best-performing cities 2010 - milken institute...best-performing cities 2010 where america’s jobs...

66
Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice Flor Hynek October 2010 Five of Top 10 Metro Areas Lie Deep in the Heart of Texas

Upload: others

Post on 25-Jul-2020

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

Best-Performing Cities 2010Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained

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

October 2010

Five of Top 10 Metro Areas Lie Deep in the Heart of Texas

Page 2: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

Best-Performing Cities 2010Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained

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

October 2010

Page 3: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

About the Milken Institute

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

We focus on:

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

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

We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and publicly supported.

© 2010 Milken Institute

Page 4: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix ................................................................................................. 49

Endnotes .................................................................................................. 55

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

Table of Contents

Page 5: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice
Page 6: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

1

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Our Best-Performing Cities index is updated on an annual basis to provide an objective, comprehensive measure of economic performance across metropolitan areas of the country. In most years, it gives a good indication of the underlying structural performance of regional economies.

While the 2010 edition still sheds light on structural factors underpinning the economic growth process, the severity of the recent recession brings more cyclical factors to bear. For example, several of this year’s best-performing cities had military bases that benefited from Defense Base Realignment and Consolidation (BRAC) actions. A best-performing city in this context should be viewed as one that was able to minimize the job losses and economic dislocations in the midst of a severe national recession. We include measures of job, wage, and technology performance over a five-year period to capture the structural elements.

Among this year’s key findings:

• Texas metros dominated the rankings even more impressively than last year. The state claimed three of the top 5 positions; five of the top 10 positions and 11 of the top 25 among the nation’s 200 largest metros.

• Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, moved past Austin–Round Rock, Texas, to secure first among the 200 largest metros in the country.

• Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV, was the top performer among the 10 largest metros and an impressive sixth in the overall rankings.

• Fargo, North Dakota–Minnesota, was first on the small cities list, and Bismarck, North Dakota, was second.

• Clarksville, Tennessee–Kentucky, moved up 97 spots from last year to 39th, recording the biggest gain among metros.

Only a handful of cities eked out job gains in 2009. Through April 2010, just a few more cities managed increases in employment. The 2007-2009 recession came to an end in June 2009, but its effects continue to sting. Real GDP declined 4.1 percent from peak to trough, the most severe in the post-war period, eclipsing the previous record of 3.7 percent in the 1957-1958 recession.

While virtually no sector of the economy went unscathed, the magnitude of the contraction in business investment and manufacturing explains much of the severity in the recent period relative to other recessions. The bursting of the housing bubble, retrenching consumers, a severe drop in exports, and a slashing of business inventories cut across a wide swath of industries.

The ultimate measure of the severity of the recession is its impact on labor markets, and here the toll of the “Great Recession” was devastating and continues to this day. Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics establishment survey, a total of 8.4 million jobs were lost during the recent recession, and the unemployment rate hit 10.1 percent.

Page 7: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

2

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Some economists are predicting that the economy is in store for a so-called double-dip recession, but they remain in the minority. The U.S. economy faces many headwinds, but it seems most likely that moderate, but disappointing, growth is the most likely outcome. It will be disappointing in the sense that job growth will not be sufficient to bring down the unemployment rate to where it was before the recent crisis.

The top performers shared many of the same characteristics as last year. None experienced a large correction in housing markets. In many cases, the excesses of the housing bubble years were largely avoided and overall economic performance was more stable than in other metros. One factor that was more vital than last year was a low dependence on durable goods manufacturing. As the production of capital equipment and consumer durable goods plummeted, metros without much of this activity were largely shielded. Another characteristic of top performers was a relatively small presence of financial services, an industry that experienced large job losses due to bank consolidation and losses on their loan portfolios.

Several metros with diversified technology bases—including high-tech manufacturing as well as high-tech services—were among the best performers. Most of the top-ranking metros have an employment mix that relies heavily on services, which experienced a smaller decline than most other sectors. Several metros had a large military presence and benefited from BRAC actions. A few of the best-performing metros had a dependence on energy exploration, services, and alternative energy investments. With just a few exceptions, the top-ranked metros had low business costs and favorable business climates.

The Top 25 Best-Performing Cities

Texas metros dominated the 2010 rankings, eclipsing even last year’s stellar performance. Lone Star State metros occupied 11 of the top 25 positions among the 200 largest metros in the country and five of the top 10. For the second year running, the same two Texas cities claimed the top two spots, except Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood edged past Austin–Round Rock to take first among the 200 largest metros. Another way to highlight Texas’ dominance is that just two of the state’s 13 metros didn’t make the top 25, with the lowest-ranking metro coming in at 57th overall.

As highlighted throughout this report, Texas metros have benefited from a low reliance on durable goods manufacturing, a low cost of doing business, a favorable business climate, the benefits of BRAC activities, greater reliance on trade with Mexico and South America (which declined less than trade with other parts of the world), and ongoing energy exploration activities and alternative fuels research. Throw in their aggressive recruitment of businesses from out of state, and you have the ingredients for a very successful recipe.

North Carolina had three metros in the top 25; Raleigh–Cary at seventh, Durham at 15th and Fayetteville at 18th. These metros shared many of the same attributes as the Texas metros. No other states had more than one metro in the top 25.

Led by Texas, the South held 21 of the top 25 positions. The Northeast and West each had two metros in the top 25.

Page 8: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

3

Executive Summary

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)

2010

rank

2009

rank

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 1 2

Austin-Round Rock, TX 2 1

Huntsville, AL 3 8

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 4 4

Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA 5 6⁺

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 6 25

Raleigh-Cary, NC 7 10

Anchorage, AK 8 40

El Paso, TX 9 14

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 10 5

Lafayette, LA 11 9

Trenton-Ewing, NJ 12 46

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 13 70

San Antonio, TX 14 11

Durham, NC 15 6

Amarillo, TX 16 35

Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 17 13

Fayetteville, NC 18 31

Charleston-North Charleston, SC 19 30

Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick, MD* 20 51

Oklahoma City, OK 21 26

Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA* 22 45

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX* 23 12

Lubbock, TX 24 29

Provo-Orem, UT 25 28

*Indicates metropolitan division

Source: Milken Institute.

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)

2010

rank

2009

rankFargo, ND-MN 1 10

Bismarck, ND 2 7

Jacksonville, NC 3 n.a.

College Station-Bryan, TX 4 14

Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA 5 n.a.

Morgantown, WV 6 27

Tyler, TX 7 4

Las Cruces, NM 8 9

Iowa City, IA 9 22

Lawton, OK 10 n.a.

*Among 179 small metros

Source: Milken Institute.

Rank according to 2010 index*

⁺Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA MSA moved to the large cities list. It ranked sixth in the best-performing small cities in 2009.

Rank according to 2010 index

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

Table 6. Top 10 best-performing small cities

This Year’s Best-Performing City

Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, claimed the top spot in our 2010 Best-Performing Cities index, edging up from second last year. The area, which experienced a devastating tragedy at Fort Hood in 2009, should be heralded for its economic performance amid a severe national recession. The metro area’s job growth ranked in the top 10 last year and over the five years from 2004-2009, but its overall performance was fueled by its first-place position in wage and salary growth over the five-year (2003-2008) and one-year (2007-2008) periods examined. Additionally, it ranked third in year-over-year job growth in the 12 months ending April 2010. Expansion at Fort Hood, with the associated economic ripple effects, is the primary catalyst for this stellar performance.

Page 9: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

4

Best-Performing Cities 2010

The Ten Largest Cities

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

Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV–MD, was the top-performing metro among the 10 largest metros based on population and ranked sixth overall on this year’s list. The federal government was by far the primary driver of the region’s job growth from 2008 to 2009, adding nearly 11,000 positions. Last year’s stimulus package, known as The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, provided a significant boost to the metro’s economy. Of the awards distributed, D.C. received nearly 10 times as much stimulus per capita as the national average.1

The Biggest Gainers

There are several commonalities among the biggest gainers on the 2010 Best-Performing Cities index. The most significant theme was a heavily service-based economy with little durable goods production. This is because the service sector tends to be less sensitive to business cycles. Conversely, metros with a heavier reliance on durable goods manufacturing, which took a dramatic hit during the recession, witnessed the largest declines in output and employment. Among the biggest gainers, a majority also didn’t experience an extreme housing bubble earlier in the decade, allowing them to avoid a severe correction.

Gains were recorded across the country. Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, California, and Florida each landed two metros on the list. Columbus, GA–AL, made its second consecutive appearance on the list, leaping 67 spots to claim 45th. The metro experiencing the largest gain was Clarksville, TN–KY, which moved up 97 spots to 39th place. BRAC shifts to Fort Benning (Columbus) and increased defense spending at Fort Campbell (Clarksville) were key drivers of growth in those regions.

The Best-Performing Small City

Fargo, North Dakota, jumped to first among the best-performing small metros in 2010, after finishing 10th the previous year. Fargo experienced a very mild recession and quickly recovered. The unemployment rate was below 4 percent, one of the lowest in the nation. The tight labor market elsewhere resulted in an increase of new residents. The increased global demand for agricultural commodities such as wheat, corn, and soybeans, which the state grows in abundance, has benefited the region in recent years. A growing presence in the technology sector, and biosciences in particular, has diversified the area’s economy.

In this year’s release, an appendix was added to give further background on the methodology and weighting scheme we developed. The appendix attempts to validate the methods used for determining relative metropolitan growth and its corresponding strength as exemplified by the existing weights. The regression model developed using the variables included in our ranking explains 88 percent of the total variation in real GDP growth among 379 metros from 1990 to 2008, a high degree of explanatory power.

Page 10: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

5

Introduction

Introduction

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

The index allows businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors, academics, government officials, and public policy groups to assess, monitor, and gain insight into each metro’s relative performance. It also provides benchmarking data that can be used in developing strategies to improve and maintain a metro’s economic performance. Moreover, it is a tool for understanding consumer markets and business expansion opportunities. In today’s recessionary climate, it helps determine which regions may present the lowest risk. The 2010 index applies the methodology used in previous indexes.

In a year when robust growth was in painfully short supply, the top-performing cities posted only mild increases in employment. Few cities actually experienced meaningful job growth in 2009. Coming out of the worst recession in the post-war era, the emphasis is not as much on job creation as on job retention. As a result, this year’s index will hinge on a metro’s degree of sensitivity to business cycles, highlighting those that were better able to the weather the storm of the recession. In this kind of environment, it is even more important to evaluate each city’s performance in relation to the nation as a whole and in relation to each other.

We have employed geographic terms and definitions used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which in turn uses data from the 2000 census. The OMB defines a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as a region generally consisting of a large population nucleus and adjacent territory with a high degree of economic and social integration, as measured by community ties.2 Using these parameters, the agency identifies 374 metropolitan statistical areas.3 County population growth accounts for the creation of new MSAs.

If specific criteria are met, an MSA with a single nucleus and a population of 2.5 million or more is further divided into geographic areas called metropolitan divisions. There are currently 29 metropolitan divisions. For example, two metropolitan divisions (Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale and Santa Ana–Anaheim–Irvine) make up the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana MSA. We include the smaller metropolitan divisions in the index to reflect more accurate geographic growth patterns.

Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based

The components shown in the following table are used to calculate our index rankings. The index measures growth in jobs, wages and salaries, and technology output over a five-year span (2004–2009 for jobs and technology output and 2003-2008 for wages and salaries) to adjust for extreme variations in business cycles. It also incorporates the latest year’s performance in these areas (2008–2009 for jobs and technology output and 2007–2008 for wages and salaries). Lastly, it includes 12-month job growth performance (April 2009 to April 2010) to capture relative recent momentum among metropolitan economies.4

Page 11: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

6

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Employment growth is weighted most heavily in the index because of its critical importance in determining community vitality. Wage and salary growth also measures the quality of the jobs being created and sustained. Technology output growth is another important element in determining the economic vibrancy of cities.

We have incorporated other measures to reflect the concentration and diversity of technology industries within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients (LQs, which measure the concentration of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the national average) are included to indicate a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.5 We also measure the number of specific high-tech industries (out of a possible 25) whose concentrations in an MSA are higher than the national average.

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

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

Component WeightJob growth (I=2004) 0.143Job growth (I=2008) 0.143Wage and salary growth (I=2003) 0.143Wage and salary growth (I=2007) 0.143Short-term job growth (Apr09-Apr10) 0.143Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2004) 0.071Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2008) 0.071High-tech GDP location quotient 0.071Number of high-tech industries with GDP LQ>1 0.071Note: I refers to the beginning year of index.Source: Milken Institute.

Table 2. Components of the Best-Performing Cities index

Page 12: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

7

Introduction

National Economic Conditions

The painful 2007-2009 recession came to an end in June 2009, but its reverberations are still being felt. Real GDP declined 4.1 percent from peak to trough, the most severe in the post-war period, eclipsing the previous record of 3.7 percent experienced in the 1957–1958 recession. While virtually no sector of the economy went unscathed, the magnitude of the contraction in business investment and manufacturing explains much of the severity in the recent period relative to other recessions. However, what triggered the recession was the bursting of the housing and mortgage finance bubble as it cascaded throughout the financial system, ultimately leading to government intervention to stave off an even more serious economic contraction.

