Best-Performing Cities 2009 - Milken Institute€¦ · About the Milken Institute The Milken...

Where America’s Jobs Are Created and SustainedNovember 2009

Best-Performing Cities 2009

Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice Flor Hynek

AUSTIN, TEXASBest-Performing City

Where America’s Jobs Are Created and SustainedNovember 2009


Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice Flor Hynek

About the Milken Institute

The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank whose mission is to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity. We put research to work with the goal of revitalizing regions and finding new ways to generate capital for people with original ideas.

We focus on:

human capital: the talent, knowledge, and experience of people, and their value to organizations, economies, and society; financial capital: innovations that allocate financial resources efficiently, especially to those who ordinarily would not have access to them, but who can best use them to build companies, create jobs, accelerate life-saving medical research, and solve long-standing social and economic problems; and social capital: the bonds of society that underlie economic advancement, including schools, health care, cultural institutions, and government services.

By creating ways to spread the benefits of human, financial, and social capital to as many people as possible—by democratizing capital—we hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.

We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and publicly supported.

© 2009 Milken Institute

About Greenstreet Real Estate Partners

Greenstreet Real Estate Partners is an investment and asset management company operating throughout the United States since 1983. Its principals apply creative, entrepreneurial strategies that consistently deliver strong operating results and financial returns. Greenstreet has developed a streamlined approach to investment with an opportunistic focus on high-growth markets and value creation acquisitions. Greenstreet’s principals possess extensive experience navigating volatile and distressed markets that uniquely positions the firm to take advantage of market turbulence. Because the firm invests the equity and capital of its principals, it can execute transactions quickly and apply its investment strategies to a diverse range of property types.

Greenstreet’s proficiency in asset management is an ideal complement to its investment expertise. Through financial structuring, adroit leasing strategies, renovation, repositioning, or redevelopment, Greenstreet consistently optimizes property value within its hold periods. Greenstreet’s asset management portfolio includes more than 800 educational facilities owned by Knowledge Learning Corporation, operating as KinderCare and Knowledge Beginnings centers. Greenstreet’s principals and executive team have completed more than $15 billion in transactional volume in public and private structures.

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

Introduction........................................................................................................................ 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes.............................................................................................................................53

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

Table of Contents

1

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The Milken Institute and Greenstreet Real Estate Partners’ Best-Performing Cities index is updated annually to provide an objective scorecard for the economic vibrancy of metropolitan areas (metros) across the nation. It is clear from the wide media attention generated by this report that policymakers, business leaders, and average citizens alike are eager to know exactly which parts of the country are thriving and which areas are struggling.

We utilize a range of indicators, but focus most heavily on measures of job creation and sustainability—factors that are top of mind for everyone today. But all jobs are not created equal, of course. To determine the quality of jobs being created, we also incorporate wage gains and various measures of technology concentration and growth into the index results.

Among this year’s key findings:

• The U.S. economy was on thin ice before the full-blown financial crisis erupted in September 2008, but it plummeted afterwards, witnessing the biggest decline in real GDP since World War II. Due to the challenging macroeconomic environment, even the top-performing cities did not experience robust growth, but some did manage to post modest job gains.

• In our rankings of the nation’s 200 largest cities, eighteen Southern metros, six Western metros, and one Midwestern metro made the top 25.

• Texas had an impressive performance, claiming four of the top 5 spots and nine of the top 25 spots among the 200 largest metros. It accounted for four of the top 10 best-performing small metros as well.

• Austin–Round Rock, Texas, garnered the number-one position among the 200 largest metros and seems poised to be among a handful of cities that will add jobs in 2009.

• Among the nation’s ten largest metros, Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, remains the top performer. In the full rankings of all 200 cities, it moved up from 16th place last year to 5th place overall this year.

• The metro experiencing the largest gain was Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford, Connecticut, which moved up a remarkable 101 spots to take 48th place.

• Midland, Texas, maintained its hold on the top position among the nation’s small metros, courtesy of robust oil and gas exploration activity.

In good years, the cities that dominate the index exhibit dynamic growth, but given the magnitude of the economic challenges we have recently faced, it is not surprising that mild increases in employment constituted the nation’s “best performances” this time around. Only an elite group of cities experienced meaningful job growth in 2008 and just a couple are likely to manage an increase in jobs for 2009. It is especially important this year to look at individual cities’ performances in relation to the nation as a whole and to each other.

The economy was already fragile before the financial panic and credit crisis that gripped the globe in late September 2008, but the landscape fundamentally shifted after the dramatic events of that month. Rising default rates in subprime mortgages and the escalating problems in securitized products built on the shaky foundation of those loans highlighted the startling degree to which risk had been underpriced in the financial system.

2


The fallout was severe: between the second quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009, the economy contracted by 3.8 percent, the biggest drop since the Great Depression. Consumers cut back discretionary spending as the value of their assets plunged and joblessness rose. Businesses, facing deteriorating demand and fearing a potential depression, slashed investment. In combination with collapsing residential and commercial construction activity, manufacturers cut production of durable consumer goods and investment goods. Industrial production fell by nearly 14 percent. The reverberations were felt in export markets as the economies of America’s major trading partners also entered recession. U.S. exports fell by 25 percent by the spring of 2009.

The impact of all this contraction was painful for Main Streets and households across the country. Typically, as regional economic growth patterns diverge, people move to areas with better job prospects. However, due to the collapse in housing demand and prices, mobility was constrained. Many families and individuals didn’t relocate because they couldn’t sell their homes or found themselves underwater.

The cities with the best performance this year notably didn’t experience large housing bubbles earlier this decade, and thus avoided the inevitable correction. A key ingredient for avoiding this boom-and-bust housing cycle was a low proportion of subprime mortgages relative to total mortgage originations in a metro area. Another attribute for success was a heavy reliance on the oil and gas industry, either as a headquarters or for exploration. Additionally, several top-performing metros were centers of activity in alternative fuels and clean technology initiatives. Having a high share of service industries proved to be an advantage as well. Despite the downturn in a number of high-tech industries, several of the leading metros remain hotbeds of incubation in technology.

The weakest performers were at the epicenter of the meltdown in subprime mortgages and the attendant decline in home prices and construction activity. Metropolitan areas with a high exposure to durable manufacturing also experienced massive job losses and unemployment rates above 12 percent. Major port cities such as Los Angeles witnessed diminished trade and the loss of logistics-related jobs. Even technology production centers saw demand plunge as domestic and foreign businesses curtailed investment in information, communications, software, and related services.

3

Executive Summary

The Top 25 Best-Performing Cities

Texas, which turned in an impressive performance in the 2008 index, did even better this year. Not only did Austin–Round Rock claim the top position but the state also garnered four of the top 5 slots along with nine of the top 25 slots. Houston turned in the best performance among the nation’s ten largest metros (based on population) and was 5th overall among the largest 200 metros—a remarkable accomplishment.

Table 1. Best-performing cities: Top 25 large metrosRank in 2009 index

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)2009rank

2008 rank

Austin-Round Rock, TX 1 4Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 2 13Salt Lake City, UT 3 3McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 4 7Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 5 16Durham, NC 6 21Olympia, WA 7 9Huntsville, AL 8 5Lafayette, LA 9 14Raleigh-Cary, NC 10 2San Antonio, TX 11 15Fort Worth-Arlington, TX* 12 29Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 13 23El Paso, TX 14 37Wichita, KS 15 45Corpus Christi, TX 16 88Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA* 17 17Baton Rouge, LA 18 40Tulsa, OK 19 72Greeley, CO 20 20Tacoma, WA* 21 8Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 22 48Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 23 54Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 24 67Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 25 41*Indicates metropolitan division

Rank in 2009 index

Source: Milken Institute.

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

Texas continued to benefit from its concentration of oil and gas activity, although 2009 has brought lower prices, causing momentum to wane. Nevertheless, the state’s favorable business climate, combined with a housing decline that has been relatively modest compared to that in other parts of the country, has placed Texas and its metros in an enviable position. Despite the fall in information and communication technologies, several Texas metros continued to attract corporate relocations from other states (particularly California), while emerging companies took root and expanded.

4


North Carolina had two metros, Durham and Raleigh-Cary, in the top 10 at 6th and 10th places, respectively. Washington State and Louisiana each placed three cities in the top 25, while Colorado placed two metros in the top 25 as well.

Strength in oil and gas exploration and technology explain these results. The South showed exceptional strength, with eighteen metros in the top 25, while the West had six and the Midwest had one lone entrant (Wichita, Kansas).

The impact of the plight of the domestic auto manufacturers is painfully clear in this year’s rankings. Michigan had seven metros in the bottom 10, and Ohio added two more.

This Year’s Best-Performing City

Austin-Round Rock, Texas, takes top honors in our Best-Performing Cities 2009 ranking. Austin managed to add jobs during 2008—no small feat in a dismal macroeconomic environment. It also seems poised to be among a handful of cities that will experience net job growth in 2009. Austin is joined by just one other metro, McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, in placing among the top 10 in job growth for the latest five-year period (2003-2008) and in the top 10 for 2008 alone.

The secret of Austin’s success is a unique combination: the stability afforded by being the state capital and the home of a major research university, plus the economic dynamism of a thriving technology cluster and professional services sector. Austin seems ready to benefit from its foray into clean energy technology as well.

The Ten Largest Cities

America’s largest metropolitan areas confront unique barriers to growth, including high density and minimal space for expansion. For this reason, it is appropriate to break out their performances separately. It isn’t reasonable to expect cities like Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago to grow at the same rate as Austin, Salt Lake City, or Durham. However, the big metro areas could take cues from the favorable business climates promoted by these fast-growing areas.

Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, remains the top performer this year among the ten largest metros. In the overall results for the 200 largest metros, it moved from 16th place last year to 5th place this year. A global leader in the oil and gas industry, with thousands of engineering and other technical and professional jobs, Houston ranked 7th in both job growth and wage and salary growth for the one-year period we examined. Its cost of doing business is substantially below the U.S. average, a rarity among the largest metro areas. Houston’s role as a major health services center has provided stability and helped to moderate the impacts of the national recession.

5

Executive Summary

The Biggest Gainers

Those cities experiencing the biggest gains on the Best-Performing Cities 2009 index share important similarities. First, residential construction activity wasn’t the driving force behind their growth from 2003 to 2006, so the falloff in this sector has had a smaller impact. Another commonality was a small dependence on durable goods manufacturing, especially consumer and business equipment production, and a larger share of economic activity in the services sector, which is less sensitive to the business cycle.

Fourteen of the top 20 biggest gainers are located in the Northeast. New York State had six metros on the list, while Massachusetts accounted for five and Connecticut recorded three. Most metros improved from positions of 150 or higher in the 2008 index.

The metro posting the largest gain was Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford, Connecticut, which moved up a whopping 101 spots to 48th place. While its major insurance firms cut jobs, the losses were minimal given the threat of further downsizing. Aerospace employment has fallen, but those losses didn’t occur until well into 2009.

The Best-Performing Small City

Midland, Texas, maintained its hold on the top spot among America’s small metros. It sits in the middle of the Permian Basin, which generates 61 percent of the oil production in Texas. The region has benefited from higher crude oil prices in 2007 and 2008. Overall, employment increased by 6.2 percent in 2008, even as the rest of the nation lost jobs. Exploration activity in oil and gas produced a 15.8 percent increase in jobs between 2003 and 2008. Strong consumer activity supported the Midland economy, as seen in the 16.1 percent jump in retail sales recorded in 2008.

7

Introduction

Introduction

The Best-Performing Cities index was designed to measure objectively which U.S. metropolitan areas are most successful in terms of job creation and retention, the quality of jobs being produced, and overall economic performance. Specifically, it pinpoints where jobs are being created and maintained, where wages and salaries are increasing, and where economies and businesses are growing and thriving.

The index allows businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors, academics, government officials, and public policy groups to assess, monitor, and gain insight into each metro’s relative performance. It also provides benchmarking data that can be used in developing strategies to improve and maintain a metro’s economic performance. Moreover, it is a tool for understanding consumer markets and business expansion opportunities. In today’s recessionary climate, it helps determine which regions may present the lowest risk.

We have employed geographic terms and definitions used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which in turn uses data from the 2000 Census. The OMB defines a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as a region generally consisting of a large population nucleus and adjacent territory with a high degree of economic and social integration, as measured by community ties.1 Using these parameters, the agency identifies 361 metropolitan statistical areas.2 County population growth accounts for the creation of new MSAs.

If specific criteria are met, an MSA with a single nucleus and a population of 2.5 million or more is further divided into geographic areas called metropolitan divisions. There are currently twenty-nine metropolitan divisions. For example, two metropolitan divisions (Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale and Santa Ana–Anaheim –Irvine) make up the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana MSA. We include the smaller metropolitan divisions in the index to reflect more accurate geographic growth patterns.

Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based

The 2009 index applies the methodology used in previous editions. The components shown in the following table are used to calculate our index rankings. The index measures growth in jobs, wages and salaries, and technology output over a five-year span (2003–2008) to adjust for extreme variations in business cycles. It also incorporates the latest year’s performance in these areas. Lastly, it includes twelve-month job growth performance (March 2008 to March 2009) to capture relative recent momentum among metropolitan economies.3 Employment growth is weighted most heavily in the index because of its critical importance in determining community vitality. Wage and salary growth also measures the quality of the jobs being created and sustained. Technology output growth is another important element in determining the economic vibrancy of cities.

We have incorporated other measures to reflect the concentration and diversity of technology industries within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients (LQs, which measure the concentration of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the national average) are included to indicate a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.4 We also measure the number of specific high-tech industries (out of a possible twenty-five) whose concentrations in an MSA are higher than the national average.

8


The Best-Performing Cities index is solely an outcomes-based measure. It does not incorporate explicit input measures (such as business costs; cost-of-living components, such as housing; and other quality-of-life measures, such as commute times or crime rates). Static input measures, although important, are subject to large variations and can be highly subjective, making them less meaningful than more objective indicators of outcomes.

Businesses choose to locate in particular areas for various reasons. Some, for instance, opt to remain in high-cost cities despite the availability of lower-cost locations. The output measures used for this index include the benefits of situating in expensive locations. Theoretically, a prospering region will raise wages and rents as its businesses tap into more human capital and available space. Nevertheless, holding all other factors constant (such as the productivity associated with being in one location versus another), a company will generally choose to locate where business costs are lower and employees enjoy higher living standards.

Table 2. Components of the Best-Performing Cities index

Component WeightJob growth (I=2003) 0.143Job growth (I=2007) 0.143Wage-and-salary growth (I=2002) 0.143Wage-and-salary growth (I=2006) 0.143Short-term job growth (Mar08-Mar09) 0.143Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2003) 0.071Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2007) 0.071High-tech GDP location quotient 0.071Number of high-tech industries with GDP LQ>1 0.071Note: I refers the beginning year of Index.Source: Milken Institute.

Table 2. Components of the Best-Performing Cities index

National Economic Conditions

The U.S. economy tipped into a recession in December 2007. Through July or August of 2008, it was a “phantom recession.” You needed to be a professional economist to find it due to the modest decline in a wide range of indicators. The National Bureau of Economic Research’s (NBER) Business Cycle Dating Committee made the recession call official in December 2008.

Beginning in the summer of 2008, a cascading chain of events began to unfold: a severe correction in housing markets, oil prices breaching $100 per barrel (though they later retreated), a weakening labor market, overextended consumers pulling back, and a full-fledged financial panic with the attendant collapse in faith between counterparties, along with a hit to wealth. The turmoil in the financial sector ultimately swamped the real economy, causing a full-fledged recession. As credit markets froze, our major trading partners also entered severe recessions, causing U.S. exports to plummet. By early 2009, exports had fallen by 25 percent from the same period in 2008. At the time many feared that we had entered the “Great Depression II,” but subsequent evidence makes the term “Great Recession” a more accurate depiction.

9

Introduction

Similar to the 2001 recession, the bursting of a bubble (this time in housing, as opposed to dot-com and high-tech) was the major culprit in deflating the economy. Initially, the slumping housing market wasn’t sufficient to pull the broader economy down along with it, but the subprime mortgage meltdown that started in August 2007 continued to snowball as the months went by. Additionally, problems in the subprime market spilled over into other credit markets, as participants concluded that risk had been underpriced in many financial products.

September 2008 brought a full-blown financial shock from which we are just now beginning to emerge. The markets went from a game of “Where’s Waldo”—guessing exactly who was holding toxic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and other investment vehicles comprised of bad subprime loans—to a far darker period of wondering which banks and investment firms would be the next to go under.

With credit markets locked up, businesses couldn’t borrow to obtain working capital. Interbank lending froze, as indicated by the enormous jump in the three-month LIBOR rate (the interest rate banks charge each other to lend) relative to the three-month Treasury bill rate—the so-called TED spread. (The good news is that as of this writing, the TED spread has narrowed to a normal range, indicating that credit is beginning to flow once again.)

Tight credit conditions, rising joblessness, and overextended consumers caused light vehicle sales to decline nearly 40 percent from their peak. While the troubles of the domestic motor vehicle manufacturers have garnered much of the headlines, the suddenness of the correction in motor vehicle sales caught virtually all manufacturers by surprise. Inventories of domestic and imported models rose dramatically, leading to huge production cutbacks at domestic and foreign assembly plants. (The success of the 2009 “Cash for Clunkers” program has thinned inventories of popular models, and manufacturers have announced increases to their production schedules in the second half of 2009.) Sales of other consumer durable goods (appliances, furniture, electronics, and other big-ticket items) contracted at a rapid rate. Despite recent signs that the economy is recovering, the skittish consumer remains the weak link.

A combination of declining demand, lower capacity utilization, and the credit crunch caused capital goods spending to falter. Businesses have been unable to finance many equipment purchases. Many firms, fearing that a depression was imminent, slashed investment. Investment in heavy equipment and information and communication technology were gutted in the last year.

During 2007 and the first half of 2008, rising private nonresidential construction helped cushion the blow from plunging residential construction. But the availability of financing for commercial real estate has tightened sharply, and demand for new retail and office space evaporated as consumer spending and employment declined. Many commercial loans are coming due, and with rising vacancy rates and falling rents, borrowers may not be able to secure new financing. Commercial construction will remain depressed, with double-digit declines expected for 2009 and 2010.

Because of the severity of the economic contraction, and the tax structure of state and local governments, tax revenues have fallen sharply. At the same time, demand for government services has escalated, placing severe pressures on budgets. Governments have increased taxes, made painful program cuts, and forced government workers to take unpaid furlough days to narrow deficits. The result has been a pro-cyclical fiscal policy at the state and local level, exacerbating the severity of the downturn. This trend is weighing

10


heavily on many state capitals and other locations with high concentrations of state and local employees.

The good news is that the economy bottomed out sometime over the summer of 2009. The NBER is likely to declare the recession officially ended in July 2009, but probably won’t convene to make the call until November or December. If our assessment that the recession has ended is correct, the peak-to-trough decline in economic activity will be 3.8 percent from the second quarter of 2008 to second-quarter 2009, eclipsing what was until now the most severe recession since World War II: the short but sharp 3.7 percent decline experienced in 1957.

The question now becomes the likely strength of the recovery. The best bet is on a U-shaped recovery, but the leading economic indicators thus far are consistent with more of a V-shaped recovery based upon historical experience. Nevertheless, labor markets are not likely to bottom out until early 2010. The pattern and industrial composition of growth will impact the relative performance of cities across the country.

What does all this mean for interpreting the results of the index? In a year when robust growth was in painfully short supply, the top-performing cities posted only mild increases in employment. Only an elite group of cities experienced meaningful job growth in 2008 and just a couple are likely to add jobs in 2009. In this kind of environment, it is even more important to evaluate each city’s performance in relation to the nation as a whole and in relation to each other.

11

The Biggest Gainers

Those cities experiencing the biggest gains on the Best-Performing Cities 2009 index share important similarities. First, the majority didn’t experience an extreme housing bubble earlier in the decade, allowing them to avoid a severe correction. Residential construction activity wasn’t the driving force behind their growth from 2003 to 2006, so the falloff in that sector has not been as painful in these metros. These metros also tended to have a small dependence on durable goods manufacturing, especially consumer and business equipment production, since those sectors witnessed the largest declines in output and employment. Another feature was a larger share of economic activity in the services sector, which is less sensitive to the business cycle. Additionally, most of these metros are not major exporters. Most metros improved from positions of 150 or higher in the 2008 index, so in fact, theirs is typically a story of weak performance that simply did not deteriorate as rapidly as the national economy.

The Northeast recorded the biggest gains, accounting for fourteen out of the top 20 movers. New York had six metros on the list, while Massachusetts had five and Connecticut recorded three.

The metro experiencing the largest gain was Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford, Connecticut, which moved up 101 spots to 48th place. While its major insurance firms cut jobs, the losses were minimal given the threat of further downsizing. Local aerospace employment didn’t start falling until well into 2009.

Table 3. Biggest gainersChange in rankings

2009 2008 SpotsMetropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank climbedHartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 48 149 +101New Haven-Milford, CT 88 184 +96Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA* 45 139 +94Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 86 180 +94Rochester, NY 89 181 +92Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 73 159 +86Norwich-New London, CT 94 176 +82Utica-Rome, NY 54 134 +80Worcester, MA 79 156 +77Corpus Christi, TX 16 88 +72Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg, MD* 51 123 +72Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 80 148 +68New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 84 151 +67Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 72 138 +66Binghamton, NY 65 125 +60Peabody, MA* 111 171 +60Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 43 100 +57Boston-Quincy, MA* 61 118 +57Springfield, MA 127 182 +55Columbus, GA-AL 112 166 +54*Indicates metropolitan divisionSource: Milken Institute.

Table 3. Biggest gainersChange in rankings

The Biggest Gainers

13

The Biggest Decliners

One glance at the list of metros recording the biggest declines reveals the extent of the housing bust in Florida. Twelve of the twenty metros experiencing the biggest declines were in Florida. Much of the economic growth through mid-decade in these metros was driven by residential and commercial construction activity, and this sector has ground to a halt. Several of these metros are also dependent on travel and tourism, which plunged late last year.

The dubious distinction of posting the biggest decline goes to Pensacola–Ferry Pass–Brent, Florida. Pensacola is the poster child for the factors behind the decline: a housing bust combined with a rapid deterioration in travel and tourism. Its professional and business services employment also took a dramatic hit.

Table 4. Biggest declinersChange in rankings

2009 2008 Spotsnwodknarknar)ASM( aera lacitsitats natiloporteM

421-33751LF ,tnerB-ssaP yrreF-alocasneP111-37481AC ,decreM201-93141LF ,ellivnoskcaJ

Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC 120 19 -10198-08961LF ,retawraelC-grubsreteP .tS-apmaT88-1199LF ,eemmissiK-odnalrO78-72411DI ,apmaN-ytiC esioB58-15631YK-NT ,ellivskralC97-79671LF ,ecineV-atosaraS-notnedarB

Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 98 22 -7647-03401LF ,alacO27-87051LF ,eicuL .tS troP27-38551LF ,dnalsI ocraM-selpaN

Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL* 131 61 -70Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 162 92 -70West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL* 175 105 -70

86-74511AC ,onserF46-83201LA ,yremogtnoM36-301661AC ,notkcotS26-711971*LF ,lladneK-hcaeB imaiM-imaiM

*Indicates metropolitan division

Source: Milken Institute.

Table 4. Biggest declinersChange in rankings

The Biggest Decliners

15

The Best-Performing Large Cities


Austin-Round Rock, Texas, by virtue of its stellar economic performance relative to the country overall, claims top honors in our Best-Performing Cities 2009 ranking. Austin managed to add jobs even amid the dismal macroeconomic environment of 2008 and seems poised to experience net job growth for 2009 as well (it is one of only a couple of cities that can hope for such results this year). Austin is joined by just one other metro area (McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas) in placing among the top 10 in job growth for the latest five-year period (2003–2008) as well as for 2008 alone. Commensurate wage and salary growth places Austin in an elite position.

