympia was categorized as a small metro, but steady employment and population growth have pushed it onto the list of the 200 largest metro areas. Because it is the capital of Washington, state and local government is the key driver of Olympia’s economy. State and local government employs 36,200 workers, which is nearly 36.0 percent of total employment in the region. Since Washington’s economy has seen brisk growth in recent years, Olympia’s state government has benefited from this largesse. The current state budget gap will curtail growth in this sector, but is unlikely to cause a decline in overall economic activity in the area. Business and housing costs are low relative to nearby Seattle, and Olympia has probably benefited even more than Tacoma from this cost advantage.22 Olympia has been gaining more residents from Tacoma and Seattle than it has lost, with net migration estimated at over 4,300 in 2007. This population growth has resulted in fairly strong housing construction. Information services have been the fastest-growing job sector over the past five years, with average annual growth of 38.0 percent. The main limit on longterm economic growth is the absence of large private-sector employers. Nevertheless, as other metro areas experience significant declines due to the deterioration of formerly high-flying housing markets, Olympia’s government sector should immunize it from a similar fate. Figure 8. Information services employment Percent change from preceding year Olympia vs. United States 30.0 20.0 10.0 Olympia United States 0.0 -10.0 -20.0 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Charleston–North Charleston–Summerville, South Carolina, moves up two places to rank 10th this year. Tourism has been a catalyst of job creation for the regional economy, as increasing numbers of tourists from the Northeast and Midwest have been drawn here to discover Charleston’s history, architecture, and rich cultural scene. Although it has recently experienced slower growth in inbound cargo due to the low value of the dollar and the national economic contraction, the Port of Charleston has witnessed remarkable growth in recent years. It is consistently ranked among the most efficient ports in North America. A large transportation/logistics industry has developed, supporting thousands of jobs in the regional economy. Another key source of growth is its expanding aerospace manufacturing sector, with specializations in advanced composite materials, precision metal parts, and systems integration. Dupont is building a $500 million Kevlar production facility as commercial aircraft producers are turning to Kevlar as a lightweight substitute for aluminum.23 Employment in data processing, hosting, and related services has achieved average annual growth of 10.9 percent over the past five years. The health-care industry, anchored by the Medical University of South Carolina, is an important component of the economy, while biosciences are a target for investment as the sector attempts to leverage its medical research assets. Figure 9. Aerospace product and parts manufacturing Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville vs. U.S. Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville United States Jobs, percent change from preceding year 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute Even as the housing downturn worsened throughout 2007, Orlando-Kissimmee, Florida, maintained a strong showing, coming in at 11th overall. Although it dropped six places from its ranking in last year’s index, it has consistently achieved high growth. Total employment and wages in the metro area have grown 15.0 and 17.0 percentage points, respectively, above the national average in the period examined in our five-year indicators. Orlando-Kissimmee’s emerging health-care cluster is broadening the area’s industry base. The development of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research and a new medical school based at the University of Central Florida will expand the industry’s R&D capacity and attract more high-tech firms to the area. Recently approved plans for the Nemours Children’s Hospital Orlando will further enhance the metro’s growing health-care sector.24 In the last year alone, roughly 4,000 jobs were added to this sector. 21 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Growth in recent months has been suppressed by the real-estate market, as high foreclosure rates and a dearth of buyers have sent inventories soaring. This has placed a damper on construction activity; employment in the industry declined 7.0 percent between 2006 and 2007. Additionally, weakness in the national economy has strained the area’s leisure and hospitality sector, the primary driver of growth in the region. But the negative impacts on Orlando’s tourism industry may be offset by an influx of international travelers, who can take advantage of the weaker U.S. dollar to enjoy the area’s resorts and theme parks at bargain prices. Bakersfield, California, gained some ground, moving up from 17th to 12th place in this year’s index. Over the last few years, the metro’s growth has been ignited by housing and a burgeoning population. As a result, the metro has benefited from increased demand for services such as education and health care. Natural resources such as oilfields have created opportunities for growth. The mining and petroleum manufacturing industries in particular have been largely responsible for the underlying growth in the region. Total non-farm employment and wages grew 10.0 and 14.0 percentage points faster, respectively, than the national average in the five-year span we examined. Administrative and support services along with food and drinking places added 6,300 jobs between 2002 and 2007, a period that still reflected some of the positive ripple effects from the housing boom. Today, however, Bakersfield is being hit hard by the housing crisis, posting one of the nation’s highest foreclosure rates. The same industries that drove growth in the past few years are now bracing for deterioration. Figure 10. Non-farm employment Bakersfield vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 6.0 Bakersfield United States 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute In the long term, Bakersfield will rely on its strategic location between northern and southern California and its proximity to Nevada, factors that will continue to support its transportation and logistics sector. The presence and operations of Edwards Air Base and Chevron will help stabilize the metro’s economy during the downturn.25 22 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Killeen-Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, moved sharply higher in this year’s index, rising from 33rd to 13th place. Wages and salaries grew by 5.0 percentage points above the national average between 2005 and 2006. The strong military presence in Fort Hood has been the primary driver of growth in the area.26 Killeen’s solid performance also reflects the fact that it has not been as severely affected by the housing downturn as most metros in the nation, sparing the area from further ripple effects in related industries. In fact, most sectors in the metro area have experienced growth in the past few years. Professional, business, and scientific services grew by an average of 6.0 percent annually in the five-year period we examined, adding more than 1,200 jobs. Telecommunications employment grew by 14.0 percent average annually (creating nearly 800 jobs) in the same period, driving high-tech output growth in Killeen to 10th highest in the nation. The area’s low cost of doing business has provided incentives for firms in nearby larger cities. The biggest gainer in last year’s index, Lafayette, Louisiana, improved its position by another ten spots to claim 14th place this year. Last year’s dramatic climb was largely attributable to the population influx of hurricane evacuees. This sharp growth in population consequently led to increased demand in various service-driven industries. With the current housing crisis and slowdown in related sectors of the economy, growth in the metro has begun to subside. Interestingly, a shortage in health-care and education services has led to a dramatic increase in wages and salaries in those industries.27 Between 2005 and 2006, overall wages and salaries in the metro experienced the fastest increase in the nation, growing 8.0 percentage points above the U.S. average. Figure 11. Population growth Lafayette vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Lafayette United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute Energy exploration in the nearby Gulf of Mexico will continue to support local manufacturing and mining industries, helping to mitigate some losses in other sectors. Machinery and fabricated metal product manufacturing added more than 600 jobs in the last year, while support for mining generated an additional 1,000 workers. These sectors have contributed to overall job growth of 2.8 percent in the twelve months ending with March 2008. 23 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 San Antonio, Texas, climbed twenty-eight spots in this year’s ranking to place 15th. The indicator for recent job momentum (comparing March 2007 and March 2008) shows robust growth of 2.3 percent. It appears that the metro’s housing market has been relatively stable as compared to other parts of the country. Construction employment actually increased by 4.5 percent between 2006 and 2007, and if anything, a strong military presence and proposed renovations and modernizations within the local bases will help to sustain employment in the industry. The presence of a Toyota plant has positively contributed to the transportation equipment manufacturing industry, which has generated more than 4,000 jobs in the last five years (an average increase of 14.0 percent annually). Proposed defense spending will generate additional economic activity in the metro and help sustain viable growth in the long run.28 Another Texas metro, Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, has climbed up in the rankings, rising from 32nd to 16th place. Among the nine measures used to compile the overall index, Houston’s most recent job momentum performance (comparing March 2007 and March 2008) was most notable. The metro area expanded its job base by a whopping 3.2 percent, the second-largest increase in the nation. The indicators for one-year job and wage growth also showed robust gains, rising 3.0 and 4.0 percentage points faster, respectively, than the national averages. Opportunities stemming from the energy industry, specifically with respect to oil exploration in the Gulf, have been a key engine for growth. Industries supporting oil exploration have also been performing well. Heavy and civil engineering construction recorded an increase of 5,700 jobs, while specialty trade contractors added another 7,800 jobs in the one-year indicator we examined (2006–2007). Support activities for mining also contributed 3,700 jobs. In terms of high-tech, machinery manufacturing grew 5.0 percent between 2006 and 2007, generating 3,800 high-paying jobs. The presence of key players in the region (namely Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP) will help sustain the industry’s growth.29 Figure 12. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown vs. United States Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown United States Employment, percent change from preceding year 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 24 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 The metro division of Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Washington, jumped an impressive sixty spots to claim 17th place in this year’s index. The indicator for recent job momentum (comparing March 2007 with March 2008) showed a healthy 2.0 percent employment growth. Transportation equipment manufacturing, which encompasses the aerospace sector, was responsible for generating 5,600 of the jobs measured in our indicator for one-year growth between 2006 and 2007. In the same period, professional R&D services added another 6,200 jobs. Most of the growth can be attributed to the vast presence of Boeing and Microsoft (and the secondary impacts of these two behemoths throughout the region). Increased global demand for more fuel-efficient commercial aircraft has sweetened Boeing’s outlook.30 The metro’s high-tech sector produces 1.3 times the national average for output. In addition, this sector depends on highly skilled labor, resulting in above-average wages—so it is no surprise that the indicator for one-year growth in wages and salaries was 3.2 percentage points above the national average. Figure 13. Transportation equipment manufacturing jobs Seattle-Bellevue-Everett vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 -15.0 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute Ogden-Clearfield, Utah, moved up from 42nd to 18th place in the rankings. The indicator for fiveyear job growth between 2002 and 2007 shows the metro area outpacing the national average by 7.4 percentage points. Although it has since slowed, the construction industry grew by more than 10 percent between 2006 and 2007. Strong population growth in the area has helped fuel demand across consumerdriven industries. Ambulatory health care and administrative and support industries together added roughly 5,000 jobs in the period encompassed by our five-year indicator. Professional, scientific, and technical services added another 2,600 jobs. The debut of a new rail line between Salt Lake and Ogden in 2008 will help support future economic activity.31 In addition, Ogden’s Hills Air Force Base has served as an important driver for the metro’s emerging aerospace industry. Although it dropped eight spots, Myrtle Beach–North Myrtle Beach–Conway, South Carolina, managed to maintain a solid position in 19th place. Overall job growth in the five-year period examined in our indicators outstripped the national average by more than 15 percentage points. Contributing to that growth was the metro’s leisure and hospitality sector, which posted 6.6 percent growth between 2006 and 2007 alone. Plans for an airport expansion are currently underway to accommodate both residents 25 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 and leisure travelers.32 In the past few years, a booming population (driven in part by an increasing number of retirees who choose to settle here) has helped to maintain a robust service economy. Our indicator for five-year employment growth shows that accommodations and food services added more than 6,700 jobs between 2002 and 2007. Another 2,100 jobs were added in administrative and support services during the same period. Greeley, Colorado, improved by nine positions to rank 20th in this year’s index. The area’s low cost of living has provided a more affordable alternative to residents in nearby metros. With a healthy population influx in the last few years, Greeley’s overall employment base rose 2.5 percent from March 2007 to March 2008. Vestas Wind Systems, a manufacturer of wind turbines, will give a further boost to the area’s high-tech industry base, as it expects to add another 700 jobs.33 In fact, high-tech output in the metro grew 2.7 percentage points faster than the national average. Plastic and rubber manufacturing has grown by 12.2 percent on an average annual basis over the five-year period we examined, while professional, scientific, and technical services added over 600 jobs during that same time frame. Rising by a substantial fifty-three spots in this year’s index, Durham, North Carolina, ranks 21st overall. Our indicator for recent job momentum shows that total employment grew 2.3 percent between March 2007 and March 2008. In 2007, Durham’s high-tech output was 2.2 times the national average. In addition, the metro area (which is part of the Research Triangle) is home to a diverse set of high-tech industries, thanks to key players such as Duke University, IBM, and GlaxoSmithKline.34 Durham’s economy has witnessed an expansion in the last few years. Between 2002 and 2007 (the period covered in our fiveyear job growth indicator), ambulatory health-care hospital services created more than 5,200 jobs, while education services added another 3,600 jobs. Perhaps the most significant expansion came from the public sector, as government created more than 4,300 jobs in the metro area. The region’s strength in high tech, particularly in the life sciences, brightens its prospects for long-term economic prosperity. Figure 14. Government employment 4.0 Percent change from preceding year Durham vs. United States Durham United States 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 26 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tennessee, made solid strides from last year’s ranking to claim the 22nd spot overall. Strong migration trends have contributed to population growth year-overyear, while housing prices have declined at a more moderate pace than in the rest of the nation. Nonfarm employment and wages have experienced healthy gains, rising 4.5 and 7.7 percentage points higher, respectively, than the national average in our indicator for five-year job growth. The metro’s relatively low business costs have supported the expansion of warehousing (1,500 jobs), clothing (2,400 jobs), and management of companies (2,200 jobs) between 2002 and 2007. In the last year alone, the metro area added 540 jobs in its data-processing services sector. The presence of Nissan and GM plants, however, may not continue to be a source of growth, given the gloomy outlook on auto manufacturing in the short term.35 Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, moved up sharply to come in at 23rd place. Growth in the metro division has been fairly broad-based, exceeding the national average in many of the categories used to compile the index. The area’s high-tech sector continues to diversify and attract new firms. Just recently, AT&T announced that it will be moving its headquarters from San Antonio to Dallas.36 Internet service providers/data processing and telecoms are already 3.5 and 2.3 times more concentrated, respectively, in Dallas than in the nation as a whole. Between 2006 and 2007, the category for management of companies and enterprises contributed more than 2,100 jobs, an increase of 7.7 percent. The creditintermediation industry has added more than 18,000 jobs over the last five years, supporting the metro’s already well-established financial sector. Dallas’s growing reputation as a convention center has generated positive impact on local business and increased demand in industries that cater to such large-scale events. Savannah, Georgia, rose to 24th place this year. Our five-year indicator shows that non-farm employment and wages have risen by 11.9 and 9.5 percentage points higher, respectively, than the national averages. Not only does the city benefit from a strong military presence, but Savannah’s port has also served as a key asset to its economic vitality.37 As the dollar has declined, exports have strengthened, supporting trade-related activity in the region. Support activities for transportation added 1,200 jobs between 2002 and 2007, while administrative and support contributed nearly 4,000 jobs. The metro’s aerospace industry has also generated 1,400 jobs during that period, increasing 4.8 percent on an average annual basis. Growth in these industries has yielded higher-paying jobs in the region. Figure 15. Support activities for transportation employment Savannah vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 Savannah United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 27 The Best-Performing Large Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Des Moines–West Des Moines, Iowa, came in at 25th, after placing 58th last year. The Des Moines economy has been growing slightly above the U.S. average in terms of employment and wages. The area’s high-tech output outstripped the national average by 6.3 percentage points. Professional, scientific, and technical services generated more than 1,900 jobs between 2002 and 2007, the period examined in our five-year indicators. Machinery manufacturing has grown at an average annual rate of almost 4.0 percent over that period. The metro area is also a hub for financial services and insurance, including key players such as Wells Fargo and Principal Financial Group.38 The credit-intermediation activities industry is almost three times more concentrated in Des Moines than in the nation as a whole; this industry has contributed more than 4,200 jobs during the five-year period we examined. 28 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Among America’s ten largest cities, outcomes were decidedly mixed. Unlike the previous two editions of the index, this year’s results show none of the ten largest cities in the country ranked among the top ten overall performers. As shown in the table below, previous standouts Riverside–San Bernardino– Ontario, California, and Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, both experienced significant declines. Meanwhile, Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, continued its dramatic, energy-industry-driven ascent to become the top performer among the nation’s ten largest metros. (The economies of Houston and Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, were profiled earlier in this report since both metros placed among the top twenty-five best-performing cities overall.) Table 5. Performance of America's ten largest cities Rank in 2008 index Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ* Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA* Philadelphia, PA* Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL* *Indicates Metropolitan Division Source : Milken Institute 2008 rank 16 23 32 41 53 59 85 126 130 160 2007 rank 32 59 4 37 3 86 148 109 142 152 29 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 Out of the nation’s ten largest cities, Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, posted the 3rd-best performance (it placed 2nd among this group in the 2007 index). In the full ranking of the nation’s 200 largest metros, however, the Phoenix area fell from 4th all the way to 32nd place. Like many other Sunbelt cities, Phoenix has been hit hard by the bursting of the housing bubble, which has affected several sectors related to construction and homebuilding. Although the decline in Phoenix was not as steep as the deterioration in Riverside, California, the metro did experience a significant slowdown in the construction industry, especially in the specialty trade contractor sector. This downturn comes after an extended period in which the Phoenix metro area set the pace for the rest of the nation in construction in order to accommodate a rapidly growing population. One of the sectors showing the greatest decline in the Phoenix metro area during the period examined in our five-year indicator is telecommunications. From 2002 to 2007, the sector lost more than 5,400 employees, posting an average annual decline of 6.61 percent. The fact that a sector with a current 0.93 LQ has led the metro in employment decline over this five-year span is actually a sign of the general strength of the Phoenix economy, indicating that job losses have been relatively minimal in the industries that are most highly concentrated here. On the positive side, the largest gainer over the past year has been local government, which added more than 7,000 jobs. Figure 16. Construction employment Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 30 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, metro area saw very little change from last year. The 4th-best performer among the ten largest cities in the country, it slid only four spots (from 37th to 41st) in the complete rankings of the 200 largest metros. More than 10,000 jobs were added in professional, scientific, and technical services from 2006 to 2007; in our five-year indicator, which examines the period from 2002 to 2007, more than 77,000 jobs were added in this sector. High tech continues to thrive in the region, even as other sectors have begun to falter. The federal government has been a key source of new employment in the metro. While this sector fell slightly in 2007, the number of federal jobs grew significantly from 2002 to 2006, due in large part to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and growth in the Defense Department. Although total growth in federal employment in the metro area averaged only slightly over 1 percent per year from 2002 to 2006, the vast size of the government means that even a relatively small percentage change translates into a significant number of jobs. Figure 17. Federal government employment Washington-Arlington-Alexandria vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 2001 2002 2003 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria United States 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 31 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 This year’s index shows a dramatic reversal of fortunes in Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, California. Last year’s top performer among the nation’s ten largest cities, it is now only the 5th-best performer in that group. In the full rankings of the nation’s 200 largest metro areas, however, Riverside tumbled from 3rd place all the way to 53rd. The housing downtown has hit the metro’s economy hard. The specialty trade contractor sector, which includes home builders and related services, lost more than 12,600 jobs from 2006 to 2007. In fact, Riverside’s construction sector, which dramatically outpaced the rest of the nation for the first half of the decade, has now become one of the greatest drags on the local economy, shrinking by 11 percent from 2006 to 2007. The region has continued to benefit from corporate relocations, however, with administrative and support services adding more than 3,200 jobs year over year. Warehousing and storage continues to be a strong sector for the Riverside metro area, as its location outside Los Angeles and San Diego makes