Overextended consumers facing heavy debt-servicing burdens on mortgages and credit cards, paired with wealth declines from losses in the stock market and the collapse in home values, deferred purchases of discretionary items such as cars and other consumer durables. Services tied to travel and tourism also witnessed a severe retrenchment. Foreign purchases of U.S. products and services fell, and a massive destocking of inventories combined with the fall in business investment caused industrial production to contract 14.8 percent from December 2007 to June 2009. The peak-to-trough decline in orders for manufacturing was 27.2 percent.6

The ultimate measure of the severity of the recession is its impact on labor markets, and here the toll of the “Great Recession” was devastating and continues to this day. Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics establishment survey, a total of 8.4 million jobs were lost during the recent recession, and the unemployment rate hit 10.1 percent. Small businesses accounted for a disproportion share of the losses, and few hired new workers during the recession. In most recessions, a number of small establishments continue to expand payrolls despite cutbacks at others.

The central question looking forward is what will be the strength of the recovery. Some economists are predicting a so-called double-dip recession, but they remain in the minority. The U.S. economy faces many headwinds, but it seems that moderate but disappointing growth is the most likely outcome. It will be disappointing in the sense that job growth over the next few years will not be sufficient to reduce the unemployment rate to pre-crisis levels.

Page 13: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice
Page 14: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

9

The Biggest Gainers

The Biggest Gainers

Those cities experiencing the biggest gains in the 2010 Best-Performing Cities index share important similarities. The most significant theme among the gainers was a heavily service-based economy with little durable goods production. Because the service sector tends to be less sensitive to business cycles, metros with a larger share of their economic activity in that sector typically are less likely to suffer major declines in their economy. Conversely, metros with a heavier reliance on durable goods manufacturing, which took a dramatic hit during this past recession, witnessed the largest declines in output and employment. A majority of the biggest gainers also didn’t experience an extreme housing bubble earlier in the decade, allowing them to avoid a severe correction. For most metros, however, it was simply a case of not deteriorating as rapidly as the national economy.

Gains were recorded across the country. Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, California, and Florida each landed two metros on the list. Columbus, GA–AL, made its second consecutive appearance on the list of biggest gainers, leaping 67 spots to claim 45th. The metro experiencing the largest gain was Clarksville, TN–KY, which moved up 97 spots to 39th place. Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) shifts to Fort Benning (Columbus) and increased defense spending at Fort Campbell (Clarksville) were key drivers of growth in those regions.

2010 2009 SpotsMetropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank climbedClarksville, TN-KY 39 136 +97St. Louis, MO-IL 44 128 +84Charleston, WV 61 144 +83Pittsburgh, PA 32 109 +77Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 73 149 +76Green Bay, WI 102 171 +69Columbus, GA-AL 45 112 +67Lexington-Fayette, KY 100 161 +61Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 115 173 +58Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 13 70 +57Visalia-Porterville, CA 70 124 +54Jackson, MS 66 113 +47Honolulu, HI 55 100 +45Lincoln, NE 54 97 +43Tallahassee, FL 88 129 +41Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 116 157 +41Duluth, MN-WI 122 163 +41Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 113 153 +40Richmond, VA 79 118 +39Chattanooga, TN-GA 133 172 +39Source: Milken Institute.

Table 3. Biggest gainersChange in rankings

Page 15: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice
Page 16: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

11

The Biggest Decliners

The Biggest Decliners

The ripple effects of the housing crisis are still evident across the biggest decliners’ list. Housing prices have yet to stabilize in most of these metros as inventory remains high and delinquencies continue to engulf neighborhoods. Several of these metros are also dependent on travel and tourism, which endured a substantial decline and slow recovery.

This year, California had both the biggest decliner—Santa Barbara–Santa Maria–Goleta, California—and the most metros on the list, at four. The Santa Barbara area’s low housing affordability will delay its housing correction for some time while budgetary problems at the state level will likely impede growth at its University of California campus. The metro’s dependence on tourism will only add to economic woes until the recovery picks up.

2010 2009 SpotsMetropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank downSanta Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 138 43 -95Fort Smith, AR-OK 150 62 -88San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 132 50 -82Greeley, CO 101 20 -81Eugene-Springfield, OR 160 81 -79Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 93 23 -70Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 107 37 -70New Haven-Milford, CT 153 88 -65Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 111 49 -62Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 136 77 -59Wichita, KS 72 15 -57Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI* 152 95 -57Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 164 107 -57Ocala, FL 159 104 -55Peoria, IL 87 33 -54Reno-Sparks, NV 196 143 -53Worcester, MA 129 79 -50Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA* 172 122 -50Salt Lake City, UT 49 3 -46Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 146 103 -43*Indicates metropolitan divisionSource: Milken Institute.

Table 4. Biggest declinersChange in rankings

Page 17: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice
Page 18: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

13

The Best-Performing Large Cities

The Best-Performing Large Cities

Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood, Texas, moved into the top spot in our 2010 Best-Performing Cities index, edging up from second last year. The area, which experienced a devastating tragedy at Fort Hood in 2009, should be heralded for its economic performance amid a severe national recession. The metro area recorded top 10 finishes in job growth over the five-year and one-year periods, but its overall performance was spurred by its first-place position in five-year and one-year wage and salary growth. Additionally, it ranked third on year-over-year job growth measured through April 2010. Expansion at Fort Hood, with the associated economic ripple effects, is the primary catalyst for this stellar performance.

The area’s economy has benefited from the base consolidations ordered in 2005. Based on estimates from the Defense Department, this long-term repositioning should transfer more than 8,000 military personnel to Fort Hood from 2006 through 2011. Military compensation has been rising faster than federal non-military and private-sector compensation over the last decade.7 Average military pay surpassed $70,000 in 2009, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Base-related activity in local service sectors, such as professional and business services and many others, has provided stability to the area’s economy during the severe national recession.

Recognizing that the stimulus from Fort Hood will wane, the area is focused on diversifying its economy. Its location on the central I-35 trade corridor with Mexico provides such an opportunity. In the Killeen metro area, tangible results such as employment in support activities for transportation are more than twice as important to the local economy as they are to the U.S. economy overall.

A combination of less over-extension of mortgage credit in earlier years and more stability in employment during the recession mitigated the downturn in the housing market. Although new-home construction fell, prices didn’t plummet as in many other parts of the country. Higher education is an area where the metro has seen growth and is anticipating further advances. Central Texas College has already seen increased enrollment, and Texas A&M University Central Texas has broken ground on a new campus. This provides the metro an opportunity to establish new research-related jobs and further diversify its economy.8

2009200820072006200520042003

15

10

5

0

-5

Wages, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 1. Wage growthKilleen-Temple-Fort Hood vs. United States

Killeen-Temple-Fort HoodUnited States

Page 19: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

14

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Slipping one spot to second overall, consistent performer Austin–Round Rock, Texas, also ranked second on job growth over the five-year period. It ranked in the top 25 on almost all growth performance categories. This is an impressive achievement when you consider that Austin is highly dependent on computers and information technology equipment, which was devastated by the recession. Dell and several of its chip producers suffered major declines as domestic and international IT markets collapsed. The presence of the University of Texas, Austin, and Austin’s role as the state capital helped insulate it from further damage. Austin’s low dependence on traditional durable goods manufacturing and tourism provided further stability. Austin’s housing market witnessed far less severe declines than most metro markets did.

Although employment fell in 2009, Austin’s unemployment rate peaked at 7.3 percent, roughly 3 percentage points less than the national figure. Austin’s relatively low cost of doing business for a leading knowledge-based economy hub, combined with a favorable business climate and access to an educated workforce, makes it a very attractive location to start or expand a business. Austin’s net population increased by 32,000 in 2009, according to the Census Bureau, compared with a peak of 48,000 in 2006.

Austin hopes to encourage more high-tech services, recognizing that hardware and chip makers will create fewer jobs in the future. That said, Samsung intends to add a production line in Austin that will employ 500 workers to make logic chips, demonstrating that Austin remains a key center of U.S. chip manufacturing and will attract new incremental capacity in the future.9 On the high-tech service side, one recent success is Apple’s acquisition of Intrinsity Inc., which designed key parts of a chip for Apple’s iPad. Intrinsity had around 100 employees at the time of the acquisition, but it is likely that Apple will make additional investments and add more employees.10 Apple already has around 2,500 employees in central Texas. Many other high-tech service firms such as Google and Facebook are adding employees in Austin.

2009200820072006200520042003

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

Percent

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

Figure 2. Unemployment rateAustin-Round Rock vs. United States

Austin-Round RockUnited States

Page 20: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

15

The Best-Performing Large Cities

Huntsville, Alabama, jumped from eighth to third, holding its own in the top 10. Like Killeen, Huntsville is benefiting from base consolidation decisions made in 2005 but adds high-tech to the mix of reasons it is a consistent performer. The Redstone Arsenal is home to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, the Missile Defense Agency, and more than 60 government agencies and organizations with more than $50 billion in total annual budgets.11 Slightly more than half of the 35,000 people who work behind the Redstone Arsenal’s gates every day are civilian government employees, and the remainder are government contractors.

Aerospace contractors are major employers in the metro area with over 4,400 jobs in total. Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin all have a major presence and spawn thousands of jobs in other industries. Huntsville is reported to have the nation’s highest concentration of engineers per capita. Excluding federal, state, and local government, three of the top five private-sector industries are high-tech services. Due to real estate space limitations behind the arsenal’s gates, construction recently began on the Redstone Gateway office park to house the next expansion.12 The cancellation of the Constellation Project, which was to develop two space vehicles that could bring humans and cargo to the moon, was a blow to further expansion.13 However, the area seems likely to get a slice of new NASA research funding.14

2009200820072006200520042003

15

10

5

0

-5

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 3. Professional, scientific, and technical servicesHuntsville vs. United States

HuntsvilleUnited States

McAllen–Edinburg–Mission, Texas, held on to fourth, anchored in the upper echelon of metros by such key measures as job and wage and salary growth. McAllen is a consistent performer, remaining first in five-year job growth, matching last year’s position. For 2009, McAllen placed fifth in job growth overall among the 200 largest metros and second in 12-month job growth from April 2009 to April 2010. The metro area suffered during the recession in 2009, but the downturn was substantially milder than in the nation overall. McAllen continued to have high population growth.

McAllen’s location on the Mexican border has made it a key trade and logistics site. The number of cargo trucks crossing into Hildalgo County has more than tripled since the early 1990s.15

Page 21: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

16

Best-Performing Cities 2010

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

2009200820072006200520042003

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 4. Health-care and social assistance servicesMcAllen-Edinburg-Mission vs. United States

McAllen-Edinburg-MissionUnited States

Kennewick–Pasco–Richland, Washington, was fifth this year. Population gains propelled the Kennewick metro area from the small metro list onto the list of the 200 largest metros. Kennewick has recorded some impressive feats: It was first in job growth in both the 2008-2009 and in April 2009-April 2010 measures. The stability of its economy in 2009 led to the large influx of new residents.

Many of the area’s job opportunities are tied to the Department of Energy’s Hanford environmental remediation project. Massive amounts of federal funding are streaming into the area. Last year’s federal stimulus legislation—formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)—appropriated significant funding for the Hanford project, which is attempting to demonstrate that an area with extensive nuclear contamination can be remediated and partly reclaimed. Much of the plutonium production for nuclear weapons was housed at the Hanford site. The Hanford project will last several decades, and the centerpiece is the construction of a $12 billion vitrification plant, a facility that turns radioactive waste into glass for more stable storage.17 This work supports construction, a wide range of professional services such as engineering and architectural design, and manufacturing.

The region is home to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Lab, operated by Battelle. Several large engineering firms—Bechtel National and Fluor Hanford among them—provide contract consulting services to the federal government. Another reason for stability in the region’s economy is its large share of food manufacturing jobs, an area that didn’t decline much

Page 22: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

17

The Best-Performing Large Cities

during the recession. Kennewick has 45 percent of all manufacturing jobs in food production versus the national average of 12 percent.18 The housing market has seen just a modest decrease in prices, largely due to the region’s better job performance.

2009200820072006200520042003

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

Thousands

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

Figure 5. Population growthKennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA

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

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

2009200820072006200520042003

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 6. Federal governmentWashington-Arlington-Alexandria vs. United States

Washington-Arlington-AlexandriaUnited States

Page 23: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

18

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Support from the federal government has fueled growth across a spectrum of high-tech industries, providing $78.5 billion of contract work in the region.20 Northrop Grumman recently announced that it will relocate its corporate headquarters to Northern Virginia, creating nearly 300 executive positions.21 In 2009, the number of U.S. companies engaged in government services rose to 335, an increase of 33 percent. More than half of them are based in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.22 One of those companies, headquartered in McLean, Virginia, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) will be focusing on its civil aviation operations in an effort to meet the FAA’s objectives of implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation System.23 This move, while drawing from existing BAH employees, should help sustain jobs in the area.

Raleigh–Cary, North Carolina, placed seventh this year, improving by three spots. A sign of its sustainable economic presence, Raleigh–Cary recorded the third highest job growth in the nation over the five-year period. The metro placed 16th in five-year wage and salary growth, an indication of the quality of jobs produced. Its vast high-tech presence includes biotech, IT, software, and telecom, and includes major players like GlaxoSmithKline, SAS Institute, Cisco Systems, Verizon, and Nortel Networks. The combination of giant tech anchors and reputable research-oriented universities (Duke and North Carolina State universities) makes Raleigh-Cary an attractive business location. The recent collaboration of IBM and North Carolina State on streamlining the commercialization process sheds light on the region’s entrepreneurial spirit and long-term growth potential.24

Despite some restructuring of firms during the downturn, the region’s Research Triangle, a tightly integrated network of high-tech firms, places the metro in better position for fast recovery. Raleigh–Cary’s high-tech cluster provides long-term stability to its nationally recognized biopharmaceutical industry. The metro has witnessed robust population growth since 2000, attracting a sea of young professionals.