This consistent pattern of growth makes Austin stand out. The metro area derives stability from its role as the state capital and the home of a major research university, even as it enjoys dynamic growth generated by its technology cluster and professional services sector. The city seems poised to make a strong foray into clean energy technology as well.

Figure 1. Annual wage and salary growthAustin-Round Rock vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

Percent change from preceding year

Sources: Moody's Economy.com, Milken Institute.

Figure 1. Annual wage and salary growthAustin-Round Rock vs. United States

Austin-Round RockUnited States

Austin’s technology sector hasn’t been immune to the severe contraction in U.S. and international business investment in information and communications equipment and services, but has weathered the storm better than most tech centers. Led by Dell, computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing is ten times more important to Austin than that industry is to North America overall.5 Dell is widening its distribution channels by moving to retail locations and should benefit from a recovery in PC sales.

Austin continues to successfully recruit emerging firms in technology and related fields. Corvalent, a circuit-board producer, recently completed its move from Silicon Valley, where it was founded sixteen years ago. In recent months, two Australian software firms—Interspire and Oxygen—established their North American headquarters there, citing Austin’s strong talent base and its low living and business costs.6 The area is further benefiting from strong growth in data centers for Fortune 500 companies. But Austin doesn’t just rely on recruitment; it has a strong entrepreneurial spirit, as evidenced by the fact that the metro has the fourth-highest rate of self-employment in the United States.7

16


Several clean-energy and tech initiatives are under way in an attempt to carve out a significant position for Austin. A new public-private partnership, the Pecan Street Project, is slated to develop a leading-edge clean power system. The idea is not only to modernize Austin’s grid but to use the project as an incubator for green energy technologies, thus spurring sustainable development and creating jobs in the region.8 Pecan Street aims to develop smart-grid technologies that can run appliances at non-peak times and deliver pollution-free solar-generated electricity. The University of Texas, Austin and major firms such as Dell, Oracle and IBM have signed on to the project. Additionally, Gemini Solar is constructing what could become the largest solar power plant in the country for Austin Energy.9 Several other solar energy firms have also established facilities in the area. Federal policy will play a role in how quickly these efforts will pay off, but it’s clear that Austin is a hotbed of activity.

Another reason for Austin’s top position is that while it did experience strong appreciation in home values during the boom years, it didn’t develop an overinflated housing bubble like some markets. The area has been spared a wrenching correction in housing sales and prices. New residential construction activity has waned, but without causing the major drag on the local economy that has been seen in prime bubble locations. Rising commercial vacancy rates suggest some modest overbuilding, but rising absorption as the economy recovers should correct the excess inventory. Austin will remain among the national leaders as the macroeconomy recovers.

Killeen-Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, continues its ascent in the rankings, rising to 2nd place this year, up from 13th last year and 33rd two years ago. Killen had the highest job growth in the country in 2008 and continues to maintain that pace in 2009 in terms of monthly year-over-year gains. Much of this growth stems from the positive impact of the Base Relocation and Consolidation program on Fort Hood, one of the largest military installations in the world. Health-care services, one of the few sectors in the country to add jobs during the recession, are highly concentrated here, while higher education adds a stabilizing force as well.

Table 5. Fort Hood military employmentChange from 2004 to 2007

2004 2007Percent change

Soldiers assigned 44,000 53,000 20.5%Department of Army civilians 4,000 5,100 27.5%Service/contract employees 6,700 9,200 37.3%

Table 5. Fort Hood military employmentChange from 2004 to 2007

Source: Greater Killeen Chamber of Commerce.

Fort Hood contributed $10.9 billion to the area’s economy in 2007,10 directly employing nearly 68,000 people. The Army has been consolidating operations and transferring military and support staff to Fort Hood over the past several years, but it is worth noting that this expansion will be complete in 2010.

Another source of growth has been Central Texas College, which has steadily increased enrollment in recent years. Additionally, ground has already been broken on the new Texas A&M Central Texas campus, which is slated to be a major facility.11

17


Like nearby Austin, the Killeen metro area never saw hyper-appreciation in its housing market and has largely been spared from the housing bust. In-migration at Fort Hood has helped stabilize the housing market, too. Moreover, the area’s proportion of subprime mortgage products was very low, and foreclosure rates remain at modest levels. Further expansion in health services is under way, with a new hospital in the works.12

Salt Lake City, Utah, maintains its position in 3rd place this year. The quality of the jobs created in recent years has been very strong, as exhibited by its 2nd-place ranking in wage and salary growth from 2006 to 2007. Salt Lake City consistently ranks in the upper echelon of all the index components. Technology is a key driver of the area’s economy, with a vibrant presence in computer systems design and related services. Less well-known is Salt Lake City’s strength in medical equipment, a sector that employs some 5,800 workers. Within North America, Salt Lake City ranks 6th as a center for medical equipment manufacturing.13 Brigham Young University has been a source for much of the local growth within the life sciences, and particularly within medical equipment.

Figure 2. Computer systems design and related serviceSalt Lake City vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

Jobs, percent change from preceding year


Figure 2. Computer systems design and related servicesSalt Lake City vs. United States

Salt Lake CityUnited States

Salt Lake City hasn’t escaped the national recession, but the effects have been muted there relative to the slump experienced in other tech-dependent areas. Salt Lake also had vulnerability associated with its status as a regional financial center stemming from the financial crisis. Fortunately, the region had a low exposure to subprime mortgages and less speculative activity in its housing sector. The good news is that existing home sales have recovered and are running substantially ahead of the levels recorded a year ago. Even new residential construction is seeing positive signs, with new permits from January through July rising 39 percent from the same period in 2008.14

Although Utah hasn’t been immune to the budget problems plaguing state capitals across the country, its cutbacks have been modest and government employment has played a stabilizing role in the Salt Lake City economy. Travel and tourism spending has fallen, but by smaller amounts than in other tourist hubs. The recent loosening of liquor laws may even provide a boost to tourism over the next few years. Salt Lake City has a young and highly educated workforce, low business costs, a favorable overall business

18


climate, and a growing tech sector—all factors that should leave the area well-positioned for growth during the recovery.

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, came in 4th, improving by three slots from last year’s index. The metro area performed exceptionally well in two categories: McAllen ranked 1st in employment growth and in high-tech GDP growth between 2003 and 2008 (improving from a decidedly low base). Minimal exposure to the housing crisis has also helped to sustain its position among the leaders. With most metros across the nation posting large declines in their employment base, McAllen’s economy has remained relatively stable. Supported by robust population growth, its service-based economy continues to prosper.

Its strategic location across the Mexican border supports trade links with mequiladora facilities, setting the stage for further expansion in its distribution and logistics sector. While the global recession will likely curb some of that growth, the metro’s relatively low business costs will lure new firms and investment into the region. The city is currently in the running as the potential site of a new auto manufacturing plant linked with a European automaker.15

The metro’s first-place finish in high-tech GDP growth is largely indicative of its recent growth in telecommunications services. McAllen’s low costs have enabled companies to open new call centers in the area.

Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, surged to 5th place this year, up from 16th in 2008. (It is also the top performer among the nation’s ten largest cities.) Houston ranked 7th in both job and wage and salary growth in the one-year period we examined. Although its job growth has slipped in recent months, Houston remains in the top 25 in the indicator measuring job growth through March 2009. A global leader in the oil and gas industry, the metro area boasts thousands of engineering and other technical and professional jobs. Houston’s cost of doing business is substantially below the U.S. average, a rarity among the largest metro areas.16 The stability provided by being a major health services center has helped moderate the impacts of the national recession. Housing markets have cooled, but price declines relative to their peak have been in the single digits, compared to the more than 20 percent drop experienced nationally. Recent monthly data shows year-over-year price increases in Houston.

Figure 3. Engineering and architectural services

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4



Figure 3. Engineering and architectural servicesHouston-Sugar Land-Baytown vs. United States

Houston-Sugar Land-BaytownUnited States

19


Energy exploration activity has waned due to the decline in oil and natural gas prices, but overall, Houston’s energy sector has remained remarkably strong. There has been a notable falloff in natural gas exploration in recent months, and the rig count is down.17 But new opportunities in nuclear, wind, and other alternative energies have the potential to provide further gains in the area. Several investment banks are establishing operations in Houston with the expectation that energy-related opportunities will arise with oil prices recovering.18

Manufacturing remains weak, but there are positive developments, such as Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift’s announcement that it will expand operations in Houston, shifting operations of several lines from Japan and South America. The objective is to source most components locally, avoiding fluctuations in global currency exchange rates.19 Given its strategic location on the Gulf of Mexico, Houston has strong trade and export links with Latin America and should benefit from the widening of the Panama Canal.

Durham, North Carolina, moves into 6th place, up from 21st last year. Durham’s economy is tied to high tech, biopharmaceuticals, medical research, and education. As a pillar of the Research Triangle, Durham benefits from the many technology startup firms that spin out of Duke University with the support of seasoned entrepreneurs. The presence of IBM, with more than 11,000 employees, provides a solid talent pool for these emerging firms. The volatility associated with information and communications technologies has hit the region as Nortel Network’s bankruptcy is causing layoffs and rippling through the local economy.20 Nevertheless, the metro area has weathered the recession remarkably well given its industry mix.

Construction employment in the Durham area has fallen, but the residential markets have remained relatively firm. Existing home prices barely fell and are already recovering. Positive net migration has helped buoy the housing market as well; the area remains a magnet for young professionals. Health services and education continue to create jobs, mitigating the impact of losses in other sectors. Thus far, state and local government continue to add jobs but will soon feel the impact of budget cuts.

Figure 4. Net migrationDurham, North Carolina

2008200720062005200420032002

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

Thousands


Figure 4. Net migrationDurham, North Carolina

20


Rising two spots, Olympia, Washington, retained its place among the top performers by coming in 7th. The metro’s relatively low living costs have attracted migrants from nearby cities. In addition, Olympia has provided low-cost advantages for businesses, particularly for back-office operations, attracting several Seattle firms. Serving as its state’s capitol, Olympia derives much of its employment base from state government, which accounts for almost one out of every four jobs in the metro. While its housing sector appears to be relatively more balanced than other parts of the country, the state has seen its revenues shrink, which impacts job growth in the metro. Nevertheless, in the one-year category evaluating job growth between 2007 and 2008, Olympia finished 14th.

Olympia’s favorable population trends remain a source of stability for the economy. In 2008, population growth surged to 2.9 percent, though this trend will moderate this year as potential migrants become aware that budget cutbacks will reduce government jobs and other opportunities in the area. With little dependence on manufacturing, Olympia has remained relatively unscathed by the downturn in this sector.

Huntsville, Alabama, placed 8th in this year’s index. Huntsville has consistently occupied one of the top spots in the index for the past few years. The area has the 6th-highest concentration of high-tech output in the United States—more than twice the national average. Professional, scientific, and technical services have expanded rapidly; they already represent more than 14 percent of jobs in the metro area (versus less than 6 percent for the United States as a whole). Computer and electronic product manufacturing is the most important private-sector industry in Huntsville. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center is a key anchor for the area and will play a vital role in mankind’s return to the moon.

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

2008200720062005200420032002

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

Percent share of total employment


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

HuntsvilleUnited States

Huntsville’s Redstone Arsenal will benefit from the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure program over the next couple of years. Furthermore, the Missile Defense Agency is slated to relocate more than 2,200 employees there over the next several years. Many aerospace contractors are expanding or establishing operations in hopes of securing additional work on the program. Some estimates place the

21


total job impacts of these programs, including contractors, at 10,000 to 12,000.21 Huntsville has also been working with NASA’s shuttle contractor, United Space Alliance, to recruit engineers from Brevard County, Florida, home to the Kennedy Space Center. As the Space Shuttle program winds down, many highly skilled technical workers will likely be available.22 This strong rate of in-migration has kept home price declines in the single digits, and there are already signs that the housing market is improving. Meanwhile, the University of Alabama, Huntsville, is investing heavily in the life sciences, which have gotten a boost from the 2008 opening of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology.

Lafayette, Louisiana, has cracked the top 10, coming in at 9th, which represents an improvement of five slots from last year. The area has benefited from renewed interest in oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico in recent years, though this activity is vulnerable to shifts in energy prices. Additionally, many hurricane evacuees either temporarily or permanently settled in the metro. Support activities for mining account for more than 11 percent of Lafayette’s employment base.23 Health care and educational services are major components of its economy as well. They provide welcome stability, but state budgets cutbacks will pare some positions.

Continued diversification away from its traditional industries will be vital to maintaining a high rate of economic growth in Lafayette. Its low business and living costs give the area an advantage, but it must develop a skilled and well-educated workforce to remain in the upper echelon.

Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina, edges down to 10th this year, slipping eight places. Nevertheless, given its concentration of high-tech firms, this is a considerable achievement. Over the past five years, Raleigh ranks 5th in total job growth in the country. Leading universities (the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and N.C. State University) serve as research anchors. These institutions and other research centers work closely with the business community and form a tightly integrated network. SAS Institute, the fast-growing statistical software giant, is headquartered in this area, and Cisco has major operations there. Professional and business services, along with scientific services, have experienced rapid job growth in recent years.

Figure 6. Professional, scientific, and technical servicesRaleigh-Cary vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4



Figure 6. Professional, scientific, and technical servicesRaleigh-Cary vs. United States

Raleigh-CaryUnited States

22


As North Carolina’s capital, Raleigh counts on the public sector to provide some stability in its employment base. But strains on the state budget are likely to translate into layoffs among government and university workers.24 GlaxoSmithKline won’t escape the business model adjustments coming in the pharmaceutical industry, but Raleigh seems well positioned to avoid the extensive job losses that other leading centers will experience. Fort Bragg’s expansion will create opportunities for local firms, too. Raleigh’s net migration has been at a high rate for years, but with more high-skill jobs being created, a greater proportion of the migrants will be young professionals.

Though stung by the loss of AT&T headquarters to Dallas, San Antonio, Texas, still improved four spots from last year to claim 11th place. Aided by ongoing military-related expansion (as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure recommendations), the metro has seen significant growth in its education and health services sector. This has helped mitigate losses in professional and business services due to AT&T’s departure. In terms of one year-job growth from 2007 to 2008, the metro exhibited more promising signs relative to the national average, coming in 8th overall. Despite the current downturn, non-farm jobs only fell by 0.2 percent during the previous 12 months through March 2009. The expansion of Brooke Army Medical Center will help sustain the region’s medical cluster, while creating more opportunities for local suppliers in the surrounding area. Between 2007 and 2008, ambulatory health care services added 3,500 jobs.

San Antonio’s low cost structure, along with its growing reputation as a transportation and distribution hub, has recently attracted Caterpillar. The company’s assembly, paint, and testing plant in nearby Seguin will build engines for the truck, marine, and electric power industries.25

Improving from its 29th-place showing on last year’s index, Fort Worth–Arlington, Texas, moved up sharply to come in 12th. Offering a lower-cost alternative to businesses and residents, Fort Worth continues to capitalize on spillover from Dallas and experience robust population growth. As the price of natural gas rose in early 2008, the metro’s energy exploration sector provided a further boost to the economy. However, with current prices plummeting, growth in this area will likely subside, at least temporarily. Construction and mining-related activity generated 2,400 and 2,200 jobs, respectively, between 2007 and 2008. But now key industries in Fort Worth such as aerospace and automobile manufacturing are feeling the effects of the recession. Still, the metro’s overall employment growth, driven by energy exploration and health-care-related services, fared better than the national average between 2007 and 2008 (Fort Worth came in 18th on that measure). The area’s wage and salary growth ranked 16th in the nation over the latest one-year period.

23


Figure 7. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extractionFort Worth-Arlington vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

40

30

20

10

0

-10



Figure 7. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extractionFort Worth-Arlington vs. United States

Fort Worth-ArlingtonUnited States

Employment in Fort Worth declined by just 0.5 percent in last twelve months ending March 2009. The existence of two dominant anchor firms—American Airlines, which is headquartered in the metro, and Lockheed Martin, which maintains a major presence there—provide longer-term stability while creating more growth opportunities for logistical and transportation support services.

Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, gained some ground this year, moving up from 23rd to 13th place in the index. Wage and salary growth between 2006 and 2007 outperformed the national average, coming in at 13th. A diversified and growing high-tech sector, plus higher-paying jobs stemming from corporate-based headquarters and regional offices, has contributed to the area’s overall wealth. Professional and scientific services and management of companies created 7,300 and 3,600 jobs, respectively, between 2007 and 2008. In addition, the metro ranked 14th for high-tech diversity (as measured by the number of high-tech industries with LQs—or relative concentrations—above 1.0, which represents the average for the United States as a whole). The area’s concentration of high-tech output is roughly 50 percent above the national average. Its telecom industry now includes the headquarters of AT&T, which recently made the move from San Antonio.

Dallas’s large financial sector has been able to survive through the crisis; adverse ripple effects appear to be less severe there than in other financial hubs like New York and Charlotte.26 Similarly, the housing market in Dallas has been relatively stable, with smaller price declines than those experienced in other major markets across the nation.

24


Figure 8. Company and enterprise management Dallas-Plano-Irving vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

40

30

20

10

0

-10



Figure 8. Company and enterprise management Dallas-Plano-Irving vs. United States

Dallas-Plano-IrvingUnited States

Dallas offers greater cost advantages than most other large U.S. cities. A key distribution and logistics hub, it boasts extensive railroad and air-cargo facilities for national and international trade. When the economy begins to rebound, the region will be better-positioned to capitalize on growth opportunities.

Ranking 14th on the overall index, El Paso, Texas, climbed twenty-three spots this year, driven by the military’s expansion at Fort Bliss. Robust population gains, largely stemming from the base realignment program, have kept demand healthy across a broad range of industries. More than 28,000 additional soldiers, along with their families, are expected to move to the region by 2012. In fact, if enough units aren’t built quickly enough, the city could face a housing shortage.27 Meanwhile, the metro finished 6th in the nation for employment growth in the one-year period examined between 2007 and 2008. Ambulatory health-care services were responsible for generating more than 1,000 jobs during that time frame. El Paso also performed well in wage and salary growth over the year since 2006, placing 17th.

The decline in U.S. auto manufacturing has lead to significant job losses in Cuidad Juarez, El Paso’s neighbor across the border, and this contraction ultimately impacts El Paso’s retail sector. Maquiladora factories have laid off tens of thousands of nearby workers.28 While the metro area’s close ties with Mexico pose some downside risk during the current recession, they will serve as a competitive edge when global markets recover.

Improving by thirty spots, Wichita, Kansas, landed in 15th place on this year’s index. The metro has a high-tech output location quotient of 2.0, meaning that the high-tech sector is more than twice as concentrated here than in the nation overall. Wichita also placed 9th on relative job growth measured between 2007 and 2008. Transportation equipment manufacturing added 2,200 jobs in the metro during that same period.

Home to Cessna Aircraft, Sprit Aerosystems, Hawker Beechcraft, and major operations of Boeing, the region depends on aerospace manufacturing as its primary economic driver. The current downturn and credit crunch have led to lower production, forcing several companies, including Boeing, to shed

25


jobs.29 But the metro has been spared from a sharp fall in its housing market since it never experienced overheated price growth during the boom.

Figure 9. Transportation equipment manufacturingWichita vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20



Figure 9. Transportation equipment manufactuingWichita vs. United States

WichitaUnited States

Moving up a whopping seventy-two spots from last year, Corpus Christi, Texas, finished 16th overall on this year’s index. On the one-year indicator for job growth from 2007 to 2008, the metro ranked 2nd highest in the nation. Increased port activity has been largely driven by demand for petroleum-related products. While declining oil prices resulted in lower profit margins at refineries, more recent trends point to stabilization. Increased energy exploration has spurred positive ripple effects across other industries within the metro. Notably, it has strengthened the region’s transportations and logistic sector, which has grown more than 10 percent during the one-year period examined between 2007 and 2008. In addition, during that period, infrastructure activity generated 1,500 construction jobs in the metro. Serving as another key asset to the local economy, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi employs more than 8,200 workers. But recent BRAC realignment may reduce the size of the naval base, potentially hindering performance cross a broad spectrum of industries.30

Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Washington, maintained last year’s ranking of 17th on the overall index. Despite posting hefty job losses over the more recent twelve months ending March 2009, Seattle saw wage and salary growth remain strong over the one-year period between 2006 and 2007, coming in at 9th in the nation on this indicator, due to the high-paying jobs in the region’s high-tech industries, notably software and aerospace. Professional, scientific, and technical services along with publishing created 6,300 and 3,100 jobs, respectively, between 2007 and 2008. With a ranking of 4th in the nation for concentration of high-tech output, the metro is twice more dependent on high tech than the nation as a whole.

26


Figure 10. Software publishing employmentSeattle-Bellevue-Everett vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0



Figure 10. Software publishing employmentSeattle-Bellevue-Everett vs. United States

Seattle-Bellevue-EverettUnited States

Led by Microsoft, Seattle is one of the nation’s preeminent IT centers. As the economy recovers, the region’s highly skilled labor force will give Seattle a competitive edge. The aerospace industry, dominated by Boeing, has suffered in the face of shrinking global demand, limiting the metro’s growth potential at least in the near-term.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, moved up from 40th to 18th place in the 2009 rankings. Many residents left New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in favor of Baton Rouge, creating enormous demand for real estate, education, and health services. However, population growth since 2007 has slowed, with some new arrivals heading back to New Orleans as it begins to stabilize. Even so, job growth in Baton Rouge over the last twelve months ending in March 2009 was a healthy 0.5 percent. Wage and salary growth between 2006 and 2007 showed significant strides, with Baton Rouge placing 4th in that category. With two local universities (Louisiana State University and Southern University), the metro is well equipped for producing new talent and meeting the region’s demand for high-skilled labor. Management of companies and enterprises added nearly 800 jobs between 2007 and 2008.

As the seat of state government, Baton Rouge is vulnerable to losing public-sector jobs as a result of budget cuts. On the brighter side, the Pennington Biomedical Research Center is constructing a new clinical research building in the metro that will help to raise the profile of the region’s biotech industry while providing relatively high-paying jobs in the near-term.31 The center is due to open in 2010.

Tulsa, Oklahoma, came in 19th overall, making a strong move after placing 72nd last year. In the category of one-year job growth from 2007 to 2008, the metro ranked 16th; its employment base has since held up better than much of the rest of the nation. In fact, the one-year recent job momentum indicator places Tulsa at 11th in the nation. Key industries in the region include aerospace, transportation, telecom, mining, and structural metals manufacturing. Tulsa’s Port of Catoosa, one of the nation’s largest inland-river ports, is a key asset, providing access to and from coastal ports and opening up trade. With the exception of aerospace, most sectors have remained relatively stable in the region despite the recession. Holly recently purchased a refinery in the metro for $65 million, preserving nearly 400 jobs.32

27


Tulsa has been less exposed to the national housing crisis and related banking issues, providing more stability to the local economy. Not only is per-capita income higher than the national average, the metro’s cost of living is among the lowest in the nation,33 creating huge incentives for those seeking more affordable lifestyles. Other amenities include the recent development of the Bank of Oklahoma (BOK) Center, a new arena for the performing arts, sports, and other events; it has not only helped create jobs in the metro, but also managed to lend support to the city’s revenue base.34

Greeley, Colorado, maintained its rank of 20th on this year’s index. Its reputation as an inexpensive bedroom community near Denver and Boulder has led to robust population growth, driving up local demand in a number of service-based industries. The metro had the 14th-highest job growth in the nation on a five-year basis, while finishing 20th on a one-year basis in 2008. While Greeley’s largest industry is meatpacking, the metro has been evolving into a hub for wind power.35 New alternative energy firms have been drawn here, attracting high-skilled labor from outside the region. The recently constructed Vestas wind power plant will help diversify the region’s economy, while providing a source for higher-paying jobs.36 Wages and salaries in the region have increased at a faster pace than the U.S. average.