it an ideal distribution point. Despite the softening economy, warehousing added more than 1,600 jobs from 2006 to 2007, growing at over 6.4 percent (not matching the rapid 17.5 percent increase it posted during the entire period from 2002 to 2007, but still posting solid gains). Continued growth in this sector is highly likely as the metro remains the only area in Southern California with both the space and the infrastructure to handle expanded cargo flows.39 The largest overall gains in our one-year job growth indicator came from administrative and support services, which added more than 3,200 jobs from 2006 to 2007. Figure 18. Construction employment Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 -15.0 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 32 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta, Georgia, continues to post the fastest overall population growth in the country. The city held its 6th-place position among the ten largest metros in the 2008 index, while its overall ranking rose from 86th to 59th. The city continues to add jobs, gaining more than 7,300 positions in professional, scientific, and technical services from 2006 to 2007. Atlanta continues to benefit from its role as home to corporate headquarters of multiple Fortune 500 companies.40 Despite losing BellSouth headquarters to a merger with AT&T, Atlanta remains the base for AT&T Mobility (formerly Cingular Wireless).41 Despite these positive trends, larger economic forces—including the rising price of oil and gas and the housing downturn—have placed significant pressures on three of Atlanta’s major corporations. Delta Airlines continues to cut staff due to hikes in fuel prices and declining revenues. Both Home Depot and Sun Trust Bank have seen the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit their bottom lines, and tightening credit standards may begin to curb the rapid population influx into the metro.42 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta vs. United States Percent change from preceding year Figure 19. Population growth 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2001 2002 2003 2004 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta United States 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 33 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 Of the nation’s ten largest metros, New York–White Plains–Wayne, New York–New Jersey, posted the most dramatic gains. Once ranked 9th among this group, it is now the 7th-best performer. In terms of the overall rankings, however, it jumped an impressive sixty-three places, rising from 148th place in the 2007 index to 85th this year. Construction in New York has been thriving, and so far the area has staved off the slump that has affected the rest of the country. Employment in building construction actually grew at a 4 percent pace over the year from 2006 to 2007, adding more than 3,700 jobs; specialty trade contractors also added nearly 6,700 jobs. The sector comprising securities, commodities, and other financial investment activities continued to consolidate in the metro, adding more than 11,500 jobs from 2006 to 2007. New York actually trailed the country as a whole in adding jobs in finance and insurance from 2001 to 2003 (in fact, it suffered significant losses in this sector as financial firms relocated in the wake of 9/11), but that trend has since reversed itself. Employment growth in the metro area’s finance sector remained strong at 2 percent, even as the sector slipped into slightly negative territory on a national level, reflecting the credit crunch. However, continued pressure on major financial institutions is now becoming apparent in the New York metro area; many firms in the financial sector and in support activities are trimming payrolls in 2008 due to the fallout from the subprime crisis. The sudden fall of Bear Stearns combined with tremendous losses at major institutions such as Citibank are likely to soon wipe out many of the gains posted by New York this year. Figure 20. Finance and insurance employment New York-White Plains-Wayne vs. United States New York-White Plains-Wayne United States Percent change from preceding year 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 -8.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 34 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 The local economy in Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale, California, did not perform well over the past year. The metro area fell seventeen places overall from 109th to 126th in the overall rankings, and slipped from 7th to 8th place among the ten largest metros. In our indicator for recent job momentum, which examines March 2007 to March 2008, Los Angeles ranked 156th overall for job growth, actually losing 0.26 percent of its work force. Like other metros experiencing steep housing declines, Los Angeles has been hit over the past year by the loss of jobs in the construction sector (but since most of the metro area is already heavily developed, losses in this sector are a far smaller percentage of the total work force than in neighboring Riverside). However, high housing prices in Los Angeles have left the metro area highly vulnerable to the effects of tightening credit. Job losses in the financial-services sector (including trouble spots such as Countrywide and IndyMac) are a growing concern. Our five-year job growth indicator shows that the largest job losses during this period in Los Angeles have been suffered in the apparel industry and in corporate management. Although Los Angeles has managed to remain a center for fashion design, more than 16,400 jobs were lost in apparel manufacturing between 2002 and 2007 (including more than 3,000 cuts between 2006 and 2007 alone). The category encompassing management of companies and enterprises saw the loss of more than 23,300 workers between 2002 and 2007 (including more than 3,800 in the most recent year). As companies have continued to move their headquarters out of Los Angeles due to high cost of doing business, the impact has not only been felt in terms of lost jobs, but also in the form of lost spending that these companies once contributed locally. The one continued bright spot for the local economy continues to be international trade and tourism. As the dollar weakens, exports thrive and international visitors arrive to take advantage of travel bargains. Los Angeles saw a 4 percent rise in international arrivals in the first quarter of 2008.43 Figure 21. Corporate management employment Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 -8.0 -10.0 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 35 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 Overtaken by New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, slipped one spot, to 9th place, among the ten largest metro areas. Despite this, the city rose twelve places, from 142nd to 130th, in the full ranking of all 200 metro areas. Philadelphia has continued to thrive as a corporate center. In our indicator for fiveyear job growth, which examines 2002 through 2007, the management of companies and enterprises sector posted more than 11.5 percent annual growth, adding more than 15,300 jobs. On the down side, data processing, hosting, and related services saw an annual decline of more than 16 percent per year, shedding more than 7,000 jobs in the region during the same period. More troubling has been the decline of pharmaceutical manufacturing, which has been vital to the region’s economy. Chemical manufacturing as a whole lost more than 8,300 jobs from 2002 to 2007 (although losses have slowed recently, to only 640 from 2006 to 2007). While Philadelphia outpaced the nation in pharmaceutical manufacturing growth in 2001 and 2002, it has since trailed severely, continuing to lose jobs even as the country as a whole returned to net gains in the sector in 2006 and 2007. Philadelphia’s ongoing quest to remain competitive and attract new jobs is made more difficult by its high cost of doing business and the region’s high taxes. Steps have been proposed to reduce property and wage tax burdens in Pennsylvania, and this may restore some of the region’s competitive balance in the near future.44 Figure 22. Pharmaceutical manufacturing employment Philadelphia vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 10.0 Philadelphia United States 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 -15.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 36 America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance Best-Performing Cities 2008 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Illinois, remains in 10th place among the ten largest metros, with its overall ranking falling slightly to 160th from 152nd. Mirroring a trend faced by many other older industrial cities, Chicago is coping with the decline of manufacturing. Our five-year job growth indicator shows that six different industrial sectors (textile mills, apparel manufacturing, leather manufacturing, wood product manufacturing, plastics and rubber manufacturing, and computer and electronic product manufacturing) all lost jobs at the rate of more than 4 percent per year between 2002 and 2007, shedding more than 19,000 jobs in total. Chicago’s need for health care has actually been a leading source for new jobs, as ambulatory health-care services contributed more than 19,300 new jobs between 2002 and 2007. Administrative support services fared even better during that period, adding more than 35,200 jobs. The one-year job growth indicator shows the effect of the decline in home construction, with a loss of more than 3,700 specialty trade contractor jobs from 2006 to 2007; this sector posted the largest decline during that period in the region. However, the retail environment has remained strong, led by electronics wholesaling, which grew by more than 10,000 jobs from 2002 to 2007, including more than 2,900 jobs added from 2006 to 2007 alone. Figure 23. Manufacturing employment Chicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 -8.0 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet United States -10.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 37 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 The Best-Performing Small Cities In addition to ranking the 200 largest metro areas in the United States, we have also created a companion index of the best-performing small cities. Although last year’s index ranked 179 of these metro areas, the 2008 report examines only 124 cities. Fifty-five locations were dropped, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer compiles employment data on these metros due to funding cuts.45 Most of the newly dropped locations did not perform well in the 2007 index, so excluding them had little effect on our 2008 rankings of the top cities. The West dominates this year’s list of small cities exhibiting robust economic growth. Texas, which also posted a strong performance in the index of the largest metros, is well-represented here, with three small metros placing in the top ten. The state is clearly benefiting from high oil prices, an abundance of natural resources, and growth in the broader energy industry. Midland, Texas, took the top spot, while Longview and Odessa are newcomers to the top ten list. (Grand Junction, Colorado, and Bellingham, Washington, also made their debut in the top ten in 2008.) At the other end of the spectrum, many cities in the upper Midwest, particularly those in Michigan and Ohio, did not fare well, placing in the bottom ranks. Table 6. Top ten best-performing small cities Rank in 2008 index Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Midland, TX Coeur d'Alene, ID Bend, OR St. George, UT Grand Junction, CO W arner Robins, GA Longview, TX Bellingham, W A Prescott, AZ Odessa, TX * Among 179 small cities Source : Milken Institute 2008 rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2007* rank 3 6 1 2 18 10 30 14 7 27 39 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Midland, Texas, was the best performer among 124 small cities in our 2008 index, improving from last year’s 3rd-place ranking among 179 metros. Overall job and wage growth were solid. In our one-year indicator for job growth, which measures from 2006 to 2007, employment increased by 4.3 percent in this region, outpacing the national average by 3.2 percentage points. Midland’s unemployment rate dropped to 2.7 percent in February 2008, demonstrating that the local economy remains very healthy.46 Oilfield services are highly concentrated in this region. The employment category encompassing support activities for mining—including the drilling of oil and gas wells and oil and gas operations—provides 6,870 jobs (or 10.4 percent of total jobs in Midland); this industry recorded an 11.3 percent average annual increase between 2002 and 2007. Consumer spending has been a source of strength; retail sales have increased by 3.8 percent over 2007 levels.47 Figure 24. Employment in support activities for mining Midland vs. United States Percent share of total employment Percent share of total employment 