Anchorage, Alaska, leapfrogged 32 positions to capture eighth overall on this year’s index. It posted the second highest 2008-2009 job growth, when federal, state, and local governments combined added nearly 850 jobs. Much of the job growth has been triggered by federal stimulus funds; Alaska received the second highest amount per capita.25 Despite the downturn experienced in most parts of the nation, the number of non-farm jobs in the Anchorage area increased 0.41 percent from April 2009 through April 2010.

2009200820072006200520042003

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 7. Oil and gas extractionAnchorage vs. United States

AnchorageUnited States

Page 24: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

19

The Best-Performing Large Cities

Oil and gas extraction and transportation, both key drivers of growth in the metro, have recently experienced modest gains. While production in most energy-producing regions across the country cooled off as prices stabilized, exploration in Alaska has remained healthy.26 In addition, since many of the industry’s administrative offices are based in Anchorage, the metro has benefited through the secondary impacts of stable production. Headquartered in Anchorage, ASRC Energy Services employs approximately 2,100 in the metro.27 BP Exploration Alaska and Conoco Phillips also conduct operations in the region. Anchorage serves as the transportation hub for the entire state. As the recovery picks up, the metro is poised to capitalize on increased cargo activity at the port.

Gaining five spots this year, El Paso, Texas, ranked ninth on the overall index. Military construction stemming from the BRAC-initiated expansion at Ford Bliss continues to contribute to the metro’s overall growth. El Paso has remained in the upper echelon in terms of both job creation and wage and salary growth. From 2008 to 2009, jobs in the metro grew nearly 2.5 percentage points faster than the national average—the 17th highest rate in the nation. Trade and commerce along the Mexican border are among the biggest drivers of growth in the area, and due largely to the strength in the Mexican peso, activity is gradually starting to pick up. Having generated almost $28 billion in trade through May 2010, the Port of El Paso has witnessed a 47 percent increase in trade value compared to the same time last year.28 In addition, the increasing number of truck crossings along the border, coupled with an increase in maquiladora activity in Juarez, indicates improved auto-related demand and production.29

2009200820072006200520042003

8

6

4

2

0

-2

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 8. Federal governmentEl Paso vs. United States

El PasoUnited States

Another bright spot in El Paso’s economy is an 80 percent increase in trade of computer products with Mexico in the year ending May 2010, an industry that accounts for the majority of the metro’s trade with its southern neighbor.30 Approximately 150 jobs were created in the area’s computer and electronic product manufacturing industry, a rise of nearly 20 percent from April 2009 through April 2010.

Page 25: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

20

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, Texas, slipped five spots to tenth place. Led by the energy exploration sector, the metro’s five-year job growth ranked fifth. Capitalizing on its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, Houston has successfully established itself as a center for trade and export. Major companies with operations in the area—including Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, Chevron, and BP—employ thousands in engineering and professional jobs that support exploration-related activities. The rise in oil prices in 2009 helped jumpstart upstream activities. On the other hand, work at refineries has slowed during the downturn but is expected pick up gradually as the recovery continues.31

Houston is also leading efforts with respect to alternative energy. Just recently, Thermal Energy Corporation debuted its combined heat and power plant at Texas Medical Center, an investment expected to generate over 400 jobs.32 Another key source of growth in the metro comes from health care. Ambulatory health-care services added nearly 6,000 jobs in the area in the year from 2008 to 2009, helping offset declines in other sectors stemming from the global slowdown. Leveraging its pool of talent and reputable medical research centers, Houston is developing its biotech and medical equipment manufacturing sector into a national leader.33

Lafayette, Louisiana, managed to maintain its ranking among the top performers, dropping just two spots to 11th. Over the past few years, the metro has not only benefited tremendously from post-Katrina migration trends but has also successfully capitalized on increased energy exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. The influx of new residents helped fuel jobs in health care and education. Lafayette’s biggest industry, support activities for mining, employs over 13,000 people, roughly 9 percent of the metro’s total employment base. The industry’s huge presence in the area has broader impacts across a variety of local manufacturing suppliers, ranging from chemicals to fabricated metal products. Lafayette ranked sixth in five-year job growth and second in five-year wage growth.

2009200820072006200520042003

10.2

10.0

9.8

9.6

9.4

9.2

9.0

8.8

As percent of total employment

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

Figure 9. Support activities for miningLafayette, Louisiana

Page 26: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

21

The Best-Performing Large Cities

However, the number of jobs has declined 1.4 percent in the year ending April 2010. Since energy prices began falling from their peak levels, support activities for drilling appear to have tapered off. Furthermore, a drilling moratorium stemming from the recent oil spill in the gulf could threaten thousands of jobs in the metro area,34 potentially creating negative ripple effects in a region whose economy depends on energy exploration.

Trenton–Ewing, New Jersey, improved 34 spots, capturing 12th place on this year’s index. The metro’s resilience in biotech R&D has contributed to its growing high-skilled labor pool. One of biotech’s biggest players, Bristol-Myers Squibb, has one of its primary R&D sites in the metro. The industry’s generally high pay has delivered a boost to wages, with Trenton ranking tenth in wage growth for the 2007–2008 period. Wages in the metro during that time grew over four percentage points more than the national average. Trenton’s high concentration of biotech employment and proximity to life sciences attractions have lured entrepreneurs and researchers to the area.

While industries such as health care and education services have largely benefited from the metro’s high per-capita wage structure, a downward trend has begun. Employment declined 1.2 percent in the year ending April 2010. Like many states, New Jersey is facing budgetary woes.35 Although a reduction in public spending is likely to curb growth in the near term, the metro’s high-tech presence and other key attributes will keep it afloat in the long term.

Brownsville, Texas, skyrocketed a remarkable 57 spots this year to 13th. It ranked first in high-tech output growth, largely driven by telecommunication services, in 2008-2009 and second in the five-year period. The metro’s lower costs have attracted satellite telecom carriers and call centers such as Convergys and Advanced Call Center Technologies. The latter recently decided to expand its operation in the area and add 150 jobs.36 Government efforts at the federal, state, and local levels continue to support the region’s trade and transportation infrastructure, creating a positive outlook for growth. In fact, the public sector added more than 650 jobs from 2008 to 2009. Health care has been another driver of growth in the region, mitigating some of the downturn’s effects.

2009200820072006200520042003

10

5

0

-5

-10

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 10. Telecommunications Brownsville vs. United States

BrownsvilleUnited States

Page 27: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

22

Best-Performing Cities 2010

The metro, which serves as a transportation hub, is largely dependent on cross-border trade with Mexico. With the economy in recovery mode, a broad spectrum of industries linked to transportation and warehousing will benefit extensively from increased trade activity. It is noteworthy that support activities for transportation are twice as important to the region as they are to the nation as a whole. Its role in transportation and its attractive climate are reasons the region’s first biodiesel terminal opened in Brownsville.37 Venturing further into clean tech can give Brownsville another tool for long-term stability and growth.

San Antonio, Texas, finished 14th on this year’s index, slipping three positions. In the 2004-2009 period, San Antonio’s employment base grew over 10 percentage points faster than the national average, resulting in a ninth place finish for five-year job growth. BRAC-related growth has been the biggest driver. Because of base consolidations, the metro is evolving into a large-scale medical hub for military personnel, most notably the expansion of the Brooke Army Medical Center. Increased federal funding will boost demand for local suppliers and attract more private-sector support. Recently, Medtronic, which supplies products for diabetes patients, expanded its operations in San Antonio, a move that is expected to generate 1,400 high-paying jobs over the next five years.38

The metro’s solid position in the rankings also reflects its lesser exposure to the housing crisis. Prices fell only moderately during the downturn, and more military employment has boosted demand and kept prices stable. San Antonio’s reputation as a trade and distribution hub with a low-cost environment will open doors to more business opportunities in the long term.

Durham, North Carolina, dropped nine spots to 15th, still among the leaders. In 2009, the metro had the fourth highest concentration of high-tech output in the country—more than 2.5 times the national average. Duke University and IBM create important anchors for the region’s information sector, supplying an abundance of human capital to the Research Triangle, one of the nation’s most reputable biopharmaceutical and medical centers. The largest biotech company in the Triangle, Talecris Biotherapeutics, was recently acquired by Grifols, the largest maker of blood plasma products in Europe. Despite the acquisition, plans by Talecris to expand its blood plasma therapeutics plant in Clayton, also part of the Research Triangle, are still on target and expected to generate nearly 260 jobs in the area.39

2009200820072006200520042003

55

50

45

40

35

US$ thousands

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

Figure 11. Wages per employeeDurham vs. United States

DurhamUnited States

Page 28: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

23

The Best-Performing Large Cities

While some restructuring has taken place during the downturn, leading to job losses particularly among its key sectors, Durham has held up relatively well. Higher per capita income growth relative to the U.S. as a whole has kept housing prices from falling so rapidly, while leading to healthier spending in such sectors as education and health services. Public support has provided further stability to the region, as witnessed by a 4 percent increase in government employment in the previous year since January 2010.

Amarillo, Texas, climbed up the rankings, from 35th last year to 16th on this year’s index. Like many Texas metros, Amarillo avoided the housing bubble and didn’t experience the severe bust that ensued. In fact, broad-based job growth has provided more stability to the local economy. A surge in wage growth was behind the big jump in rankings; the metro recorded the second highest growth in wages and salaries from 2007 to 2008. Much of this stems from its energy exploration sector, which has long been a key performer in the area. The Amarillo area also benefits from rich and abundant farmland and extensive livestock operations, providing another source of wealth to the region. Tyson Foods is the largest employer, with a workforce of more than 3,500.40

Increased demand for helicopters has been another bright spot. Bell Helicopter and Boeing, who partner on certain aircraft, are likely to benefit from the defense contracts, and increasing production will lead to more jobs in the metro.41

With its highly diverse high-tech industry mix, Dallas–Irving–Plano, Texas, maintains its lead among the top performers, coming in at 17th this year, versus 13th a year ago. The metro ranked sixth in high-tech diversity (as measured by the number of high-tech industries with location quotients—or relative concentrations—above 1.0, which represents the national average). The area’s innovative IT and telecom sector includes major players like AT&T (which recently moved its headquarters to Dallas), Verizon, Texas Instruments, and Hewlett-Packard, just to name a few. Increased global demand for tech products and, in particular, the move to 4G networks will spark additional demand from equipment makers in the area. Locally based companies such as Sprint and MetroPCS will build out the network, while Nokia and Ericsson will provide the equipment.42

2009200820072006200520042003

30

20

10

0

-10

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 12. Warehousing and storageDallas-Plano-Irving vs. United States

Dallas-Plano-IrvingUnited States

Page 29: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

24

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Because of its central location, Dallas is a distribution hub. Even during the downturn, its warehousing industry, which capitalized on its cost advantages, managed to expand slightly, adding roughly 110 jobs from 2008 to 2009. The metro will benefit further as international trade begins to recover.

Fayetteville, North Carolina, gained 13 spots, ranking 18th in the index. Fort Bragg, the primary driver of growth in the area, has benefited significantly from base consolidation. The added military personnel have stimulated demand across a broad array of supplier industries. As a result, Fayetteville’s employment base grew more than 4 percentage points faster than the national average to rank third in 2008–2009. It is anticipated that Fort Bragg will be the largest Army post after 2011, with approximately 65,000 jobs.43 In the near term, expansion of various base facilities and the need for additional housing will likely lift the metro’s construction sector. The area will also benefit from the fact that the homebuyers’ tax credit, which expired in April 2010 for the general population, was extended for one year for military personnel who have been serving outside the country for 90 days or more.44 Furthermore, the federal stimulus package will accelerate various infrastructure projects around the base.45

Charleston–North Charleston, South Carolina, climbed to 19th from 30th last year. The metro’s well-balanced industry mix helped carry it through much of the downturn. Once the main catalyst for growth, tourism is on the decline, so Charleston has turned to its vibrant aerospace sector, health services, and stable military presence for growth. Its emerging aerospace industry added more than 1,000 jobs from 2004 to 2009, contributing to Charleston’s coming in 19th in high-tech output for that period. Boeing recently decided to build an assembly plant for its 787 Dreamliner that is expected to employ 3,800 workers in the area.46

As the economy rebounds, increased inbound cargo activity at the Port of Charleston should help sustain long-term growth. A $98 million grant awarded to Clemson University to build a wind turbine drivetrain testing facility in North Charleston underscores the metro’s attractiveness as a destination for clean tech.47

2009200820072006200520042003

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

10.2

10.0

9.8

9.6

9.4

9.2

9.0

As percent of total employment As percent of total employment

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

Figure 13. Aerospace and health-care driving growth Charleston-North Charleston

Aerospace manufacturing - L

Health-care services - R

Page 30: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

25

The Best-Performing Large Cities

Bethesda–Gaithersburg–Frederick, Maryland, leaped 31 positions this year to 20th. The headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Bethesda’s strengths lie in defense-related applications. Increased federal spending on military products has provided steady job growth, mitigating some of the losses from the downturn. From 2008 to 2009, the U.S. government was responsible for adding nearly 2,000 jobs in the area.