Figure 11. Heavy and civil engineering construction jobsGreeley vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20



Figure 11. Heavy and civil engineering construction jobsGreeley vs. United States

GreeleyUnited States

Although it fell thirteen spots, Tacoma, Washington, managed to maintain a solid ranking of 21st in the nation. As a more affordable alternative to nearby Seattle, it continues to attract newcomers, keeping population growth steady. The presence of Intel and Boeing is a key driver of the region’s high-tech sector. Tacoma ranked 9th overall in high-tech GDP growth for the five-period between 2003 and 2008. Wages and salaries in the area have displayed solid momentum; Tacoma finished 14th for this indicator in 2002-2007. With the current global downturn and sluggish trade flows, Tacoma’s port activity has rapidly deteriorated, threatening jobs in supporting logistics and infrastructure. Prior to the downturn, however, the metro’s port was increasingly active in global trade, handling a large volume of inbound containerized cargo from Asia.

28


The metro’s largest employer is the U.S. Army’s Fort Lewis, with more than 40,000 soldiers and workers.37 Along with McChord Air Force Base, Tacoma has a significant military presence that will continue to provide stability to the region.

The metropolitan area of Fort Collins–Loveland, Colorado, leapt twenty-six spots to 22nd place in this year’s index. Job growth in 2008 remained relatively stable, coming in at 30th in the nation. Much of this growth stems from the region’s burgeoning high-tech sector, where output is 40 percent more concentrated in the region than the U.S. average. In addition, direct linkages between high-tech start-ups and Colorado State University appear to be accelerating innovation throughout the metro in fields such as solar energy. Abound Solar, a Colorado State University spin-off, is building a new photovoltaic panel plant in the area, which will enhance the metro’s already diverse high-tech industry mix.38 Supported by a high-skilled workforce, the alternative energy sector will fuel future economic growth.

Little Rock–North Little Rock–Conway, Arkansas, improved thirty-one spots, capturing 23rd place on this year’s index. Wage growth came in 26th in the nation in 2008. As the state’s capital, it counts a large number of public-sector jobs in the local employment base. With the current downturn, however, Little Rock is looking elsewhere for growth. Dramatic gains in its education and health-services sector have offset some of the recent losses in other sectors. In fact, health-care services were responsible for creating 1,300 jobs in the metro between 2007 and 2008. An affordable cost of living attracts retirees and other new residents, keeping population growth healthy. The area’s growing medical services field also has a draw for retirees. The largest local employer is the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, with 8,500 workers.39 The university anchors the region’s medical community, attracting researchers and increasing demand for related services.

Shreveport–Bossier City, Louisiana, gained forty-three spots, to land in 24th place in the nation this year. Despite the uncertain fate of GM and resulting contraction of its manufacturing sector, Shreveport’s economy remains relatively stable, thanks to its greatest asset, the Haynesville Shale natural gas deposit. One of the largest natural fields in the U.S., it came into prominence in early 2008, helping boost a number of industries in the metro area. Ongoing development has spurred job growth in construction, while luring in companies engaged in gas extraction and processing. With the fall in natural gas prices, development is still taking place but at a more steady pace.40 Support activities for mining (see figure 12 on the following page) generated 380 jobs between 2007 and 2008. Just recently, EXCO Resources announced its new facilities intended for exploration activity in the area.41 In fact, Shreveport ranked 8th on high-tech GDP growth over five-period measured between 2003 and 2008.

29


Figure 12. Support activities for miningShreveport-Bossier City vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

30

20

10

0

-10

-20



Figure 12. Support activities for miningShreveport-Bossier City vs. United States

Shreveport-Bossier CityUnited States

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV metro area, jumped to 25th place after finishing 41st on last year’s index. D.C.’s high-tech output is 50 percent above the national average, and the metro’s diverse high-tech industry mix has helped to sustain economic growth in a tough environment. The presence of the federal government generates the need for massive data-processing support; defense and aerospace contractors also cluster here in proximity to the Pentagon, which is itself a major employer (the headquarters of Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are located here). More than 10,000 jobs were added in professional, scientific, and technical services from 2007 to 2008. While there have been some layoffs in information technology and the telecom industry, recent federal spending has kept the local economy on track. In addition, the Pentagon has recently announced that it would be adding 9,000 positions at two agencies charged with auditing and managing contracts for various weaponry.42

31

America’s Ten Largest Cities: Performance


Examining the performance of America’s ten largest cities reveals noteworthy changes—some positive and some painful—in the Sun Belt. The two large cities in Texas both cemented their place in the top 25: Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown powered its way into the top 10 overall, continuing a dramatic, energy-industry-driven ascent, while Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, moved up by ten positions. But the hangover from the housing bust is clear in the results for California and Arizona’s major metros. As shown in the table below, significant drops were recorded by previous standouts Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, California, and Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona.

The economies of Houston, Dallas, and Washington were profiled earlier in this report, since all three metros placed among the top 25 best-performing cities overall.

Table 6. Performance of the ten largest metrosRank according to 2009 index

2009 2008 SpotsMetropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank up/downHouston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 5 16 +11Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 13 23 +10Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 25 41 +16New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ* 38 85 +47Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 93 32 -61Philadelphia, PA* 96 130 +34Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 103 53 -50Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 106 59 -47Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA* 139 126 -13Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL* 148 160 +12* Indicates metropolitan divisionSource: Milken Institute.

Table 6. Performance of the ten largest metrosRank according to 2009 index

For the second year in a row, New York–White Plains–Wayne, New York–New Jersey, posted the most dramatic gains. Once ranked 9th among this group, New York is now the 4th-best performer among the ten. In terms of the overall rankings of 200 large cities, it jumped an impressive 110 places over two years, rising from 148th place in the 2007 index to 85th in 2008 to 38th this year. Professional, scientific, and technical services added nearly 12,000 jobs over the last year, growing at a rate of 2.8 percent. In stark contrast to much of the rest of the country, construction still showed positive growth in the city during the period we examined, adding 1,770 jobs from 2007 to 2008. Motion picture and television production has done very well in New York recently, thanks to a series of incentives introduced in 2007. The motion picture and sound recording industries added more than 1,600 jobs between 2007 and 2008, growing at a rate of 4.6 percent. Demand for the production credit has been so great that the city’s fund was actually fully claimed by June of this year.43

32


The crisis that set off the restructuring of Wall Street has obviously been keenly felt in the nation’s financial capital. The sector comprising credit intermediation and related activities lost 4,500 jobs between 2007 and 2008. Securities, commodities, and other financial investment activities also started to slide during the same period. However, this data reflects only a snippet of the turmoil that was yet to come in New York’s financial sector, which has since gone through firm failures, abrupt mergers, and layoffs. These losses will fully show up in next year’s index.

Figure 13. Professional, scientific and technical servicesNew York-White Plains-Wayne vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

-8



Figure 13. Professional, scientific and technical servicesNew York-White Plains-Wayne vs. United States

New York-White Plains-WayneUnited States

Out of the nation’s ten largest cities, Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, saw the largest overall drop in the rankings. Previously one of the strongest performers in the index, Phoenix is caught up in the housing bust. In the full ranking of the nation’s 200 largest metros, it fell from 4th place in 2007 to 32nd place in 2008 and then all the way to 93rd place in the current index. Phoenix continues to be hit hard by declines in construction and related industries, though it still remains ahead of the Southern California metros as well as Atlanta in the rankings. This downturn comes after an extended period in which the Phoenix metro area set the pace for the rest of the nation in construction in order to accommodate a rapidly growing population.

33


Between 2007 and 2008, the specialty trade contractor and construction industries suffered, losing 21,400 and 5,260 jobs, respectively. The sector showing the greatest decline in the Phoenix metro area on a percentage basis during the five-year period we examined is data processing, hosting, and related services. From 2003 to 2008, the sector lost more than 2,100 employees for an average annual decline of 8.4 percent. Continuing a trend, the biggest source of job growth was the public sector, as local government added more than 4,000 jobs between 2007 and 2008.

Figure 14. Specialty trade contractorsPhoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30



Figure 14. Specialty trade contractorsPhoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale vs. United States

Phoenix-Mesa-ScottsdaleUnited States

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, rose three places to rank 6th among the ten-largest metro areas, overtaking the slumping cities of Riverside, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. The city rose in the overall rankings for the second year in a row, climbing 34 places from 130th to 96th. Professional, scientific, and technical services have continued to grow here, adding more than 20,300 jobs from 2003 to 2008, including over 2,200 between 2007 and 2008. Ironically, the leading area of job growth in the city is a cause for concern, or at least a concerted effort to address other concerns. Over the past year, social assistance added more than 3,000 jobs, growing at a rate of 6.4 percent; this field added more than 15,000 jobs from 2003 to 2008.

34


On the downside, data processing, hosting, and related services saw an annual decline of more than 16 percent during the same period, shedding more than 7,000 jobs in the region. More troubling has been the decline of pharmaceutical manufacturing, which has been vital to the region’s economy. Credit intermediation and related services showed the largest decline over 2007 to 2008 in absolute numbers, losing nearly 2,500 jobs and declining 6.7 percent overall. The decline of the print media has also hit the city, with printing and related support activities losing more than 1,000 jobs and declining at a rate of over 10 percent during the same period.

Figure 15. Printing and related support activitiesPhiladelphia vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12



Figure 15. Printing and related support activitiesPhiladelphia vs. United States

PhiladelphiaUnited States

Perhaps no major metro area has been hit harder by the collapse of the housing market than Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, California. Just two years ago, buoyed by a strong construction sector that was racing to keep up with an insatiable demand for housing, Riverside ranked 3rd among all large metros in our 2007 index. After dropping fifty places each of the past two years, it has now fallen to 103rd place. The specialty trade contractor sector, which includes home builders and related services, shed more than 17,000 jobs from 2007 to 2008, a 21.3 percent decline. Riverside’s downturn has not been limited to the construction industry, however. On a percentage basis, the largest decline actually occurred in transportation equipment manufacturing, which saw a 21.8 percent drop while losing more than 2,400 jobs. (See figure 16 on the following page.)

35


Riverside’s role as a logistics and warehousing center for the region continues to be the one consistent positive note. Even as global trade has fallen, this sector has continued to add jobs locally, even as it is shrinking in many other locations. Warehousing and storage added more than 400 jobs from 2007 to 2008, growing by 2.4 percent. Over the longer term, continued growth in this sector is highly likely, as Riverside remains the only area in Southern California with both the space and the infrastructure to handle expanded cargo flows.44 The largest overall gains in our one-year job growth indicator came from local government, which added more than 3,900 jobs from 2007 to 2008.

Figure 16. Transportation equipment manufacturingRiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25



Figure 16. Transportation equipment manufacturingRiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. United States

Riverside-San Bernardino-OntarioUnited States

Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta, Georgia, also saw a dramatic fall. Among the nation’s ten largest metros, it has slipped from 6th place in the 2007 and 2008 indexes to 8th in the current edition. Its overall ranking fell from 59th in the 2008 index to 106th place today. The city’s largest employer is Delta Airlines, which provides more than 22,200 jobs.45 Delta operates the greatest number of flights at Atlanta’s busy Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, which serves as the airline’s major hub, and is headquartered in the city. Air transportation largely stayed flat from 2007 to 2008, losing only 50 jobs, but the severe cutbacks in corporate and personal travel seen over the last few months will impact the 2009 results.

36


Local government and professional, scientific, and technical services provided Atlanta’s largest job gains from 2007 to 2008, adding more than 5,600 and 4,600 jobs, respectively. The recession has brought some significant local cutbacks in corporate staffing, with 8,120 jobs being lost in administrative and support services from 2007 to 2008. The city’s construction boom has also stalled, with heavy civil and engineering construction falling at a rate of 15.1 percent and shedding more than 3,200 jobs in 2008.

Figure 17. Heavy and civil engineering constructionAtlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20



Figure 17. Heavy and civil engineering constructionAtlanta-Shady Springs-Marietta vs. United States

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-MariettaUnited States

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale, California, has been mired in a slump. The metro area dropped thirteen places for two consecutive years, falling from 126th place last year to 139th in this year’s overall rankings. It also slipped from 8th to 9th place on our list of the nation’s ten largest metros. In our indicator for recent job momentum, which examines March 2008 to March 2009, Los Angeles ranked 138th overall for job growth, losing 3.6 percent of its workforce.

Like other metros experiencing steep housing declines and increasing default and foreclosure rates, Los Angeles has been hammered by the loss of jobs in construction, manufacturing, real estate services, and financial services. These sectors lost more than 18,000 jobs between 2007 and 2008. As the recession progressed, other service-providing industries, such as administrative and support services (a category that includes temp agencies) also hemorrhaged. Nearly 5,900 jobs were lost in that industry during the same period. (See figure 18 on the following page.)

Our five-year job growth indicator shows that the largest job losses during this period in Los Angeles have been suffered in corporate management and in apparel. Although Los Angeles has managed to remain a center for fashion design, more than 14,000 jobs were lost in apparel manufacturing between 2003 and 2008 (including more than 1,400 cuts between 2007 and 2008). The management of companies and enterprises category saw the loss of nearly 21,000 workers between 2003 and 2008 (including more than 2,200 in the most recent year). As companies have continued to move their headquarters out of Los Angeles due to high cost of doing business, the impact has not only been felt in terms of lost jobs, but also the lost spending that these companies once contributed locally.

37


Figure 18. Administrative and support servicesLos Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

-8



Figure 18. Administrative and support servicesLos Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale vs. United States

Los Angeles-Long Beach-GlendaleUnited States

The entertainment industry remains a strong asset for the region, though shakeups and slowdowns have affected this sector as well. The industry has rebounded from recent labor disputes, but the continuing rise of reality TV creates fewer staff jobs than traditional comedies and dramas once did. Motion picture and sound recording added 2,800 jobs between 2007 and 2008, but broadcasting has been hit hard in the recent downturn as advertising money dried up. Some 1,700 workers in this category were laid off between March 2008 and March 2009. Frozen credit markets also increased the difficulty of getting new films and other entertainment projects financed.

The few bright spots for the local economy continue to be health care and education. Los Angeles saw an increase of nearly 6,000 jobs in health-care services and more than 2,200 jobs in educational services in between 2007 and 2008.

38


Despite improving twelve spots overall, Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Illinois, ranks only 148th overall and remains the weakest performer of the nation’s ten largest metros. Its dependence on traditional, industrial manufacturing became an Achilles’ heel in the current recession. Fabricated metal manufacturing shed 5,600 local jobs from 2003 to 2008.

Chicago’s financial sector, a primary driver of the region’s economy, has also undergone severe cutbacks as result of the financial crisis. Credit intermediation and related activities saw a decline of 7.3 percent between 2007 and 2008, a loss of more than 7,600 jobs in that industry alone. As a result, administrative and support services quickly lost 11,000 jobs during the same period. A major convention hub, Chicago has also been hit by the decline in business travel, with attendant losses in its leisure and hospitality sector.

Supported by a well-educated workforce, Chicago remains a major business center that will eventually benefit from a national recovery. In the meantime, educational and health-care services have been the leading sources for job creation.

Figure 19. Credit intermediation and related activitiesChicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

-8



Figure 19. Credit intermediation and related activitiesChicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. United States

Chicago-Naperville-JolietUnited States

39

The Best-Performing Small Cities


In addition to ranking the 200 largest metro areas in the United States, we have also created a companion index of the best-performing small cities.

The 2009 index is comprised of 124 small metros. Texas, the big winner in the index of large cities, also dominates this list: four small metros from the state placed in the top 10. The state is clearly benefiting from high oil prices, an abundance of natural resources, and growth in the broader energy industry. Midland, Texas, took the top spot once again, while Tyler is a newcomer to the top 10 list (Kennewick, Washington; Bismarck, North Dakota; and Fargo, North Dakota, also made their debut in the top 10 this year.) After five years, Las Cruces, New Mexico, made its way back onto the top 10 list. At the other end of the spectrum, many cities in the upper Midwest, particularly those in Michigan, did not fare well, placing in the bottom ranks.

Table 7. Top 10 best-performing small citiesRank in 2009 index*

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)2009rank

2008rank

Midland, TX 1 1Longview, TX 2 7Grand Junction, CO 3 5Tyler, TX 4 26Odessa, TX 5 10Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA 6 29Bismarck, ND 7 15Warner Robins, GA 8 6Las Cruces, NM 9 11Fargo, ND-MN 10 17*Among 124 small metrosSource: Milken Institute.

Table 7. Top 10 best-performing small citiesRank in 2009 index*

For two consecutive years, Midland, Texas, has claimed the number-one spot among best-performing small metros in the United States. The metro sits in the middle of the Permian Basin, which generates 61 percent of the oil production in Texas.46 The region benefited greatly in recent years, especially during the summer of 2008, when the price of crude oil reached its zenith at $147 per barrel. Overall, employment increased by 6.2 percent between 2007 and 2008, driven by oilfield services—a striking result when compared with the nation’s negative job growth. Support activities for mining, which includes drilling oil and gas wells and oil and gas operations, is the leading industry, employing more than 8,200 workers and accounting for 12 percent of the total jobs in Midland. This industry recorded 15.8 percent annual growth between 2003 and 2008. However, the global recession and the subsequent collapse of energy prices eventually pushed Midland’s unemployment rate higher, to 4.3 percent in March 2009.47

40


With job opportunities expanding and income levels rising in recent years, the metro’s housing sector has boomed. Median home prices in the region have held up well. In the first quarter of 2009, there was an average of four months of inventory supply, compared with 2.1 months during the same period of 2008. Growing consumer activity supports Midland’s strong economy; annual retail sales increased by 16.1 percent in 2008.48 In fact, employment in the food services and drinking places category rose 9.3 percent during the same year.

Figure 20. Support activities for miningMidland vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30



Figure 20. Support activities for miningMidland vs. United States

MidlandUnited States

Longview, Texas, leapt to the number-two spot in 2009, propelled by strong energy and chemical industries. Between 2007 and 2008, overall job growth was 2.8 percent, making Longview one of the few U.S. metros that recorded positive job growth during that period. Wage growth was decent, rising by 3.8 percent from 2006 to 2007.

Longview benefits from the large number of energy-related jobs based in the East Texas oilfields. The industries of oil and gas extraction and its supporting activities remain the key engines of growth in this region. In particular, the supporting activities for mining industry added close to 2,200 jobs from 2003 to 2008, and recorded 13.2 percent annual job growth since 2003. Most of these professionals are employed on a contract basis, either individually or through agencies. Consequently, employment services and other business support services—such as accounting and payroll—grew as well, adding 780 jobs and 470 jobs, respectively, between 2007 and 2008.

Longview also is considered a regional health-care hub and tends to attract retirees from the North.49 The health-care sector employed 12,900 workers, accounting for 13 percent of the metro’s total workforce, in 2008.

41


Figure 21. Administrative and support servicesLongview vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10



LongviewUnited States

Grand Junction, Colorado, climbed a couple of spots to finish 3rd in the 2009 index. This metro area is positioned between Denver and Salt Lake City, giving it access to a wide market base. At 4.5 percent, overall short-term job growth remained robust, ranking 4th among the nation’s small cities and making Grand Junction one of the few places in the nation that can lay claim to significant job growth between 2007 and 2008.

The energy sector, whose prices peaked in the summer of 2008, contributed to the region’s economic gains and job creation. The metro sits in the Piceance Basin, which is rich in oil shale, coal, and natural gas. Exploration and R&D for better extraction of these resources has been growing. As a result, the support for mining activity category remained the metro’s leading industry, creating more than 3,200 jobs for 41.7 percent average annual growth from 2003 to 2008.

Tyler, Texas, leapt twenty-two positions to become the 4th-best-performing small metro in the United States. Located in northeast Texas, next to Longview MSA, another thriving metro, Tyler serves as a distribution hub for several major regional markets: Dallas, Houston, Austin, Shreveport, Little Rock, Oklahoma City, and New Orleans are all less than 500 miles away.50 Overall job growth was 1.8 percent between 2007 and 2008, led by warehousing and storage, which added close to 2,000 positions.

The health-care services sector is the largest employer in the region. The East Texas Medical Center and Trinity Mother Frances Hospital employed more than 7,200 workers in 2008.51 Together, the ambulatory health-care services and hospitals industries were responsible for the creation of almost 1,000 jobs between 2007 and 2008.

42


Figure 22. Health-care and social assistance servicesTyler vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0



Figure 22. Health care and social assistance servicesTyler vs. United States

TylerUnited States

Odessa, Texas, moved up to 5th in the 2009 small metro index. This oil-rich region, a major center for oil field technology, is a crucial service, work force, transportation, supply, and manufacturing hub of the Permian Basin. It enjoyed robust job growth of 6.7 percent between 2007 and 2008, the fastest increase in the nation.52 Odessa’s unemployment rate in 2008 was the second-lowest in the state at 3.4 percent (the state of Texas ended the year with 4.9 percent unemployment, considerably below the national unemployment rate of 5.8 percent).53

Odessa, along with Midland, forms an economic hub in the Permian Basin region that stretches across West Texas and Southern New Mexico, and along La Entrada Pacífico, the trade corridor that extends into Mexico. Not surprisingly, oil and gas extraction and supporting activities for mining are leading industries, employing more than 6,800 workers and accounting for 10.8 percent of total jobs in 2008. Distribution centers of major corporations such as Coca-Cola also call Odessa home.

The metro has ambitious plans to upgrade public infrastructure. The $69 million Water and Sewer System Improvement Programming Project54 was a factor behind growth in the heavy and civil engineering construction industry, which added more than 500 jobs in the past year, a 26.4 percent increase from 2007.

Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, Washington, climbed twenty-three spots to rank 6th among small U.S. metros in 2009. The area’s overall job growth was 3.8 percent between 2007 and 2008. Leading job creation were the professional, scientific, and technical services sector (which includes engineering services, research and development, and environmental consulting services) and government. The former added 900 positions and the latter added more than 500 during this period. Waste management and the remediation services sector also has a large presence and added more than 200 new jobs. The public sector plays an important role in the local economy since the metro area is home to the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site, which encompasses plutonium production facilities and nuclear reactors.55 Indeed, the largest employers in the region are the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest

43


National Lab (PNNL), plus several engineering and consulting firms, such as Fluor and Bechtel. There are more scientists and engineers per capita in the “Tri-Cities” than anywhere else in the nation.56

Due to the high number of high-tech jobs, the region has posted impressive wage growth. Between 2006 and 2007, wages increased by 5.4 percent, the third-best performance in this measure in the small metro index.

Figure 23. Professional, scientific, and technical servicesKennewick-Pasco-Richland vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15



Figure 23. Professional, scientific, and technical servicesKennewick-Pasco-Richland vs. United States

Kennewick-Pasco-RichlandUnited States

Energy-rich Bismarck, North Dakota, rose to 7th place in the 2009 small cities index after finishing 15th last year. The metro area has large reserves of lignite coal, oil, and natural gas. It is home to four lignite coalmines, which produce more than 30 million tons annually.57 Agriculture is also an important sector in the region. Acreage of corn and soybeans—used for biofuels—has increased, while wheat production remains the number-one crop. All three commodities’ prices skyrocketed in the time period we examined as demand from emerging markets and the alternative energy sector increased. Construction of the new Northern Plains Commerce Center (NPCC), which will serve as an industrial, distribution, and technology park, and has immediate access to land, rail, and air transportation, will expand the region’s trade capacity.

Between 2007 and 2008, overall job growth was 2 percent. The top three leading job creators were ambulatory health-care services, which added 170 jobs; heavy and civil engineering construction, which grew by 140 jobs; and professional, scientific, and technical services, which added 120 new jobs. As of March 2009, the metro had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation at 4.7 percent. This was lower than the state of North Dakota (5.1 percent) and considerably lower than the nation’s 9.0 percent unemployment rate during the same month.

Warner Robins, Georgia, the new home of the Southeast Regional Headquarters of Little League, was the 8th-best-performing small metro of 2009, declining by two spots since the 2008 index. Robin Air Force Base (Robin AFB) continues to be the dominant force in the local economy, generating $3.9 billion in economic impact in Middle Georgia. It is the largest local employer, with more than 21,000

44


civilians, contractors, and military members.58 Not surprisingly, federal government jobs are strongly concentrated in the region, accounting for more than 3,800 workers in 2008. Between 2003 and 2008, overall job growth in the region was 10.3 percent and wages rose 8.8 percent.