10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 Midland (L) United States (R) 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0.12 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 40 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Placing 2nd among the 124 smallest cities in 2008 is Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Despite the housing downturn, overall job and wage growth in this region outperformed the national average. Our five-year indicators, which encompass the period from 2002 to 2007, show that employment and wages in Coeur d’Alene grew 18.8 and 21.8 percent over the national average, respectively. The area’s fast-growing tourism industry has recently been a major engine of growth, adding 1,800 new jobs in 2007 alone.48 This sector now accounts for 3.1 percent of total jobs in the metro area. Coeur d’Alene has also emerged as a regional health-care hub; hospitals and health-care services accounted for 51.7 percent of job growth from 2006 to 2007. Figure 25. Job growth Coeur d'Alene vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 2001 Coeur d'Alene United States 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute 41 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Bend, Oregon, last year’s top performer, has slipped slightly to 3rd place in the 2008 index. Our fiveyear job growth indicator, which spans 2002 to 2007, shows that Bend’s overall employment rose 25.3 percent faster than the national average during this period. However, recent unemployment figures indicate a softening local economy, with Bend recording a higher jobless rate than the U.S. average for 2007 (5.0 percent in Bend vs. 4.6 percent for the nation as a whole). Bend’s housing market has been decelerating, with median home prices falling by 10.1 percent (from $319,900 in the first quarter of 2007 to $290,500 in the first quarter of 2008). But a recent report singled out Bend as having the second-most overvalued housing market in the nation (trailing only Atlantic City, New Jersey), and estimated that its home values are still inflated by 49.5 percent.49 This may indicate that further declines are in store. The indicator for recent job momentum shows the greatest decline in the Bend area occurred in manufacturing; employment in this industry dropped 6.9 percent from March 2007 to March 2008. Weakness was especially apparent in wood manufacturing, which is strongly concentrated in this region. This sector lost 7.9 percent of its jobs from 2006 to 2007, possibly due to a slowdown in new housing construction. But tourism remains a bright spot for job creation. From 2006 to 2007, employment in air transportation grew by 11.8 percent, while the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector saw 11.2 percent job growth. Figure 26. Arts, entertainment, and recreation employment Bend vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 Bend United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 42 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Sliding out of the 2nd-place position it held in the 2007 index, St. George, Utah, now ranks 4th among small metros this year. Its five-year job and wage growth indicators rose 35.4 percent and 47.5 percent higher, respectively, than the national average, outpacing all the other small cities on the index. St. George posted strong GDP growth from high tech in 2007, ranking 7th in the nation (7.7 percentage points above the national average between 2006 and 2007). Specialty trade contractors are a leading industry in this region, accounting for some 6,000 jobs (or 11.2 percent of total employment) in 2007, and driving 16.2 percent of average annual job growth from 2002 to 2007. Figure 27. Specialty trade contractor employment St. George vs. United States Percent share of total employment Percent share of total employment 12.0 St. George (L) United States (R) 3.7 11.0 3.6 10.0 3.5 9.0 3.4 8.0 3.3 7.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 3.2 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 43 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Grand Junction, Colorado, moved up the rankings to take the 5th-place spot. After placing 18th out of 179 small cities in 2007, the metro area made a remarkable jump into the top ten small cities in 2008 index. The indicator for one-year overall job growth shows a robust performance, 4.6 percentage points above the national average from 2006 to 2007; in this measure, Grand Junction ranks 2nd among small cities. The city’s unemployment rate has consistently declined since 2003, dipping to 3.2 percent in 2007, well below the national average of 4.6 percent. Soaring oil prices contributed to economic gains in this region due to its abundance of oil shale and potential for extraction.50 The employment category for mining support activities has consequently become a leading industry here, creating 2,420 jobs for a 37.4 percent average annual increase in growth from 2002 to 2007. The availability of jobs has sparked population growth; Grand Junction experienced a net migration rate of 3.1 percent in 2007. Figure 28. Net migration Grand Junction, Colorado Percent change from preceding year 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 Net migration Population 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute Improving on its 10th-place showing in the 2007 index, Warner Robins, Georgia, now ranks 6th among the best-performing small cities. Robins Air Force Base is still a dominant force in the local economy, generating $4.2 billion in economic impact in central Georgia each year. Warner Robins Air Logistics Center remains the metro’s top employer, accounting for more than 15,000 jobs.51 Not surprisingly, federal jobs are more highly concentrated in this region than jobs in private industry. This level of government employment has brought economic stability to the metro area, since federal positions typically have greater job security and less frequent turnovers. 44 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Figure 29. Federal government employment Warner Robins vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 Warner Robins United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute Longview, Texas, leapt from 30th place in last year’s index to take 7th place in the 2008 ranking of small cities. Like the rest of the booming Texas economy, this metro performed particularly well in the oneyear indicators for job and wage growth. Between 2006 and 2007, overall job growth hit 4.2 percent, 3.1 percentage points higher than the national average of 1.1 percent. Short-term wage growth has been solid, outpacing the national average by 4.8 percent from 2005 to 2006. Longview’s economy is fueled by the energy sector, with many jobs based in the East Texas oil fields. Oil and gas extraction and its supporting activities remain the engine of growth in this region. Particularly noteworthy is the employment category for mining support activities, which added more than 1,960 jobs in the five-year period we examined, for 13.4 percent annual job growth since 2002. Popular as the regional shopping destination for all of East Texas, Longview has built many new retail outlets over the past year to accommodate demand.52 Despite the sluggish housing market, employment in the construction industry (which includes both residential and commercial) increased by 9.9 percent since 2006. Figure 30. Wages and salaries Longview vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Longview United States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 45 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Another newcomer to the top ten, Bellingham, Washington, places 8th on this year’s list. Job growth maintained a robust pace from 2002 to 2007, the period measured in our five-year indicator, with an average annual growth rate of 3.4 percent. Because of its proximity to Canada, Bellingham benefits from the weak dollar, since Canadian consumers often cross the border to make retail purchases here.53 West Washington University is the top employer in the metro area, accounting for more than 2,200 jobs in 2007 and bringing economic stability to this region. Bellingham vs. United States Percent change from preceding year Figure 31. Job growth 6.0 Bellingham United States 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute Prescott, Arizona, slipped to 9th place this year from its 7th-place position in the 2007 index. The metro’s clean mountain air and relatively low cost of living has attracted an influx of retirees as well as younger workers. Since 1990, Prescott’s population has almost doubled, increasing by 95.4 percent as of 2007. During the five-year periods examined in our indicators, job and wage growth have remained strong, with Prescott ranking 4th and 3rd, respectively, among small cities in these categories. Despite a weak concentration of high-tech industry, relative high-tech GDP growth increased 12.4 percentage points above the national average between 2006 and 2007, ranking 3rd among small cities. Figure 32. Population growth Prescott vs. United States Percent change from preceding year 5 Prescott United States 4 3 2 1 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute 46 The Best-Performing Small Cities Best-Performing Cities 2008 Odessa, Texas, jumped to 10th in the 2008 index of best-performing small cities, making a substantial improvement from its 27th-place position in 2007. Odessa’s economy has been booming in recent years, posting strong performances in indicators for short-term and long-term overall job and wage growth. Our measurement of short-term job momentum shows that employment in March 2008 had increased by 5.2 percent in a year-over-year comparison to March 2007, the 3rd-best performance in this indicator posted among the 124 small cities we ranked. Odessa’s unemployment rate was 2.9 percent in February 2008, the second-lowest in the state, trailing only Midland, Texas, which came in at 2.7 percent.54 Odessa and Midland are the economic hubs of the Permian Basin region, which extends across West Texas and into southern New Mexico and is rich in natural resources. Not surprisingly, oil and gas extraction and support activities for mining are the leading industries, accounting for some 5,890 jobs (or 9.9 percent of total jobs) in 2007. Figure 33. Unemployment rate* Odessa vs. Texas Percent share of labor force 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Odessa Texas * Not seasonally adjusted. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Milken Institute 47 2008 rank Metropolitan area 2007 rank 5-yr job growth 2002–2007 2007 Value Rank 1-yr job growth 2006–2007 2007 Value Rank 5-yr wages/salaries growth 2001–2006 2006 Value Rank 1-yr wages/salaries growth 2005–2006 2006 Value Rank Job growth (3/07–3/08) Growth Rank 5-yr relative HT GDP growth 2002–2007 2007 Value Rank 1-yr relative HT GDP growth 2006–2007 2007 Value Rank High-Tech GDP LQ 2007 Value Rank # of HT GDP LQs over 1 2007 Value Rank Population 2007 (Thousands) Overall index Best-Performing Cities 2008 Complete Results: 2008 Best-Performing Large Cities 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 8 10 18 20 16 2 7 50 37* 12 5 17 33 24 43 32 77 42 11 29 74 61 59 34 58 23 19 38 60 1 31 4 54 52 81 69 122 76 39 67 37 47 68 106 114 117 66 75 89 108 46 80 3 73 15 53 21 25 86 79 35 55 64 45 72 57 131 121 103 85 110 98 63 97 9 51 116 41 82 44 120 104 6 107 148 91 94 65 105 95 88 30 135 40 93 139 78 28 128 70 Provo-Orem, UT MSA Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA Salt Lake City, UT MSA Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA Huntsville, AL MSA Wilmington, NC MSA McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA Tacoma, WA MD Olympia, WA MSA Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC MSA Orlando-Kissimmee, FL MSA Bakersfield, CA MSA Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA Lafayette, LA MSA San Antonio, TX MSA Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA MD Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC MSA Greeley, CO MSA Durham, NC MSA Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN MSA Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX MD Savannah, GA MSA Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA MSA Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC MSA Boise City-Nampa, ID MSA Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA MSA Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MD Ocala, FL MSA Albuquerque, NM MSA Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL MSA Gainesville, FL MSA Spokane, WA MSA Columbia, SC MSA El Paso, TX MSA Montgomery, AL MSA Jacksonville, FL MSA Baton Rouge, LA MSA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MD Springfield, MO MSA Peoria, IL MSA Denver-Aurora, CO MSA Wichita, KS MSA Asheville, NC MSA Fresno, CA MSA Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA Amarillo, TX MSA Oklahoma City, OK MSA Clarksville, TN-KY MSA Fayetteville, NC MSA Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR MSA Tucson, AZ MSA Lubbock, TX