2009200820072006200520042003

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 14. Federal governmentBethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick vs. United States

Bethesda-Gaithersburg-FrederickUnited States

Establishments engaged in medical research and biotech have contributed to the metro ranking 18th in high-tech diversity. The National Institutes of Health headquarters has been a magnet for federally funded R&D as well as venture capital for biotech. Not surprisingly, the region’s high-tech output grew 10 percentage points faster than the national average from 2008 to 2009 to rank third. In addition, the National Naval Medical Center recently broke ground on a facility that will focus on soldiers with traumatic brain injuries and psychological issues.48

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, jumped five spots to take 21st place. The metro was among the few that experienced a short downturn and are in recovery. Relatively little exposure to subprime mortgages shielded it somewhat from the housing collapse. In addition, the housing market benefited from the presence of Tinker Air Force Base, the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, and a number of aerospace suppliers. Oil and natural gas extraction— a big presence in the metro area—has begun to recover from the recession and falling energy prices. The active rig count in Oklahoma was 133 as of August 2010. The state had 94 active rigs in 2009, about half as many as in 2008.49 Like most states, Oklahoma is facing a budget crisis; its tax revenues fell 26.9 percent over the past year, more than any other state’s.

Another bright spot for Oklahoma City was the July 2010 opening of a $1.8 million, 6,000-square-foot terminal for corporate jets and private charters. Capable of handling 10,000 flights a year, the terminal replaces an older facility. AAR Corp., which operates the terminal, runs a maintenance hangar, and has fueling contracts at Will Rogers World Airport, employs 615 full-time workers and has an annual payroll of $30 million.50

Page 31: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

26

Best-Performing Cities 2010

The top job creator in Oklahoma City was government, which added 1,850 jobs from 2008 to 2009. In the same period, the area’s large health-care industry created 1,300 jobs, and oil and gas extraction added 730 positions.

2009200820072006200520042003

20

15

10

5

0

-5

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 15. Oil and gas extractionOklahoma City vs. United States

Oklahoma CityUnited States

Cambridge–Newton–Framingham, Massachusetts, leaped 23 spots, landing at 22nd on the list of the 200 largest metros. It is home not only to world-renowned universities but also a large number of high-tech, health-care, defense, and financial firms. The diverse economy and highly skilled labor force, as well as the state’s targeted business tax initiatives, make the region highly competitive. In 2008, Massachusetts launched a $1 billion, 10-year initiative that includes incentives for life sciences companies to expand, research grants for scientists, and other infrastructure investments to support the industry. Pharmaceuticals giant Sanofi-Aventis, one of 56 companies to apply for related tax credits this year, has announced a $65 million expansion in Cambridge expected to create 300 jobs.51 Defense spending has also helped the local economy, benefiting university research and defense contractors such as Raytheon, which is headquartered in the metro. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, cutbacks in defense spending will be offset by gains in other industries as the economy improves.

Health-care services had a strong year, adding 1,780 jobs from 2008 to 2009. Management of companies was responsible for creating 730 jobs, while the federal government created 200 jobs in the area.

Fort Worth–Arlington, Texas, tumbled sharply from 12th last year to 23rd this year. The lower-cost Forth Worth continues to capitalize on spillover from Dallas and is experiencing robust population growth. As the economy recovers and natural gas prices improve, the area will likely see improved growth in energy exploration. Other key industries in Forth Worth such as aerospace and auto manufacturing are feeling the effects of the recovery. GM’s light truck production plant expanded its existing shift, while Bell Helicopter’s deliveries of V-22 Ospreys and H-1 helicopters increased, offsetting some of the pullback in F-22 orders.52 The finance industry is growing, with credit intermediation services adding more than 1,700 jobs from 2008 to 2009. The metro’s overall employment growth, driven by energy exploration and health-related services, fared better than the national average from 2008 to 2009, with Fort Worth at 45th.

Page 32: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

27

The Best-Performing Large Cities

Employment declined by just 1.1 percent in the year ending April 2010. Anchor firms American Airlines, which is headquartered in the metro; Texas Health Resources; and Lockheed Martin, which maintains a major presence there, provide longer-term stability for the area.

2009200820072006200520042003

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 16. Credit intermediation and related activitiesFort Worth-Arlington vs. United States

Fort Worth-Arlington

United States

Lubbock, Texas, captured the 24th spot, a slight improvement from 29th. Lubbock is one of the few metros that are faring better than the nation as a whole, with unemployment at 6.7 percent in July 2010.53 Lubbock’s housing market is fairly stable because the region did not experience a housing bubble. Texas Tech University provides the biggest economic engine in the region, with over 13,000 employees and an annual economic impact of $1.15 billion in Lubbock County.54 However, state budget woes resulting in a 5 percent reduction ($30 million) in state funding for the university through 2011 will pose some challenges for the local economy.55 Health care has played a role in job creation, with ambulatory health-care services adding 700 jobs in 2008-2009. The metro is a large cotton grower, so improving cotton prices and better weather could help bolster incomes. Still, the area’s wage and salary growth ranked 13th in the 2007-2008 period.

Provo–Orem, Utah, climbed three spots to take 25th in the index. The area’s economy has been creating jobs faster than the national average for several years. From 2004 to 2009, Provo-Orem’s employment base expanded 10.2 percentage points faster than the U.S. average, ranking 10th overall in this indicator, while five-year wage growth ranked fourth. High-tech information services and hardware are driving much of the growth. Provo-Orem has benefited from increased research and spin-offs from Brigham Young University, the largest employer in the metro. Construction of a $1 billion National Security Agency data center near Lehi will also improve the region’s employment outlook.56 The housing industry is still reeling, especially the market for second homes.

Data processing, hosting, and related services added 510 jobs in 2008-2009. Local government added 490 workers, and education services created 360 jobs.

Page 33: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice
Page 34: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

29

America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

Among America’s 10 largest metropolitan areas, the rise of Washington–Arlington–Alexandria from 41st place to sixth over the past two years and the continued decline of many large non-Texas cities in the Sun Belt are the main stories. The two largest cities in Texas still hold a place in the top 25 despite some minor declines: Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown fell five places but remains in the top 10, and Dallas–Plano–Irving dropped four places to a still respectable 17th place. (The Washington, Houston, and Dallas metro areas were profiled earlier in the section on the top 25 best-performing cities.)

Significant declines continue to hit former high fliers. The formerly booming metros of Phoenix–Mesa–Scottsdale, Arizona; Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta, Georgia; and Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, California, have all fallen from the top 100. California’s problems are further illustrated by Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale coming in last among the 10 largest cities. One other key factor bolstering many of the major metros has been the significant declines in population flight to the suburbs and fewer people moving to formerly thriving Sun Belt metros. For instance, Chicago saw its fastest population growth in a decade.57

2010 2009 SpotsMetropolitan statistical area (MSA) rank rank up/downWashington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV* 6 25 +19Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 10 5 -5Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX* 17 13 -4New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ* 48 38 -10Philadelphia, PA* 83 96 +13Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 117 93 -24Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 126 106 -20Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 146 103 -43Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL* 148 148 0Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA* 158 139 -19* Indicates metropolitan divisionSource: Milken Institute.

Table 5. Performance of the 10 largest metrosRank according to 2010 index

Page 35: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

30

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Although it edged down 10 places overall, New York–White Plains–Wayne, New York–New Jersey, held its position at fourth among the 10 largest cities. In a year where its most prominent industry, securities and investment trading, has been hit hard, New York has weathered the economic downturn better than most cities on this list. Employment has been recovering faster than most major cities, helped significantly by its largest banks receiving nearly half of all disbursed funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).58

However, despite the banks’ recovery, securities and investment trading has taken a significant hit, with securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities declining by more than 9 percent over the past year. That sector lost more than 20,000 jobs, nearly offsetting the gain of 23,000 positions over the previous four years. The most significant year-over-year decline occurred in professional, scientific and technical services, a sector in which the New York metro had outperformed the nation in the previous two years. Although employment in the sector only declined by slightly more than 5 percent, this amounted to 22,000 lost jobs. Even New York has not been immune to the housing slowdown; specialty trade contractors shed more than 15,600 jobs in the past year, wiping out a gain of over 12,100 jobs during the previous four years.

Over the past five years, and last year, the metro’s largest job creator has been in the ambulatory health-care sector. That sector grew by more than 21 percent and 43,700 jobs in the five-year period. Despite its recent losses, professional, scientific, and technical services still netted over 37,300 jobs from 2004 to 2009. Educational services performed well in the past year, adding over 6,200 jobs, and in the past five years, adding 25,700 jobs.

The outlook for next year is anemic, given that much of the New York metro’s job growth occurred in the first four years of the five-year period we examined.

2009200820072006200520042003

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 17. Professional, scientific, and technical servicesNew York-White Plains-Wayne vs. United States

New York-White Plains-WayneUnited States

Page 36: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

31

America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

The past year has been better for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, than for the country as a whole. Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., are the only two large metros to move up in the overall large city rankings. Philadelphia gained 13 places to 83rd overall and surpassed Phoenix to rank fifth among the 10 largest metros, while Washington took first in the largest city rankings versus third last year.

Corporate management continues to be a significant source of job creation for Philadelphia. From 2004 to 2009, the region netted over 11,270 jobs in the management of companies and enterprises. But growth stalled in 2009, and the sector lost 150 positions. Still, overall prospects appear solid. Another leader in job creation was social assistance, which added slightly more than 2,500 jobs in 2008-2009 and nearly 16,300 jobs in the five-year period, growing at a rate of more than 44 percent. On the down side, administrative and support services lost 9,000 jobs in the past year—the most job losses in any category. These losses wiped out the modest gains of the previous four years, for a net loss of 7,700 jobs in 2004-2009—the most job losses in any category for that period.

Philadelphia’s outlook is in many ways more solid than other large metros’, but recent signs of lethargy in a number of sectors suggest that, while the metro may continue to rise in next year’s rankings, the ascent may come at a slower pace.59

2009200820072006200520042003

20

15

10

5

0

-5

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 18. Management of companies and enterprisesPhiladelphia vs. United States

PhiladelphiaUnited States

The slide in the rankings continues for Phoenix–Mesa–Scottsdale, Arizona, which fell 24 more places to 117th overall in 2010 after plunging 61 spots in the 2009 index. The housing and economic slumps continue to affect the metro, which was fourth overall as recently as 2007. Among the largest metros, Phoenix now sits in sixth place, having fallen behind Philadelphia.

Specialty trade contractors shed nearly 29,500 jobs in 2009 and almost 33,400 over the five-year period as gains from 2005 and 2006 disappeared. Building construction saw a further loss of 8,000 jobs in 2009. Administrative and support services, which gained 14,300 jobs from 2004 to 2008, reversed course dramatically, losing 26,100 jobs in 2009.

Page 37: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

32

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Job growth in the Phoenix metro has outpaced the U.S. average in two sectors that have thrived nationally despite the recession: ambulatory health-care services and educational services. Health care, which gained 2,300 jobs over the past year, expanded even faster over the five-year period, growing by 33 percent and adding more than 22,700 jobs at a pace of nearly 5,000 a year in 2004–2008, before slowing in 2009. As the home of the University of Phoenix and other online educators, the metro has benefited from a gain of 2,500 education jobs in 2009—a leader in this category—and 10,100 jobs in the five-year period.

2009200820072006200520042003

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 19. Specialty trade contractorsPhoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale vs. United States

Phoenix-Mesa-ScottsdaleUnited States

Atlanta–Shady Springs–Marietta, Georgia, remains one of the fastest-growing metros in the country, although the recent downturn has stalled the pace of job growth. The city’s overall ranking dropped 20 places, from 106th to 126th, but it rose one spot to seventh among the 10 largest cities due to even steeper declines in the Riverside, California, metro.

Though the downturn has affected a number of sectors, Atlanta’s previous gains can’t quickly be erased. Professional, scientific and technical services lost 9,650 jobs in 2009 but still netted an impressive 19,700 jobs for 2004–2009. Local government shed over 1,900 jobs in 2009, but still gained a metro-leading 22,900 jobs for the five-year period. One sector that performed unusually well during the downturn was the category “religious, grantmaking, civic, professional, and similar organizations,” which gained over 5,400 jobs in 2009, more than twice those gained in the second best sector, educational services.

Atlanta has benefited as a center of transportation and warehousing. Unlike the rest of the country, Atlanta’s air transportation sector is growing, adding 440 jobs in 2009. In addition, a proposed bond issue to improve freight movement in the metro, which is already home to UPS, should improve matters further.60 However, local manufacturing in transportation continues to decline, losing more than 7,090 jobs in 2004–2009—2,350 of them in the past year.

Page 38: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

33

America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

2009200820072006200520042003

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 20. Transportation equipment manufacturingAtlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta vs. United States

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-MariettaUnited States

The downturn in homebuilding and the state economy weighed heavily on Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, California, which plunged 43 places to 146th overall, the largest decline among the 10 largest metros. It is hard to believe that as recently as 2007, Riverside ranked third among large metros; this year it ranks eighth. Employment in the specialty trade contractor sector, the largest part of the home construction industry, has plummeted more than 43 percent since 2004, shedding more than 35,800 jobs—16,500 of them in the past year. The ripple effect of the weak housing market is reflected in the fact that, of the 87 industrial sectors tracked in the index, just 13 added jobs in 2009, with educational services leading the pack at a mere 680 positions. Only telecommunications, ambulatory health-care services, the federal government, and hospitals managed to gain at least 500 jobs.