The food-manufacturing sector also has a big presence in Warner Robins, which is home to operations of Perdue and Frito-Lay. The combined workforce of these two top employers was close to 3,700 workers.59 Job growth in the food manufacturing industry increased by 2.7 percent between 2007 and 2008.

Located in southwestern New Mexico, Las Cruces made it back to the top 10 list, finishing 9th among the best-performing small metros of 2009. This is the area’s best showing since 2004, when it ranked number 2. New Mexico State University, White Sands Missiles Range, and NASA White Sands Test Facility continue to be the economic engines of the region. Spaceport America, the world’s first commercial spaceport, is being developed in the region as well. With the growing aerospace engineering program at NMSU attracting aerospace firms, and its low cost of doing business, Las Cruces is becoming a major player and top location for aerospace and space-related technology R&D firms.

Overall job growth in Las Cruces was 1.6 percent between 2007 and 2008. Its location along the Rio Grande trade corridor gives the metro area access to the consumer and business markets of border cities in both Texas and Mexico. Las Cruces is also a growing destination for retirees, which is keeping the real estate market afloat in the region.

45


Fargo, North Dakota, ranks 10th among the best-performing small metros of 2009. Overall job growth was 1.3 percent between 2007 and 2008. Increased demand for agricultural commodities such as wheat, corn, and soybeans, which the state grows in abundance, has benefited the heavy machinery manufacturing industry in Fargo and increased local income. Fargo has a growing technology cluster, including operations of Microsoft, Navtech, and Aldevron. The metro’s four institutions of higher learning (North Dakota State University, Rasmussen College, and—just across the state line—Minnesota State University and Concordia College, both in the neighboring city of Moorhead, MN) support this new strength in technology, in particular the bioscience sector.

Between 2003 and 2008, the professional, scientific, and technical services sector added more than 1,700 jobs. Most of the growth came from the computer systems design and scientific research and development services. Meanwhile, the machinery manufacturing industry added more than 500 positions, mostly in the manufacturing of agriculture, construction, and mining machineries.

Figure 24. Computer systems design servicesFargo vs. United States

2008200720062005200420032002

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20



Figure 24. Computer systems design servicesFargo vs. United States

FargoUnited States

Co

mp

lete

Res

ult

s: 2

00

9 B

est-

Per

form

ing

Lar

ge

Cit

ies

2009

2008

Po

pu

lati

on

2008

Ove

rall

ran

kra

nk

Met

rop

olit

an a

rea

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k(t

hous

ands

)in

dex

**

00.001356,1

3201

4165.1

1114.201

0268.211

4%23.0

580.301

9166.901

440.301

629.211

AS

M X

T ,kcoR dnuo

R-nitsuA

41

89.232

97387

657

58.037

19.896

32.9311

%18.182

26.1014

34.7111

51.40181

32.801A

SM

XT ,doo

H troF-elp

meT-neelli

K31

2

23.733611,1

4111

6500.1

578.301

8481.201

69%85.2-

237.301

9277.701

4441.101

0115.901

AS

M T

U ,ytiC ekaL tla

S3

3

33.053727

8413

47154.0

33157.69

191.281

6%10.0-

828.201

720.611

306.301

131.811

AS

M X

T ,noissiM-grubnid

E-nellAc

M7

4

75.263827,5

8413

9877.0

8681.99

0722.79

32%96.0-

719.201

1229.801

707.201

6155.801

AS

M X

T ,nwotya

B-dnaL raguS-notsuo

H61

5

70.363094

439

481.2

0227.101

2719.69

45%57.1-

3393.101

8678.201

3151.201

8207.601

AS

M C

N ,mahru

D12

6

55.363542

5214

45145.0

5283.101

4112.911

61%93.0-

1166.201

9336.601

4131.201

3246.701

AS

M A

W ,aipmyl

O9

7

05.463693

748

680.2

4161.201

5531.001

37%91.2-

2655.001

7397.601

933.201

0257.701

AS

M LA ,ellivstnu

H5

8

44.473952

5214

22146.0

40168.79

9100.411

41%73.0-

0127.201

6122.111

3237.101

2286.701

AS

M AL ,etteyafaL

419

13.673

980,101

2102

54.173

17.00126

86.89821

%63.3-21

16.20182

60.80133

03.1015

90.311A

SM

CN ,yra

C-hgielaR

201

39.683

130,287

696

88.0831

26.6959

90.4901

%91.0-02

61.20103

86.7018

76.20112

17.701A

SM

XT ,oinotn

A naS

5111

68.093

470,243

954

01.1131

78.6997

29.5951

%83.0-61

93.20185

86.30181

29.10103

23.601D

M X

T ,notgnilrA-htro

W troF

9221

70.693

622,441

1171

94.1841

32.6914

81.30135

%27.1-31

65.20106

75.30171

10.20123

52.601D

M X

T ,gnivrI-onalP-salla

D32

31

99.784247

5214

31176.0

5422.001

0907.49

42%87.0-

7153.201

5681.301

608.201

3564.301

AS

M X

T ,osaP l

E73

41

00.984406

757

710.2

5633.99

8360.401

02%85.0-

6781.001

71167.89

933.201

6491.401

AS

M S

K ,atihciW

5451

86.394

514841

3341

65.013

39.00192

72.90114

%63.1-63

72.10145

61.4012

77.30174

81.401A

SM

XT ,itsirh

C suproC

8861

50.894

955,274

84

81.284

41.00196

82.79621

%43.3-9

57.20197

56.10172

46.10133

59.501D

M A

W ,tterevE-euvelle

B-elttaeS

7171

69.605

477841

3071

74.0521

21.7924

49.2013

%54.04

90.30172

01.80105

10.10193

90.501A

SM

AL ,eguoR nota

B04

81

98.215619

6015

00117.0

2387.001

0385.801

11%32.0-

5791.001

7921.001

6170.201

6374.501

AS

M K

O ,asluT

2791

72.615

052841

3261

15.087

77.8944

16.20184

%75.1-72

46.10174

24.50102

28.10141

28.801A

SM

OC ,yeleer

G02

02

03.615687

6015

22146.0

6412.001

999.331

77%72.2-

5277.101

4178.111

9842.001

5272.701

DM

AW ,a

mocaT

812

95.425

39232

0142

04.114

55.00186

05.7963

%61.1-65

76.001721

14.7903

54.10105

18.301A

SM

OC ,dnalevoL-snillo

C troF

8422

62.335

57675

734

21.1201

19.7933

80.60104

%53.1-62

66.10167

90.20194

20.10157

01.201A

SM

RA ,ya

wnoC-kco

R elttiL htroN-kco

R elttiL45

32

70.045093

6015

72136.0

96191.59

885.431

82%89.0-

8143.201

9436.401

1313.101

8592.301

AS

M AL ,yti

C reissoB-tropeverh

S76

42

2541

Was

hing

ton-

Arli

ngto

n-A

lexa

ndria

, DC

-VA

-MD

-WV

MD

103.

4255

101.

1643

105.

5645

99.7

797

-0.8

9%27

93.3

110

498

.23

921.

4719

934

4,18

254

4.34

47.445

602,187

6021

56.037

19.8993

30.40121

%42.0-18

51.00155

88.30182

36.10116

41.301A

SM

KO ,yti

C amohalk

O05

62

54.665444

5214

45145.0

479.301

486.441

33%21.1-

01165.99

7111.111

7862.001

7174.801

AS

M O

M-R

A ,sregoR-eladgnirp

S-ellivetteyaF

7572

51.865

14587

663

62.162

73.10138

36.59541

%58.3-1

71.4019

47.411041

44.992

69.411A

SM

TU ,

merO-ovor

P1

82

70.675172

876

1382.1

58102.39

1266.111

5%50.0

0685.001

00198.99

1181.201

1840.101

AS

M X

T ,kcobbuL65

92

45.185546

876

60196.0

92110.79

2243.111

611%50.3-

7448.001

1346.701

8362.101

9180.801

AS

M C

S ,ellivrem

muS-notselrah

C htroN-notselrah

C01

03

59.295653

3712

08124.0

50158.79

90104.29

85%68.1-

5144.201

5167.111

2218.101

4396.501

AS

M C

N ,ellivetteyaF

2513

07.395

13587

6501

07.06

62.30118

87.59201

%17.2-3

81.30114

53.601511

88.9913

13.601A

SM

TU ,dleifrael

C-nedgO

8123

59.026

273601

5841

55.059

61.8994

56.10113

%00.1-601

36.9973

97.60192

64.10154

02.401A

SM LI ,airoe

P34

33

74.936743

5214

8927.0

8823.89

586.241

061%23.4-

2250.201

1193.411

50199.99

499.311

AS

M C

N ,notgnimli

W6

43

28.346442

8413

46105.0

97197.39

5744.69

91%55.0-

3230.201

1592.401

4217.101

4658.201

AS

M X

T ,olliram

A94

53

31.546008

6015

66194.0

3846.89

6861.59

93%43.1-

2782.001

6212.801

4902.001

3180.901

AS

M A

C ,dleifsrekaB

2163

94.746

702,243

99

48.105

30.0017

50.931451

%32.4-96

63.00187

67.10167

44.00183

11.501A

SM

AW-

RO ,notrevae

B-revuocnaV-dnaltro

P82

73

74.356796,11

5214

61166.0

1700.99

33139.98

07%71.2-

670.301

4476.501

5392.101

3982.001

DM J

N-Y

N ,enyaW-snial

P etihW-kro

Y we

N58

83

85.656433

8413

3947.0

21146.79

6202.011

36%50.2-

7340.101

0223.901

65180.99

773.011

AS

M A

G ,hannavaS

4293

96.366

563601

5001

17.0381

04.39301

24.392

%88.018

51.00196

63.20151

90.20156

57.201A

SM

KA ,egarohcn

A36

04

94.866364

5214

70186.0

5778.89

9561.99

111%78.2-

1374.101

2512.401

3657.001

1437.401

AS

M A

W ,enakopS

5314

33.276

64841

118

59.182

61.10189

96.3998

%84.2-311

45.9937

42.20187

04.00165

83.301A

SM

MN ,euqreuqubl

A13

24

05.186504

4111

2214.1

3443.001

6492.201

55%87.1-

8673.001

5721.201

40100.001

52177.89

AS

M A

C ,ateloG-aira

M atnaS-arabra

B atnaS

00134

00.486

3923

513

57.2101

49.7987

12.69211

%69.2-07

53.001031

02.7991

58.10186

95.201A

SM

OC ,redluo

B59

44

69.486284,1

181

148.2

3102.201

51185.19

81%44.0-

8438.001

24121.69

6539.001

36146.69

DM

AM ,

mahgnimar

F-notwe

N-egdirbma

C931

54

23.796563

439

6362.1

7603.99

1381.701

67%72.2-

91183.99

3958.001

2491.101

7897.001

AS

M JN ,gni

wE-notner

T26

64

45.807207,1

5214

70186.0

3377.001

2389.601

981%40.6-

5392.101

0474.601

8605.001

9296.601

AS

M C

S-C

N ,drocnoC-ainotsa

G-ettolrahC

6274

80.217

191,1601

546

39.096

40.9954

73.20106

%99.1-93

29.001511

88.8963

72.101021

19.89A

SM

TC ,droftra

H tsaE-droftra

H tseW-droftra

H941

84

04.617598

757

9599.0

4836.89

6577.99

99%76.2-

9329.001

6631.301

4569.001

92124.89

AS

M T

C ,klawro

N-drofmat

S-tropegdirB

3994

21.337

918,13

512

38.291

08.10198

08.49641

%78.3-44

78.001411

69.8916

48.001501

57.99A

SM

AC ,aral

C atnaS-elavynnu

S-esoJ naS

4805

21.147

671,143

912

24.105

30.00128

76.598

%50.0-041

20.9996

63.20159

91.001721

15.89D

M D

M ,grubsrehtiaG-kcireder

F-adsehteB

32115

34.857

200,275

772

53.1361

95.59601

01.3924

%14.1-65

76.001131

91.7945

69.00168

28.001A

SM

SK-

OM ,yti

C sasnaK

7725

35.957

655841

3841

55.0271

78.4988

98.4934

%84.1-09

19.9935

71.40164

01.10173

32.501A

SM

AI ,senioM se

D tseW-senio

M seD

5235

97.667

4923

5125

40.1811

23.7973

03.40122

%76.0-82

26.101041

32.6918

33.001571

94.59A

SM

YN ,e

moR-acit

U431

45

20.077705,2

0121

2136.1

63117.69

50121.39

141%57.3-

3587.001

61138.89

1422.101

1774.201

AS

M O

C ,aroruA-revne

D44

55

73.077827

8413

65135.0

73107.69

6391.501

54%35.1-

1675.001

7640.301

7734.001

6637.201

AS

M C

S ,aibmulo

C63

65

38.577552

876

2828.0

98167.29

05134.78

52%97.0-

8771.001

31189.89

6266.101

7607.201

AS

M AI ,sdipa

R radeC

6875

61.877

293841

3701

86.081

28.10143

83.501161

%73.4-36

84.00117

23.20106

78.00115

87.301A

SM

RO ,

melaS

6685

02.187

604841

3851

25.0001

99.79531

98.9873

%91.1-97

61.00126

24.30154

31.10196

55.201A

SM L

A ,eliboM

1995

25.587

64287

6851

25.0021

52.79751

75.5831

%62.0-48

31.001501

73.9933

03.10147

31.201A

SM

AV ,grubhcnyL

1706

14.097

588,187

658

87.035

38.99151

90.7886

%51.2-84

38.001811

06.8983

62.101311

03.99D

M A

M ,ycniuQ-notso

B811

16

80.397192

8413

79192.0

24155.69

7422.201

94%26.1-

9546.001

4692.301

0794.001

2679.201

AS

M K

O-R

A ,htim

S troF

9626

18.997

26543

974

90.165

17.9981

38.51108

%03.2-531

11.99801

82.9908

43.00149

72.001A

SM I

W ,nosidaM

0936

15.208

766,232

0165

00.183

06.00145

15.00149

%35.2-611

84.9918

84.10169

41.001401

48.99A

SM

DM ,nos

woT-ero

mitlaB

7846

22.318

54201

2131

75.153

37.00106

30.9916

%00.2-64

68.001481

85.0976

36.001761

35.69A

SM

YN ,not

mahgniB

52156

26.618

838601

589

27.049

71.89321

38.0964

%45.1-121

63.99101

78.9952

86.10148

49.001A

SM

AI-E

N ,sffulB licnuo

C-aham

O28

66

15.228873

4911

61166.0

57154.49

5124.611

09%84.2-

2314.101

6538.301

5656.001

9959.99

AS

M X

T ,ruhtrA tro

P-tnomuae

B07

76

80.428624

876

22146.0

12132.79

34144.88

96%51.2-

4567.001

2782.201

22187.99

4432.401

AS

M O

M ,dleifgnirpS

2486

24.428

468,275

746

39.0531

37.69831

51.9866

%11.2-12

80.20149

75.00127

74.001341

98.79D

M Y

N ,kloffuS-uassa

N69

96

49.528393

4911

99152.0

90117.79

25170.78

76%41.2-

4478.001

8910.001

1181.201

8480.401

AS

M X

T ,negnilraH-ellivsn

worB

91107

65.728

524601

5841

55.007

30.99141

15.8897

%92.2-47

02.00169

41.00175

19.00175

03.301A

SM

AP ,revona

H-kroY

61117

25.928

45875

705

70.1511

84.79721

43.0983

%92.1-43

53.101141

71.6995

88.001051

44.79A

SM

YN ,yor

T-ydatcenehcS-ynabl

A831

27

95.238376

757

1778.0

789.201

65168.58

25%27.1-

7654.001

11141.99

9793.001

44188.79

AS

M Y

N ,nwotelddi

M-hgrubwe

N-eispeekhguoP

95137

87.338

44643

915

60.1611

73.79231

89.9892

%99.0-91

62.201261

19.4926

77.001161

17.69A

SM

YN ,esucary

S721

47

21.058804

876

84155.0

5120.201

7297.901

371%97.4-

7340.101

7803.101

01149.99

0735.201

AS

M C

N ,ellivehsA

6457

52.258

20474

862

73.183

06.001841

57.7815

%17.1-361

23.89211

20.9905

10.101701

96.99A

SM

HN ,auhsa

N-retsehcnaM

70167

48.068

526521

408

38.0851

58.59631

64.98301

%47.2-55

17.001121

14.8913

13.10106

32.301A

SM

CS ,yelsa

E-nidluaM-ellivneer

G86

77

45.368210,1

4111

9322.1

378.501

57115.18

571%19.4-

41135.99

4392.701

24193.99

0418.401

AS

M Z

A ,noscuT

5587

10.768

48741

1183

52.18

94.201271

25.2875

%48.1-84

38.001741

59.5969

41.001951

89.69A

SM

AM ,retsecro

W651

97

91.198873

3712

46105.0

44114.69

0848.59

71%24.0-

9761.001

20177.99

3589.001

01124.99

AS

M LI-AI ,dnalsI kco

R-eniloM-tropneva

D841

08

52.598743

757

5401.1

4472.001

0147.621

781%89.5-

8829.99

5853.101

15181.99

4554.301

AS

M R

O ,dleifgnirpS-enegu

E67

18

93.598435

876

03106.0

3215.101

0425.301

56%80.2-

2968.99

93155.69

1833.001

13162.89

AS

M C

S-A

G ,ytnuoC dno

mhciR-atsugu

A121

28

74.698100,3

641

5115.1

7960.89

4757.69

521%33.3-

60136.99

7708.101

92186.99

11104.99

AS

M A

C ,socraM na

S-dabslraC-ogei

D naS

5638

32.798

431,1521

4471

54.094

21.001711

92.197

%30.0-41

55.201781

61.985

88.201002

64.18A

SM

AL ,renneK-eiriate

M-snaelrO

weN

15148

10.898

077,132

0172

53.1031

09.69521

65.09041

%27.3-85

56.001431

89.6984

60.101311

03.99D

M A

C ,ytiC doo

wdeR-oeta

M naS-ocsicnar

F naS

4758

69.219

421,175

797

48.068

93.89161

30.5827

%81.2-42

79.101161

39.4963

72.101271

40.69A

SM

YN ,slla

F aragaiN-olaffu

B081

68

35.319856,1

876

5937.0

3981.89

44191.88

62%48.0-

1909.99

4771.201

83135.99

32138.89

AS

M C

N-A

V ,swe

N tropwe

N-klofroN-hcae

B ainigriV

9878

24.519

64843

933

72.1011

76.79131

11.099

%21.0-93

29.001361

68.49421

57.99961

72.69A

SM

TC ,drofli

M-nevaH

weN

48188

74.029

430,174

824

51.1651

09.59961

81.3812

%06.0-03

25.101671

18.3985

98.001071

62.69A

SM

YN ,retsehco

R181

98

22.429952

876

93175.0

57154.49

21190.29

46%70.2-

81114.99

3285.801

11139.99

7922.001

AS

M LF ,ellivsenia

G43

09

02.039914

439

3649.0

70157.79

3738.69

48%34.2-

36123.89

60143.99

2912.001

5848.001

DM

HN ,ytnuo

C droffartS-ytnuo

C mahgnikco

R311

19

24.639864

5214

93175.0

2255.101

201.951

121%42.3-

5674.001

94109.59

11139.99

3879.001

AS

M C

N ,mela

S-notsniW

9929

69.259

282,475

745

20.112

46.101291

06.47691

%03.7-221

53.9921

57.311181

10.8921

64.901A

SM

ZA ,eladsttoc

S-aseM-xineoh

P23

39

5-yr

job

gro

wth

2003

–200

81-

yr jo

b g

row

th20

07–2

008

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

gro

wth

200

2–20

071-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s g

row

th 2

006–

2007

# o

f H

T G

DP

L

Qs

ove

r 1

2008

Job

gro

wth

(Mar

08–

Mar

09)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

003–

2008

1-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

007–

2008

Hig

h-T

ech

G

DP

LQ

200

8

67.789816

3201

1137.1

71143.79

18129.87

241%67.3-

6781.001

70113.99

92186.99

0935.001

AS

M O

C ,sgnirpS odarolo

C111

101

78.789663

5214

92116.0

23197.69

7696.79

001%76.2-

72172.99

30157.99

1833.001

3792.201

AS

M LA ,yre

mogtnoM

83201

79.199

611,487

6531

95.098

03.8942

70.111091

%03.6-321

33.9901

06.411291

26.6953

45.501A

SM

AC ,oiratn

O-onidranreB na

S-edisreviR

35301

61.699

03375

757

58.0981

67.293

46.941771

%79.4-861

62.893

90.811191

58.6 951

16.801A

SM L

F ,alacO

03401

06.799

80875

739

47.0041

95.69761

96.3858

%44.2-201

76.99221

53.8948

13.00169

62.001A

SM J

N-A

P ,notsaE-

mehelhteB-n

wotnellA

921501

65.000,1

6 73, 574

89 4

80.158

74.8999

06.3967 1

%79. 4-78

89.99011

61.99341

43.9936

39.201A

SM

AG , atteira

M-sgnirpS yd na

S-atnaltA

9560 1

93.400,1668,1

3712

29173.0

68171.39

5881.59

871%12.5-

6664.001

168.321

75140.99

332.411

AS

M V

N ,esidaraP-sage

V saL57

701

65.900,1

377,187

648

97.063

27.00139

54.4974

%65.1-731

70.99171

53.4998

42.001631

30.89A

SM

HO ,sub

muloC

531801

31.610,1153,2

3201

1778.0

15140.69

82192.09

65%08.1-

5870.001

86114.49

4676.001

17131.69

AS

M A

P ,hgrubsttiP

631901

49.710,1135

3201

5887.0

45129.59

5264.011

59%65.2-

52182.99

75191.59

2774.001

93169.79

AS

M A

P ,elsilraC-grubsirra

H421

011

99.810,1

6378

3101

38.171

98.101971

96.97601

%87.2-84

38.001551

53.59631

45.99081

02.59D

M A

M ,ydobaeP

1711 11

10.320,1882

439

3372.1

87109.39

64198.78

43%51.1 -

30166.99

02144.89

90169.99

47115.59

AS

M LA-

AG ,sub

muloC

661211

63.420,1735

3712

34165.0

1 654.99

56167.38

44%94.1-

90175.99

1 941.101

10140.001

12178.89

AS

M S

M ,noskcaJ451

311

17.730,1

006841

355

10.101

64.201361

99.38291

%08.6-661

92.8952

72.801661

64.899

95.901A

SM

DI ,apma

N-ytiC esio

B72

411

04.350,1

909521

4081

24.0601

87.7943

83.501131

%54.3-99

27.9908

15.101741

72.9987

66.101A

SM

AC ,onser

F74

511

92.360,1

7358

3161

05.145

28.9935

95.001181

%34.5-581

51.7963

91.701781

54.79901

74.99A

SM L

F ,ellivsutiT-enruoble

M-yaB

mlaP

401611

87.460,1011,2

748

2659.0

0807.89

5638.79

971%42.5-

6918.99

3693.301

97160.89

12178.89

AS

M A

C ,ellivesoR--edacr

A-nedrA--otne

marcaS

85711

75.660,1622,1

876

00117.0

86122.59

41157.19

631%16.3-

10186.99

6833.101

53195.99

9753.101

AS

M A

V ,dnomhci

R201

811

86.070,1

19675

7701

86.0721

50 .79381

63.87921

%93.3-511

05.9978

03.101111

39.9919

33.001A

SM

NT ,ellivxon

K06

911

12

019

Myr

tle B

each

-Nor

th M

yrtle

Bea

ch-C

onw

ay, S

C M

SA

109.