MSA Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO MSA Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA MSA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA Knoxville, TN MSA Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL MD Trenton-Ewing, NJ MSA Anchorage, AK MSA Visalia-Porterville, CA MSA San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA Salem, OR MSA Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC MSA Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA Lynchburg, VA MSA Tulsa, OK MSA Merced, CA MSA San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA MD Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA Kansas City, MO-KS MSA Port St. Lucie, FL MSA San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA MSA Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA Indianapolis-Carmel, IN MSA Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA MSA Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ MD Cedar Rapids, IA MSA Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA Corpus Christi, TX MSA Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA Madison, WI MSA Mobile, AL MSA Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL MSA Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MSA Honolulu, HI MSA Boulder, CO MSA Nassau-Suffolk, NY MD Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL MSA Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA Winston-Salem, NC MSA Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA MSA 116.49 113.07 107.38 108.92 107.52 115.90 118.39 109.11 109.45 108.38 114.59 110.25 103.26 104.66 104.56 105.52 102.91 107.40 115.95 109.02 102.34 104.52 102.54 111.86 103.97 105.62 112.31 104.03 104.09 116.48 103.57 113.26 106.82 101.81 105.38 103.07 100.22 102.33 106.67 104.64 105.07 105.87 101.31 100.24 98.00 103.90 102.78 102.80 102.59 99.76 105.16 104.79 112.94 102.11 105.84 98.89 111.24 102.88 103.06 102.01 107.56 100.89 102.54 104.83 100.70 103.80 101.02 101.41 102.50 98.63 101.85 100.15 100.67 94.69 120.11 103.34 99.85 117.59 100.69 104.74 101.23 99.38 112.47 93.77 98.40 99.26 99.83 100.56 99.98 100.21 98.89 106.73 96.93 104.27 97.97 98.45 102.33 108.71 99.91 99.42 5 11 28 21 26 8 3 19 18 23 9 17 57 43 45 36 61 27 7 20 70 46 67 15 51 35 14 50 49 6 54 10 29 79 37 58 96 71 31 44 39 32 81 95 136 52 65 64 66 107 38 41 12 74 33 125 16 62 59 76 25 86 67 40 87 53 84 80 69 131 78 100 89 176 1 56 105 4 88 42 83 113 13 187 134 118 106 91 103 98 125 30 149 48 140 132 71 22 104 112 103.87 104.28 102.80 103.55 102.11 103.33 102.70 102.03 101.67 103.02 100.99 101.17 101.18 102.36 101.44 103.09 101.88 102.03 102.29 101.93 101.99 100.12 101.69 102.42 101.15 102.80 100.90 101.00 102.00 99.51 99.92 100.17 99.65 100.44 101.15 101.05 101.10 100.38 100.25 101.61 99.82 101.52 100.59 100.98 101.75 102.25 99.99 101.29 99.90 100.04 100.36 100.58 99.03 100.38 99.81 99.67 100.02 99.44 101.14 100.31 99.38 99.07 99.72 99.63 99.42 100.77 99.81 102.03 100.47 101.08 100.03 100.45 100.33 101.21 99.91 100.32 100.94 99.37 100.16 98.59 100.45 100.03 96.39 100.77 100.66 100.62 99.81 100.32 99.86 99.29 100.81 97.93 100.45 99.49 101.09 100.12 97.55 98.88 100.55 99.57 3 2 8 4 15 5 10 16 25 7 42 32 31 12 28 6 22 16 13 21 20 78 24 11 33 8 45 41 19 125 89 75 112 63 33 39 36 65 72 26 99 27 52 43 23 14 86 29 91 80 67 53 161 65 100 111 83 131 35 71 140 160 106 115 134 47 100 16 58 38 81 60 68 30 90 69 44 141 76 176 60 81 198 47 49 50 100 69 95 145 46 186 60 128 37 78 192 165 54 118 109.54 105.86 103.51 100.16 109.67 111.26 119.99 114.78 108.70 111.25 116.73 113.72 121.80 107.57 107.99 105.02 96.74 107.58 116.38 110.10 99.78 107.72 98.04 109.52 106.82 106.86 110.19 99.31 102.01 125.05 104.72 115.20 107.15 112.00 103.57 103.89 104.37 104.46 113.07 106.77 106.98 103.85 107.30 94.81 97.61 100.48 107.06 98.44 105.02 105.39 124.32 117.71 122.48 101.15 110.30 101.70 119.62 107.00 97.77 105.19 112.43 103.11 107.79 110.03 105.50 105.23 103.40 95.72 101.89 102.45 97.56 98.30 110.96 86.02 126.98 102.55 97.07 128.33 105.98 105.38 97.96 102.39 127.71 84.44 97.88 96.15 104.97 104.81 106.65 104.78 103.09 115.81 96.79 110.00 88.88 99.60 113.44 110.67 95.36 102.82 33 57 80 105 32 23 9 16 36 24 12 17 8 42 37 63 146 41 13 29 111 39 130 34 50 49 28 116 90 5 70 15 45 22 79 77 75 72 19 51 48 78 44 165 136 100 46 126 63 59 6 11 7 94 27 93 10 47 134 62 21 82 38 30 58 61 81 155 91 88 137 127 25 197 4 86 140 2 56 60 132 89 3 198 133 152 65 68 52 69 83 14 144 31 191 112 18 26 158 84 105.23 103.29 103.12 103.55 101.55 102.50 102.45 101.56 101.35 100.74 101.13 102.93 104.51 108.20 102.63 104.30 103.23 102.59 104.45 102.56 102.33 102.26 102.18 102.69 100.62 102.75 105.83 100.95 102.77 103.58 101.13 104.04 101.70 100.56 101.55 100.94 101.37 100.99 102.59 104.33 99.48 98.72 102.36 100.88 103.78 100.78 100.53 99.30 100.95 103.23 102.21 99.88 101.92 99.90 102.09 100.85 100.78 100.15 99.76 100.45 100.49 100.89 99.53 103.61 99.60 100.90 100.31 99.59 100.62 104.07 100.33 104.47 99.94 100.44 102.22 99.40 99.55 101.76 100.38 101.09 99.25 100.59 100.65 102.63 102.18 98.83 99.25 102.80 99.91 99.08 103.59 100.72 100.65 100.01 99.27 99.55 101.75 100.78 98.75 97.18 3 16 19 15 48 30 31 47 52 68 53 20 4 1 25 8 17 27 6 29 35 36 39 24 72 23 2 57 22 14 53 10 46 76 48 59 51 56 27 7 117 150 33 62 11 64 77 124 57 17 38 99 42 98 41 63 64 91 103 80 78 61 113 12 108 60 87 109 72 9 85 5 96 81 37 120 111 43 82 55 128 75 70 25 39 144 128 21 97 138 13 69 70 94 126 111 44 64 148 185 1.90% 3.56% 2.20% 2.89% 2.11% 1.39% 2.50% 2.29% 3.09% 1.18% 0.64% 1.39% 1.90% 2.79% 2.28% 3.19% 2.04% 1.47% 1.58% 2.45% 2.33% 1.42% 1.97% 0.50% 1.72% 1.71% -1.65% 0.84% 2.00% -1.39% 0.30% -0.25% 1.27% 1.84% 0.69% 1.59% 2.61% 1.45% -0.11% 0.60% 0.96% 1.21% 0.92% 1.60% 1.11% 2.24% 0.70% 2.78% 1.64% 0.46% 0.27% 0.79% -1.60% 0.94% -1.97% 0.92% 0.11% 0.04% 1.07% 0.80% -0.90% 0.93% 0.71% -0.35% -0.08% 0.07% 2.28% 2.61% 0.77% -0.56% 2.04% -0.07% 1.12% 2.22% -0.28% -0.19% 0.76% -1.24% 0.67% -1.08% 0.75% 1.36% -5.47% 0.79% 1.00% 0.87% 0.85% 0.63% 0.89% 0.52% -0.07% -1.81% 1.41% 0.64% 1.15% 0.82% -4.00% -1.34% 1.38% 0.23% 27 1 17 4 18 43 9 12 3 53 91 44 26 5 14 2 19 36 35 10 11 39 23 100 30 31 190 74 21 184 112 155 50 29 87 34 8 37 146 95 62 52 68 33 57 15 85 6 32 103 115 79 189 65 194 67 127 137 58 77 174 66 84 161 144 136 13 7 80 167 20 142 56 16 159 151 81 180 88 176 82 47 198 78 61 71 73 92 69 98 143 193 40 90 55 75 197 182 45 117 105.80 101.98 109.75 106.28 116.31 148.44 200.93 137.66 112.51 115.73 113.80 111.81 133.55 114.98 91.07 94.51 98.63 97.60 86.86 93.06 94.76 101.22 97.37 95.41 109.07 94.13 137.75 121.73 89.02 161.90 138.70 80.14 113.29 107.87 98.38 105.77 113.59 111.90 96.41 107.04 104.70 109.62 106.15 96.64 66.60 98.27 118.11 92.60 104.63 101.45 100.39 98.86 128.13 109.00 79.31 121.40 136.75 106.54 91.13 98.79 100.90 105.30 101.28 108.05 106.00 98.22 115.14 88.50 102.53 129.84 94.11 96.97 92.25 93.99 100.10 117.49 95.84 104.11 98.42 104.43 101.71 99.78 127.57 92.58 90.30 105.47 102.03 105.55 96.69 119.30 104.40 106.86 85.83 104.64 97.25 92.24 132.07 106.29 119.92 118.38 55 73 37 52 24 4 1 8 33 25 30 35 10 29 143 124 91 99 162 134 121 79 102 118 39 125 7 16 150 2 5 179 32 43 93 56 31 34 112 46 63 38 53 111 199 94 22 135 65 76 82 88 14 40 182 17 9 50 142 89 80 59 77 41 54 95 27 156 70 13 126 105 138 128 83 23 116 68 92 66 74 84 15 136 146 58 72 57 109 19 67 47 164 64 103 139 12 51 18 21 106.06 100.14 107.19 101.30 99.49 100.85 102.63 105.56 106.10 103.03 103.32 103.19 97.38 97.04 99.53 99.56 104.76 101.06 100.62 102.70 99.87 101.58 100.00 102.87 106.27 99.35 100.23 100.82 94.50 100.98 100.21 102.85 99.12 100.50 106.57 103.31 99.53 100.19 102.91 99.50 99.45 101.86 98.39 101.19 105.64 95.81 103.56 98.53 102.90 103.01 98.21 100.61 104.93 98.96 102.39 102.94 98.23 103.14 99.45 96.42 101.46 99.78 101.01 102.03 103.31 102.34 92.23 99.02 105.77 102.83 102.46 104.22 105.27 102.91 96.00 99.61 101.54 100.30 98.49 101.37 99.91 98.94 103.64 102.63 102.11 108.70 98.68 94.75 97.68 100.44 98.24 101.98 100.48 98.77 99.76 102.00 102.77 103.94 102.92 102.43 9 94 4 63 115 74 42 14 8 27 22 25 162 169 112 111 17 69 80 40 103 58 99 35 7 119 90 76 192 72 92 36 126 85 6 23 112 93 31 114 117 54 147 67 12 182 21 143 33 28 151 81 16 132 46 29 150 26 117 175 60 106 70 50 23 47 196 131 10 37 44 18 15 31 181 110 59 89 145 61 102 133 20 42 48 2 141 191 156 87 149 53 86 137 107 51 38 19 30 45 1.34 1.53 1.07 1.67 2.16 0.75 0.46 0.68 0.53 0.69 0.91 0.51 0.84 0.64 0.92 0.81 2.30 0.68 0.38 0.49 2.21 0.72 1.56 0.68 0.57 0.61 1.49 1.64 1.10 0.83 2.19 1.01 0.73 0.61 0.66 0.54 0.65 0.66 0.65 0.47 1.57 0.65 0.55 1.66 1.65 0.48 0.46 1.42 0.54 0.62 0.54 0.44 0.63 1.13 1.13 1.35 0.51 1.02 1.11 0.73 0.82 1.22 0.75 0.26 1.58 0.56 0.61 0.82 0.30 0.72 0.56 0.68 0.34 1.45 0.38 0.98 1.35 0.46 0.61 0.96 1.35 0.71 0.42 3.05 0.70 0.95 0.98 0.52 0.77 1.04 0.58 0.64 0.97 0.52 2.86 0.97 0.61 0.39 0.45 1.44 34 18 52 10 7 94 171 109 155 108 70 161 78 120 69 84 4 109 190 166 5 102 17 109 141 130 20 13 50 79 6 58 99 130 115 150 117 115 117 169 16 117 148 11 12 167 171 27 150 127 150 177 124 46 46 31 161 57 49 99 82 40 94 199 15 146 130 82 197 102 146 109 196 23 190 60 31 171 130 64 31 105 181 1 107 67 60 157 91 55 138 120 62 157 2 62 130 188 176 24 7 10 9 10 9 6 3 3 5 6 8 4 4 3 8 4 8 4 3 2 11 7 12 2 3 3 3 8 6 8 11 6 7 5 4 3 4 5 5 2 9 6 5 11 6 5 5 10 2 6 3 3 5 7 11 5 2 8 8 8 8 9 5 3 15 2 5 6 2 2 6 5 1 10 1 6 7 2 5 9 6 4 6 15 4 7 8 1 5 9 4 5 7 2 15 8 5 3 5 11 63 21 32 21 32 72 144 144 91 72 47 121 121 144 47 121 47 121 144 169 14 63 9 169 144 144 144 47 72 47 14 72 63 91 121 144 121 91 91 169 32 72 91 14 72 91 91 21 169 72 144 144 91 63 14 91 169 47 47 47 47 32 91 144 3 169 91 72 169 169 72 91 188 21 188 72 63 169 91 32 72 121 72 3 121 63 47 188 91 32 121 91 63 169 3 47 91 144 91 14 493 1,048 1,100 1,598 387 340 711 773 239 630 2,032 791 370 256 1,991 5,628 2,536 518 250 244 480 1,521 4,112 329 547 1,652 588 2,175 2,034 325 835 4,179 453 257 456 716 735 366 1,301 770 4,151 420 371 2,465 596 404 899 288 242 1,193 262 349 4,081 666 967 267 436 2,091 5,279 682 1,760 365 362 422 2,975 387 388 614 290 376 244 906 246 1,720 1,836 344 1,985 400 262 2,724 1,695 830 316 1,804 11,608 253 2,668 414 1,659 556 404 500 895 906 290 2,760 687 575 463 404 100.00 125.40 141.82 146.74 150.64 152.48 158.84 163.34 183.19 192.26 192.74 198.63 205.52 220.21 220.76 220.93 227.87 228.31 238.50 239.65 243.58 257.02 262.17 263.68 265.24 267.12 270.70 273.93 285.80 287.07 288.92 289.06 292.10 293.02 298.36 299.59 301.56 308.96 310.91 311.56 316.82 317.03 328.59 330.46 337.54 337.98 338.18 338.46 341.89 342.16 348.26 348.68 352.89 354.80 356.44 359.36 359.61 369.27 374.50 377.35 378.67 379.41 379.52 379.95 383.05 386.85 387.88 388.21 391.85 392.47 393.31 393.79 397.93 398.04 403.98 406.51 407.16 408.62 409.04 410.58 413.10 414.05 414.08 414.32 414.43 416.95 417.98 420.99 422.65 426.55 427.89 428.27 430.11 432.40 434.45 434.92 434.98 436.34 440.85 442.33 2008 rank Metropolitan area 2007 rank 5-yr job growth 2002–2007 2007 Value Rank 1-yr job growth 2006–2007 2007 Value Rank 5-yr wages/salaries growth 2001–2006 2006 Value Rank 1-yr wages/salaries growth 2005–2006 2006 Value Rank Job growth (3/07–3/08) Growth Rank 5-yr relative HT GDP growth 2002–2007 2007 Value Rank 1-yr relative HT GDP growth 2006–2007 2007 Value Rank High-Tech GDP LQ 2007 Value Rank # of HT GDP LQs over 1 2007 Value Rank Population 2007 (Thousands) Overall index 49 90.61 94.66 86.71 97.40 97.15 96.40 -1.52% -1.40% -3.61% 76.96 80.54 79.11 * Indicates this city’s position on last year’s small metros list. Best-Performing Cities 2008 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 96.28 95.18 92.52 0.96 0.50 0.76 4 3 4 2,482 259 1,985 134 56 113 48 36 49 126 143 62 111 96 71 100 133 90 84 112 153 92 13 163 129 83 99 147 109 174 130 102 142 169 156 26 164 154 176 151 166 171 27 136 173 118 141 22 149 119 144 160 101 186 125 123 137 132 146 162 157 87 152 158 115 168 159 178 127 175 138 165 150 170 155 167 180 161 145 140 124 181 183 182 177 187 172 188 185 179 191 190 192 199 184 193 196 194 200 198 195 189 197 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA MSA Richmond, VA MSA Stockton, CA MSA Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL MD Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA MD Manchester-Nashua, NH MSA Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI MD Camden, NJ MD Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA Colorado Springs, CO MSA Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV MSA Rockingham County-Strafford County, NH MD Edison-New Brunswick, NJ MD Tallahassee, FL MSA York-Hanover, PA MSA Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL MD Boston-Quincy, MA MD Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MSA Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC MSA Lexington-Fayette, KY MSA Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg, MD MD Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA MSA Binghamton, NY MSA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA MD Syracuse, NY MSA Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA MSA Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ MSA Philadelphia, PA