Many sectors that were significant job creators in 2004–2008 changed course in 2009. The downturn in international trade has affected the boom area of warehousing and storage, which lost 220 jobs last year after gaining nearly 8,000 in the previous four years. Administrative and support services, which added nearly 4,500 jobs in 2004–2008, lost over 6,600 jobs in 2009. Local government added over 12,000 jobs in 2004–2008, only to eliminate over 3,100 jobs in 2009 as fiscal pressures and state budgetary problems affected their revenues. Even food services and drinking places, which created a leading 13,900 jobs in 2004–2008, lost over 5,000 jobs in 2009 as disposable income shrank. One piece of good news: While local home sales continue to stagnate, the foreclosure rate fell throughout 2010, suggesting the crisis is past its peak.61

Page 39: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

34

Best-Performing Cities 2010

2009200820072006200520042003

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 21. Warehousing and storageRiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. United States

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario United States

Chicago–Naperville–Joliet, Illinois, holding steady at 148th overall, jumped from 10th to ninth place among the biggest cities, largely because the Los Angeles area continued to slide. Chicago has been affected by the recession and housing downturn in a number of areas, which has helped push many suburbanites back into the city.

Reflecting the housing slump, more than 20,800 specialty trade contractor jobs were lost in 2009, second only to administrative and support services. That category lost more than 34,300 jobs last year, after gaining nearly 12,000 jobs from 2004 to 2008. Conversely, employment in education in the metro has outperformed the national average in the past five years, with over 21,600 jobs gained in 2004–2009, including 5,600 positions in the last year alone.

Over the past year, just five sectors added jobs, led by educational services, followed by ambulatory health-care services (4,340) and nursing and residential care (2,080). In Chicago, those three sectors accounted for 85 percent of the jobs created in the tracked sectors in 2009.

2009200820072006200520042003

6

5

4

3

2

1

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 22. Educational servicesChicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. United States

Chicago-Naperville-JolietUnited States

Page 40: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

35

America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale, California, continued its slide from last year, falling 19 spots to 158th overall and to last place among the 10 largest metros. With an unemployment rate of 12.6 percent as of August 2010, Los Angeles County lost 37,400 non-farm jobs between June and July alone.62 In the past year, the metro lost more than 31,000 jobs in administrative and support services—an eighth of the sector’s total workforce—moving that sector into the lead for five-year job losses at over 28,000 lost jobs

Job growth in management of companies and enterprises continues to suffer in Los Angeles. Over the past five years, the sector lost more than 18,700 jobs, a 26 percent decline. One ongoing area of concern is motion picture and sound recording. The sector made gains in 2004, 2007, and 2008, after the writers’ strike, but losses in 2009 outpaced the nation as a whole.

On the upside, educational services added 6,400 jobs in the past year and over 16,000 jobs during the five-year period. Although water transport gained just 1,500 jobs over the five-year period, that marks a dramatic 106 percent increase.

2009200820072006200520042003

10

5

0

-5

-10

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 23. Motion picture and sound recording industriesLos Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale vs. United States

Los Angeles-Long Beach-GlendaleUnited States

Page 41: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice
Page 42: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

37

The Best-Performing Small Cities

The Best-Performing Small Cities

In addition to ranking the 200 largest metro areas in the United States, we also have created a companion index of the best-performing small cities. The 2010 index is composed of 179 small metros, which is 55 more than the 2009 index. Due to budget cuts, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was unable to gather data for the additional metros in the past year.

The big winners in the 2010 small cities index have at least one (or a combination) of these three assets: energy-related natural resources, a major university, and a military base. These metros avoided a housing bubble and the effects of its collapse, so their downturns were mild and short. Some benefited from the government stimulus package and the preceding private investment. It would be interesting to see how these metros fare next year as the stimulus winds down and defense spending and state budget cuts continue.

Unlike the 2009 small cities index that Texas clearly dominated with four metros in the top 10, the 2010 index was mixed. While College Station–Bryan and Tyler, Texas, were in the top 10, North Dakota grabbed the top two spots with Fargo followed by Bismarck (both made last year’s top 10). Las Cruces, New Mexico, is on the list for the second year in a row.

At the other end of the spectrum, many small cities in the upper Midwest, particularly those in Michigan and Wisconsin, did not fare well, placing in the bottom ranks.

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)2010rank

2009rank

Fargo, ND-MN 1 10Bismarck, ND 2 7Jacksonville, NC 3 n.a.College Station-Bryan, TX 4 14Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA 5 n.a.Morgantown, WV 6 27Tyler, TX 7 4Las Cruces, NM 8 9Iowa City, IA 9 22Lawton, OK 10 n.a.*Among 179 small metrosSource: Milken Institute.

Rank according to 2010 index*Table 6. Top 10 best-performing small cities

Page 43: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

38

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Fargo, North Dakota, jumped nine spots to become the best-performing small metro in 2010. The metro experienced a very mild recession and a quick recovery. Unemployment was less than 4 percent, one of the lowest rates in the nation. Tight labor markets elsewhere resulted in new residents moving to the region.

Growing global demand for wheat, corn, soybeans. and other agricultural commodities has benefited the region in recent years and has increased local incomes. However, commodity prices were depressed in the past year due to the global downturn and higher yields. Besides agriculture, Fargo has a growing technology cluster that includes Microsoft, Navtech, and Aldevron, to name a few. The region has four higher education institutions to support the technology cluster, particularly the bioscience sector: North Dakota State University and Rasmussen College, as well as Minnesota State University and Concordia College in the neighboring city of Moorhead, Minnesota.

Fargo is seen as a business-friendly city, offering an R&D tax credit, biodiesel tax credit, and biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind energy credits. The metro has a diverse economy, with the traditional agricultural and manufacturing base plus a growing services sector. From 2004 to 2009, the management of companies sector added more than 1,200 jobs. In addition, the professional, scientific, and technical services sector added more than 1,000 positions.

2009200820072006200520042003

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 24. Management of companies and enterprisesFargo vs. United States

FargoUnited States

Bismarck, North Dakota, rose to second place from seventh among small cities. The energy-rich metro, which has large reserves of lignite coal, oil, and natural gas, is home to four lignite coal mines, which produce over 30 million tons annually.63 The wind energy industry is expanding rapidly in North Dakota, and the state offers attractive tax incentives to those developers.64 Agriculture is another important sector in Bismarck’s economy, with wheat as the No. 1 crop and corn and soybean acreage on the rise. Commodity prices were depressed in the past year as supply increased due to better yields in other crop-producing countries and the recession’s effects on global demand. However, drought has caused the Russian government to stop exporting wheat,65 which could be good news for North Dakota and U.S. as a whole.

Page 44: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

39

The Best-Performing Small Cities

The Northern Plains Commerce Centre, which serves as an industrial, distribution, and technology park and has immediate access to land, rail, and air transportation, has expanded the region’s trade capacity. The park is home to a 100,000-square-foot manufacturing support facility for Bobcat Company.66

From 2008 to 2009, overall job growth was 1.3 percent. Unemployment was better than the national average at less than 4 percent.67 The three leading job creators in the past year were state and local government, which expanded by 550 jobs; health and social assistance services with 450 positions; and professional, scientific, and technical services with 50 new jobs.

2009200820072006200520042003

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 25. Health-care and social assistance servicesBismarck vs. United States

BismarckUnited States

Jacksonville, North Carolina, claimed the third spot on the 2010 small cities index. (Data for the prior year was unavailable so the city wasn’t ranked in 2009.) It was one of the fortunate metros to experience a very mild recession, largely because of BRAC-related expansion at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. More than 12,000 soldiers and their families have moved to the region in recent years.68This robust population growth has kept demand healthy across a broad range of industries. Jacksonville is also home to Marine Corps Air Station New River along with several defense contractors that include Humphrey Mechanical. Both bases have a large economic impact, with Camp Lejeune contributing close to $3 billion69 and New River contributing roughly $469 million to the local economy.70 The troops’ presence provides steady demand for housing, helping the region avoid the housing bubble and bust.

In terms of job creation, federal, state and local government combined added 1,940 positions in 2004–2009. Accommodations and food services generated nearly 1,300 jobs in that same period. Jacksonville ranked fifth among small cities for wage and salary growth in 2007-2008.

Page 45: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

40

Best-Performing Cities 2010

2009200820072006200520042003

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

Thousands

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

Figure 26. Population growthJacksonville, NC

College Station–Bryan, Texas, jumped 10 spots to fourth place among small cities. Like many Texas metros, the region lacked a housing bubble and experienced a very shallow recession. Unemployment hovered around 6 percent in the past year—far better than nearly 10 percent for the nation as a whole—while overall employment grew by 1.8 percent.71 Texas A&M University is the main economic flagship; enrollment grew to 48,700 students in the 2009-2010 school year, and staff hiring increased as well. This bodes well for retail and food services. The university also is home to the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, which attracted more than 142,100 visitors in 2009.72 College Station’s location in the center of the Houston– Dallas/Fort Worth–Austin triangle puts it within 200 miles of 80 percent of Texas’ population.

State and local government expanded their workforces by 2,030 between 2008 and 2009. Food services and drinking places created 380 jobs in that period.

2009200820072006200520042003

49

48

47

46

45

44

Thousands

Source: Texas A&M University Office of Institutional Studies and Planning.

Figure 27. Texas A&M University student enrollmentCollege Station, TX

Page 46: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

41

The Best-Performing Small Cities

Hinesville–Fort Stewart, Georgia, captured fifth among small metros in 2010. (Data for the prior year was unavailable so the city wasn’t ranked in 2009.) The metro is home to the Fort Stewart Army base and Hunter Army Airfield, employing more than 25,200 military personnel combined.73 Investment in the metro and surrounding communities poured in when it was announced in late 2007 that a new brigade combat team of nearly 3,500 troops would be stationed at Fort Stewart, along with their families and other support personnel for a total of 10,000 new residents. The anticipated expansion brought new residential and nonresidential construction and infrastructure to accommodate the growing population. It resulted in employment growth of 5.5 percent between 2007 and 2008, and 0.6 percent the following year, a period when most places were shedding jobs. Bad news came in June 2009, when the Department of Defense rescinded plans for the new brigade.74 The state’s congressional delegates secured $40 million in the 2010 defense appropriations bill to help offset some of the infrastructure costs incurred.75

The airfield supports a number of repair and maintenance shops. From 2008 to 2009, repair and maintenance services added 370 positions. The federal government created 280 jobs in the same period.

Morgantown, West Virginia, leaped 21 spots to land at sixth in the 2010 small cities index. The metro had a very mild recession, with unemployment at 5.1 percent in 2009, roughly half the national average. The metro’s economy is anchored by West Virginia University and many health-care facilities and research centers. The university is scheduled to receive more than $19 million in federal stimulus funding over the next two years, the majority of it going toward health research projects.76 This will offset some of the cuts in state funding and losses in the university’s endowment. State government was the dominant job creator, adding 1,277 positions in 2004–2009, while hospitals created 1,222 jobs.

Tyler, Texas, slid three spots to seventh on this year’s index. Located in northeast Texas, it serves as a distribution hub for several major regional markets, with Dallas; Houston; Austin; Shreveport, Louisiana; Little Rock, Arkansas; Oklahoma City, and New Orleans all less than 500 miles away.77 Tyler also has an emerging service industry that could potentially compete with Dallas and Houston because of Tyler’s lower costs. Health care is the largest employer in the region, with 7,300 workers employed at the East Texas Medical Center and Trinity Mother Frances Hospital in 2009.78 Together, ambulatory health-care services and hospital industries created 780 jobs, while management of companies added 140 new positions in 2008–2009. However, overall job growth fell 3.0 percent during the same period, and unemployment peaked at 8.3 percent in late 2009.79

2009200820072006200520042003

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 28. Ambulatory health-care servicesTyler vs. United States

TylerUnited States

Page 47: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

42

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Las Cruces, New Mexico, in the southwest corner of the state, made its second consecutive appearance on the small cities list, improving one spot to land at eighth. New Mexico State University, White Sands Missile Range, and NASA’s White Sands Test Facility continue to be the region’s economic engines. Spaceport America, the world’s first commercial spaceport, is being developed there with Virgin Galactic as the anchor tenant. A New Mexico State University economic impact study projected that within five years of operations, Spaceport America will employ 2,300 people with a payroll of $300 million.80 With the growing aerospace engineering program at NMSU, a growing number of aerospace firms, and the low cost of doing business, Las Cruces is poised to become a top location for aerospace and space-related technology R&D firms.

Professional, scientific and technical services created more than 1,000 jobs in 2004–2009, followed by ambulatory health-care services and social assistance, with 840 and 770 new positions, respectively. Its proximity to El Paso and position on the Rio Grande trade corridor gives it access to the consumer and business markets in border cities in Texas and Mexico. With its low cost of living and health-care services, Las Cruces is a growing destination for retirees, which is a positive sign for the housing sector.81

Iowa City, Iowa, vaulted into ninth on the small cities list from 22nd the previous year. The University of Iowa, the metro’s largest employer, and the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics employ a combined 35,000 people.82 Unlike many metros, Iowa City did not experience a housing bubble, and its downturn was relatively mild. Unemployment, hovering at or below 5 percent, remains below the state and national average. Though state budget cuts posed a big concern to the university, that revenue is more than offset by $53 million in federal stimulus money it is scheduled to receive for 141 projects. In addition, the university received $430 million in research grants and contracts.83 The funds would allow the university to increase hiring to accommodate the growing student enrollment and would have a positive economic impact to the region.

Chemical manufacturing was the biggest job creator, adding 570 jobs in 2008–2009. Health-care and social assistance services added 260 employees, and the federal government hired 300 workers that same year.