4811

99.2

814

511

1.02

1898

.61

153

-7.0

8%19

510

1.22

5297

.49

113

0.40

184

314

825

71,

071.2

6

25.970,1

152,174

896

88.033

77.00148

15.59351

%12.4-141

10.9999

59.99521

47.99141

39.79D

M JN ,ned

maC

901121

51.580,1110,3

261

1382.1

1886.89

70126.29

071%17.4-

55125.89

8408.401

07104.89

62195.89

DM

AC ,enivrI-

miehanA-an

A atnaS

601221

6.580,1032,3

757

4639.0

94171.69

54169.78

321%82.3-

3684.001

33130.79

22187.99

23191.89

AS

M IW-

NM ,notgni

moolB-lua

P .tS-silopaenni

M731

3210

24.190,1624

8413

00232.0

16156.59

04165.88

711%70.3-

45106. 89

7596.301

1922.001

2456.401

AS

M A

C ,ellivretroP-ailasi

V46

421

34.190,1

517,175

704

02.169

70.89861

25.38411

%00.3-071

22.89241

21.6968

82.00129

13.001A

SM

NI ,lemra

C-silopanaidnI18

521

14.690,1

89275

759

37.095

35.99921

72.0905

%96. 1-731

70.99651

02.59921

86.9 9641

85.79A

SM

AV , eko na o

R861

621

2 6.890,1

88687

6531

95.004

75.00146

20.89701

%97.2-84

38.001271

41.49621

27.99871

92 .59A

SM

AM ,dleifgnirp

S281

721

59.511,1

148, 243

965

00.1741

72.6979

87.3978

%74.2-841

67.89771

66.3947

54.001941

45.79A

SM LI-

OM ,siuoL .t

S251

821

46.241,1

753601

5001

17.0461

45.5936

11.8939

%35.2-161

93.89321

40.89841

42.9908

82.101A

SM L

F ,eessahallaT

511921

95.541,1562

6015

34165.0

77199.39

81111.19

021%71.3-

3958.99

0972.101

14124.99

80145.99

AS

M A

C ,selboR osa

P-opsibO siuL na

S97

031

13

161

For

t Lau

derd

ale-

Pom

pano

Bea

ch-D

eerf

ield

Bea

ch, F

L M

D10

3.84

4998

.10

178

107.

3532

97.2

518

4-4

.37%

162

91.4

311

692

.73

191

0.77

898

471,

751

1,14

9.56

81.051,1945

4111

5887.0

76152.59

1543.101

401%57.2-

23141.99

47139.39

50199.99

35173.79

AS

M A

P ,erraB-sekli

W--notnarcS

161231

13.351,1503

3201

9877.0

66103.59

01143.29

911%51.3-

05166.89

45163.59

7480.101

56126.69

AS

M A

V-N

T ,lotsirB-lotsir

B-tropsgniK

821331

55.351,1804

8413

78193.0

0962.89

8524.99

811%11.3-

30166.99

30157.99

7862.001

77153.59

AS

M A

C ,sanilaS

231431

10.551,1404

6015

34165.0

8920.89

22158.09

311%79.2-

82132.99

85190.59

80179.99

9866.001

AS

M A

P ,gnidaeR

461531

80.651,1162

8413

27164.0

1886.89

43109.98

171%37.4-

74177.89

640.611

46166.89

6708.101

AS

M Y

K-N

T ,ellivskralC

15631

70.751,1185

84 13

98183.0

48182.39

6940.49

561%94.4-

34168.89

2246.801

86124.89

6290.701

AS

M LF ,n eva

H retniW-dnalekaL

89731

90.461,1551,2

8413

5937.0

2104.201

6637.79

79%95.2-

15146.89

96183.49

50199.99

45163.79

AS

M NI-

YK-

HO ,n

wotelddiM-itannicni

C371

831

94.561,1

268,932

0103

03.1421

31.79241

94.88831

%36.3-301

66.99421

30.89351

61.99061

59.69D

M A

C ,e ladnelG-hcae

B gnoL-selegnA soL

621931

01.861,1415

6015

82126.0

64173.69

02110.19

17%81.2-

24179.89

92112.79

2912.001

65172.79

AS

M E

M ,drofeddiB-dnaltro

P htuoS-dnaltro

P851

041

14.971,1

313,1521

4031

06.0991

58.09551

13.68941

% 30.4-851

44 .8942

54.80 1071

04.8934

63.4 01A

SM L

F ,el livno skcaJ93

141

75.081,1

121 ,23 2

0114

81.1221

61.79581

45.7729

%2 5.2-231

41.99951

50.5989

21.001281

2 8.49D

M A

P-JN ,n oin

U-kraw e

N361

241

31.381,1

514371

2271

64.0311

94.79201

74.39791

%75.7-17

13.00123

53.701591

72.6967

08.101A

SM

VN ,skrap

S-oneR

331341

73.381,1403

5214

93175.0

79174.19

49150.47

23%21.1-

44148.89

56118.49

8362.101

54178.79

AS

M V

W ,notselrahC

771441

61.391,1405,2

641

4204.1

7853.89

10155.39

151%71. 4-

91183.99

63148.69

36176.89

97172.59

DM

AC ,dra

wyaH-tno

merF-dnalka

O741

541

41.491,1

462521

4841

55.0951

57.5931

56.021901

%18.2-761

82.8998

92.101551

41.99611

32.99A

SM

VW-

DM ,grubsnitra

M-nwotsrega

H211

641

56.491,1

523,201

2181

84.1341

54.69071

99.28951

%03.4-421

13.99841

49.59711

18.99041

49.79D

M JN ,kci

wsnurB

weN-nosid

E411

741

43.591,1

099,775

738

18.087

77.89421

17.09341

%97.3-011

65.99051

97.59721

96.99851

90.79D

M LI ,teiloJ-ellivrepaN-ogacih

C061

841

63.602,1

482371

2981

83.0261

46.59031

51.0903

%00.1-99

27.99441

70.69711

18.99151

34.79A

SM

HO-

YK-

VW ,dnalhs

A-notgnitnuH

351941

85.702,1404

3712

47154.0

75178 .59

3488.201

281%44.5-

38192.79

558.611

89192.59

7249.601

AS

M LF ,eicuL .t

S troP

87051

82.112,1945,1

6015

7629.0

7252.101

6151.611

841%20.4-

96132.89

37100.49

71118.99

55153.79

AS

M IW ,sill

A tseW-ahsekua

W-eekuawli

M751

151

91.312,1

114601

557

58.055

47.9971

19.51126

%10.2-081

43.79881

38.88941

22.99661

45.69A

SM

NI ,enyaW tro

F961

251

49.412,1

542,1371

2661

94.0051

50.69121

29.09421

%82.3-88

29.99821

04.79111

39.99811

50.99A

SM

NI-Y

K ,ytnuoC nosreffeJ-ellivsiuoL

131351

22.712,1607

748

00117.0

0399.001

80195.29

191%83.6-

8947.99

15135.59

95100.99

33151.89

AS

M C

N ,tnioP hgi

H-orobsneerG

141451

13. 322,1513

876

9713 4.0

0818 6.39

829 4.9 01

881%89 .5-

00224.4 9

868.4 11

99177 .49

2505. 301

AS

M LF ,dna lsI ocra

M-s elpaN

3 8551

02.332,1205

3712

66194.0

2453.001

99147.56

031%34.3-

82132.99

54140.69

1784.001

32138.89

AS

M A

P ,retsacnaL571

651

15.432,1

35475

7701

86.0002

70.0919

96.49251

%91.4-261

53.8964

94.501491

06.69601

07.99A

SM L

F ,tnerB-ssa

P yrreF-alocasne

P33

751

81.532,1

89741

1122

14.1911

82.79261

41.48471

%88.4-851

44.8905

04.401381

49.79461

36.69A

SM

AC ,arutne

V-skaO dnasuoh

T-dranxO

041851

19.632,1115

8413

96184.0

2673.99

1199.321

331%84.3-

03191.99

80182.99

57122.89

84175.79

AS

M A

C ,otsedoM

261951

32.932,1352

439

1778.0

7481.001

19144.57

651%42.4-

3498.001

07163.49

28179.79

86104.69

AS

M A

C ,ellivnostaW-zur

C atnaS

101061

58.142,1354

5214

22146.0

43147.69

93189.88

221%72.3-

54108.89

73186.69

72196.99

20119.99

AS

M Y

K ,etteyaF-notgnixeL

221161

61.742,1894

876

61166.0

06127.59

7742.69

271%57.4-

87134.79

5372.701

39116.69

30158.99

AS

M LF ,hcae

B dnomr

O-hcaeB anotya

D-anotleD

29261

55.452,1572

9910

26115.0

07180.59

00195.39

68%64.2-

71144.99

28198.19

8605.001

43180.89

AS

M IW-

NM ,htulu

D761

361

01.752,1

97275

7611

66.0471

06.49981

91.6795

%59.1-731

70.99181

86.29301

10.001651

72.79A

SM

AP ,eir

E971

461

93.672,1

76441

1174

90.185

65.99771

81.18381

%84.5-38

41.001571

68.39661

64.89261

96.69A

SM

AC ,a

mulateP-aso

R atnaS

341561

32.772,1276

3712

49153.0

56173.59

46118.38

89% 06.2-

6860.001

2939.001

08120.89

51162.99

AS

M A

C ,notkcotS

301661

74.872,1996

3712

84155.0

894.201

11132.29

431%15.3-

37178.79

76195.49

8921.001

72115.89

AS

M H

O ,norkA

271761

59.682,1207

3712

38114.0

11156.79

2975.49

47%02.2-

47147.79

06149.49

00180.0 01

83199.79

DM

NI ,yraG

471861

49.592,1437,2

748

8609.0

79174.19

91170.19

661%25.4-

18133.79

5923.001

68146.79

8857.001

AS

M LF ,reta

wraelC-grubsrete

P .tS-ap

maT

08961

70.203,1053

876

3530.1

0664.99

62114.09

501%77.2-

57185.79

97151.39

23176.99

68136.39

AS

M Y

K-NI ,ellivsnav

E241

071

68.503,1

303841

3481

04.0151

40.6975

64.9988

%84.2-251

36.89351

04.59931

25.99731

00.89A

SM I

W ,yaB neer

G561

171

29.013,1

815491

1081

24.0491

67 .1967

34. 6938

%2 4.2-561

03. 89531

09.69121

08.99711

70.99A

SM

AG-

NT ,agoonat tah

C011

271

86.513,1

80487

6031

06.0541

83.69371

02.28511

%20.3-521

82.9928

64.101581

48.79671

44.59A

SM

AC ,dleifria

F-ojellaV

541371

46.713,1453

8413

85125.0

35149.59

4912.49

19%05.2-

21155.99

87114.39

06199.89

03192.89

AS

M LI ,drofkcoR

551471

175

105

Wes

t Pal

m B

each

-Boc

a R

aton

-Boy

nton

Bea

ch, F

L M

D10

0.27

9497

.04

189

103.

4961

97.3

817

9-4

.39%

163

94.9

987

93.5

518

20.

6013

04

125

1,26

51,3

18.4

8

65.333,1

88687

6831

85.0291

36.2932

11.111491

%19.6-691

85.5995

76.301691

88.5989

69.99A

SM L

F ,ecineV-atosara

S-notnedarB

79671

83.633,1811,1

876

70186.0

69136.19

78187.67

721%43.3-

07122.89

52156.79

63145.99

91139.89

AS

M LA ,revoo

H-mahgni

mriB

051771

85.143,1682,1

3712

78193.0

52121.79

95163.58

57%02.2-

43131.99

23131.79

05112.99

25104.79

AS

M R

A-S

M-N

T ,sihpme

M441

871

57.743,1

893,2371

2851

25.0181

95.39351

69.68851

%03.4-651

74.8938

34.101851

10.9928

10.101D

M LF ,lladne

K-hcaeB i

maiM-i

maiM

711971

22.373,1395

8413

98183.0

59146.19

69185.37

002%23.9-

89135.59

217.221

00266.39

4285.701

AS

M LF ,srey

M troF-laro

C epaC

021081

14.683,1182

3712

59133.0

37137.49

89167.86

861%36.4-

06124.89

08189.29

0228.101

00149.99

AS

M C

S ,grubnatrapS

381181

85.924,1696

8413

53195.0

14175.69

67132.18

751%52.4-

77154.79

62185.79

33126.99

53150.89

DM J

N-D

M-E

D ,notgnimli

W871

281

43.034,1

73832

0147

68 .025

29.99451

73.68231

%64.3 -781

79.69191

11.88071

0 4.89691

5 2.09A

SM

HO ,n otya

D981

381

61.044,1

642991

0691

23.0821

20.79591

36.37531

%06.3-941

47.8948

93.101861

24.89141

39.79A

SM

AC ,decre

M37

481

19.044,1

363521

4931

75.02

18.60121

28.12 1891

%96.7-531

11.99981

18.88481

88.79091

38.19A

SM

CN ,notnagro

M-rioneL-yrokciH

191581

27.144,1880,2

3712

03106.0

4244.101

1799.69

931%76.3-

67165.79

38169.09

25171.99

78125.39

AS

M H

O ,rotneM-airyl

E-dnalevelC

391681

. 094, 17 95, 1

876

5 88 7.0

45129.59

66127.3 8

76 1%35. 4-

65174.89

6 4120 .69

67 141. 89

58142 .49

AS

M A

M -IR ,r evi

R llaF- dro fd e

B we

N- ecn edi vorP

0 7178 1

77

52.905,1

713841

3311

76.0701

57.79481

67.77801

%97.2-981

38.69581

49.98441

92.99381

47.49A

SM I

M-NI ,aka

wahsiM-dne

B htuoS

681881

50. 05 5,14 23

5 214

5758.0

2 74 9.89

00299.95

051%71. 4-

6814 1.7 9

3 916 4.78

16169. 89

8814 3. 39

AS

M IM ,e ga tro

P -o ozamala

K58 1

981

54.355,1

804371

2891

82.0301

88.79851

94.58011

%58.2-271

98.79691

41.68431

16.99981

10.29A

SM

HO ,nollissa

M-notnaC

791091

49.375,1743

876

0689.0

9900.89

39184.47

551%32.4-

59147.59

79180.68

47132.89

59153.19

AS

M IM ,robr

A nnA

291191

33.285,1172

3712

29173.0

6119.101

68188.67

961%96.4-

09163.69

66127.49

54182.99

48104.49

AS

M JN ,yti

C citnaltA

781291

88.606,1665

5214

47154.0

4663.99

17186.28

741%89.3-

19153.69

29198.78

56126.89

39106.19

AS

M A

P-H

O ,namdrao

B-nerraW-n

wotsgnuoY

881391

59.826,1777

3712

65135.0

7787.89

47135.18

081%72.5-

18133.79

68116.98

35161.99

18190.59

AS

M IM ,gni

moyW-sdipa

R dnarG

091491

40.256,1454

4911

47154.0

93116.69

79136.27

731%26.3-

39142.69

59154.68

71118.99

49185.19

AS

M IM ,gnisnaL tsa

E-gnisnaL691

591

04.166,1

062371

2341

65.01

63.701181

29.87391

%38.6-491

41.69491

19.68371

63.89191

18.19A

SM I

M ,nevaH dnar

G-dnalloH

991691

93.176,1574,2

5214

1679.0

6718.89

88145.67

991%89.7-

29113.69

89107.38

09199.69

79121.88

DM I

M ,slliH notgni

mraF-yor

T-nerraW

891791

27.3 76, 1946

49 11

48104. 0

9240. 10 1

73181.98

581% 16.5-

8 816 9.69

09195. 88

67141.89

29137. 19

AS

M H

O ,o del oT

491891

51.307,1059,1

6015

2967.0

22161.79

09167.57

681%36.5-

79155.59

99193.38

88191.79

99197.58

DM I

M ,nrobraeD-ainoviL-tiorte

D002

991

36.737,1

924521

422 1

46.0881

68.29741

18.7 846 1

%64.4-991

35.49002

37.87791

95.598 91

41.68A

SM I

M ,tn ilF

5 91002

2009

2008

Po

pu

lati

on

2008

Ove

rall

ran

kra

nk

Met

rop

olit

an a

rea

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k(t

hous

ands

)in

dex

Hig

h-T

ech

G

DP

LQ

200

8#

of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s o

ver

1 20

081-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s g

row

th 2

006–

2007

Job

gro

wth

(Mar

08–

Mar

09)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

003–

2008

1-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

007–

2008

5-yr

job

gro

wth

2003

–200

81-

yr jo

b g

row

th20

07–2

008

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

gro

wth

200

2–20

07

81.369298,3

757

3421.1

1942.89

08145.97

18%33.2-

5928.99

91175.89

6646.001

64185.79

DM

AP ,aihpledalih

P031

69

27.969592

6015

31176.0

2673.99

87107.08

53%61.1-

13161.99

25154.59

0510.101

00149.99

AS

M E

N ,nlocniL641

79

9822

Nas

hvill

e-D

avid

son-

-Mur

free

sbor

o--F

rank

lin, T

N M

SA

103.

2759

100.

0210

210

6.23

4299

.83

94-3

.83%

144

87.6

414

994

.88

171

0.65

120

678

1,55

19

72.9

2

32.189550,2

757

0838.0

78141.39

1609.89

481%95.5-

64187.89

3175.211

26119.89

822.011

AS

M LF ,ee

mmissi

K-odnalrO

1199

19.689

509371

2071

74.0391

15.29311

87.1928

%73.2-37

72.00134

09.501611

28.9927

43.201A

SM I

H ,ululonoH

49001

08.659562

6015

9243.1

6613.99

0585.101

101%76.2-

9329.001

46148.49

5892.001

37118.59

AS

M T

C ,nodnoL we

N-hciwro

N671

49

99.659778

6015

3372.1

7575.99

06153.58

87%92.2-

80195.99

83195.69

4754.001

21123.99

DM I

W-LI ,ytnuoC ahsone

K-ytnuoC ekaL

80159

* “V

alue

s” a

re b

ench

mar

ked

agai

nst t

he n

atio

nal a

vera

ge, w

hich

is se

t to

100.

** In

dex

scor

es a

re b

ench

mar

ked

agai

nst t

he to

p pe

rform

er, w

hich

is se

t to

100.

Low

er in

dex

scor

es in

dica

te st

rong

er p

erfo

rman

ce.

Sour

ces:

U.S

. Cen

sus B

urea

u, U

.S. B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics,

Moo

dy’s

Econ

omy.c

om, M

ilken

Insti

tute

.

67.789816

3201

1137.1

71143.79

18129.87

241%67.3-

6781.001

70113.99

92186.99

0935.001

AS

M O

C ,sgnirpS odarolo

C111

101

78.789663

5214

92116.0

23197.69

7696.79

001%76.2-

72172.99

30157.99

1833.001

3792.201

AS

M LA ,yre

mogtnoM

83201

79.199

611,487

6531

95.098

03.8942

70.111091

%03.6-321

33.9901

06.411291

26.6953

45.501A

SM

AC ,oiratn

O-onidranreB na

S-edisreviR

35301

61.699

03375

757

58.0981

67.293

46.941771

%79.4-861

62.893

90.811191

58.6 951

16.801A

SM L

F ,alacO

03401

06.799

80875

739

47.0041

95.69761

96.3858

%44.2-201

76.99221

53.8948

13.00169

62.001A

SM J

N-A

P ,notsaE-

mehelhteB-n

wotnellA

921501

65.000,1

6 73, 574

89 4

80.158

74.8999

06.3967 1

%79. 4-78

89.99011

61.99341

43.9936

39.201A

SM

AG , atteira

M-sgnirpS yd na

S-atnaltA

9560 1

93.400,1668,1

3712

29173.0

68171.39

5881.59

871%12.5-

6664.001

168.321

75140.99

332.411

AS

M V

N ,esidaraP-sage

V saL57

701

65.900,1

377,187

648

97.063

27.00139

54.4974

%65.1-731

70.99171

53.4998

42.001631

30.89A

SM

HO ,sub

muloC

531801

31.610,1153,2

3201

1778.0

15140.69

82192.09

65%08.1-

5870.001

86114.49

4676.001

17131.69

AS

M A

P ,hgrubsttiP

631901

49.710,1135

3201

5887.0

45129.59

5264.011

59%65.2-

52182.99

75191.59

2774.001

93169.79

AS

M A


H421

011

99.810,1

6378

3101

38.171

98.101971

96.97601

%87.2-84

38.001551

53.59631

45.99081

02.59D

M A

M ,ydobaeP

1711 11

10.320,1882

439

3372.1

87109.39

64198.78

43%51.1 -

30166.99

02144.89

90169.99

47115.59

AS

M LA-

AG ,sub

muloC

661211

63.420,1735

3712

34165.0

1 654.99

56167.38

44%94.1-

90175.99

1 941.101

10140.001

12178.89

AS

M S

M ,noskcaJ451

311

17.730,1

006841

355

10.101

64.201361

99.38291

%08.6-661

92.8952

72.801661

64.899

95.901A

SM

DI ,apma

N-ytiC esio

B72

411

04.350,1

909521

4081

24.0601

87.7943

83.501131

%54.3-99

27.9908

15.101741

72.9987

66.101A

SM

AC ,onser

F74

511

92.360,1

7358

3161

05.145

28.9935

95.001181

%34.5-581

51.7963

91.701781

54.79901

74.99A

SM L


M-yaB

mlaP

401611

87.460,1011,2

748

2659.0

0807.89

5638.79

971%42.5-

6918.99

3693.301

97160.89

12178.89

AS

M A

C ,ellivesoR--edacr

A-nedrA--otne

marcaS

85711

75.660,1622,1

876

00117.0

86122.59

41157.19

631%16.3-

10186.99

6833.101

53195.99

9753.101

AS

M A

V ,dnomhci

R201

811

86.070,1

19675

7701

86.0721

50 .79381

63.87921

%93.3-511

05.9978

03.101111

39.9919

33.001A

SM

NT ,ellivxon

K06

911

12

019

Myr

tle B

each

-Nor

th M

yrtle

Bea

ch-C

onw

ay, S

C M

SA

109.

4811

99.2

814

511

1.02

1898

.61

153

-7.0

8%19

510

1.22

5297

.49

113

0.40

184

314

825

71,

071.2

6

25.970,1

152,174

896

88.033

77.00148

15.59351

%12.4-141

10.9999

59.99521

47.99141

39.79D

M JN ,ned

maC

901121

51.580,1110,3

261

1382.1

1886.89

70126.29

071%17.4-

55125.89

8408.401

07104.89

62195.89

DM

AC ,enivrI-

miehanA-an

A atnaS

601221

6.580,1032,3

757

4639.0

94171.69

54169.78

321%82.3-

3684.001

33130.79

22187.99

23191.89

AS

M IW-

NM ,notgni

moolB-lua

P .tS-silopaenni

M731

3210

24.190,1624

8413

00232.0

16156.59

04165.88

711%70.3-

45106. 89

7596.301

1922.001

2456.401

AS

M A


V46

421

34.190,1

517,175

704

02.169

70.89861

25.38411

%00.3-071

22.89241

21.6968

82.00129

13.001A

SM

NI ,lemra

C-silopanaidnI18

521

14.690,1

89275

759

37.095

35.99921

72.0905

%96. 1-731

70.99651

02.59921

86.9 9641

85.79A

SM

AV , eko na o

R861

621

2 6.890,1

88687

6531

95.004

75.00146

20.89701

%97.2-84

38.001271

41.49621

27.99871

92 .59A

SM

AM ,dleifgnirp

S281

721

59.511,1

148, 243

965

00.1741

72.6979

87.3978

%74.2-841

67.89771

66.3947

54.001941

45.79A

SM LI-

OM ,siuoL .t

S251

821

46.241,1

753601

5001

17.0461

45.5936

11.8939

%35.2-161

93.89321

40.89841

42.9908

82.101A

SM L

F ,eessahallaT

511921

95.541,1562

6015

34165.0

77199.39

81111.19

021%71.3-

3958.99

0972.101

14124.99

80145.99

AS

M A

C ,selboR osa

P-opsibO siuL na

S97

031

13

161

For

t Lau

derd

ale-

Pom

pano

Bea

ch-D

eerf

ield

Bea

ch, F

L M

D10

3.84

4998

.10

178

107.