MD Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN MSA Salinas, CA MSA Reno-Sparks, NV MSA Utica-Rome, NY MSA Columbus, OH MSA Pittsburgh, PA MSA Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI MSA Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA MD Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA Greensboro-High Point, NC MSA Evansville, IN-KY MSA Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA Vallejo-Fairfield, CA MSA Lincoln, NE MSA Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA MD Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL MSA Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT MSA Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA MSA St. Louis, MO-IL MSA Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA Jackson, MS MSA Rockford, IL MSA Worcester, MA MSA Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME MSA Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY MSA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL MD Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA Modesto, CA MSA Newark-Union, NJ-PA MD Reading, PA MSA Green Bay, WI MSA Columbus, GA-AL MSA Duluth, MN-WI MSA Roanoke, VA MSA Fort Wayne, IN MSA Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA Peabody, MA MD Akron, OH MSA Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN MSA Gary, IN MD Lancaster, PA MSA Norwich-New London, CT MSA Charleston, WV MSA Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ MD Erie, PA MSA Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA Rochester, NY MSA Springfield, MA MSA Spartanburg, SC MSA New Haven-Milford, CT MSA Kalamazoo-Portage, MI MSA South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI MSA Atlantic City, NJ MSA Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA MSA Dayton, OH MSA Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI MSA Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC MSA Ann Arbor, MI MSA Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA Toledo, OH MSA Flint, MI MSA Lansing-East Lansing, MI MSA Canton-Massillon, OH MSA Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI MD Holland-Grand Haven, MI MSA Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI MD 96.76 102.23 103.39 104.47 105.66 102.11 99.30 99.29 100.18 99.63 99.72 100.01 100.34 98.95 102.99 102.81 101.29 96.13 101.87 119.31 99.13 100.22 98.74 97.20 93.98 96.85 95.86 95.79 100.41 96.38 99.34 93.89 107.95 95.15 97.82 95.13 98.96 96.52 92.77 99.44 98.45 93.78 96.68 99.28 100.08 99.01 95.43 97.98 96.13 99.20 80.40 96.45 100.94 100.52 97.99 96.74 96.72 97.92 98.70 96.60 97.49 100.61 95.73 98.76 99.25 96.13 97.38 95.10 97.68 96.84 94.25 99.67 98.13 97.62 98.79 96.53 96.12 98.00 96.27 94.63 95.12 94.61 96.48 95.49 93.95 93.91 97.06 92.27 90.85 93.87 91.09 91.45 93.72 92.95 87.61 90.06 89.90 152 73 55 47 34 74 115 116 99 110 108 102 94 124 60 63 82 163 77 2 121 96 129 147 181 150 167 168 93 161 114 184 24 172 142 173 123 158 190 111 132 186 155 117 101 122 171 139 163 120 200 160 85 92 138 153 154 141 130 156 145 90 169 128 119 163 146 175 143 151 180 109 135 144 127 157 166 136 162 178 174 179 159 170 182 183 148 191 194 185 193 192 188 189 198 196 197 195 177 199 100.60 100.18 100.20 97.17 98.69 98.52 99.44 99.57 98.81 99.77 99.83 98.48 99.53 99.89 99.88 100.47 99.97 100.49 100.54 97.60 100.02 100.43 98.98 99.40 99.86 99.50 99.65 98.33 99.52 99.54 100.49 99.27 99.29 99.55 100.14 99.62 99.51 99.20 99.31 98.28 99.84 98.69 99.57 99.72 97.59 100.01 99.10 99.37 99.41 99.80 106.20 99.42 99.93 99.13 101.02 99.69 99.68 99.58 98.71 99.69 99.26 98.99 99.25 99.48 99.42 98.40 99.89 99.40 99.20 98.84 99.11 98.98 99.64 99.81 99.47 99.24 99.29 99.43 99.29 99.10 99.33 98.84 98.61 98.76 99.28 98.55 96.39 97.53 97.75 98.83 98.52 97.59 98.52 97.59 96.19 98.07 98.71 51 74 73 195 173 178 131 118 169 105 98 181 123 92 94 58 87 56 55 188 83 64 163 138 95 127 112 183 124 122 56 150 145 121 77 116 125 154 144 184 97 173 118 106 189 85 158 141 137 104 1 134 88 156 40 108 110 117 171 108 151 162 152 129 134 182 92 138 154 166 157 163 114 100 130 153 145 133 145 158 143 166 175 170 149 177 198 193 187 168 178 189 178 189 200 185 171 194 196 197 89.83 102.81 104.96 112.87 108.77 107.64 99.40 100.11 104.25 98.72 99.30 104.44 100.32 96.32 100.86 100.88 104.48 94.97 104.92 134.69 99.00 99.38 106.09 98.98 88.57 98.73 94.78 96.75 101.13 99.60 97.74 101.11 106.61 95.34 96.70 94.62 96.49 95.36 89.91 107.51 94.73 98.29 93.12 99.83 106.13 99.13 97.35 99.84 97.31 101.72 88.66 95.90 98.09 102.49 93.92 94.25 95.63 100.41 100.17 94.46 94.54 104.44 96.60 97.05 99.23 99.87 95.24 98.03 91.14 100.21 92.72 98.82 97.01 95.91 98.68 96.84 96.22 100.86 92.97 93.85 91.30 95.01 95.37 94.99 91.91 93.75 100.03 91.94 90.84 91.96 86.91 93.05 91.32 91.71 82.55 91.61 87.07 86.75 90.47 84.00 190 85 66 20 35 40 114 106 76 124 117 73 102 150 98 97 71 164 67 1 120 115 55 121 193 123 166 145 95 112 135 96 53 160 147 168 149 158 189 43 167 128 175 110 54 119 138 109 139 92 192 154 129 87 172 171 156 101 104 170 169 73 148 141 118 108 161 131 186 103 178 122 142 153 125 143 151 98 177 173 185 162 157 163 181 174 107 180 187 179 195 176 184 182 200 183 194 196 188 199 102.34 98.76 99.35 99.64 100.17 99.74 98.28 100.78 98.86 99.81 98.58 99.85 100.38 100.16 99.30 95.73 100.61 100.46 101.49 102.45 97.03 99.23 99.50 97.52 99.98 100.13 97.90 100.18 99.66 99.68 99.31 98.76 100.13 99.15 98.30 99.26 98.30 98.75 99.50 97.87 99.19 98.42 98.96 99.59 99.17 98.15 99.42 99.23 98.47 99.13 93.70 98.26 98.67 100.34 100.32 98.77 99.48 98.22 97.81 99.52 96.97 97.55 99.24 101.72 97.94 99.05 98.30 99.32 98.35 98.62 98.92 97.01 97.20 97.76 97.36 97.33 99.22 98.47 97.82 98.27 97.27 97.49 99.88 97.85 96.93 96.65 98.48 98.34 96.98 97.00 98.61 95.92 97.48 97.33 96.30 98.91 94.84 93.67 95.24 93.38 34 146 121 107 89 104 164 64 143 102 154 101 82 90 124 195 74 79 50 31 186 131 115 177 95 92 170 88 106 105 123 146 92 136 161 127 161 148 115 171 134 158 140 109 135 168 119 131 156 137 198 166 151 84 86 145 117 167 174 114 190 176 130 45 169 139 161 122 159 152 141 187 184 175 180 181 133 156 173 165 183 178 99 172 191 192 155 160 189 188 153 194 179 181 193 142 197 199 196 200 1.96% 0.52% 1.37% -0.56% -1.09% -1.39% 1.44% 0.65% 0.94% 0.08% 1.40% -0.07% -0.82% 0.22% 0.36% 0.88% -0.06% 1.22% 0.42% -5.72% 0.96% 0.45% -0.25% 0.86% 0.18% -0.26% 1.01% 0.31% 0.07% 0.45% 1.85% 1.40% -0.61% 0.22% 1.05% 0.73% 0.82% 0.11% 0.37% -1.75% 1.17% 0.63% 0.10% 0.23% -1.23% 1.99% -0.89% 0.18% 1.28% -0.14% 1.91% -0.42% 0.70% 0.48% -0.53% -0.22% 0.08% 0.49% 0.10% 0.31% 0.39% -0.56% -0.05% -0.57% 0.09% -0.15% 1.30% 0.28% -2.09% -1.59% -0.94% -0.18% 0.13% 0.08% 0.59% -0.05% 0.26% -0.15% 0.30% 0.22% 0.14% -0.43% 0.63% -1.36% -0.25% 0.60% -0.28% -0.27% -1.28% -0.09% 0.07% -1.77% -0.61% -1.21% -5.56% -0.53% -0.29% 24 99 46 168 177 185 38 89 64 132 42 141 172 120 109 70 140 51 106 200 63 105 153 72 123 156 60 111 134 104 28 41 171 119 59 83 76 126 108 191 54 94 128 118 179 22 173 122 49 147 25 162 86 102 165 152 131 101 129 110 107 166 138 169 130 149 48 114 195 188 175 150 125 133 97 139 116 148 113 121 124 163 93 183 154 96 158 157 181 145 135 192 170 178 199 164 160 187 186 196 77.61 98.08 96.77 99.33 98.04 101.28 97.66 89.79 98.87 138.35 75.12 133.37 97.48 87.47 95.14 94.64 91.95 87.57 79.28 88.69 107.30 80.40 96.33 118.41 101.65 94.82 97.09 115.14 81.62 79.73 88.32 105.07 90.53 110.47 92.41 93.74 95.85 98.68 94.74 95.58 88.07 106.62 83.13 93.97 107.95 71.56 96.85 105.18 88.99 83.60 81.74 107.70 88.69 71.13 94.02 90.82 104.77 93.69 85.64 89.25 106.60 154.57 84.23 85.42 102.11 96.39 99.29 91.51 115.40 96.77 83.27 97.48 96.67 102.72 61.71 87.23 82.74 79.24 86.49 89.24 77.24 100.58 69.50 79.93 67.23 81.89 68.06 89.02 85.75 81.58 93.90 75.52 93.47 88.83 78.20 76.53 74.08 187 96 107 85 97 77 98 147 87 6 192 11 100 160 119 123 140 159 183 154 45 178 114 20 75 120 104 27 175 181 157 61 145 36 137 131 115 90 122 117 158 48 171 129 42 194 106 60 152 169 174 44 154 195 127 144 62 132 166 148 49 3 168 167 71 113 86 141 26 107 170 100 110 69 200 161 172 184 163 149 188 81 196 180 198 173 197 150 165 176 130 191 133 153 186 190 193 189 177 185 96.42 98.71 97.33 96.73 105.73 100.35 99.82 97.54 99.17 114.09 97.12 108.66 99.46 99.25 97.66 99.27 99.74 100.58 94.91 95.05 99.86 100.22 99.17 100.67 100.89 100.67 101.77 100.81 97.62 99.24 94.80 106.67 93.46 99.10 98.21 100.14 97.37 102.88 101.20 98.72 97.22 102.65 102.76 99.69 97.85 83.36 101.22 100.02 99.30 96.34 105.59 101.78 97.34 95.26 98.27 99.92 97.63 96.03 101.21 99.04 100.59 98.59 99.98 98.21 102.00 96.68 94.48 98.90 101.09 98.69 100.11 101.01 97.76 99.11 99.04 98.82 96.73 95.10 98.51 98.93 96.48 102.08 89.05 96.94 98.49 95.62 91.86 101.34 97.07 100.11 90.38 96.13 97.48 101.78 100.53 95.72 100.84 175 139 165 171 11 88 105 160 124 1 167 3 116 122 157 121 108 83 189 188 104 91 124 78 73 78 57 77 159 123 190 5 194 128 151 94 163 34 66 138 166 41 39 109 154 200 64 98 120 177 13 55 164 185 148 101 158 180 65 129 82 142 100 151 51 173 193 135 68 140 96 70 155 127 129 136 171 187 144 134 174 49 199 170 145 184 197 62 168 96 198 179 161 55 84 183 75 178 186 195 0.99 0.75 0.37 1.44 0.64 1.32 1.42 1.30 0.85 0.54 1.74 0.58 0.96 1.52 0.72 0.57 0.55 0.80 0.25 0.41 0.58 0.67 1.43 0.77 1.64 1.37 1.10 0.86 0.73 1.14 0.48 0.41 0.44 1.06 0.78 0.87 0.95 1.12 2.80 1.47 0.63 1.14 1.16 0.42 0.63 0.57 1.49 0.52 0.86 0.75 0.46 1.07 0.38 0.54 0.51 1.20 0.79 0.62 0.89 0.79 0.78 0.51 1.23 0.57 0.40 1.28 0.47 0.74 0.83 0.80 1.88 0.53 0.71 0.40 0.46 1.39 0.59 0.59 0.67 0.85 1.16 0.60 0.35 1.24 0.88 0.64 0.38 0.44 0.83 0.52 0.39 1.03 0.57 0.40 0.62 0.44 0.28 59 94 194 24 120 35 27 36 76 150 9 138 64 19 102 141 148 85 200 183 138 113 26 91 13 30 50 74 99 44 167 183 177 54 89 73 67 48 3 22 124 44 42 181 124 141 20 157 74 94 171 52 190 150 161 41 87 127 71 87 89 161 39 141 185 37 169 98 79 85 8 155 105 185 171 29 136 136 113 76 42 135 195 38 72 120 190 177 79 157 188 56 141 185 127 177 198 64 165 93 9 6 2 16 4 15 8 5 9 4 9 5 10 12 4 4 2 4 0 4 6 4 9 9 12 10 11 10 7 8 1 3 3 15 5 9 7 10 16 12 6 5 10 2 6 3 15 4 5 5 3 9 2 1 4 11 4 6 8 5 9 3 10 3 1 9 0 3 5 5 12 2 1 2 3 5 5 3 6 5 8 4 2 8 4 3 2 3 10 1 3 6 2 1 5 1 1 32 72 169 1 121 3 47 91 32 121 32 91 21 9 121 121 169 121 199 121 72 121 32 32 9 21 14 21 63 47 188 144 144 3 91 32 63 21 1 9 72 91 21 169 72 144 3 121 91 91 144 32 169 188 121 14 121 72 47 91 32 144 21 144 188 32 199 144 91 91 9 169 188 169 144 91 91 144 72 91 47 121 169 47 121 144 169 144 21 188 144 72 169 188 91 188 188 121 144 121 252 1,213 671 536 1,266 2,997 402 873 1,246 515 609 261 418 2,320 352 421 2,387 1,858 387 591 529 447 1,156 529 246 9,879 645 304 804 3,888 1,234 408 410 295 1,754 2,356 3,208 853 1,473 798 698 350 464 1,281 409 292 2,484 376 1,189 1,108 1,030 2,828 284 534 352 781 1,544 513 670 7,953 549 511 2,129 402 301 283 274 297 410 1,601 733 699 2,134 699 498 267 304 694 279 1,128 1,030 683 276 845 323 317 271 571 836 777 360 350 2,096 651 435 456 407 447.81 447.93 448.05 448.21 451.37 451.70 463.46 469.39 469.99 471.08 475.43 476.13 478.64 483.59 485.47 486.45 486.64 487.25 488.82 492.09 497.72 504.01 504.82 506.65 511.08 511.23 521.22 525.92 528.87 530.10 533.03 538.06 538.43 541.77 542.19 550.46 554.25 556.41 557.40 557.85 557.97 563.29 564.17 564.44 564.89 565.22 566.35 568.76 570.42 572.19 573.25 574.32 579.80 581.36 581.40 581.67 583.36 583.50 583.87 585.61 587.74 589.93 596.18 603.82 606.72 607.71 615.65 620.91 641.38 642.67 643.65 646.81 647.32 648.00 648.45 649.31 658.56 658.70 671.99 674.74 684.34 688.80 702.18 711.54 744.10 748.87 755.19 759.02 763.89 776.05 782.90 788.58 794.30 799.98 816.43 819.16 823.99 824.89 845.82 851.96 2008 rank 2007 rank Metropolitan area 5-yr job growth 2002–2007 1-yr job growth 2006–2007 5-yr wages/salaries growth 2001–2006 1-yr wages/salaries growth 2005–2006 Job growth (3/07–3/08) 5-yr relative HT GDP growth 2002–2007 1-yr relative HT GDP growth 2006–2007 High-Tech GDP LQ # of HT GDP LQs over 1 Population 2007 Overall index 2007 Value Rank 2007 Value Rank 2006 Value Rank 2006 Value Rank Growth Rank 2007 Value Rank 2007 Value Rank 2007 Value Rank 2007 Value Rank (Thousands) Best-Performing Cities 2008 Complete Results: 2008 Best-Performing Small Cities 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 3 6 1 2 18 10 30 14 7 27 17 47 32 81 42 33 36 12 29 54 5 43 35 41 25 38 56 24 69 13 31 20 46 57 51 16 79 67 26 78 23 50 130 28 109 75 88 70 45 90 126 52 73 39 98 93 140 95 64 91 108 40 21 97 72 92 78* 76 134 86 60 77 119 112 152 85 128 84 Midland, TX MSA Coeur d'Alene, ID MSA Bend, OR MSA St. George, UT MSA Grand Junction, CO MSA Warner Robins, GA MSA Longview, TX MSA Bellingham, WA MSA Prescott, AZ MSA Odessa, TX MSA Las Cruces, NM MSA Cheyenne, WY MSA Yuma, AZ MSA Santa Fe, NM MSA Bismarck, ND MSA Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA MSA Fargo, ND-MN MSA Charlottesville, VA MSA Auburn-Opelika, AL MSA Gainesville, GA MSA Winchester, VA-WV MSA Greenville, NC MSA Sioux Falls, SD MSA Billings, MT MSA Iowa City, IA MSA Tyler, TX MSA Waco, TX MSA Morgantown, WV MSA Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA MSA Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL MSA Hattiesburg, MS