200920082007200620052004

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Jobs, percent change from preceding year

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

Figure 29. Educational servicesIowa City vs. United States

Iowa CityUnited States

Page 48: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

43

The Best-Performing Small Cities

Lawton, Oklahoma, captured 10th on the small cities index. (Data for the prior year was unavailable so the city wasn’t ranked in 2009.) Lawton’s economic anchor is the Army’s Fort Sill, which employs about 22,000 people and has an annual economic impact of $1.3 billion.84 BRAC-related expansion in Fort Sill began in 2006 and should continue into next year when the 10,000 soldiers, families, and other government employees will complete their relocation from Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas.85 The surge in population bodes well for the housing and other consumer goods-related industries. The army has spent $210 million constructing the new Air Defense Artillery School, which officially opened May 2010 at Fort Sill.86 The second largest employer in Lawton is the Good Year Tire & Rubber Company, with 2,400 workers.87 The metro also has a large workforce training program at the Great Plains Technology Center.

Lawton’s recession was mild: Unemployment was 5.2 percent in 2009, far below the national average, and residents’ personal income increased by 4.3 percent from 2008 to 2009. The biggest job creators in the past year were federal and local governments, which added 480 positions, and food services and drinking places with 150 jobs.

Page 49: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice
Page 50: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

45

Com

plet

e Re

sult

s: 2

010

Best

-Per

form

ing

Larg

e Ci

ties

201

0 B

est P

erfo

rmin

g M

etro

sLa

rges

t 200

Citi

es L

ist

2010

2009

Popu

latio

n20

09O

vera

llra

nkra

nkM

etro

polit

an a

rea

200

9 V

alue

*R

ank

200

9 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k(th

ousa

nds)

inde

x**

12

Kille

en-T

empl

e-Fo

rt H

ood,

TX

MS

A11

0.75

710

3.84

412

2.72

110

6.18

11.

52%

314

8.17

410

4.96

121.

0576

610

037

910

0.0

21

Aus

tin-R

ound

Roc

k, T

X M

SA

114.

092

102.

1719

110.

0615

101.

8934

-0.0

9%24

103.

6853

101.

6844

1.87

1615

61,

705

137.

5

3

8H

unts

ville

, AL

MS

A10

8.72

1210

1.98

2210

6.22

3310

3.35

170.

14%

1810

4.54

4810

3.67

212.

576

1128

406

137.

6

4

4M

cAlle

n-E

dinb

urg-

Mis

sion

, TX

MS

A11

7.75

110

3.54

511

5.15

510

3.57

141.

61%

211

0.69

3210

5.53

90.

3819

64

146

741

195.

1

5

6†K

enne

wic

k-R

ichl

and-

Pas

co, W

A M

SA

111.

754

105.

841

102.

7560

104.

845

4.55

%1

87.1

915

710

5.19

111.

5635

511

624

620

6.0

625

Was

hing

ton-

Arli

ngto

n-A

lexa

ndria

, DC

-VA

-MD

-WV

MD

104.

5141

102.

8111

105.

3642

101.

5941

0.27

%13

95.6

910

910

2.81

341.

8716

954

4,27

722

7.9

710

Ral

eigh

-Car

y, N

C M

SA

111.

853

100.

1384

109.

8216

101.

1551

-0.9

0%56

109.

1434

101.

4853

1.83

1913

121,

126

241.

3

8

40A

ncho

rage

, AK

MS

A10

6.64

2110

4.22

210

4.30

4810

3.25

200.

41%

910

4.39

4910

1.23

570.

9210

34

146

375

248.

1

9

14E

l Pas

o, T

X M

SA

106.

2626

102.

2617

104.

4745

102.

5929

-0.0

4%23

113.

5323

100.

9363

0.84

120

780

751

253.

3

10

5H

oust

on-S

ugar

Lan

d-B

ayto

wn,

TX

MS

A11

1.30

510

1.81

2811

8.15

310

4.21

9-1

.57%

101

106.

7640

100.

5667

1.06

746

100

5,86

725

6.5

119

Lafa

yette

, LA

MS

A11

1.29

610

1.50

4011

8.50

210

4.10

12-1

.41%

8711

9.64

1810

9.02

40.

8711

44

146

263

257.

8

12

46Tr

ento

n-E

win

g, N

J M

SA

102.

3960

101.

7830

103.

9252

104.

1410

-1.2

2%77

120.

4817

102.

9831

1.63

3010

4236

625

9.2

1370

Bro

wns

ville

-Har

linge

n, T

X M

SA

107.

9017

102.

6213

103.

5953

103.

4516

0.64

%6

160.

262

115.

681

0.51

183

218

539

625

9.8

1411

San

Ant

onio

, TX

MS

A11

0.28

910

2.30

1610

6.87

3010

1.73

36-1

.40%

8610

0.78

7499

.42

911.

1070

1128

2,07

227

6.3

156

Dur

ham

, NC

MS

A10

8.03

1610

1.96

2310

6.18

3410

0.26

105

-0.2

8%29

113.

3624

96.5

415

12.

644

1128

501

278.

3

16

35A

mar

illo, T

X M

SA

104.

5440

102.

2218

110.

5212

105.

422

-0.6

3%42

93.0

312

510

3.43

230.

6016

75

116

246

294.

6

17

13D

alla

s-P

lano

-Irvi

ng, T

X M

D10

6.38

2510

0.36

7310

6.16

3510

1.04

61-0

.62%

4110

0.83

7398

.68

103

1.80

2115

64,

326

301.

6

18

31Fa

yette

ville

, NC

MS

A10

9.61

1110

4.18

311

1.75

1010

4.68

60.

15%

1610

3.44

5692

.63

186

0.53

179

020

036

031

8.3

1930

Cha

rlest

on-N

orth

Cha

rlest

on, S

C M

SA

104.

8636

99.4

911

710

8.06

2410

0.82

730.

25%

1511

9.60

1910

3.88

200.

9790

954

659

319.

6

20

51B

ethe

sda-

Gai

ther

sbur

g-Fr

eder

ick,

MD

MD

100.

4788

101.

8128

100.

9477

99.9

411

70.

02%

2010

6.71

4110

9.89

31.

8418

1218

1,20

033

2.1

2126

Okl

ahom

a C

ity, O

K M

SA

104.

4442

101.

6237

106.

4332

104.

568

-1.2

2%78

96.3

810

510

5.26

100.

8012

45

116

1,22

733

5.3

2245

Cam

brid

ge-N

ewto

n-Fr

amin

gham

, MA

MD

101.

9367

100.

5568

101.

9564

101.

2249

-0.9

1%58

100.

5877

100.

0872

3.25

318

11,

505

343.

1

23

12Fo

rt W

orth

-Arli

ngto

n, T

X M

D10

7.39

1910

1.35

4510

5.69

3810

1.08

56-1

.08%

6690

.76

139

99.0

696

1.30

498

642,

121

356.

4

24

29Lu

bboc

k, T

X M

SA

104.

6039

103.

356

101.

3071

103.

7213

-0.4

6%37

88.0

915

494

.70

171

1.30

496

100

277

360.

5

25

28P

rovo

-Ore

m, U

T M

SA

110.

1710

99.3

912

411

6.80

410

0.91

70-1

.84%

118

104.

7047

100.

8964

1.71

2511

2855

636

6.0

2618

Bat

on R

ouge

, LA

MS

A10

8.67

1310

3.31

711

2.06

910

5.00

4-1

.50%

9410

4.89

4694

.85

170

0.61

164

218

578

736

6.1

2736

Bak

ersf

ield

, CA

MS

A10

8.06

1510

0.07

8611

0.36

1410

2.72

26-2

.13%

132

130.

669

101.

7540

0.81

121

511

680

737

2.8

2857

Ced

ar R

apid

s, IA

MS

A10

6.15

2710

2.50

1410

3.54

5410

2.72

26-1

.59%

102

95.4

811

291

.99

189

1.25

559

5425

638

3.2

2916

Cor

pus

Chr

isti,

TX

MS

A10

6.50

2410

1.60

3810

7.71

2510

4.63

7-0

.45%

3582

.85

171

96.6

314

80.

5916

85

116

416

384.

8

30

64B

altim

ore-

Tow

son,

MD

MS

A10

0.94

8210

1.03

5510

1.15

7410

0.15

108

-0.6

5%44

108.

8135

104.

8714

1.36

449

542,

691

391.

6

31

63M

adis

on, W

I MS

A10

1.36

7710

1.64

3699

.13

100

101.

2948

-1.7

2%11

012

1.67

1310

2.64

351.

4341

1042

570

391.

7

32

109

Pitt

sbur

gh, P

A M

SA

99.2

311

510

1.89

2497

.08

133

101.

4345

-0.4

0%31

114.

4522

101.

6645

1.04

7710

422,

355

395.

5

33

53D

es M

oine

s-W

est D

es M

oine

s, IA

MS

A10

6.60

2310

2.13

2110

4.22

5010

1.08

56-1

.16%

7110

0.20

8110

0.27

700.

7114

64

146

563

396.

1

34

24S

hrev

epor

t-Bos

sier

City

, LA

MS

A10

4.30

4410

1.72

3310

2.33

6210

2.07

32-1

.52%

9712

8.49

1098

.95

970.

7713

35

116

392

399.

5

35

60Ly

nchb

urg,

VA

MS

A10

1.89

6999

.54

114

100.

1888

100.

9866

0.29

%12

149.

673

104.

0318

1.01

836

100

247

404.

5

36

7O

lym

pia,

WA

MS

A10

7.69

1810

0.96

5810

5.57

4010

1.86

35-0

.69%

4611

2.50

2696

.19

155

0.57

173

317

125

141

1.1

3717

Sea

ttle-

Bel

levu

e-E

vere

tt, W

A M

D10

5.34

3399

.05

134

104.

4546

100.

6283

-2.0

8%12

710

6.42

4210

4.86

152.

585

1128

2,61

142

0.1

3819

Tuls

a, O

K M

SA

105.

4731

99.6

011

010

7.04

2810

2.80

24-2

.13%

134

110.

9430

101.

5449

0.88

111

610

092

942

3.1

3913

6C

lark

sville

, TN

-KY

MS

A10

0.43

8910

1.34

4711

4.67

710

3.51

150.

37%

1069

.07

196

100.

3169

0.49

185

317

126

942

7.9

4039

Sav

anna

h, G

A M

SA

105.

3334

99.3

112

510

7.35

2610

0.30

104

-0.9

9%61

138.

807

110.

942

1.17

652

185

343

429.

9

41

72A

lban

y-S

chen

ecta

dy-T

roy,

NY

MS

A10

0.24

9510

2.34

1594

.23

168

102.

8622

-0.8

3%52

99.3

584

101.

1059

1.53

367

8085

843

1.7

4261

Bos

ton-

Qui

ncy,

MA

MD

101.

0381

100.

8761

101.

6067

100.

9369

-1.0

3%64

96.8

010

110

1.82

390.

9790

954

1,91

843

3.9

4327

Faye

ttevi

lle-S

prin

gdal

e-R

oger

s, A

R-M

O M

SA

106.

6322

100.

8262

109.

6017

101.

7137

-1.3

5%84

96.8

910

099

.73

850.

5817

23

171

465

434.

9

44

128

St.

Loui

s, M

O-IL

MS

A98

.71

122

100.

2081

97.4

212

610

3.26

19-0

.90%

5710

4.18

5010

2.07

371.

2257

1218

2,85

343

6.0

4511

2C

olum

bus,

GA

-AL

MS

A98

.24

132

101.

1252

99.9

390

101.

4943

-0.8

5%54

98.6

290

99.8

182

2.08

108

6429

344

3.0

4666

Om

aha-

Cou

ncil

Blu

ffs, N

E-IA

MS

A10

4.34

4310

2.16

2099

.60

9510

0.98

66-1

.21%

7610

0.62

7697

.57

127

0.97

906

100

850

444.

7

47

21Ta

com

a, W

A M

D10

5.83

2810

0.21

7911

1.63

1110

2.69

28-1

.95%

125

112.

6625

97.1

313

80.

7114

64

146

797

446.

3

48

38N

ew Y

ork-

Whi

te P

lain

s-W

ayne

, NY-

NJ

MD

102.

2663

101.

2348

108.

3422

99.5

213

5-0

.92%

5998

.82

8899

.96

760.

9310

17

8011

,732

447.

6

49

3S

alt L

ake

City

, UT

MS

A10

8.54

1499

.61

109

110.

4813

100.

0411

4-2

.40%

155

104.

0251

100.

0473

1.29

5212

181,

130

450.

3

50

22Fo

rt C

ollin

s-Lo

vela

nd, C

O M

SA

104.

1545

101.

2050

99.0

810

110

0.60

85-1

.72%

109

102.

6460

98.8

099

1.68

2710

4229

845

2.0

5134

Wilm

ingt

on, N

C M

SA

110.

308

99.0

713

311

2.64

899

.85

121

-2.2

2%14

014

4.39

510

4.39

161.

1368

511

635

545

9.7

5269

Nas

sau-

Suf

folk

, NY

MD

99.1

311

710

1.40

4497

.94

120

100.

3310

20.

86%

595

.27

113

101.

0361

1.29

5210

422,

876

468.

0

53

32O

gden

-Cle

arfie

ld, U

T M

SA

105.

3732

100.

3971

102.

4961

99.5

413

2-1

.45%

9011

0.94

3010

4.24

170.

8811

15

116

542

468.

9

54

97Li

ncol

n, N

E M

SA

103.

6748

102.