3532

97.2

518

4-4

.37%

162

91.4

311

692

.73

191

0.77

898

471,

751

1,14

9.56

81.051,1945

4111

5887.0

76152.59

1543.101

401%57.2-

23141.99

47139.39

50199.99

35173.79

AS

M A

P ,erraB-sekli

W--notnarcS

161231

13.351,1503

3201

9877.0

66103.59

01143.29

911%51.3-

05166.89

45163.59

7480.101

56126.69

AS

M A

V-N

T ,lotsirB-lotsir

B-tropsgniK

821331

55.351,1804

8413

78193.0

0962.89

8524.99

811%11.3-

30166.99

30157.99

7862.001

77153.59

AS

M A

C ,sanilaS

231431

10.551,1404

6015

34165.0

8920.89

22158.09

311%79.2-

82132.99

85190.59

80179.99

9866.001

AS

M A

P ,gnidaeR

461531

80.651,1162

8413

27164.0

1886.89

43109.98

171%37.4-

74177.89

640.611

46166.89

6708.101

AS

M Y

K-N

T ,ellivskralC

15631

70.751,1185

84 13

98183.0

48182.39

6940.49

561%94.4-

34168.89

2246.801

86124.89

6290.701

AS

M LF ,n eva

H retniW-dnalekaL

89731

90.461,1551,2

8413

5937.0

2104.201

6637.79

79%95.2-

15146.89

96183.49

50199.99

45163.79

AS

M NI-

YK-

HO ,n

wotelddiM-itannicni

C371

831

94.561,1

268,932

0103

03.1421

31.79241

94.88831

%36.3-301

66.99421

30.89351

61.99061

59.69D

M A

C ,e ladnelG-hcae

B gnoL-selegnA soL

621931

01.861,1415

6015

82126.0

64173.69

02110.19

17%81.2-

24179.89

92112.79

2912.001

65172.79

AS

M E


P htuoS-dnaltro

P851

041

14.971,1

313,1521

4031

06.0991

58.09551

13.68941

% 30.4-851

44 .8942

54.80 1071

04.8934

63.4 01A

SM L

F ,el livno skcaJ93

141

75.081,1

121 ,23 2

0114

81.1221

61.79581

45.7729

%2 5.2-231

41.99951

50.5989

21.001281

2 8.49D

M A

P-JN ,n oin

U-kraw e

N361

241

31.381,1

514371

2271

64.0311

94.79201

74.39791

%75.7-17

13.00123

53.701591

72.6967

08.101A

SM

VN ,skrap

S-oneR

331341

73.381,1403

5214

93175.0

79174.19

49150.47

23%21.1-

44148.89

56118.49

8362.101

54178.79

AS

M V

W ,notselrahC

771441

61.391,1405,2

641

4204.1

7853.89

10155.39

151%71. 4-

91183.99

63148.69

36176.89

97172.59

DM

AC ,dra

wyaH-tno

merF-dnalka

O741

541

41.491,1

462521

4841

55.0951

57.5931

56.021901

%18.2-761

82.8998

92.101551

41.99611

32.99A

SM

VW-

DM ,grubsnitra

M-nwotsrega

H211

641

56.491,1

523,201

2181

84.1341

54.69071

99.28951

%03.4-421

13.99841

49.59711

18.99041

49.79D

M JN ,kci

wsnurB

weN-nosid

E411

741

43.591,1

099,775

738

18.087

77.89421

17.09341

%97.3-011

65.99051

97.59721

96.99851

90.79D


C061

841

63.602,1

482371

2981

83.0261

46.59031

51.0903

%00.1-99

27.99441

70.69711

18.99151

34.79A

SM

HO-

YK-

VW ,dnalhs

A-notgnitnuH

351941

85.702,1404

3712

47154.0

75178 .59

3488.201

281%44.5-

38192.79

558.611

89192.59

7249.601

AS

M LF ,eicuL .t

S troP

87051

82.112,1945,1

6015

7629.0

7252.101

6151.611

841%20.4-

96132.89

37100.49

71118.99

55153.79

AS

M IW ,sill

A tseW-ahsekua

W-eekuawli

M751

151

91.312,1

114601

557

58.055

47.9971

19.51126

%10.2-081

43.79881

38.88941

22.99661

45.69A

SM

NI ,enyaW tro

F961

251

49.412,1

542,1371

2661

94.0051

50.69121

29.09421

%82.3-88

29.99821

04.79111

39.99811

50.99A

SM

NI-Y


131351

22.712,1607

748

00117.0

0399.001

80195.29

191%83.6-

8947.99

15135.59

95100.99

33151.89

AS

M C

N ,tnioP hgi

H-orobsneerG

141451

13. 322,1513

876

9713 4.0

0818 6.39

829 4.9 01

881%89 .5-

00224.4 9

868.4 11

99177 .49

2505. 301

AS

M LF ,dna lsI ocra

M-s elpaN

3 8551

02.332,1205

3712

66194.0

2453.001

99147.56

031%34.3-

82132.99

54140.69

1784.001

32138.89

AS

M A

P ,retsacnaL571

651

15.432,1

35475

7701

86.0002

70.0919

96.49251

%91.4-261

53.8964

94.501491

06.69601

07.99A

SM L

F ,tnerB-ssa

P yrreF-alocasne

P33

751

81.532,1

89741

1122

14.1911

82.79261

41.48471

%88.4-851

44.8905

04.401381

49.79461

36.69A

SM

AC ,arutne

V-skaO dnasuoh

T-dranxO

041851

19.632,1115

8413

96184.0

2673.99

1199.321

331%84.3-

03191.99

80182.99

57122.89

84175.79

AS

M A

C ,otsedoM

261951

32.932,1352

439

1778.0

7481.001

19144.57

651%42.4-

3498.001

07163.49

28179.79

86104.69

AS

M A

C ,ellivnostaW-zur

C atnaS

101061

58.142,1354

5214

22146.0

43147.69

93189.88

221%72.3-

54108.89

73186.69

72196.99

20119.99

AS

M Y


221161

61.742,1894

876

61166.0

06127.59

7742.69

271%57.4-

87134.79

5372.701

39116.69

30158.99

AS

M LF ,hcae

B dnomr

O-hcaeB anotya

D-anotleD

29261

55.452,1572

9910

26115.0

07180.59

00195.39

68%64.2-

71144.99

28198.19

8605.001

43180.89

AS

M IW-

NM ,htulu

D761

361

01.752,1

97275

7611

66.0471

06.49981

91.6795

%59.1-731

70.99181

86.29301

10.001651

72.79A

SM

AP ,eir

E971

461

93.672,1

76441

1174

90.185

65.99771

81.18381

%84.5-38

41.001571

68.39661

64.89261

96.69A

SM

AC ,a

mulateP-aso

R atnaS

341561

32.772,1276

3712

49153.0

56173.59

46118.38

89% 06.2-

6860.001

2939.001

08120.89

51162.99

AS

M A

C ,notkcotS

301661

74.872,1996

3712

84155.0

894.201

11132.29

431%15.3-

37178.79

76195.49

8921.001

72115.89

AS

M H

O ,norkA

271761

59.682,1207

3712

38114.0

11156.79

2975.49

47%02.2-

47147.79

06149.49

00180.0 01

83199.79

DM

NI ,yraG

471861

49.592,1437,2

748

8609.0

79174.19

91170.19

661%25.4-

18133.79

5923.001

68146.79

8857.001

AS

M LF ,reta

wraelC-grubsrete

P .tS-ap

maT

08961

70.203,1053

876

3530.1

0664.99

62114.09

501%77.2-

57185.79

97151.39

23176.99

68136.39

AS

M Y

K-NI ,ellivsnav

E241

071

68.503,1

303841

3481

04.0151

40.6975

64.9988

%84.2-251

36.89351

04.59931

25.99731

00.89A

SM I

W ,yaB neer

G561

171

29.013,1

815491

1081

24.0491

67 .1967

34. 6938

%2 4.2-561

03. 89531

09.69121

08.99711

70.99A

SM

AG-

NT ,agoonat tah

C011

271

86.513,1

80487

6031

06.0541

83.69371

02.28511

%20.3-521

82.9928

64.101581

48.79671

44.59A

SM

AC ,dleifria

F-ojellaV

541371

46.713,1453

8413

85125.0

35149.59

4912.49

19%05.2-

21155.99

87114.39

06199.89

03192.89

AS

M LI ,drofkcoR

551471

175

105

Wes

t Pal

m B

each

-Boc

a R

aton

-Boy

nton

Bea

ch, F

L M

D10

0.27

9497

.04

189

103.

4961

97.3

817

9-4

.39%

163

94.9

987

93.5

518

20.

6013

04

125

1,26

51,3

18.4

8

65.333,1

88687

6831

85.0291

36.2932

11.111491

%19.6-691

85.5995

76.301691

88.5989

69.99A

SM L

F ,ecineV-atosara

S-notnedarB

79671

83.633,1811,1

876

70186.0

69136.19

78187.67

721%43.3-

07122.89

52156.79

63145.99

91139.89

AS

M LA ,revoo

H-mahgni

mriB

051771

85.143,1682,1

3712

78193.0

52121.79

95163.58

57%02.2-

43131.99

23131.79

05112.99

25104.79

AS

M R

A-S

M-N

T ,sihpme

M441

871

57.743,1

893,2371

2851

25.0181

95.39351

69.68851

%03.4-651

74.8938

34.101851

10.9928

10.101D

M LF ,lladne

K-hcaeB i

maiM-i

maiM

711971

22.373,1395

8413

98183.0

59146.19

69185.37

002%23.9-

89135.59

217.221

00266.39

4285.701

AS

M LF ,srey

M troF-laro

C epaC

021081

14.683,1182

3712

59133.0

37137.49

89167.86

861%36.4-

06124.89

08189.29

0228.101

00149.99

AS

M C

S ,grubnatrapS

381181

85.924,1696

8413

53195.0

14175.69

67132.18

751%52.4-

77154.79

62185.79

33126.99

53150.89

DM J

N-D

M-E

D ,notgnimli

W871

281

43.034,1

73832

0147

68 .025

29.99451

73.68231

%64.3 -781

79.69191

11.88071

0 4.89691

5 2.09A

SM

HO ,n otya

D981

381

61.044,1

642991

0691

23.0821

20.79591

36.37531

%06.3-941

47.8948

93.101861

24.89141

39.79A

SM

AC ,decre

M37

481

19.044,1

363521

4931

75.02

18.60121

28.12 1891

%96.7-531

11.99981

18.88481

88.79091

38.19A

SM

CN ,notnagro

M-rioneL-yrokciH

191581

27.144,1880,2

3712

03106.0

4244.101

1799.69

931%76.3-

67165.79

38169.09

25171.99

78125.39

AS

M H

O ,rotneM-airyl

E-dnalevelC

391681

. 094, 17 95, 1

876

5 88 7.0

45129.59

66127.3 8

76 1%35. 4-

65174.89

6 4120 .69

67 141. 89

58142 .49

AS

M A

M -IR ,r evi

R llaF- dro fd e

B we

N- ecn edi vorP

0 7178 1

77

52.905,1

713841

3311

76.0701

57.79481

67.77801

%97.2-981

38.69581

49.98441

92.99381

47.49A

SM I

M-NI ,aka

wahsiM-dne

B htuoS

681881

50. 05 5,14 23

5 214

5758.0

2 74 9.89

00299.95

051%71. 4-

6814 1.7 9

3 916 4.78

16169. 89

8814 3. 39

AS

M IM ,e ga tro

P -o ozamala

K58 1

981

54.355,1

804371

2891

82.0301

88.79851

94.58011

%58.2-271

98.79691

41.68431

16.99981

10.29A

SM

HO ,nollissa

M-notnaC

791091

49.375,1743

876

0689.0

9900.89

39184.47

551%32.4-

59147.59

79180.68

47132.89

59153.19

AS

M IM ,robr

A nnA

291191

33.285,1172

3712

29173.0

6119.101

68188.67

961%96.4-

09163.69

66127.49

54182.99

48104.49

AS

M JN ,yti

C citnaltA

781291

88.606,1665

5214

47154.0

4663.99

17186.28

741%89.3-

19153.69

29198.78

56126.89

39106.19

AS

M A

P-H

O ,namdrao

B-nerraW-n

wotsgnuoY

881391

59.826,1777

3712

65135.0

7787.89

47135.18

081%72.5-

18133.79

68116.98

35161.99

18190.59

AS

M IM ,gni

moyW-sdipa

R dnarG

091491

40.256,1454

4911

47154.0

93116.69

79136.27

731%26.3-

39142.69

59154.68

71118.99

49185.19

AS

M IM ,gnisnaL tsa

E-gnisnaL691

591

04.166,1

062371

2341

65.01

63.701181

29.87391

%38.6-491

41.69491

19.68371

63.89191

18.19A

SM I

M ,nevaH dnar

G-dnalloH

991691

93.176,1574,2

5214

1679.0

6718.89

88145.67

991%89.7-

29113.69

89107.38

09199.69

79121.88

DM I

M ,slliH notgni

mraF-yor

T-nerraW

891791

27.3 76, 1946

49 11

48104. 0

9240. 10 1

73181.98

581% 16.5-

8 816 9.69

09195. 88

67141.89

29137. 19

AS

M H

O ,o del oT

491891

51.307,1059,1

6015

2967.0

22161.79

09167.57

681%36.5-

79155.59

99193.38

88191.79

99197.58

DM I


D002

991

36.737,1

924521

422 1

46.0881

68.29741

18.7 846 1

%64.4-991

35.49002

37.87791

95.598 91

41.68A

SM I

M ,tn ilF

5 91002

2009

2008

Po

pu

lati

on

2008

Ove

rall

ran

kra

nk

Met

rop

olit

an a

rea

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k(t

hous

ands

)in

dex

Hig

h-T

ech

G

DP

LQ

200

8#

of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s o

ver

1 20

081-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s g

row

th 2

006–

2007

Job

gro

wth

(Mar

08–

Mar

09)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

003–

2008

1-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

007–

2008

5-yr

job

gro

wth

2003

–200

81-

yr jo

b g

row

th20

07–2

008

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

gro

wth

200

2–20

07

81.369298,3

757

3421.1

1942.89

08145.97

18%33.2-

5928.99

91175.89

6646.001

64185.79

DM

AP ,aihpledalih

P031

69

27.969592

6015

31176.0

2673.99

87107.08

53%61.1-

13161.99

25154.59

0510.101

00149.99

AS

M E

N ,nlocniL641

79

9822

Nas

hvill

e-D

avid

son-

-Mur

free

sbor

o--F

rank

lin, T

N M

SA

103.

2759

100.

0210

210

6.23

4299

.83

94-3

.83%

144

87.6

414

994

.88

171

0.65

120

678

1,55

19

72.9

2

32.189550,2

757

0838.0

78141.39

1609.89

481%95.5-

64187.89

3175.211

26119.89

822.011

AS

M LF ,ee

mmissi

K-odnalrO

1199

19.689

509371

2071

74.0391

15.29311

87.1928

%73.2-37

72.00134

09.501611

28.9927

43.201A

SM I

H ,ululonoH

49001

08.659562

6015

9243.1

6613.99

0585.101

101%76.2-

9329.001

46148.49

5892.001

37118.59

AS

M T

C ,nodnoL we

N-hciwro

N671

49

99.659778

6015

3372.1

7575.99

06153.58

87%92.2-

80195.99

83195.69

4754.001

21123.99

DM I

W-LI ,ytnuoC ahsone

K-ytnuoC ekaL

80159

67.789816

3201

1137.1

71143.79

18129.87

241%67.3-

6781.001

70113.99

92186.99

0935.001

AS

M O

C ,sgnirpS odarolo

C111

101

78.789663

5214

92116.0

23197.69

7696.79

001%76.2-

72172.99

30157.99

1833.001

3792.201

AS

M LA ,yre

mogtnoM

83201

79.199

611,487

6531

95.098

03.8942

70.111091

%03.6-321

33.9901

06.411291

26.6953

45.501A

SM

AC ,oiratn

O-onidranreB na

S-edisreviR

35301

61.699

03375

757

58.0981

67.293

46.941771

%79.4-861

62.893

90.811191

58.6 951

16.801A

SM L

F ,alacO

03401

06.799

80875

739

47.0041

95.69761

96.3858

%44.2-201

76.99221

53.8948

13.00169

62.001A

SM J

N-A

P ,notsaE-

mehelhteB-n

wotnellA

921501

65.000,1

6 73, 574

89 4

80.158

74.8999

06.3967 1

%79. 4-78

89.99011

61.99341

43.9936

39.201A

SM

AG , atteira

M-sgnirpS yd na

S-atnaltA

9560 1

93.400,1668,1

3712

29173.0

68171.39

5881.59

871%12.5-

6664.001

168.321

75140.99

332.411

AS

M V

N ,esidaraP-sage

V saL57

701

65.900,1

377,187

648

97.063

27.00139

54.4974

%65.1-731

70.99171

53.4998

42.001631

30.89A

SM

HO ,sub

muloC

531801

31.610,1153,2

3201

1778.0

15140.69

82192.09

65%08.1-

5870.001

86114.49

4676.001

17131.69

AS

M A

P ,hgrubsttiP

631901

49.710,1135

3201

5887.0

45129.59

5264.011

59%65.2-

52182.99

75191.59

2774.001

93169.79

AS

M A


H421

011

99.810,1

6378

3101

38.171

98.101971

96.97601

%87.2-84

38.001551

53.59631

45.99081

02.59D

M A

M ,ydobaeP

1711 11

10.320,1882

439

3372.1

87109.39

64198.78

43%51.1 -

30166.99

02144.89

90169.99

47115.59

AS

M LA-

AG ,sub

muloC

661211

63.420,1735

3712

34165.0

1 654.99

56167.38

44%94.1-

90175.99

1 941.101

10140.001

12178.89

AS

M S

M ,noskcaJ451

311

17.730,1

006841

355

10.101

64.201361

99.38291

%08.6-661

92.8952

72.801661

64.899

95.901A

SM

DI ,apma

N-ytiC esio

B72

411

04.350,1

909521

4081

24.0601

87.7943

83.501131

%54.3-99

27.9908

15.101741

72.9987

66.101A

SM

AC ,onser

F74

511

92.360,1

7358

3161

05.145

28.9935

95.001181

%34.5-581

51.7963

91.701781

54.79901

74.99A

SM L


M-yaB

mlaP

401611

87.460,1011,2

748

2659.0

0807.89

5638.79

971%42.5-

6918.99

3693.301

97160.89

12178.89

AS

M A

C ,ellivesoR--edacr

A-nedrA--otne

marcaS

85711

75.660,1622,1

876

00117.0

86122.59

41157.19

631%16.3-

10186.99

6833.101

53195.99

9753.101

AS

M A

V ,dnomhci

R201

811

86.070,1

19675

7701

86.0721

50 .79381

63.87921

%93.3-511

05.9978

03.101111

39.9919

33.001A

SM

NT ,ellivxon

K06

911

12

019

Myr

tle B

each

-Nor

th M

yrtle

Bea

ch-C

onw

ay, S

C M

SA

109.

4811

99.2

814

511

1.02

1898

.61

153

-7.0

8%19

510

1.22

5297

.49

113

0.40

184

314

825

71,

071.2

6

25.970,1

152,174

896

88.033

77.00148

15.59351

%12.4-141

10.9999

59.99521

47.99141

39.79D

M JN ,ned

maC

901121

51.580,1110,3

261

1382.1

1886.89

70126.29

071%17.4-

55125.89

8408.401

07104.89

62195.89

DM

AC ,enivrI-

miehanA-an

A atnaS

601221

6.580,1032,3

757

4639.0

94171.69

54169.78

321%82.3-

3684.001

33130.79

22187.99

23191.89

AS

M IW-

NM ,notgni

moolB-lua

P .tS-silopaenni

M731

3210

24.190,1624

8413

00232.0

16156.59

04165.88

711%70.3-

45106. 89

7596.301

1922.001

2456.401

AS

M A


V46

421

34.190,1

517,175

704

02.169

70.89861

25.38411

%00.3-071

22.89241

21.6968

82.00129

13.001A

SM

NI ,lemra

C-silopanaidnI18

521

14.690,1

89275

759

37.095

35.99921

72.0905

%96. 1-731

70.99651

02.59921

86.9 9641

85.79A

SM

AV , eko na o

R861

621

2 6.890,1

88687

6531

95.004

75.00146

20.89701

%97.2-84

38.001271

41.49621

27.99871

92 .59A

SM

AM ,dleifgnirp

S281

721

59.511,1

148, 243

965

00.1741

72.6979

87.3978

%74.2-841

67.89771

66.3947

54.001941

45.79A

SM LI-

OM ,siuoL .t

S251

821

46.241,1

753601

5001

17.0461

45.5936

11.8939

%35.2-161

93.89321

40.89841

42.9908

82.101A

SM L

F ,eessahallaT

511921

95.541,1562

6015

34165.0

77199.39

81111.19

021%71.3-

3958.99

0972.101

14124.99

80145.99

AS

M A

C ,selboR osa

P-opsibO siuL na

S97

031

13

161

For

t Lau

derd

ale-

Pom

pano

Bea

ch-D

eerf

ield

Bea

ch, F

L M

D10

3.84

4998

.10

178

107.