MSA Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL MSA Bowling Green, KY MSA Anniston-Oxford, AL MSA St. Joseph, MO-KS MSA Harrisonburg, VA MSA Athens-Clarke County, GA MSA College Station-Bryan, TX MSA Medford, OR MSA Abilene, TX MSA Salisbury, MD MSA Tuscaloosa, AL MSA Pueblo, CO MSA Laredo, TX MSA Pascagoula, MS MSA Rochester, MN MSA State College, PA MSA Johnson City, TN MSA Dover, DE MSA Grand Forks, ND-MN MSA Florence, SC MSA Chico, CA MSA Valdosta, GA MSA Dubuque, IA MSA Bloomington, IN MSA Eau Claire, WI MSA Burlington, NC MSA St. Cloud, MN MSA Redding, CA MSA Joplin, MO MSA Wichita Falls, TX MSA Missoula, MT MSA Flagstaff, AZ MSA Ithaca, NY MSA Columbia, MO MSA Rapid City, SD MSA Bremerton-Silverdale, WA MSA Yakima, WA MSA Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA MSA Dothan, AL MSA Napa, CA MSA Glens Falls, NY MSA Gulfport-Biloxi, MS MSA Lake Charles, LA MSA Janesville, WI MSA Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL MSA Kingston, NY MSA Alexandria, LA MSA 113.75 118.80 125.32 135.44 113.15 113.50 109.56 112.04 116.93 111.20 107.81 106.70 116.55 105.15 108.03 109.39 107.15 107.67 111.61 111.60 108.36 109.80 105.46 108.12 103.39 103.83 100.03 110.80 106.43 111.77 106.14 106.58 108.97 103.15 109.69 104.00 104.04 100.06 107.18 99.97 105.47 105.35 101.39 110.59 99.83 101.03 97.18 104.15 109.49 103.52 97.44 100.14 105.93 103.90 98.32 103.46 96.75 102.30 97.69 102.75 96.26 104.40 104.48 100.80 103.68 100.48 105.31 100.60 98.86 100.84 99.29 101.48 93.02 100.61 98.49 102.47 94.26 102.09 6 3 2 1 8 7 18 9 4 13 25 29 5 38 24 20 28 26 11 12 22 16 35 23 49 45 68 14 31 10 32 30 21 50 17 43 42 67 27 69 34 36 57 15 71 58 89 41 19 47 88 66 33 44 80 48 92 54 86 51 96 40 39 60 46 64 37 62 77 59 73 56 112 61 78 53 109 55 103.13 101.75 101.94 102.35 104.58 102.54 103.02 102.02 100.34 103.02 100.49 101.79 100.37 101.36 100.97 104.49 101.12 101.88 101.33 103.21 99.56 104.16 101.84 102.41 101.52 100.73 101.55 101.52 103.68 99.38 100.69 97.24 101.74 101.05 103.35 98.95 100.62 99.42 100.53 98.80 99.30 100.85 102.01 101.14 101.19 100.03 99.79 100.12 99.81 100.04 102.26 99.89 100.30 99.61 99.70 100.34 102.13 101.18 98.77 100.61 99.00 100.24 99.88 99.92 100.24 100.13 98.68 99.77 100.12 100.69 100.11 99.25 107.93 101.43 98.41 100.57 98.71 100.84 8 22 18 13 2 11 9 16 51 9 49 21 50 30 38 3 35 19 31 7 84 4 20 12 27 41 26 27 5 88 42 117 23 37 6 99 44 87 47 102 89 39 17 34 32 66 74 61 73 65 14 70 54 82 77 51 15 33 103 45 98 57 71 69 57 60 106 76 61 42 63 92 1 29 111 46 105 40 123.50 121.83 129.81 147.45 114.95 117.51 112.92 113.49 128.68 117.84 117.78 116.28 119.01 109.18 110.83 118.22 109.59 109.46 117.06 104.73 109.88 102.51 107.98 109.41 103.50 106.32 102.79 108.85 104.80 122.69 110.07 125.16 110.62 108.62 100.10 101.00 102.70 107.63 108.56 105.11 108.19 109.58 95.87 114.74 96.73 103.72 103.36 101.01 111.45 103.29 95.89 102.95 106.06 104.12 97.92 99.76 91.17 101.90 103.34 98.12 97.79 105.29 113.81 100.96 101.73 103.19 113.83 102.21 101.12 102.95 103.40 102.05 95.75 99.17 98.80 97.46 102.78 106.98 5 7 2 1 15 12 20 19 3 10 11 14 8 30 22 9 26 28 13 45 25 60 35 29 48 39 56 31 44 6 24 4 23 32 72 69 59 36 33 43 34 27 93 16 88 47 50 68 21 52 92 54 40 46 79 73 110 63 51 78 82 42 18 70 64 53 17 61 67 54 49 62 94 75 76 84 57 37 110.89 104.77 107.24 110.09 104.50 100.68 104.82 100.33 105.54 111.86 100.88 104.55 101.35 101.81 100.55 114.37 100.63 101.68 101.84 101.40 100.79 100.36 100.58 100.25 99.34 100.08 98.39 101.09 95.55 101.74 104.99 99.32 99.76 99.41 101.29 100.99 99.82 101.44 99.04 101.67 99.81 101.77 99.05 99.70 97.45 99.15 99.12 98.98 98.77 98.29 99.97 100.43 99.05 98.55 97.41 100.02 99.35 99.89 99.88 99.93 102.18 99.81 101.80 98.78 99.14 98.66 99.82 100.23 98.19 99.22 98.63 98.00 94.63 100.24 102.77 98.97 103.73 99.45 3 9 5 4 11 30 8 36 6 2 28 10 24 16 33 1 31 20 15 23 29 35 32 37 58 40 80 26 119 19 7 59 51 56 25 27 46 22 68 21 48 18 66 52 94 63 65 71 74 81 42 34 66 79 95 41 57 44 45 43 14 48 17 73 64 75 46 39 83 62 76 86 122 38 13 72 12 55 3.45% 5.86% 1.27% 2.41% 4.42% 1.01% 2.09% 3.24% 1.64% 5.24% 1.53% 2.77% 2.01% 1.24% 2.17% 1.61% 1.70% 0.35% 3.51% 2.13% 2.09% 2.33% 2.35% 1.41% 0.77% 1.07% 3.14% 1.97% 5.19% 0.48% 2.29% 0.06% 2.27% 0.36% 0.28% 1.26% 1.35% 0.84% 0.60% 2.21% 0.29% 0.50% 1.13% 0.82% 14.10% 1.79% 1.91% 1.08% -0.61% 1.87% 3.77% 0.94% 0.57% 0.36% 1.54% 0.36% 1.38% 1.07% 1.05% 0.48% 1.12% -0.69% -0.34% 1.08% 0.71% 2.18% 0.58% 2.80% 1.84% -1.00% 0.97% 1.47% 2.81% -0.61% -0.57% 0.86% -0.64% 0.53% 9 2 44 15 5 54 25 10 35 3 38 14 27 46 22 36 34 81 8 23 24 17 16 41 62 52 11 28 4 72 18 88 19 78 84 45 43 59 66 20 83 70 47 60 1 32 29 50 100 30 6 57 68 80 37 79 42 51 53 71 48 103 95 49 64 21 67 13 31 114 56 39 12 101 99 58 102 69 146.80 150.98 120.34 124.50 100.32 158.47 114.99 106.64 108.56 87.68 171.51 96.41 161.89 141.32 104.90 98.31 114.05 104.91 126.17 96.52 126.89 84.48 58.64 113.31 171.08 116.95 147.81 97.41 81.10 142.23 106.68 140.15 111.78 132.28 112.90 116.04 107.17 119.89 118.18 109.18 107.32 108.38 97.81 101.89 124.59 80.14 99.86 119.49 151.27 115.97 98.68 103.52 99.11 135.54 118.45 106.75 108.87 81.90 101.33 116.83 105.86 88.20 79.75 90.16 92.52 74.03 63.10 87.55 111.22 101.25 91.38 92.58 99.08 81.32 108.99 111.76 75.25 77.63 8 6 21 18 70 4 34 55 49 99 1 85 3 10 59 79 36 58 16 84 15 104 121 38 2 28 7 82 108 9 54 11 41 13 39 30 52 24 27 46 51 50 81 66 17 110 72 25 5 31 76 62 74 12 26 53 48 106 68 29 57 96 112 93 91 116 119 100 43 69 92 90 75 107 47 42 115 114 97.93 98.26 100.39 107.74 105.92 100.39 97.98 100.19 112.94 108.99 99.61 101.06 115.87 102.06 105.49 105.03 102.35 103.20 98.51 101.10 99.69 104.40 104.80 97.70 110.11 99.66 101.67 100.48 103.37 92.93 96.89 106.55 97.78 97.61 100.27 100.98 126.09 100.16 94.35 102.34 100.56 96.88 103.84 98.11 94.90 99.24 98.71 85.24 98.19 104.08 101.65 97.80 99.52 100.37 102.03 100.63 102.14 96.65 106.57 100.17 99.92 102.50 73.81 95.77 101.57 100.45 95.55 97.74 102.86 100.23 95.96 93.78 100.29 99.34 101.86 100.10 102.12 94.84 87 80 51 7 12 51 85 59 3 6 70 41 2 31 13 14 26 23 77 40 68 16 15 91 4 69 34 49 22 119 95 10 89 92 56 43 1 61 113 27 47 96 20 83 109 73 76 121 82 19 35 88 71 54 32 46 29 99 9 60 66 25 124 107 38 50 108 90 24 58 104 116 55 72 33 62 30 110 0.77 0.66 0.75 0.45 0.57 0.87 0.79 0.77 0.48 0.36 0.94 0.52 0.30 0.62 0.64 0.29 0.69 0.92 0.37 0.46 0.71 0.82 0.61 0.56 0.81 0.76 0.87 0.42 1.25 0.68 0.41 1.12 0.27 0.73 0.63 0.70 0.58 0.77 0.63 0.53 0.75 0.34 0.55 0.24 0.75 0.79 0.93 0.91 0.72 0.43 0.42 0.53 0.42 0.59 1.39 0.67 0.54 0.51 0.65 0.47 1.01 0.53 0.60 0.98 0.50 0.44 0.65 0.26 0.36 0.47 0.56 1.06 0.50 0.43 0.43 0.30 0.67 0.29 26 51 33 88 64 15 22 26 83 109 10 75 114 58 54 116 42 12 108 87 40 18 59 67 20 30 15 96 3 45 99 5 120 36 56 41 63 26 56 72 33 111 69 122 33 22 11 14 37 90 96 72 96 61 1 48 71 77 52 84 7 72 60 8 79 89 52 121 109 84 67 6 79 90 90 114 48 116 7 5 7 3 5 6 6 4 4 1 6 5 3 7 5 2 5 8 1 4 8 2 5 4 6 8 5 2 4 5 1 9 0 7 1 9 2 5 6 4 8 2 7 0 6 6 9 5 3 2 2 7 5 7 7 3 5 4 6 3 6 3 3 7 3 3 4 1 1 4 5 4 4 3 5 0 9 0 10 33 10 79 33 22 22 56 56 110 22 33 79 10 33 98 33 6 110 56 6 98 33 56 22 6 33 98 56 33 110 1 120 10 110 1 98 33 22 56 6 98 10 120 22 22 1 33 79 98 98 10 33 10 10 79 33 56 22 79 22 79 79 10 79 79 56 110 110 56 33 56 56 79 33 120 1 120 126 134 154 134 139 131 204 193 213 127 199 86 191 143 103 201 192 193 131 180 121 172 227 150 147 199 228 118 229 164 138 181 116 113 123 118 187 203 199 159 120 205 155 233 152 181 145 194 152 98 199 219 130 92 184 158 145 186 179 171 148 106 127 101 162 120 237 233 163 139 133 129 232 192 160 143 182 150 100.00 132.66 133.38 134.66 135.23 166.26 167.56 195.03 201.82 206.02 210.47 212.60 221.06 222.94 226.93 230.55 231.17 232.35 241.99 252.56 258.27 259.44 261.56 278.13 278.87 294.70 296.94 299.21 309.07 309.53 313.14 324.24 333.92 341.49 347.34 354.11 354.27 356.61 363.63 369.42 370.69 381.35 384.59 386.43 391.36 394.31 402.37 402.77 403.77 409.37 409.65 412.52 413.40 415.47 418.84 420.87 422.59 429.83 429.99 430.14 430.51 442.57 443.75 446.93 455.53 456.92 457.43 478.99 480.00 482.67 483.09 487.35 492.05 496.43 497.48 500.63 501.16 504.35 2008 rank 2007 rank Metropolitan area 5-yr job growth 2002–2007 1-yr job growth 2006–2007 5-yr wages/salaries growth 2001–2006 1-yr wages/salaries growth 2005–2006 Job growth (3/07–3/08) 5-yr relative HT GDP growth 2002–2007 1-yr relative HT GDP growth 2006–2007 High-Tech GDP LQ # of HT GDP LQs over 1 Population 2007 Overall index 2007 Value Rank 2007 Value Rank 2006 Value Rank 2006 Value Rank Growth Rank 2007 Value Rank 2007 Value Rank 2007 Value Rank 2007 Value Rank (Thousands) 51 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 150 142 104 149 87 127 113 83 122 125 99 136 94 100 106 143 133 132 177 105 145 131 137 154 138 107 155 158 121 146 120 118 166 159 117 163 151 165 164 111 173 179 168 167 178 174 Decatur, AL MSA Bloomington-Normal, IL MSA Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR MSA Bangor, ME MSA Appleton, WI MSA Lewiston-Auburn, ME MSA Jackson, TN MSA Pittsfield, MA MSA Champaign-Urbana, IL MSA Burlington-South Burlington, VT MSA Wausau, WI MSA Jefferson City, MO MSA Johnstown, PA MSA Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA MSA Rocky Mount, NC MSA Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH MSA Terre Haute, IN MSA Elkhart-Goshen, IN MSA Niles-Benton Harbor, MI MSA Albany, GA MSA Oshkosh-Neenah, WI MSA Altoona, PA MSA Barnstable Town, MA MSA Macon, GA MSA La Crosse, WI-MN MSA Decatur, IL MSA Sheboygan, WI MSA Topeka, KS MSA Lafayette, IN MSA Springfield, IL MSA Monroe, LA MSA Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ MSA Sioux City, IA-NE-SD MSA Racine, WI MSA Dalton, GA MSA Williamsport, PA MSA Muncie, IN MSA Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI MSA Mansfield, OH MSA Wheeling, WV-OH MSA Anderson, SC MSA Springfield, OH MSA Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI MSA Lima, OH MSA Battle Creek, MI MSA Jackson, MI MSA 98.28 93.60 98.89 95.26 99.75 96.39 100.55 96.46 94.23 96.83 99.85 98.47 99.26 97.94 97.54 95.50 92.49 102.51 90.11 97.94 100.42 97.14 96.28 95.96 98.09 95.20 98.98 90.13 95.47 92.83 92.59 97.94 95.45 95.86 95.98 95.07 90.22 95.65 89.51 96.01 95.31 90.85 89.21 91.32 90.00 87.63 81 111 76 106 72 94 63 93 110 91 70 79 74 83 87 102 115 52 120 83 65 90 95 99 82 107 75 119 103 113 114 83 104 100 98 108 118 101 122 97 105 117 123 116 121 124 101.56 100.05 99.62 99.62 99.61 100.29 99.70 100.01 99.45 99.19 99.09 100.31 99.03 98.12 101.59 99.21 99.23 97.05 100.14 98.92 99.69 99.83 98.76 98.56 98.89 99.78 99.26 100.29 100.00 99.26 98.29 97.59 101.09 98.58 97.55 99.45 98.63 97.18 96.88 98.62 100.52 97.66 96.89 96.65 97.23 96.61 25 64 80 80 82 55 77 67 85 95 96 53 97 113 24 94 93 120 59 100 79 72 104 110 101 75 90 55 68 90 112 115 36 109 116 85 107 119 122 108 48 114 121 123 118 124 91.54 96.70 105.46 94.95 97.20 99.28 97.90 97.23 94.52 97.35 101.34 95.00 96.41 102.74 89.10 92.70 96.05 106.87 90.47 93.97 94.47 94.69 100.52 92.65 95.70 93.47 97.86 90.33 93.82 90.74 95.70 101.49 88.43 95.01 97.51 90.16 81.84 89.88 88.51 98.44 88.21 80.75 82.78 90.99 91.32 89.23 108 89 41 99 87 74 80 86 101 85 66 98 90 58 118 106 91 38 113 103 102 100 71 107 95 105 81 114 104 112 95 65 120 97 83 115 123 116 119 77 121 124 122 111 109 117 98.15 99.64 99.58 97.71 97.21 98.99 98.10 97.55 97.80 99.02 98.57 96.87 98.27 99.77 97.60 98.62 96.89 96.46 97.77 95.78 96.70 96.50 97.31 96.86 99.24 97.22 97.23 97.20 95.98 96.64 99.28 97.35 96.82 97.55 96.50 96.44 93.86 96.96 94.99 96.84 97.77 97.20 96.70 96.14 95.37 94.34 84 53 54 90 100 70 85 92 87 69 78 105 82 50 91 77 104 114 88 118 109 112 97 106 61 99 98 101 117 111 60 96 108 92 112 115 124 103 121 107 88 101 109 116 120 123 1.74% 0.11% 1.43% 2.04% -0.20% 0.11% 0.78% -1.02% -0.41% 0.45% -0.55% 0.46% -0.01% -4.96% -0.79% 0.98% -1.41% -1.23% 3.63% -0.18% -0.11% 0.32% -1.15% 0.74% -0.13% 0.18% -1.09% 0.42% 0.44% -0.09% 0.42% -0.97% -0.86% -0.87% -0.88% -0.56% -0.74% 0.68% -1.62% -0.88% -0.82% -0.76% -3.51% -0.70% -2.03% -2.21% 33 87 40 26 94 86 61 115 96 74 97 73 89 124 107 55 119 118 7 93 91 82 117 63 92 85 116 77 75 90 76 113 109 110 112 98 105 65 120 111 108 106 123 104 121 122 109.25 128.96 99.70 92.61 109.44 120.29 115.38 123.57 122.63 79.85 98.38 106.41 104.90 97.99 80.30 102.66 115.26 92.88 84.18 114.64 120.23 98.59 87.84 89.13 97.28 103.53 62.46 78.99 92.85 85.47 102.10 87.75 50.73 95.67 87.16 87.29 101.57 52.50 112.34 100.26 70.52 33.97 90.02 103.26 113.89 68.68 45 14 73 89 44 22 32 19 20 111 78 56 59 80 109 64 33 87 105 35 23 77 97 95 83 61 120 113 88 103 65 98 123 86 102 101 67 122 40 71 117 124 94 63 37 118 98.38 98.72 83.96 100.94 100.73 99.72 93.59 104.29 103.46 97.13 100.24 101.44 98.05 97.42 76.01 101.59 107.32 104.40 96.03 100.39 98.23 97.95 100.04 98.81 94.38 100.55 101.06 106.40 96.76 98.39 95.91 87.26 99.97 102.23 95.96 94.46 100.08 93.94 101.62 96.31 93.47 109.58 96.54 94.04 96.11 96.74 79 75 122 44 45 67 117 18 21 94 57 39 84 93 123 37 8 16 103 51 81 86 64 74 112 48 41 11 97 78 106 120 65 28 104 111 63 115 36 101 118 5 100 114 102 98 0.41 0.77 0.28 0.69 0.69 0.32 0.47 0.78 0.72 1.34 0.43 0.57 0.82 0.76 0.95 0.51 1.18 0.49 0.38 0.64 0.52 0.67 0.81 0.78 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.43 0.72 0.92 0.57 0.50 0.38 0.39 0.86 0.59 0.68 0.55 0.76 0.39 0.20 0.20 0.68 0.40 0.28 0.33 99 26 118 42 42 113 84 24 37 2 90 64 18 30 9 77 4 82 106 54 75 48 20 24 90 99 102 90 37 12 64 79 106 104 17 61 45 69 30 104 123 123 45 102 118 112 2 3 0 4 5 3 3 3 7 5 5 2 4 5 9 4 6 4 4 7 3 5 6 5 4 4 5 3 3 7 2 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 4 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 98 79 120 56 33 79 79 79 10 33 33 98 56 33 1 56 22 56 56 10 79 33 22 33 56 56 33 79 79 10 98 56 56 79 79 33 33 56 56 98 110 110 56 110 110 98 149 164 134 149 218 107 113 130 221 207 130 146 145 158 146 161 169 198 160 164 162 126 222 230 131 109 115 229 192 207 172 156 143 195 134 117 115 174 126 145 180 140 202 105 137 163 510.59 520.94 526.84 536.94 537.71 539.89 542.38 544.04 544.23 555.13 557.15 557.67 561.98 567.64 569.70 572.86 578.15 584.80 594.23 595.03 597.76 600.93 608.89 621.82 625.05 626.89 631.98 636.68 641.85 642.21 647.98 673.94 677.60 682.47 698.59 700.66 708.31 711.91 712.64 713.95 731.31 772.30 775.15 794.59 803.00 855.37 * Indicates this city’s position on last year’s large metros list. Best-Performing Cities 2008 Best-Performing Cities 2008 References 1. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Statistical and Science Policy Branch, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Bulletin, no. 04-03. 2. The latest twelve-month job performance calculates the percentage change from the same month in the previous year (e.g., the percentage change in jobs from March 2007 to March 2008). The percentage change is a measure of recent momentum, capturing which metropolitan areas have improved their performance in recent months. The annual growth rate measures the percentage change from calendar year 2006 to 2007. While annual growth rate does not indicate whether high growth was achieved or diminished in the first or latter half of the year, the twelve-month growth rate captures that aspect. 3. An industry’s location quotient (LQ) measures the level of employment concentration in a given location (in this case, an MSA) relative to the industry average across the United States. A metro with an employment LQ higher than 1.0 in a high-tech industry, for example, has a greater concentration of that industry than the nation has, on average. It is an indication of whether a metro has successfully attracted an above-average mass of hightech industries. Metros that exceed the national average in high-tech industry LQ have an edge in attracting and retaining high-tech firms because of their dense employment base and other positive agglomeration, or clustering, factors. 4. Ross DeVol and Armen Bedroussian, The Economic Outlook for the United States and California: Slow Growth or Recession?, Executive Summary and Research Findings (California Center, Milken Institute, 2008). 5. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas El Paso Branch, “Crossroads: Economic Trends in the Desert Southwest,” no. 2 (2007), http://www.dallasfed.org/research/crossroads/2007/cross0702a.html. 6. Answers.com, “U.S. City Guide: Provo, Utah,” http://www.answers.com/topic/provo-economy. 7. Census Bureau, “Population Estimates: Net Migration, PRV” (2007). 8. Michael D. Helmar, “Précis Metro for Raleigh” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 9. Triangle Business Journal, Triangle Business Journal Book of Lists (2008). 10. Economic Development of Corporation of Utah, “Utah Major Employers Guide” (2007). 11. City-Data.com, “Salt Lake City: Economy,” http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-West/Salt-Lake-CityEconomy.html. 12. Austin Chamber of Commerce, “Business & Industry,” http://www.austin-chamber.org/DoBusiness/ GreaterAustinProfile/business.html. 13. Ibid. 14. The University of Alabama, Alabama Economic Outlook 2008 (Center for Business and Economic Research, Culverhouse College of Commerce, University of Alabama, 2008). 15. Chamber of Commerce of Huntsville/Madison County, “2007 Aerospace/Defense Industry Profile: Huntsville/ Madison County Alabama” (2007). 16. Michael D. Helmar, “Précis Metro for Wilmington” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 17. Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, “Cape Fear Future,” http://www.wilmingtonchamber.org/ capefearfuture.html. 18. McAllen Chamber of Commerce, “McAllen Chamber Economic Profile” (2008). 19. Ibid. 20. City-Data.com, “Tacoma: Economy,” http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-West/Tacoma-Economy.html. 21. Andrew Gledhill, “Précis Metro for Tacoma” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 22. ———, “Précis Metro for Olympia” (Moody’s Eonomy.com Inc., 2008). 23. Morgan McGowan, “Précis Metro for Charleston” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 53 Best-Performing Cities 2008 24. Harry Wessel, “Nemours Orlando Children’s Hospital Gets Green Light,” Orlando Sentinel, February 20, 2008. 25. Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, “Major Employers in Kern County” (2008). 26. Copperas Cove Economic Development Corporation, “Fort Hood, the ‘Great Place’” (2008). 27. Glenn Wingard, “Précis Metro for Lafayette” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 28. Military Transformation Task Force, “Economic Impact of the U.S. Department of Defense in San Antonio” (2006). 29. Edward Freidman, “Précis Metro for Houston” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 30. Jessica Mintz, “Boeing Ups 20-Year Plane Market Forecast,” Seattle Times, July 9, 2008. 31. Augustine Fauche, “Précis Metro for Ogden” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 32. Myrtle Beach International Airport, “MYR Airport Expansion Program” (2008). 33. Sean Maher, “Précis Metro for Greeley” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 34. Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce, “Economic Profile” (2008). 35. Alexander Miron, “Précis Metro for Nashville” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 36. Victor Godinez, “AT&T Moving Headquarters to Dallas from San Antonio,” Dallas Morning News, June 28, 2008. 37. Business Press, “Georgia Ports Equal Prosperity for Savannah,” WSAV.com, July 2, 2008. 38. The Greater Des Moines Partnership, “Major Employers” (2008). 39. Steven G. Cochrane, “Précis Metro for Riverside” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 40. “Fortune 500 List for ’08 Features 12 Georgia Companies,” Atlanta Business Chronicle, April 22, 2008. 41. Maria Saporta, “Apparently, AT&T’s Heart Deep in Texas,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 3, 2008. 42. Rebecca Seweryn, “Précis Metro for Atlanta” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 43. Steven G. Cochrane, “Précis Metro for Los Angeles” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 44. Ryan Sweet, “Précis Metro for Philadelphia” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 45. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Reductions to Current Employment Statistics Metropolitan Area Series,” http://www.bls.gov/sae/msareductions.htm. 46. Robert W. Gilmer and Charles James, “Spotlight: Midland and Odessa Permian Basin Cities Ride Oil Boom Again,” Southwest Economy, no. 2 (2008). 47. Mella McEwen, “Midland-Odessa Economy Stronger Than Thought,” http://www.mywesttexas.com/ articles/2008/04/02/news/top_stories/doc47f39af37ead0924068995.prt. 48. Mike McLean, “2008 Economic Outlook: Strong Sectors to Keep Kootenai Growth on Track,” Journal of Business 22, no. 26 (2007). 49. Global Insight and National City Corporation, “Housing Prices in America” (2008). 50. Glenn Wingard, “Précis Metro for Grand Junction” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 51. Gene Rector, “Commander: RAFB Rumors Are Baseless: Owen Uses Address to Reassure, Challenge Robins Employees,” Macon Telegraph, November 1, 2007. 52. Arnold Slesers, “Précis Metro for Longview” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 53. Andrew Gledhill, “Précis Metro for Bellingham” (Moody’s Economy.com Inc., 2008). 54. Robert W. Gilmer and Charles James, “Spotlight: Midland and Odessa Permian Basin Cities Ride Oil Boom Again,” Southwest Economy, no. 2 (2008). 54 Best-Performing Cities 2008 About the Authors Ross C. DeVol is Director of Regional Economics at the Milken Institute. He oversees the Institute’s research efforts on the dynamics of comparative regional growth performance, as well as technology and its impact on regional and national economies. He is an expert on the new intangible economy and how regions can prepare themselves to compete in it. DeVol authored the groundbreaking study America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development, and Risks for Metropolitan Areas, an examination of how clusters of high-technology industries across the country affect economic growth in those regions, and created the State Technology and Science Index, which ranks the 50 states in terms of their technology and science assets. Prior to joining the Institute, DeVol was senior vice president of Global Insight, Inc. (formerly Wharton Econometric Forecasting), where he supervised the Regional Economic Services group. DeVol supervised the re-specification of Global Insight’s regional econometric models and played an instrumental role on similar work on its U.S. Macro Model, originally developed by Nobel laureate Lawrence Klein. He was the firm’s chief spokesman on international trade. He also served as the head of Global Insight’s U.S. Long-Term Macro Service and authored numerous special reports on behalf of the U.S. Macro Group. He is ranked among the “Super Stars” of Think Tank Scholars by International Economy magazine. DeVol earned his M.A. in economics at Ohio University. Armen Bedroussian is a Research Economist with the Milken Institute. He has extensive graduate training in econometrics, statistical methods, and other modeling techniques. Before joining the Institute, he was an economics teaching assistant at the University of California, Riverside, where he taught intermediate micro- and macroeconomics. Since coming to the Institute, Bedroussian has coauthored numerous studies, including The Impact of 9/11 on U.S. Metropolitan Economies, America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to U.S. and State Economies, Economic Benefits of Proposed University of Central Florida College of Medicine, and An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease. In addition to co-authoring annual reports on Best-Performing Cities, Bedroussian is also responsible for compiling the Milken Institute’s Cost of Doing Business Index; both of these studies have gained increasing popularity among business and policy leaders across the nation. Bedroussian earned his B.S. in applied mathematics and a master’s degree in economics from UC-Riverside. Kevin Klowden is Managing Economist of the California Center and is part of the Regional Economics group at the Milken Institute, specializing in the study of demographic and spatial factors, and how these are influenced by public policy and affect regional economies. He has written and spoken on the role of transportation infrastructure as it relates to the movement of goods and people in the development of regional competitiveness. Klowden has a strong interest in the role of technology and media, and has spoken and organized panels addressing the subject; he recently authored The Writers’ Strike of 2007–2008: The Economic Impact of Digital Distribution, a study that examined the underlying issues surrounding the recent Hollywood writers’ strike and calculated the costs of that work stoppage to the overall California economy. He coordinated the Institute’s Los Angeles Economy Project, seeking public policy and private-sector solutions to challenges the region faces amid a growing unskilled labor pool. He served on the editorial board of Millennium, the international affairs journal of the London School of Economics, where he earned a master’s degree in the politics of world economy. Klowden also earned a master’s in economic geography from the University of Chicago. 55 Best-Performing Cities 2008 Soojung Kim is a Senior Research Analyst in the Regional Economics group at the Milken Institute. Her research interests include regional economics, economic development, and infrastructure. Her expertise covers statistical analysis, econometric modeling, transportation network analysis, and GIS applications. Kim has co-authored An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease and the 2007 edition of Best-Performing Cities. She also has contributed to the Institute’s Cost-of-Doing-Business Index and its 2008 State Technology and Science Index. Kim received her Ph.D. in urban planning from the University of Southern California. She received a bachelor’s degree from Yonsei University and a master’s degree in city planning from Seoul National University in Korea. 56 1250 Fourth Street • Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: 310.570.4600 • Fax: 310.570.4601 E-mail: info@milkeninstitute.org www.milkeninstitute.org © 2008 Milken Institute