6512

96.6

513

910

0.79

77-1

.11%

7099

.71

8298

.74

100

0.95

957

8029

847

0.0

5510

0H

onol

ulu,

HI M

SA

102.

2962

101.

0355

103.

3256

101.

0362

-0.3

2%30

95.5

511

010

1.47

540.

5617

51

194

908

475.

7

56

44B

ould

er, C

O M

SA

101.

9367

99.4

911

799

.83

9210

0.66

82-1

.44%

8899

.32

8597

.91

118

3.30

116

530

349

3.8

5767

Bea

umon

t-Por

t Arth

ur, T

X M

SA

103.

8946

100.

4469

108.

2923

105.

173

-2.4

3%15

810

1.96

6491

.21

193

0.74

139

511

637

849

6.9

5854

Utic

a-R

ome,

NY

MS

A99

.47

108

103.

029

94.9

515

710

1.00

650.

15%

1785

.50

164

95.6

016

01.

2158

1128

293

502.

6

59

59M

obile

, AL

MS

A10

3.17

5299

.01

137

105.

2743

101.

9733

-3.1

2%18

212

1.20

1610

7.37

60.

7912

87

8041

250

4.1

6052

Kan

sas

City

, MO

-KS

MS

A10

1.83

7010

0.92

6098

.98

103

101.

0362

-1.4

9%93

91.1

813

798

.17

111

1.51

388

642,

068

504.

6

61

144

Cha

rlest

on, W

V M

SA

100.

3492

101.

6934

100.

4882

103.

3418

-1.8

1%11

694

.10

119

102.

9732

0.79

128

317

130

450

7.9

6247

Cha

rlotte

-Gas

toni

a-C

onco

rd, N

C-S

C M

SA

105.

5030

98.3

316

110

5.70

3799

.09

147

-0.6

6%45

109.

8133

101.

6447

0.89

105

511

61,

746

511.

5

63

55D

enve

r-Aur

ora,

CO

MS

A10

3.05

5599

.91

9210

1.44

6810

1.03

62-2

.43%

159

97.0

599

96.8

814

51.

9314

1312

2,55

251

2.0

6442

Alb

uque

rque

NM

MS

A10

280

5610

031

7710

090

7810

056

87-1

61%

104

7058

194

9769

125

205

1111

2885

852

08

# of

HT

GD

P LQ

s ov

er 1

200

9Jo

b gr

owth

(Apr

09–

Apr 1

0)5-

yr re

lativ

e H

T G

DP

grow

th 2

004–

2009

1-yr

rela

tive

HT

GD

P gr

owth

200

8–20

09H

igh-

Tech

G

DP

LQ 2

009

5-yr

job

grow

th20

04–2

009

1-yr

job

grow

th20

08–2

009

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

003–

2008

1-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

007–

2008

6442

Alb

uque

rque

, NM

MS

A10

2.80

5610

0.31

7710

0.90

7810

0.56

87-1

.61%

104

70.5

819

497

.69

125

2.05

1111

2885

852

0.8

65

56C

olum

bia,

SC

MS

A10

0.91

8399

.52

115

101.

1973

100.

3798

-0.4

6%36

101.

0171

103.

1828

0.65

158

610

074

552

3.0

6611

3Ja

ckso

n, M

S M

SA

99.1

711

610

1.43

4398

.89

105

100.

5986

-0.2

8%28

96.1

510

610

1.74

410.

7214

34

146

541

534.

0

67

68S

prin

gfie

ld, M

O M

SA

104.

7637

100.

6166

100.

6581

100.

3699

0.37

%11

81.9

217

497

.18

136

0.72

143

317

143

154

2.4

6858

Sal

em, O

R M

SA

102.

5358

100.

1683

101.

7265

100.

7678

-0.8

2%51

89.8

414

297

.16

137

0.81

121

414

639

654

4.4

6986

Buf

falo

-Nia

gara

Fal

ls, N

Y M

SA

98.6

312

510

1.89

2492

.15

180

100.

6880

-0.2

2%27

92.0

813

010

0.00

751.

1961

780

1,12

454

5.9

7012

4V

isal

ia-P

orte

rville

, CA

MS

A10

3.41

5199

.04

135

104.

4347

102.

8323

-1.4

9%92

101.

3567

99.4

291

0.38

196

317

143

054

6.7

7182

Aug

usta

-Ric

hmon

d C

ount

y, G

A-S

C M

SA

98.3

213

010

1.18

5195

.21

155

101.

6439

-0.5

7%39

119.

2020

96.5

714

90.

7912

86

100

539

548.

9

72

15W

ichi

ta, K

S M

SA

103.

6349

99.1

713

010

3.22

5710

2.10

31-4

.09%

197

105.

7844

92.9

718

52.

197

864

613

550.

6

73

149

Hun

tingt

on-A

shla

nd, W

V-K

Y-O

H M

SA

99.4

610

910

1.60

3898

.15

118

102.

7925

-0.7

7%48

121.

4514

96.4

115

20.

4219

41

194

286

550.

7

74

41S

poka

ne, W

A M

SA

105.

0635

100.

0885

104.

2449

101.

0559

-2.6

6%16

810

1.41

6697

.45

129

0.76

134

511

646

955

4.2

7511

1P

eabo

dy, M

A M

D99

.46

109

101.

4542

93.5

017

410

0.10

109

-0.4

9%38

87.9

915

597

.84

123

2.17

814

874

355

5.1

7683

San

Die

go-C

arls

bad-

San

Mar

cos,

CA

MS

A97

.92

135

98.9

014

010

0.42

8310

0.89

71-1

.98%

126

108.

5136

99.9

179

1.95

1317

23,

054

556.

5

77

78Tu

cson

, AZ

MS

A10

1.81

7199

.16

131

106.

1436

100.

3210

3-1

.73%

112

85.5

316

398

.37

109

1.32

4712

181,

020

557.

2

78

87V

irgin

ia B

each

-Nor

folk

-New

port

New

s, V

A-N

C M

SA

98.9

911

810

0.79

6398

.30

115

99.6

412

8-1

.01%

6299

.32

8510

3.64

220.

9310

18

641,

674

557.

9

79

118

Ric

hmon

d, V

A M

SA

100.

5886

100.

1982

101.

6466

99.4

813

6-1

.84%

119

103.

4754

101.

5449

0.97

907

801,

238

561.

0

80

74S

yrac

use,

NY

MS

A99

.31

113

101.

7731

93.2

917

610

0.38

97-0

.44%

3488

.98

151

97.0

514

01.

4042

1218

646

561.

6

81

91R

ocki

ngha

m C

ount

y-S

traffo

rd C

ount

y, N

H M

D10

0.08

9699

.59

112

98.3

811

399

.17

146

0.03

%19

95.4

911

199

.45

901.

1169

1312

423

562.

3

82

73P

ough

keep

sie-

New

burg

h-M

iddl

etow

n, N

Y M

SA

99.2

711

410

1.82

2695

.86

146

101.

0955

-1.4

8%91

89.0

215

098

.09

113

1.18

627

8067

756

8.7

8396

Phi

lade

lphi

a, P

A M

D99

.86

100

101.

0754

98.4

711

010

0.56

87-1

.20%

7585

.80

161

95.0

716

71.

3049

1042

4,01

356

9.5

8498

Nas

hville

-Dav

idso

n--M

urfre

esbo

ro--F

rank

lin, T

N M

SA

101.

6675

99.5

011

610

5.59

3910

0.05

111

-1.7

3%11

189

.61

145

99.3

095

0.89

105

1128

1,58

257

2.4

8548

Har

tford

-Wes

t Har

tford

-Eas

t Har

tford

, CT

MS

A10

3.73

4710

2.88

1098

.60

108

99.0

414

8-1

.84%

117

98.1

792

95.7

115

91.

1467

610

01,

196

572.

7

86

90G

aine

sville

, FL

MS

A99

.72

103

99.9

690

107.

2327

98.8

915

20.

00%

2183

.19

169

98.4

810

80.

7114

67

8026

157

7.3

8733

Peo

ria, I

L M

SA

102.

4959

98.4

215

610

8.45

2010

1.36

47-2

.39%

153

103.

0058

100.

4368

0.67

153

414

637

658

0.3

8812

9Ta

llaha

ssee

, FL

MS

A10

3.12

5410

1.73

3296

.69

137

98.5

015

8-0

.81%

5091

.82

133

97.4

912

80.

8811

18

6436

058

1.6

8989

Roc

hest

er, N

Y M

SA

98.7

512

110

1.82

2691

.73

182

100.

4493

-0.4

4%33

84.9

816

697

.35

133

1.62

317

801,

036

591.

6

90

76M

anch

este

r-Nas

hua,

NH

MS

A97

.86

138

99.6

810

498

.75

106

100.

4095

-1.2

3%79

91.9

713

198

.73

101

1.70

2612

1840

659

2.0

9194

Nor

wic

h-N

ew L

ondo

n, C

T M

SA

97.9

213

599

.58

113

95.7

414

810

1.62

400.

47%

892

.81

127

97.0

613

91.

7424

414

626

759

3.3

9211

9K

noxv

ille, T

N M

SA

100.

0597

99.9

591

100.

2586

100.

4692

-0.5

9%40

79.8

318

097

.86

122

0.86

116

610

069

959

5.7

9323

Littl

e R

ock-

Nor

th L

ittle

Roc

k-C

onw

ay, A

R M

SA

103.

5550

101.

6635

101.

2872

97.8

716

4-2

.29%

149

91.3

413

697

.78

124

1.06

748

6468

559

9.7

9471

York

-Han

over

, PA

MS

A10

1.31

7899

.79

9698

.98

103

100.

6283

-1.2

5%80

97.3

896

97.3

713

20.

7413

96

100

429

603.

5

95

105

Alle

ntow

n-B

ethl

ehem

-Eas

ton,

PA

-NJ

MS

A10

1.31

7810

1.10

5397

.80

122

99.4

613

7-0

.84%

5386

.70

158

96.9

114

40.

9497

864

816

604.

4

96

110

Har

risbu

rg-C

arlis

le, P

A M

SA

100.

5287

101.

4741

94.2

916

710

0.22

106

-1.8

5%12

110

7.79

3797

.99

117

0.94

979

5453

760

4.9

9710

2M

ontg

omer

y, A

L M

SA

101.

7472

99.7

010

198

.28

116

101.

0559

-1.9

3%12

310

1.22

6897

.88

120

0.80

124

610

036

660

6.8

9899

Orla

ndo-

Kis

sim

mee

, FL

MS

A10

4.71

3897

.97

171

107.

0029

97.9

116

3-2

.45%

161

106.

1443

101.

8538

1.04

777

802,

082

611.

0

99

101

Col

orad

o S

prin

gs, C

O M

SA

100.

6585

100.

3673

99.0

510

210

0.81

75-2

.88%

176

81.4

517

596

.71

147

1.96

1213

1262

661

3.3

100

161

Lexi

ngto

n-Fa

yette

, KY

MS

A10

0.41

9010

0.32

7697

.23

130

99.4

513

80.

25%

1489

.34

147

95.0

416

80.

8910

59

5447

161

3.8

101

20G

reel

ey, C

O M

SA

106.

8020

99.4

012

210

9.28

1910

3.06

21-4

.13%

198

99.4

783

90.5

419

40.

5317

92

185

255

627.

2

10

217

1G

reen

Bay

, WI M

SA

97.7

814

010

0.56

6795

.02

156

101.

1452

-1.1

0%69

105.

2345

101.

6645

0.54

177

317

130

563

0.1

103

85S

an F

ranc

isco

-San

Mat

eo-R

edw

ood

City

, CA

MD

100.

6684

98.8

214

310

3.06

5999

.77

125

-3.6

0%19

397

.16

9899

.71

861.

8120

1312

1,78

563

8.9

104

80D

aven

port-

Mol

ine-

Roc

k Is

land

, IA

-IL M

SA

98.4

712

799

.25

127

100.

8179

101.

1153

-2.2

1%13

910

3.79

5210

3.25

260.

6715

34

146

379

639.

7

10

512

6R

oano

ke, V

A M

SA

99.4

411

110

0.07

8697

.63

124

100.

1910

7-1

.60%

103

100.

7175

101.

2756

0.85

118

511

630

063

9.7

106

75A

shev

ille, N

C M

SA

102.

0065

98.7

514

510

0.20

8799

.34

141

-1.7

8%11

512

5.55

1210

0.03

740.

7513

56

100

413

639.

9

Page 51: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

46

Com

plet

e Re

sult

s: 2

010

Best

-Per

form

ing

Larg

e Ci

ties

201

0 B

est P

erfo

rmin

g M

etro

sLa

rges

t 200

Citi

es L

ist

2010

2009

Popu

latio

n20

09O

vera

llra

nkra

nkM

etro

polit

an a

rea

200

9 V

alue

*R

ank

200

9 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k(th

ousa

nds)

inde

x**

# of

HT

GD

P LQ

s ov

er 1

200

9Jo

b gr

owth

(Apr

09–

Apr 1

0)5-

yr re

lativ

e H

T G

DP

grow

th 2

004–

2009

1-yr

rela

tive

HT

GD

P gr

owth

200

8–20

09H

igh-

Tech

G

DP

LQ 2

009

5-yr

job

grow

th20

04–2

009

1-yr

job

grow

th20

08–2

009

5-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

003–

2008

1-yr

wag

es/s

alar

ies

grow

th 2

007–

2008

107

37P

ortla

nd-V

anco

uver

-Bea

verto

n, O

R-W

A M

SA

102.