3532

97.2

518

4-4

.37%

162

91.4

311

692

.73

191

0.77

898

471,

751

1,14

9.56

81.051,1945

4111

5887.0

76152.59

1543.101

401%57.2-

23141.99

47139.39

50199.99

35173.79

AS

M A

P ,erraB-sekli

W--notnarcS

161231

13.351,1503

3201

9877.0

66103.59

01143.29

911%51.3-

05166.89

45163.59

7480.101

56126.69

AS

M A

V-N

T ,lotsirB-lotsir

B-tropsgniK

821331

55.351,1804

8413

78193.0

0962.89

8524.99

811%11.3-

30166.99

30157.99

7862.001

77153.59

AS

M A

C ,sanilaS

231431

10.551,1404

6015

34165.0

8920.89

22158.09

311%79.2-

82132.99

85190.59

80179.99

9866.001

AS

M A

P ,gnidaeR

461531

80.651,1162

8413

27164.0

1886.89

43109.98

171%37.4-

74177.89

640.611

46166.89

6708.101

AS

M Y

K-N

T ,ellivskralC

15631

70.751,1185

84 13

98183.0

48182.39

6940.49

561%94.4-

34168.89

2246.801

86124.89

6290.701

AS

M LF ,n eva

H retniW-dnalekaL

89731

90.461,1551,2

8413

5937.0

2104.201

6637.79

79%95.2-

15146.89

96183.49

50199.99

45163.79

AS

M NI-

YK-

HO ,n

wotelddiM-itannicni

C371

831

94.561,1

268,932

0103

03.1421

31.79241

94.88831

%36.3-301

66.99421

30.89351

61.99061

59.69D

M A

C ,e ladnelG-hcae

B gnoL-selegnA soL

621931

01.861,1415

6015

82126.0

64173.69

02110.19

17%81.2-

24179.89

92112.79

2912.001

65172.79

AS

M E


P htuoS-dnaltro

P851

041

14.971,1

313,1521

4031

06.0991

58.09551

13.68941

% 30.4-851

44 .8942

54.80 1071

04.8934

63.4 01A

SM L

F ,el livno skcaJ93

141

75.081,1

121 ,23 2

0114

81.1221

61.79581

45.7729

%2 5.2-231

41.99951

50.5989

21.001281

2 8.49D

M A

P-JN ,n oin

U-kraw e

N361

241

31.381,1

514371

2271

64.0311

94.79201

74.39791

%75.7-17

13.00123

53.701591

72.6967

08.101A

SM

VN ,skrap

S-oneR

331341

73.381,1403

5214

93175.0

79174.19

49150.47

23%21.1-

44148.89

56118.49

8362.101

54178.79

AS

M V

W ,notselrahC

771441

61.391,1405,2

641

4204.1

7853.89

10155.39

151%71. 4-

91183.99

63148.69

36176.89

97172.59

DM

AC ,dra

wyaH-tno

merF-dnalka

O741

541

41.491,1

462521

4841

55.0951

57.5931

56.021901

%18.2-761

82.8998

92.101551

41.99611

32.99A

SM

VW-

DM ,grubsnitra

M-nwotsrega

H211

641

56.491,1

523,201

2181

84.1341

54.69071

99.28951

%03.4-421

13.99841

49.59711

18.99041

49.79D

M JN ,kci

wsnurB

weN-nosid

E411

741

43.591,1

099,775

738

18.087

77.89421

17.09341

%97.3-011

65.99051

97.59721

96.99851

90.79D


C061

841

63.602,1

482371

2981

83.0261

46.59031

51.0903

%00.1-99

27.99441

70.69711

18.99151

34.79A

SM

HO-

YK-

VW ,dnalhs

A-notgnitnuH

351941

85.702,1404

3712

47154.0

75178 .59

3488.201

281%44.5-

38192.79

558.611

89192.59

7249.601

AS

M LF ,eicuL .t

S troP

87051

82.112,1945,1

6015

7629.0

7252.101

6151.611

841%20.4-

96132.89

37100.49

71118.99

55153.79

AS

M IW ,sill

A tseW-ahsekua

W-eekuawli

M751

151

91.312,1

114601

557

58.055

47.9971

19.51126

%10.2-081

43.79881

38.88941

22.99661

45.69A

SM

NI ,enyaW tro

F961

251

49.412,1

542,1371

2661

94.0051

50.69121

29.09421

%82.3-88

29.99821

04.79111

39.99811

50.99A

SM

NI-Y


131351

22.712,1607

748

00117.0

0399.001

80195.29

191%83.6-

8947.99

15135.59

95100.99

33151.89

AS

M C

N ,tnioP hgi

H-orobsneerG

141451

13. 322,1513

876

9713 4.0

0818 6.39

829 4.9 01

881%89 .5-

00224.4 9

868.4 11

99177 .49

2505. 301

AS

M LF ,dna lsI ocra

M-s elpaN

3 8551

02.332,1205

3712

66194.0

2453.001

99147.56

031%34.3-

82132.99

54140.69

1784.001

32138.89

AS

M A

P ,retsacnaL571

651

15.432,1

35475

7701

86.0002

70.0919

96.49251

%91.4-261

53.8964

94.501491

06.69601

07.99A

SM L

F ,tnerB-ssa

P yrreF-alocasne

P33

751

81.532,1

89741

1122

14.1911

82.79261

41.48471

%88.4-851

44.8905

04.401381

49.79461

36.69A

SM

AC ,arutne

V-skaO dnasuoh

T-dranxO

041851

19.632,1115

8413

96184.0

2673.99

1199.321

331%84.3-

03191.99

80182.99

57122.89

84175.79

AS

M A

C ,otsedoM

261951

32.932,1352

439

1778.0

7481.001

19144.57

651%42.4-

3498.001

07163.49

28179.79

86104.69

AS

M A

C ,ellivnostaW-zur

C atnaS

101061

58.142,1354

5214

22146.0

43147.69

93189.88

221%72.3-

54108.89

73186.69

72196.99

20119.99

AS

M Y


221161

61.742,1894

876

61166.0

06127.59

7742.69

271%57.4-

87134.79

5372.701

39116.69

30158.99

AS

M LF ,hcae

B dnomr

O-hcaeB anotya

D-anotleD

29261

55.452,1572

9910

26115.0

07180.59

00195.39

68%64.2-

71144.99

28198.19

8605.001

43180.89

AS

M IW-

NM ,htulu

D761

361

01.752,1

97275

7611

66.0471

06.49981

91.6795

%59.1-731

70.99181

86.29301

10.001651

72.79A

SM

AP ,eir

E971

461

93.672,1

76441

1174

90.185

65.99771

81.18381

%84.5-38

41.001571

68.39661

64.89261

96.69A

SM

AC ,a

mulateP-aso

R atnaS

341561

32.772,1276

3712

49153.0

56173.59

46118.38

89% 06.2-

6860.001

2939.001

08120.89

51162.99

AS

M A

C ,notkcotS

301661

74.872,1996

3712

84155.0

894.201

11132.29

431%15.3-

37178.79

76195.49

8921.001

72115.89

AS

M H

O ,norkA

271761

59.682,1207

3712

38114.0

11156.79

2975.49

47%02.2-

47147.79

06149.49

00180.0 01

83199.79

DM

NI ,yraG

471861

49.592,1437,2

748

8609.0

79174.19

91170.19

661%25.4-

18133.79

5923.001

68146.79

8857.001

AS

M LF ,reta

wraelC-grubsrete

P .tS-ap

maT

08961

70.203,1053

876

3530.1

0664.99

62114.09

501%77.2-

57185.79

97151.39

23176.99

68136.39

AS

M Y

K-NI ,ellivsnav

E241

071

68.503,1

303841

3481

04.0151

40.6975

64.9988

%84.2-251

36.89351

04.59931

25.99731

00.89A

SM I

W ,yaB neer

G561

171

29.013,1

815491

1081

24.0491

67 .1967

34. 6938

%2 4.2-561

03. 89531

09.69121

08.99711

70.99A

SM

AG-

NT ,agoonat tah

C011

271

86.513,1

80487

6031

06.0541

83.69371

02.28511

%20.3-521

82.9928

64.101581

48.79671

44.59A

SM

AC ,dleifria

F-ojellaV

541371

46.713,1453

8413

85125.0

35149.59

4912.49

19%05.2-

21155.99

87114.39

06199.89

03192.89

AS

M LI ,drofkcoR

551471

175

105

Wes

t Pal

m B

each

-Boc

a R

aton

-Boy

nton

Bea

ch, F

L M

D10

0.27

9497

.04

189

103.

4961

97.3

817

9-4

.39%

163

94.9

987

93.5

518

20.

6013

04

125

1,26

51,3

18.4

8

65.333,1

88687

6831

85.0291

36.2932

11.111491

%19.6-691

85.5995

76.301691

88.5989

69.99A

SM L

F ,ecineV-atosara

S-notnedarB

79671

83.633,1811,1

876

70186.0

69136.19

78187.67

721%43.3-

07122.89

52156.79

63145.99

91139.89

AS

M LA ,revoo

H-mahgni

mriB

051771

85.143,1682,1

3712

78193.0

52121.79

95163.58

57%02.2-

43131.99

23131.79

05112.99

25104.79

AS

M R

A-S

M-N

T ,sihpme

M441

871

57.743,1

893,2371

2851

25.0181

95.39351

69.68851

%03.4-651

74.8938

34.101851

10.9928

10.101D

M LF ,lladne

K-hcaeB i

maiM-i

maiM

711971

22.373,1395

8413

98183.0

59146.19

69185.37

002%23.9-

89135.59

217.221

00266.39

4285.701

AS

M LF ,srey

M troF-laro

C epaC

021081

14.683,1182

3712

59133.0

37137.49

89167.86

861%36.4-

06124.89

08189.29

0228.101

00149.99

AS

M C

S ,grubnatrapS

381181

85.924,1696

8413

53195.0

14175.69

67132.18

751%52.4-

77154.79

62185.79

33126.99

53150.89

DM J

N-D

M-E

D ,notgnimli

W871

281

43.034,1

73832

0147

68 .025

29.99451

73.68231

%64.3 -781

79.69191

11.88071

0 4.89691

5 2.09A

SM

HO ,n otya

D981

381

61.044,1

642991

0691

23.0821

20.79591

36.37531

%06.3-941

47.8948

93.101861

24.89141

39.79A

SM

AC ,decre

M37

481

19.044,1

363521

4931

75.02

18.60121

28.12 1891

%96.7-531

11.99981

18.88481

88.79091

38.19A

SM

CN ,notnagro

M-rioneL-yrokciH

191581

27.144,1880,2

3712

03106.0

4244.101

1799.69

931%76.3-

67165.79

38169.09

25171.99

78125.39

AS

M H

O ,rotneM-airyl

E-dnalevelC

391681

. 094, 17 95, 1

876

5 88 7.0

45129.59

66127.3 8

76 1%35. 4-

65174.89

6 4120 .69

67 141. 89

58142 .49

AS

M A

M -IR ,r evi

R llaF- dro fd e

B we

N- ecn edi vorP

0 7178 1

77

52.905,1

713841

3311

76.0701

57.79481

67.77801

%97.2-981

38.69581

49.98441

92.99381

47.49A

SM I

M-NI ,aka

wahsiM-dne

B htuoS

681881

50. 05 5,14 23

5 214

5758.0

2 74 9.89

00299.95

051%71. 4-

6814 1.7 9

3 916 4.78

16169. 89

8814 3. 39

AS

M IM ,e ga tro

P -o ozamala

K58 1

981

54.355,1

804371

2891

82.0301

88.79851

94.58011

%58.2-271

98.79691

41.68431

16.99981

10.29A

SM

HO ,nollissa

M-notnaC

791091

49.375,1743

876

0689.0

9900.89

39184.47

551%32.4-

59147.59

79180.68

47132.89

59153.19

AS

M IM ,robr

A nnA

291191

33.285,1172

3712

29173.0

6119.101

68188.67

961%96.4-

09163.69

66127.49

54182.99

48104.49

AS

M JN ,yti

C citnaltA

781291

88.606,1665

5214

47154.0

4663.99

17186.28

741%89.3-

19153.69

29198.78

56126.89

39106.19

AS

M A

P-H

O ,namdrao

B-nerraW-n

wotsgnuoY

881391

59.826,1777

3712

65135.0

7787.89

47135.18

081%72.5-

18133.79

68116.98

35161.99

18190.59

AS

M IM ,gni

moyW-sdipa

R dnarG

091491

40.256,1454

4911

47154.0

93116.69

79136.27

731%26.3-

39142.69

59154.68

71118.99

49185.19

AS

M IM ,gnisnaL tsa

E-gnisnaL691

591

04.166,1

062371

2341

65.01

63.701181

29.87391

%38.6-491

41.69491

19.68371

63.89191

18.19A

SM I

M ,nevaH dnar

G-dnalloH

991691

93.176,1574,2

5214

1679.0

6718.89

88145.67

991%89.7-

29113.69

89107.38

09199.69

79121.88

DM I

M ,slliH notgni

mraF-yor

T-nerraW

891791

27.3 76, 1946

49 11

48104. 0

9240. 10 1

73181.98

581% 16.5-

8 816 9.69

09195. 88

67141.89

29137. 19

AS

M H

O ,o del oT

491891

51.307,1059,1

6015

2967.0

22161.79

09167.57

681%36.5-

79155.59

99193.38

88191.79

99197.58

DM I


D002

991

36.737,1

924521

422 1

46.0881

68.29741

18.7 846 1

%64.4-991

35.49002

37.87791

95.598 91

41.68A

SM I

M ,tn ilF

5 91002

2009

2008

Po

pu

lati

on

2008

Ove

rall

ran

kra

nk

Met

rop

olit

an a

rea

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k(t

hous

ands

)in

dex

Hig

h-T

ech

G

DP

LQ

200

8#

of

HT

GD

P

LQ

s o

ver

1 20

081-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s g

row

th 2

006–

2007

Job

gro

wth

(Mar

08–

Mar

09)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

003–

2008

1-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

007–

2008

5-yr

job

gro

wth

2003

–200

81-

yr jo

b g

row

th20

07–2

008

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

gro

wth

200

2–20

07

81.369298,3

757

3421.1

1942.89

08145.97

18%33.2-

5928.99

91175.89

6646.001

64185.79

DM

AP ,aihpledalih

P031

69

27.969592

6015

31176.0

2673.99

87107.08

53%61.1-

13161.99

25154.59

0510.101

00149.99

AS

M E

N ,nlocniL641

79

9822

Nas

hvill

e-D

avid

son-

-Mur

free

sbor

o--F

rank

lin, T

N M

SA

103.

2759

100.

0210

210

6.23

4299

.83

94-3

.83%

144

87.6

414

994

.88

171

0.65

120

678

1,55

19

72.9

2

32.189550,2

757

0838.0

78141.39

1609.89

481%95.5-

64187.89

3175.211

26119.89

822.011

AS

M LF ,ee

mmissi

K-odnalrO

1199

19.689

509371

2071

74.0391

15.29311

87.1928

%73.2-37

72.00134

09.501611

28.9927

43.201A

SM I

H ,ululonoH

49001

08.659562

6015

9243.1

6613.99

0585.101

101%76.2-

9329.001

46148.49

5892.001

37118.59

AS

M T

C ,nodnoL we

N-hciwro

N671

49

99.659778

6015

3372.1

7575.99

06153.58

87%92.2-

80195.99

83195.69

4754.001

21123.99

DM I

W-LI ,ytnuoC ahsone

K-ytnuoC ekaL

80159

Co

mp

lete

Res

ult

s: 2

00

9 B

est-

Per

form

ing

Sm

all C

itie

s

2009

2008

Po

pu

lati

on

2008

Ove

rall

ran

kra

nk

Met

rop

olit

an a

rea

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k(t

hous

ands

)in

dex

** 00.0015.921

317

5327.0

2637.79

6476.101

3%81.2

429.401

238.131

216.601

200.021

AS

M X

T ,dnaldiM

11

73.7617.402

326

4337.0

7801.69

0341.111

03%37.0-

797.301

710.811

1152.301

0106.011

AS

M X

T ,weivgnoL

72

62.9612.341

054

6665.0

6664.79

4745.29

2%74.2

699.301

919.311

459.401

509.611

AS

M O

C ,noitcnuJ dnarG

53

47.9713.102

48

8257.0

8654.79

0236.511

9%59.0

7187.101

5225.601

7132.201

5351.501

AS

M X

T ,relyT

624

43.8819.131

992

70173.0

6664.79

3571.99

1%62.3

149.501

323.521

111.701

384.811

AS

M X

T ,assedO

015

47.2918.532

054

362.1

7212.101

80191.97

31%23.0

363.501

7396.301

542.401

3270.701

AS

M A

W ,dnalhciR-ocsa

P-kciwenne

K92

6

88.391

9.40105

455

26.073

15.9963

52.6018

%99.002

06.10191

48.80102

20102

16.701A

SM

DN ,kcra

msiB

517

96.7022.331

326

949.0

270.901

470.741

44%45.1-

4378.001

9148.801

3624.001

939.011

AS

M A

G ,sniboR renra

W6

8

75.802

6.10231

702

18.055

20.898

90.03192

%27.0-94

61.00151

31.90112

99.10172

66.601A

SM

MN ,secur

C saL11

9

22.902

7.59105

424

86.028

34.6924

86.30101

%47.091

76.10122

93.70131

40.30181

65.801A

SM

NM-

DN ,ogra

F71

01

66.912

1.35143

503

47.001

93.40141

27.32185

%51.2-22

25.10193

62.3013

12.50133

04.501A

SM

SM ,aluogacsa

P54

11

65.622

9.23243

585

16.045

71.8951

87.02182

%66.0-82

51.10192

81.50151

84.20152

29.601A

SM

DS ,slla

F xuoiS

3221

83.8225.691

435

5267.0

8287.001

3321.801

07%75.2-

5120.201

3195.111

2343.101

7126.801

AS

M A

W ,mahgnille

B8

31

15.032

4.70205

403

47.014

42.9991

42.91134

%53.1-03

40.10132

12.7016

21.40173

68.401A

SM

XT ,nayr

B-noitatS egello

C83

41

94.632

5.73105

416

95.074

68.899

36.92112

%51.0-04

85.0016

94.81106

35.0014

23.711A

SM

DI ,enelA'd rueo

C2

51

46.842

5.7843

587

05.0611

16.1948

86.7861

%00.02

34.50101

45.31141

46.20182

14.601A

SM

YW ,enneyeh

C21

61

22.662

5.53167

3701

73.04

03.80121

19.42171

%20.0-81

77.10143

72.40181

51.20155

16.101A

SM

RA ,anakraxe

T-X

T ,anakraxeT

1871

23.0722.032

326

8138.0

4955.59

310.941

91%80.0-

533.401

3309.401

0410.101

9726.89

AS

M X

T ,ocaW

7281

12.8721.102

3111

81172.0

80161.49

5426.201

6%65.1

4160.201

800.811

2239.101

1181.011

AS

M AL ,xuadobih

T-enaC uoya

B-amuo

H61

91

73.872

9.632311

1121

32.096

44.7914

39.30111

%15.073

18.00171

00.9019

83.3017

04.311A

SM

XT ,oderaL

4402

39.5825.951

435

9794.0

0927.59

4447.201

51%10.0

7242.101

4449.101

0143.301

0480.301

AS

M X

T ,enelibA

0412

32.6924.941

435

0347.0

2906.59

105.471

04%23.1-

8308.001

9496.001

4296.101

9323.301

AS

M AI ,yti

C awoI

5222

41.4038.821

48

541.1

5348.99

9650.49

83%82.1-

5243.101

7428.001

1449.001

8608.99

AS

M Y

N ,sllaF snel

G27

32

64.413

0.25105

436

85.041

23.30113

87.011401

%65.4-9

63.30161

30.90135

27.00142

99.601A

SM

TM ,sgnilli

B42

42

00.723

1.10143

511

29.075

99.79101

40.2853

%39.0-61

18.10195

72.9952

36.10106

89.001A

SM

YN ,acahtI

4652

94.8234.491

48

7168.0

6263.101

8590.89

56%54.2-

3616.99

6281.601

0782.001

1255.701

AS

M A

V ,ellivsettolrahC

8162

40.9235.811

992

5924.0

90110.49

9868.58

7%44.1

5433.001

1320.501

834.301

2194.901

AS

M V

W ,nwotnagro

M82

72

41.553

5.8511

961

98.025

03.896

22.23189

%20.4-75

98.994

02.521911

36.696

75.511A

SM

RO ,dne

B3

82

32.853

5.22167

328

84.015

63.8976

18.4952

%94.0-13

99.00106

52.9991

40.20125

76.101A

SM

DS ,yti

C dipaR

6692

61.0736.731

673

5874.0

721.701

5269.111

801%57.4-

837.301

165.241

1211.69

183.521

AS

M T

U ,egroeG .t

S4

03

58.073

1.351021

0511

92.0211

96.3979

56.3893

%82.1-01

32.30172

77.5017

65.30123

77.501A

SM

AL ,airdnaxelA

8713

97.9738.441

19

949.0

9598.79

3630.79

96%45.2-

2500.001

3668.89

8234.101

6659.99

AS

M A

P ,egelloC etat

S74

23

21.793

7.65131

766

65.079

73.5984

22.10173

%91.1-42

93.10138

36.5954

88.00195

20.101A

SM

OC ,olbeu

P34

33

03.204

0.331311

1901

63.056

25.7972

46.11126

%73.2-84

02.00141

74.11196

3.00151

19.801A

SM L

A ,akilepO-nrubu

A91

43

91.304

9.34105

437

25.025

03.8925

33.9935

%58.1-65

09.9924

66.20116

15.00104

80.301A

SM

MN ,e

F atnaS

4153

09.3043.561

054

8257.0

3369.99

7713.09

21%44.0

3319.001

9811.49

7320.101

10186.59

AS

M LI ,lamro

N-notgnimool

B08

63

23.904

6.92205

428

84.061

04.20166

22.5902

%11.0-21

44.201301

80.2932

28.101601

73.49A

SM

SK ,akepo

T601

73

81.414

9.27105

409

34.042

36.10118

24.9872

%26.0-96

53.9917

25.7913

93.10155

16.101A

SM

OM ,nilpoJ

0683

50.5144.621

992

0606.0

4616.79

2829.88

95%91.2-

4473.001

5627.89

7320.101

9186.701

AS

M S

K-O

M ,hpesoJ .tS

5393

80.9143.491

673

11143.0

5791.79

224.761

321%58.9-

7452.001

2136.211

8536.001

857.111

AS

M Z

A ,amu

Y31

04

63.024

8.67199

283

96.0301

15.49121

46.4679

%59.3-11

05.20114

79.20163

30.10161

98.801A

SM

CN ,ellivneer

G22

14

94.124

3.7999

2501

83.0401

83.4974

62.10122

%91.0-14

45.00115

88.9984

38.00134

65.201A

SM

NM-

DN ,skro

F dnarG

0524

65.9242.021

48

0347.0

6500.89

8346.401

18%31.3-

3792.99

6378.301

0974.99

5493.201

AS

M D

M ,yrubsilaS

1434

56.0347.29

435

4536.0

8122.201

6209.111

49%67.3-

8740.99

6498.001

2684.001

4404.201

AS

M AI ,euqubu

D45

44

48.234

8.5914

87

10.122

28.101301

59.1877

%39.2-87

40.9935

46.9966

83.00105

20.201A

SM

NT ,yti

C nosnhoJ84

54

24.534

9.28132

632

77.002

89.101711

58.3723

%57.0-56

05.9975

23.9928

97.9976

19.99A

SM

NM ,retsehco

R64

64

86.934

8.04167

378

44.024

21.9922

56.41146

%54.2-66

44.9903

11.50198

75.9963

89.401A

SM

SM ,grubseitta

H13

74

65.144

8.60299

2111

43.044

70.9975

11.8914

%33.1-28

10.9982

45.50156

93.00192

42.601A

SM L

A ,asoolacsuT

2484

85.1443.851

326

5327.0

4359.99

2733.39

5%65.1

21189.69

5718.69

5370.101

1926.69

AS

M A

V ,drofdaR-grubsnaitsirh

C-grubskcalB

2994

66.7445.512

054

6715.0

559.701

2327.801

221%47.8-

2626.99

555.021

22135.59

3120.901

AS

M Z

A ,ttocserP

905

43.3543.461

673

9794.0

3490.99

0730.49

32%23.0-

3899.89

9601.89

757.001

5493.201

AS

M O

M ,aibmulo

C56

15

41.454

9.29167

359

24.099

71.5967

55.0984

%16.1-62

33.10155

95.9994

18.00116

28.001A

SM

AL ,selrahC ekaL

4725

14.4542.422

317

8396.0

1628.79

1238.411

4%77.1

5946.89

31122.09

3392.101

00158.59

AS

M LI ,anabrU-ngiap

mahC

7835

21.7541.102

326

7317.0

0704.79

8108.911

98%46.3-

1531.001

2399.401

41179.79

4536.101

AS

M R

O ,drofdeM

9345

62.8540.781

326

3725.0

1773.79

41114.57

65%41.2-

9280.101

7693.89

6799.99

7432.201

AS

M N

M ,duolC .t

S85

55

75.954

8.48167

3201

04.087

18.69611

78.3748

%24.3-06

18.9934

00.20103

24.10141

00.901A

SM

AG ,ellivsenia

G02

65

79.954

9.3814

84

91.194

75.8986

55.4963

%80.1-301

28.7939

76.3974

48.00157

60.99A

SM

NI ,notgnimool

B55

75

61.264

3.33105

459

24.036

07.7946

60.6954

%95.1-69

36.8976

93.8973

20.10183

39.301A

SM

AG ,atsodla

V35

85

36.764

7.85199

252

67.011

70.40101

38.62166

%15.2-57

21.9987

36.6948

27.9984

31.201A

SM I

W ,erialC ua

E65

95

68.764

3.98167

309

34.0601

52.4999

93.2815

%47.1-48

79.8926

70.9921

50.30103

89.501A

SM

AG ,ytnuo

C ekralC-sneht

A73

06

34.074

4.92167

332

77.023

79.995

60.431901

%67.4-53

38.00178

75.4964

68.00118

61.89A

SM

AM ,dleifstti

P68

16

87.874

9.29105

494

66.085

49.79701

72.0841

%01.0401

87.79001

52.2962

45.10185

61.101A

SM

NI ,etteyafaL701

26

40.784

8.93267

364

76.003

85.001911

58.86611

%56.5-13

99.00153

39.30157

30.00194

50.201A

SM

AW ,eladrevli

S-notremer

B76

36

80.984

8.99199

259

24.006

68.7916

24.7975

%41.2-31

93.20177

76.6935

27.00168

98.69A

SM

CS ,ecnerol

F15

46

81.094

1.26167

385

16.03

08.80173

56.50113

%47.0-101

99.79701

60.1924

29.00167

30.99A

SM I

W ,haneeN-hsokhs

O99

56

92.294

4.70231

711

29.088

50.6988

19.5842

%54.0-16

56.99611

10.8815

97.00149

65.69A

SM LI ,dleifgnirp

S801

66

31.694

9.711021

0711

82.097

97.6943

31.701101

%81.4-05

41.00142

36.60147

41.00162

67.601A

SM

YK ,neer

G gnilwo

B33

76

64.005

4.2214

883

96.091

02.20192

12.111601

%16.4-19

08.8983

13.301611

2.7975

14.101A

SM

VW-

AV ,retsehcni

W12

86

91.105

3.70143

507

55.013

41.00115

53.99511

%54.5-32

84.10154

48.101511

94.7936

30.001A

SM

TM ,aluossi

M26

96

99.105

9.36105

455

26.0811

80.0934

55.30169

%19.3-201

29.7911

17.21119

44.9922

43.701A

SM L

F ,nevaH nnyL-yti

C amana

P03

07

65.505

3.80105

478

44.032

07.10104

40.40145

%00.2-47

81.9927

62.7966

83.00129

16.69A

SM LI ,rutace

D401

17

84.705

7.9711

96

11.1311

29.2931

54.42186

%35.2-911

53.6981

49.801711

41.7917

36.99A

SM L

F ,nitseD-

weivtserC-hcae

B notlaW tro

F23

27

10.115

3.74132

631

19.0911

01.9856

06.5917

%06.2-12

75.10118

30.6958

17.9959

24.69A

SM

XT ,slla

F atihciW

1637

75.2257.912

435

2287.0

1249.101

1180.621

67%88.2-

8984.89

4806.59

7895.99

4817.79

AS

M IW ,notelpp

A38

47

97.425

1.84131

735

46.051

12.3017

41.131501

%85.4-93

56.00189

25.2929

93.9979

92.69A

SM

CN ,notgnilru

B75

57

93.825

4.33105

466

65.047

62.79011

88.87021

%14.6-67

90.9925

56.9982

34.10135

66.101A

SM

AC ,apa

N17

67

85.135

3.44105

481

38.084

86.8937

12.3908

%60.3-78

39.8968

94.5965

17.00187

57.89A

SM

AP ,n

wotsnhoJ19

77

5-yr

job

gro

wth

2003

–200

81-

yr jo

b g

row

th20

07–2

008

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

gro

wth

200

2–20

071-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s g

row

th 2

006–

2007

# o

f H

T G

DP

L

Qs

ove

r 1

2008

Job

gro

wth

(Mar

08–

Mar

09)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

003–

2008

1-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

007–

2008

Hig

h-T

ech

G

DP

LQ

200

8

2009

2008

Po

pu

lati

on

2008

Ove

rall

ran

kra

nk

Met

rop

olit

an a

rea

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

200

7 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

008

Val

ue*

Ran

k(t

hous

ands

)in

dex

76.1354.641

48

105.1

154.611

6181.021

311%23.5-

3424.001

40104.19

21131.89

8911.69

AS

M C

N ,tnuoM ykco

R39

87

53.235

4.3114

864

76.0411

06.29111

08.8737

%56.2-88

09.8904

31.30139

63.9915

87.101A

SM L

A ,drofxO-notsinn

A43

97

79.535

7.18131

705

56.021

46.301221

51.0616

%63.2-17

03.9945

06.9968

86.99511

53.29A

SM

YN ,notsgni

K77

08

30.735

8.03231

752

67.039

95.5987

59.9828

%53.3-07

13.99801

78.0972

94.10159

24.69A

SM

AG ,noca

M201

18

48.645

2.34167

3501

83.0101

07.49601

38.0825

%38.1-35

79.99211

04.0951

84.20107

96.99A

SM

DS-

EN-

AI ,ytiC xuoi

S111

28

36.055

6.432021

0121

32.005

14.89811

37.9676

%35.2-45

19.9984

97.00135

27.00137

15.99A

SM

AW ,a

mikaY

8638

26.1552.461

3111

31133.0

02170.98

3936.48

06%22.2-

7598.99

8592.99

4351.101

2795.99

AS

M AI ,slla

F radeC-oolreta

W96

48

83.655

4.81131

705

56.038

24.6926

70.7955

%90.2-701

64.7947

59.69001

79.8946

10.001A

SM

AV ,grubnosirra

H63

58

46.955

0.12205

412

97.064

09.89501

47.1838

%93.3-53

38.00137

21.7959

33.99011

37.39A

SM

AM ,n

woT elbatsnra

B101

68

50.665

9.13105

468

54.098

09.5955

57.8936

%83.2-001

30.8969

51.3994

18.00156

00.001A

SM

NM-I

W ,essorC aL

30178

91.6657.841

673

2486.0

6750.79

0556.99

05%76.1-

4879.89

10102.29

6683.001

0966.69

AS

M E

M ,rognaB

2888

06.1758.341

0210

91162.0

12177.88

9580.89

64%06.1-

9538.99

1611.99

10169.89

2437.201

AS

M LA ,slaoh

S elcsuM-ecnerol

F67

98

55.485

4.641311

127

35.048

04.6978

39.5827

%36.2-46

75.9988

25.4934

19.00158

54.79A

SM

OM ,yti

C nosreffeJ09

09

80.785

0.13143

517

45.09

32.50171

68.91139

%17.3-501

56.7908

50.69801

76.8908

22.89A

SM I

W ,uasuaW

9819

04.2955.802

435

292.1

0483.99

90141.97

201%33.4-

9963.89

5885.59

1772.001

7808.69

AS

M T

V ,notgnilruB htuo

S-notgnilruB

8829

57.3956.432

673

6715.0

9344.99

5702.29

97%60.3-

2474.001

4915.39

2722.001

81111.29

AS

M S

M ,ixoliB-tropflu

G37

39

05.695

3.02232

628

84.027

43.7929

17.4858

%44.3-17

03.9966

46.89201

59.8928

31.89A

SM

AC ,ocih

C25

49

35.606

8.44199

2301

93.0711

85.1917

73.3962

%85.0-111

73.7919

29.3944

98.00138

97.79A

SM

HO-

VW ,gnileeh

W811

59

35.906

7.27199

266

65.0011

49.3945

01.9981

%20.0-86

83.99501

93.1938

67.99411

27.29A

SM

AL ,eornoM

90169

59.0164.551

673

6476.0

20125.49

3206.411

711%17.5-

12101.69

4647.89

4953.99

4343.501

AS

M E

D ,revoD

9479

02.1169.461

317

5526.0

0887.69

5355.601

29%17.3-

7760.99

20191.29

7895.99

40104.59

AS

M A

G ,ynablA

8989

31.2161.051

673

30193.0

70191.49

6849.58

011%09.4-

5433.001

9723.69

3751.001

2635.001

AS

M LA ,rutace

D97

99

93.316

8.65105

437

25.0511

22.2949

63.4874

%16.1-79

85.8907

56.7977

89.9999

29.59A

SM J

N ,notegdirB-ellivlli

M-dnaleniV

011001

09.8167.061

673

4675.0

50113.49

1927.48

43%28.0-

4519.99

41107.98

979.99

21110.39

AS

M H

O-V

W ,anneiV-atteira

M-grubsrekraP

49101

48.9167.611

435

0556.0

3733.79

0854.98

78%35.3-

2957.89

90187.09

2547.001

30175.59

AS

M A

P ,tropsmailli

W411

201

72.036

0.52105

441

09.08

19.50193

26.40157

%08.2-811

44.69121

94.3818

8.99021

20.09A

SM

HO ,dleifsna

M711

301

33.336

7.21167

359

24.063

46.99511

07.4709

%07.3-39

27.8928

97.5908

48.9986

08.99A

SM

NT ,noskcaJ

58401

28.7367.411

435

2486.0

9236.001

6596.89

24%53.1-

90183.79

32152.18

4019.89

91103.09

AS

M NI ,eicnu

M511

501

55.046

6.82199

2901

63.0421

54.27421

75.43311

%23.5-09

28.8912

38.70189

60.9913

78.501A

SM

ZA ,ffatsgal

F36

601

42.446

5.99167

309

34.052

35.10142

87.31188

%16.3-511

27.69601

32.1987

59.9998

27.69A

SM I

W ,enicaR

211701

00.7460.141

673

5924.0

00118.49

0966.58

87%50.3-

4996.89

0559.99

01193.89

4744.99

AS

M LA ,nahto

D07

801

03.156

6.41105

497

94.06

81.701311

15.6759

%98.3-801

44.7909

79.3969

72.9977

98.89A

SM I

W ,nagyobehS

501901

90.4565.951

054

10114.0

3194.301

9727.98

301%84.4-

8740.99

51112.88

4614.001

11131.39

AS

M IM ,robra

H notneB-seli

N79

011

96.456

2.52143

583

96.089

13.5906

87.7909

%07.3-98

88.8979

35.2979

51.99501

92.59A

SM

AP ,anootl

A001

111

61.207

2.07132

68

59.0111

39.39401

88.1847

%57.2-411

47.69111

24.09601

78.89801

97.39A

SM

NI ,etuaH erre

T59

211

02.307

2.08132

616

95.058

12.6959

33.48111

%52.5-18

30.9967

67.69021

53.69711

61.29A

SM

AC ,gnidde

R95

311

01.707

2.50199

209

34.071

73.20194

71.10194

%46.1-711

65.69711

60.78901

35.89121

38.98A

SM

HO ,a

miL221

411

40.727

2.06143

578

44.069

34.5982

83.111911

%02.6-611

36.6959

72.39311

30.8939

95.69A

SM I

W ,ellivsenaJ57

511

75.827

1.99105

409

34.083

64.99201

10.28421

%85.31-901

83.7965

75.99421

49.29701

79.39A

SM

NI ,nehsoG-trahkl

E69

611

98.147

8.281311

1321

12.077

49.6969

66.3899

%50.4-66

44.99011

47.09501

88.8988

77.69A

SM

CS ,nosredn

A911

711

88.547

1.43167

341

09.054

29.89001

83.28121

%86.8-601

85.7929

48.39321

70.59611

72.29A

SM

AG ,notla

D311

811

87.357

9.931021

0421

51.0321

11.77211

96.7733

%67.0-221

27.59221

88.1885

36.001901

57.39A

SM

HO ,dleifgnirp

S021

911

88.367

9.60199

2021

42.0221

52.6889

26.2868

%74.3-48

79.8999

74.29201

59.89201

66.59A

SM

EM ,nrubu

A-notsiweL

48021

07.4083.471

054

4675.0

1867.69

32183.25

211%92.5-

02151.69

81199.68

7017.89

31188.29

AS

M IM ,seroh

S notroN-nogeksu

M611

121

45.218

7.00267

324

86.019

86.5938

89.78001

%01.4-421

26.49421

74.08811

58.69421

81.78A

SM I

M ,htroN pihsn

woT

wanigaS-

wanigaS

121221

72.0589.531

3111

51192.0

6802.69

5810.78

811%87.5-

21189.69

02185.48

9920.99

22135.98

AS

M IM ,keer

C elttaB

321321

54.9782.061

992

41113.0

5925.59

02177.46

701%86.4-

32184.59

91158.48

11181.89

32194.98

AS

M IM ,noskcaJ

421421

# o

f H

T G

DP

L

Qs

ove

r 1

2008

5-yr

job

gro

wth

2003

–200

81-

yr jo

b g

row

th20

07–2

008

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

gro

wth

200

2–20

071-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s g

row

th 2

006–

2007

Job

gro

wth

(Mar

08–

Mar

09)

5-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

003–

2008

1-yr

rel

ativ

e H

T G

DP

g

row

th 2

007–

2008

Hig

h-T

ech

G

DP

LQ

200

8

* “V

alue

s” a

re b

ench

mar

ked

agai

nst t

he n

atio

nal a

vera

ge, w

hich

is se

t to

100.

** In

dex

scor

es a

re b

ench

mar

ked

agai

nst t

he to

p pe

rform

er, w

hich

is se

t to

100.

Low

er in

dex

scor

es in

dica

te st

rong

er p

erfo

rman

ce.

Sour

ces:

U.S

. Cen

sus B

urea

u, U

.S. B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics,

Moo

dy’s

Econ

omy.c

om, M

ilken

Insti

tute

.

53

Endnotes

1. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Statistical and Science Policy Branch, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Bulletin, no. 04-03.

2. Though the OMB identifies 361 MSA, our index ranks 324 MSAs for which employment and wage data is available on a consistent basis.

3. The latest twelve-month job performance calculates the percentage change from the same month in the previous year (e.g., the percentage change in jobs from March 2008 to March 2009). The percentage change is a measure of recent momentum, capturing which metropolitan areas have improved their performance in recent months. The annual growth rate measures the percentage change from calendar year 2007 to 2008. While annual growth rate does not indicate whether high growth was achieved or diminished in the first or latter half of the year, the twelve-month growth rate captures that aspect. Employment, wage, and gross metro product data is compiled from various government agencies, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and the U.S. Census Bureau. More detailed coverage on individual sectors is derived from Moody’s Economy.com.

4. An industry’s location quotient (LQ) measures the level of concentration in a given location (in this case, an MSA) relative to the industry average across the United States. A metro with a GDP LQ higher than 1.0 in a high-tech industry, for example, has greater output in that industry than the nation has on average. It is an indication of whether a metro has successfully attracted an above-average mass of high-tech industries. Metros that exceed the national average in high-tech industry LQ have an edge in attracting and retaining high-tech firms because of their dense employment base and other positive agglomeration, or clustering, factors.

5. Ross DeVol, Kevin Klowden, Armen Bedroussian, and Benjamin Yeo, North America’s High-Tech Economy: The Geography of Knowledge-Based Industries (Milken Institute, 2009), p. 8.

6. Lori Hawkins, “Spray-Batter Maker Joins Influx to Austin,” Austin American Statesman, July 5, 2009.7. Claudia Grisales, “In Feeble Times, City Still Feeling Strong Growth,” Austin American Statesman, July 20, 2009.8. Marty Toohey, “Green Energy Partnership Nears Launch,” Austin American Statesman, July 31, 2009.9. Christopher Calnan, “City Council Gives Austin Energy the Go-Ahead for Major Solar Project,” Austin Business

Journal, March 6, 2009.10. “Texas in Focus: Central Texas,” Texas Comptroller’s office, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/central/

indProfiles.php.11. “Texas in Focus: Central Texas,” Texas Comptroller’s office, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/central/

education.php.12. “Killeen-Area Medical Community Healthy,” Killeen Daily Herald, August 2, 2009 (http://www.kdhnews.com/

news/story.aspx?s=34922; accessed October 7, 2009).13. North America’s High-Tech Economy: The Geography of Knowledge-Based Industries, p. 25. 14. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Salt Lake City, 2009.15. Ryan Holeywell, “Details of Possible Sharyland Auto Plant Emerge,” The Monitor, April 10, 2009.16. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Houston, 2009.17. L.M. Sixel, “The Quarterly: Energy, Once a Shield for City, May Take a While to Rally Its Strength,” Houston

Chronicle, August 2, 2009. 18. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Houston, 2009.19. Monica Perin, “Global Manufacturing Lines Imported by Cat Lift Trucks,” Houston Business Journal, April 10,

2009.20. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Durham, 2009.21. Dawn Kent, “Two Bright Spots in a Recession: Rocket and Port Cities Doing Well in Hard Times,” Birmingham

News, February 22, 2009.22. Robert Block, Aaron Deslatte, and Mark K. Matthews, “Thousands at Kennedy Space Center May Get Alabama

Jobs,” Orlando Sentinel, March 4, 2009.

Endnotes

54


23. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Lafayette, 2009.24. Benjamin Niolet, “Layoffs Might Hit Public Jobs, Too,” The News & Observer, February 8, 2009.25. Roger Croteau, “Caterpillar Bringing 1,400 Jobs to Area,” San Antonio Express-News, December 19, 2008. 26. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Dallas, 2009.27. Vic Kolenc, “Fort Bliss Housing Meets Cost Snag,” El Paso Times, April, 4, 2009.28. Jason Beaubien, “Economy, Drug Wars Hurt Cross-Border Business,” NPR Morning Edition, December 4, 2008

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97752572; accessed September 29, 2009).29. Graham Warwick, “Boeing Warns of Job Cuts in 2009,” Aviation Week, November, 21, 2009. 30. Department of the Navy, Base Realignment and Closure, Program Management Office, Texas, Naval Air Station,

Corpus Christi (http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/major_realignments.aspx?baseid=85&name=newport).31. Office of the Governor, State of Louisiana, “Governor Bobby Jindal Marks Groundbreaking For Pennington’s New

Clinical Research Building,” June 14, 2009.32. Rod Walton, “Philadelphia-Based Sunoco to Sell Tulsa Refinery to Holly,” Tulsa World April, 16, 2009. (http://www.

tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20090416_298_0_PIAEPI404403; accessed October 7, 2009).

33. Laurie Windslow, “Tulsa Ranks No.1 in Cost of Living on New National List,” Tulsa World, August, 27, 2009 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=32&articleid=20090827_298_0_Teacld276450; accessed October 7, 2009).

34. Brian Barber, “BOK Center Rakes in Millions,” Tulsa World April, 17, 2009. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20090427_11_A1_Tulsas804632; accessed October 7, 2009).

35. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Greeley, 2009.36. Evan Dreyer, “Gov. Ritter Celebrates Opening of Vestas Plant,” Office of Economic Development and International

Trade, March, 5, 2008 (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/OEDIT/OEDIT/1206001694734?rendermode=preview-sdalgar-1162927364983).

37. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Tacoma, 2009.38. “CSU Startup Abound Solar Opens First Production Facility,” Colorado State University, April 15,2009. (http://

www.news.colostate.edu/Release/4424; accessed October 7, 2009).39. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Little Rock, 2009.40. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Shreveport, 2009, and http://www.oilshalegas.com/haynesvilleshale.html.41. “EXCO Resources Inc. to Unveil Facilities for Haynesville Shale Exploitation,” Businesswire, June 22, 2009 (http://

www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090622006321&newsLang=en; accessed October 7, 2009)

42. Jim Wolf, “Pentagon to Create 20,000 Jobs to Manage Arms Buys,” Reuters, May 6, 2009. (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE54545N20090506; accessed October 7, 2009).

43. Dave Itzkoff, “Tax-Credit Fund Empty at City Film Office,” New York Times, July 2, 2009. 44. Moody’s Economy.com , Metro Précis Riverside, 2009.45. Metro Atlanta Overview 2009, Metro Atlanta Chamber and Georgia Power (http://metroatlantachamber.com/files/

file/about_atlanta/Atlanta%20Overview_2009.pdf; accessed October 7, 2009), p. 3.46. Midland Development Corporation, http://www.midlandtexasedc.org/community_profile (accessed September 30,

2009).47. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.48. Texas Comptroller’s Office, http://recenter.tamu.edu/mreports/Midland.pdf.49. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Longview, March 2009.50. Tyler Economic Development Council, http://www.tedc.org/profile/pro_location.php.51. Tyler Economic Development Council, July 2008.52. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Odessa, March 2009.53. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, not seasonally adjusted annual data.

55

54. Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, RECON (Real Estate Center Online News), November 14, 2008 (http://recenter.tamu.edu/recon/RECON.asp?date=11/14/2008; accessed October 8, 2009).

55. Angelou Economics Community Assessment of the City of Kennewick, February 2006, and U.S. Department of Energy (http://www.hanford.gov/?page=58&parent=6).

56. Tri-City Development Council (http://www.tridec.org/index.cfm?regid=%23%2F%40(%2F%0A&fwnavid=%23%2F%404-%0A&navMode=(%3FT%3D%3A(Y%3EJ%3B1%5C%20%0A; accessed October 8, 2009).

57. Bismarck-Mandan Development Association, Energy Resources, http://www.bmda.org/energy/ (accessed October 8, 2009).

58. Robins Air Force Base, Economic Impact Statement, June 19, 2009 (available for download at http://www.robins.af.mil/library/index.asp; accessed October 8, 2009).

59. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Warner Robins, March 2009.60. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Fargo, 2009.

Endnotes

56


About the Authors

Ross C. DeVol is Director of Regional Economics at the Milken Institute. He oversees the Institute’s research efforts on the dynamics of comparative regional growth performance, and technology and its impact on regional and national economies. He is an expert on the new intangible economy and how regions can prepare themselves to compete in it. DeVol authored the groundbreaking study America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development, and Risks for Metropolitan Areas, an examination of how clusters of high-technology industries across the country affect economic growth in those regions, and created the State Technology and Science Index, which ranks the 50 states in terms of their technology and science assets. Prior to joining the Institute, DeVol was senior vice president of Global Insight, Inc. (formerly Wharton Econometric Forecasting), where he supervised the Regional Economic Services group. DeVol supervised the re-specification of Global Insight’s regional econometric models and played an instrumental role on similar work on its U.S. Macro Model, originally developed by Nobel laureate Lawrence Klein. He was the firm’s chief spokesman on international trade, headed Global Insight’s U.S. Long-Term Macro Service, and authored numerous special reports on behalf of the U.S. Macro Group. He is ranked among the “Super Stars” of Think Tank Scholars by International Economy magazine. DeVol earned his M.A. in economics at Ohio University.

Armen Bedroussian is a Research Economist with the Milken Institute. He has extensive graduate training in econometrics, statistical methods, and other modeling techniques. Before joining the Institute, he was an economics teaching assistant at the University of California, Riverside, where he taught intermediate micro- and macroeconomics. Since coming to the Institute, Bedroussian has co-authored numerous studies, including The Impact of 9/11 on U.S. Metropolitan Economies, America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, Economic Benefits of Proposed University of Central Florida College of Medicine, and An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease. In addition to co-authoring annual reports on Best-Performing Cities, he has also compiled the Milken Institute’s Cost of Doing Business Index; both of these studies have gained increasing popularity among business and policy leaders across the nation. Bedroussian earned his B.S. in applied mathematics and a master’s degree in economics from UC-Riverside.

Kevin Klowden is Managing Economist of the California Center and is part of the Regional Economics group at the Milken Institute, specializing in the study of demographic and spatial factors, and how these are influenced by public policy and affect regional economies. He has written and spoken on the role of transportation infrastructure as it relates to the movement of goods and people in the development of regional competitiveness. Klowden has a strong interest in the role of technology and media; he recently authored The Writers’ Strike of 2007–2008: The Economic Impact of Digital Distribution, a study that examined the underlying issues surrounding the recent Hollywood writers’ strike and calculated the costs of that work stoppage to the overall California economy. He coordinated the Institute’s Los Angeles Economy Project, seeking public policy and private-sector solutions to challenges the region faces amid a growing unskilled labor pool. He served on the editorial board of Millennium, the international affairs journal of the London School of Economics, where he earned a master’s degree. Klowden also received a master’s in economic geography from the University of Chicago.

Candice Flor Hynek is a Senior Research Analyst with the Milken Institute’s Regional Studies group. She was associate economist of the LAEDC Kyser Center for Economic Research, where she worked for more than eight years, specializing in the structure of leading industries in Southern California. She has managed the Kyser Center’s major economic reports and served as editor of the e-EDGE economic newsletter. She has co-authored numerous reports, including The Business of Sports in Los Angeles County, The Creative Economy of the Los Angeles Region and, most recently, Manufacturing 2.0: A More Prosperous California. She has contributed U.S. economic outlook articles to several industry newsletters. Flor Hynek is an active member of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) and is the 2008-09 president of the Los Angeles Chapter of NABE. She received her bachelor’s degree in business economics from California State University, Long Beach.

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

© 2009 Milken Institute

Best-Performing Cities 2009 - Milken Institute€¦ · About the Milken Institute The Milken...

Documents

Transcript of Best-Performing Cities 2009 - Milken Institute€¦ · About the Milken Institute The Milken...