3361

98.2

316

510

3.12

5810

0.05

111

-2.4

9%16

410

0.96

7291

.78

191

2.11

910

422,

242

642.

2

10

810

8C

olum

bus,

OH

MS

A99

.51

106

100.

9359

95.2

215

499

.58

131

-1.5

6%98

94.9

011

610

0.76

651.

0281

780

1,80

264

4.8

109

121

Cam

den,

NJ

MD

97.6

514

310

0.79

6396

.56

141

100.

0611

0-1

.77%

114

101.

0669

98.0

711

41.

0477

1042

1,25

464

7.6

110

146

Hag

erst

own-

Mar

tinsb

urg,

MD

-WV

MS

A99

.80

102

100.

4170

98.5

610

999

.77

125

-2.2

4%14

410

1.04

7010

7.74

50.

6416

05

116

266

650.

6

11

149

Brid

gepo

rt-S

tam

ford

-Nor

wal

k, C

T M

SA

96.6

416

098

.37

158

101.

3969

96.8

818

1-1

.03%

6310

2.81

5910

1.69

431.

3644

954

901

656.

0

11

212

5In

dian

apol

is-C

arm

el, I

N M

SA

99.8

899

99.7

798

97.1

313

110

0.34

101

-1.7

0%10

880

.82

176

98.0

411

51.

4839

864

1,74

465

8.1

113

153

Loui

sville

-Jef

fers

on C

ount

y, K

Y-IN

MS

A99

.85

101

100.

2578

96.0

014

598

.93

151

-1.1

7%73

102.

5061

101.

5648

0.67

153

511

61,

259

660.

8

11

413

0S

an L

uis

Obi

spo-

Pas

o R

oble

s, C

A M

SA

99.5

710

599

.69

102

101.

0676

100.

4095

-3.3

2%18

695

.05

114

103.

0430

0.75

135

780

267

666.

7

11

517

3V

alle

jo-F

airfi

eld,

CA

MS

A95

.91

169

99.8

993

99.6

594

101.

5242

-2.9

9%17

886

.65

159

103.

3424

0.98

888

6440

766

6.8

116

157

Pen

saco

la-F

erry

Pas

s-B

rent

, FL

MS

A97

.43

149

99.6

410

799

.50

9797

.78

167

-0.1

9%26

96.0

510

710

1.72

420.

8910

54

146

455

668.

8

11

793

Pho

enix

-Mes

a-S

cotts

dale

, AZ

MS

A10

2.58

5796

.30

190

108.

4520

97.0

517

6-2

.08%

128

90.9

513

898

.70

102

1.23

569

544,

364

669.

0

11

812

3M

inne

apol

is-S

t. P

aul-B

loom

ingt

on, M

N-W

I MS

A98

.35

128

99.6

410

797

.31

128

100.

4294

-1.9

3%12

493

.56

123

97.2

713

41.

2158

1218

3,27

067

0.4

119

92W

inst

on-S

alem

, NC

MS

A10

1.98

6699

.98

8994

.43

166

99.7

812

4-1

.38%

8516

2.64

192

.13

188

0.74

139

511

648

567

4.1

120

141

Jack

sonv

ille, F

L M

SA

101.

7074

98.5

315

310

0.71

8096

.91

180

-1.6

5%10

596

.66

102

106.

478

0.89

105

511

61,

328

679.

4

12

113

2S

cran

ton-

-Wilk

es-B

arre

, PA

MS

A99

.50

107

101.

3545

93.9

917

199

.98

116

-0.7

8%49

72.3

618

991

.27

192

0.85

118

1042

549

679.

6

12

216

3D

ulut

h, M

N-W

I MS

A99

.33

112

100.

2179

94.7

915

910

1.20

50-1

.09%

6891

.75

134

94.5

617

40.

6116

45

116

276

682.

6

12

384

New

Orle

ans-

Met

airie

-Ken

ner,

LA M

SA

84.9

019

910

3.25

892

.14

181

104.

1311

-0.0

2%22

82.2

317

293

.58

180

0.55

176

317

11,

190

689.

9

12

411

5Fr

esno

, CA

MS

A10

0.29

9498

.86

142

101.

1175

100.

5687

-3.0

1%17

911

0.99

2999

.89

800.

5916

85

116

915

693.

6

12

512

0M

yrtle

Bea

ch-C

onw

ay-N

orth

Myr

tle B

each

, SC

MS

A10

3.15

5397

.32

179

103.

3855

95.4

619

10.

96%

410

0.53

7896

.95

143

0.48

189

218

526

469

8.3

126

106

Atla

nta-

San

dy S

prin

gs-M

arie

tta, G

A M

SA

101.

4876

98.6

515

098

.25

117

97.7

316

8-2

.12%

130

96.4

110

499

.67

871.

3843

1042

5,47

569

8.9

127

127

Spr

ingf

ield

, MA

MS

A97

.42

150

100.

9957

93.8

317

210

1.66

38-2

.20%

138

98.6

589

97.2

613

50.

7114

67

8069

969

9.2

128

134

Sal

inas

, CA

MS

A96

.66

159

99.6

011

096

.44

142

101.

4246

-1.3

1%82

101.

5865

99.3

394

0.52

182

414

641

070

1.3

129

79W

orce

ster

, MA

MS

A96

.95

156

100.

3772

94.6

316

310

0.82

73-2

.68%

169

89.7

814

498

.35

110

1.47

4014

880

470

3.3

130

168

Gar

y, IN

MD

97.6

414

498

.88

141

96.8

313

610

2.30

30-1

.57%

100

92.7

412

810

3.90

190.

4918

54

146

704

708.

1

13

113

3K

ings

port-

Bris

tol-B

risto

l, TN

-VA

MS

A98

.59

126

99.7

897

95.4

115

210

0.97

68-2

.44%

160

100.

4879

94.6

417

30.

9595

1128

306

708.

9

13

250

San

Jos

e-S

unny

vale

-San

ta C

lara

, CA

MS

A99

.69

104

97.7

617

310

2.14

6396

.69

185

-2.2

4%14

297

.24

9796

.01

157

3.30

114

81,

840

716.

4

13

317

2C

hatta

noog

a, T

N-G

A M

SA

95.9

716

897

.00

184

95.3

515

399

.31

143

-0.1

8%25

137.

948

103.

2526

0.74

139

780

524

717.

3

13

414

7E

diso

n, N

J M

D98

.14

133

99.7

110

095

.50

150

99.9

211

9-2

.32%

151

92.3

912

998

.51

107

1.80

2110

422,

335

719.

9

13

511

6P

alm

Bay

-Mel

bour

ne-T

itusv

ille, F

L M

SA

96.6

915

899

.00

138

98.4

411

197

.85

165

-2.1

8%13

610

0.41

8099

.81

821.

9215

1312

536

720.

2

13

677

Gre

envi

lle-M

auld

in-E

asle

y, S

C M

SA

99.9

398

97.3

817

898

.72

107

100.

3510

0-1

.52%

9693

.80

121

98.6

310

61.

0183

414

664

072

3.4

137

140

Por

tland

-Sou

th P

ortla

nd-B

idde

ford

, ME

MS

A98

.65

123

100.

7665

96.9

213

510

1.08

56-2

.27%

148

88.1

115

392

.31

187

0.72

143

780

517

724.

5

13

843

San

ta B

arba

ra-S

anta

Mar

ia-G

olet

a, C

A M

SA

97.5

114

699

.48

120

98.3

911

210

0.00

115

-2.3

7%15

297

.39

9593

.91

179

1.64

2911

2840

772

7.0

139

151

Milw

auke

e-W

auke

sha-

Wes

t Allis

, WI M

SA

97.7

014

199

.21

129

94.5

316

510

0.49

90-2

.18%

137

114.

4921

95.7

415

81.

0872

954

1,56

073

0.7

140

170

Eva

nsvi

lle, I

N-K

Y M

SA

96.2

316

610

0.34

7591

.34

184

100.

6979

-0.7

6%47

72.1

219

184

.86

198

1.10

707

8035

273

5.3

141

138

Cin

cinn

ati-M

iddl

etow

n, O

H-K

Y-IN

MS

A97

.45

148

99.6

610

694

.62

164

99.9

311

8-1

.56%

9998

.22

9110

1.09

600.

9010

45

116

2,17

273

5.8

142

117

Sac

ram

ento

--Ard

en-A

rcad

e--R

osev

ille, C

A M

SA

97.3

715

198

.71

147

99.8

491

99.5

313

3-3

.26%

183

103.

4655

100.

2271

1.32

478

642,

127

739.

0

14

315

2Fo

rt W

ayne

, IN

MS

A95

.84

170

98.3

016

389

.52

187

97.6

717

1-0

.88%

5512

7.39

1110

3.34

241.

1862

864

414

741.

9

14

413

5R

eadi

ng, P

A M

SA

100.

3093

99.7

599

97.2

712

999

.53

133

-1.0

8%67

78.1

118

595

.24

164

0.62

162

414

640

776

1.0

145

156

Lanc

aste

r, P

A M

SA

98.3

412

999

.81

9594

.20

170

100.

8672

-1.0

5%65

74.3

718

896

.72

146

0.61

164

317

150

877

5.3

146

103

Riv

ersi

de-S

an B

erna

rdin

o-O

ntar

io, C

A M

SA

97.9

913

496

.67

187

105.

4141

97.2

917

3-3

.26%

184

107.

3938

101.

1858

0.78

131

864

4,14

377

5.6

147

164

Erie

, PA

MS

A97

.10

153

99.8

993

96.2

414

410

0.81

75-1

.18%

7466

.76

199

90.2

119

50.

7015

15

116

280

778.

9

14

814

8C

hica

go-N

aper

ville

-Jol

iet,

IL M

D97

.47

147

99.0

313

696

.63

140

99.3

314

2-2

.24%

141

93.0

212

699

.47

890.

9986

1128

7,99

878

0.9

149

150

Por

t St.

Luci

e, F

L M

SA

100.

3791

97.7

217

410

9.51

1894

.08

195

-2.3

1%15

097

.75

9399

.82

810.

5916

84

146

406

781.

7

15

062

Fort

Sm

ith, A

R-O

K M

SA

101.

1880

98.7

014

810

0.26

8599

.81

123

-3.3

5%18

794

.03

120

104.

9013

0.37

198

218

529

378

9.7

151

179

Mia

mi-M

iam

i Bea

ch-K

enda

ll, F

L M

D98

.86

119

98.6

415

199

.47

9898

.60

154

-1.2

8%81

85.0

616

597

.64

126

0.65

158

511

62,

501

793.

6

15

295

Lake

Cou

nty-

Ken

osha

Cou

nty,

IL-W

I MD

98.8

312

099

.12

132

99.3

499

97.7

316

8-3

.57%

191

82.9

417

097

.90

119

1.57

348

6487

881

0.3

153

88N

ew H

aven

-Milf

ord,

CT

MS

A95

.46

174

98.4

215

693

.50

174

99.8

512

1-1

.17%

7282

.23

172

93.0

918

41.

5833

1128

848

812.

0

15

411

4B

oise

City

-Nam

pa, I

D M

SA

105.

7129

97.2

518

110

4.79

4495

.55

189

-2.2

6%14

751

.15

200

83.4

719

90.

9888

414

660

681

2.3

155

169

Tam

pa-S

t. P

eter

sbur

g-C

lear

wat

er, F

L M

SA

96.3

316

398

.45

155

98.0

111

997

.11

174

-2.1

2%13

193

.66

122

97.8

812

01.

2060

1128

2,74

781

3.7

156

131

Fort

Laud

erda

le-P

ompa

no B

each

-Dee

rfiel

d B

each

, FL

MD

98.6

512

397

.22

182

100.

4184

96.9

317

8-2

.75%

173

91.8

513

299

.61

881.

0477

1042

1,76

681

5.9

157

195

Lans

ing-

Eas

t Lan

sing

, MI M

SA

93.4

018

799

.40

122

88.2

718

910

0.47

910.

61%

784

.00

168

98.6

710

40.

5717

31

194

454

820.

3

15

813

9Lo

s A

ngel

es-L

ong

Bea

ch-G

lend

ale,

CA

MD

96.2

516

598

.35

159

97.3

812

799

.31

143

-2.4

1%15

789

.10

149

96.3

815

31.

6132

1218

9,84

883

1.6

159

104

Oca

la, F

L M

SA

97.1

215

295

.11

197

106.

5831

97.0

117

7-4

.24%

199

121.

3615

98.0

111

60.

9497

511

632

983

2.5

160

81E

ugen

e-S

prin

gfie

ld, O

R M

SA

98.3

113

196

.11

192

99.9

989

98.8

815

3-1

.33%

8376

.90

187

77.6

820

01.

0281

610

035

183

5.4

161

191

Ann

Arb

or, M

I MS

A94

.02

181

101.

2348

83.4

019

794

.54

194

-0.9

4%60

72.2

719

095

.57

162

1.08

727

8034

883

5.6

162

181

Spa

rtanb

urg,

SC

MS

A96

.32

164

97.3

118

096

.43

143

100.

6781

-1.8

4%12

094

.51

118

102.

9633

0.46

191

317

128

784

6.8

163

142

New

ark-

Uni

on, N

J-P

A M

D95

.58

171

99.6

810

494

.21

169

98.9

515

0-2

.24%

143

80.0

117

997

.41

131

1.34

468

642,

126

849.

3

16

410

7La

s V

egas

-Par

adis

e, N

V M

SA

102.

1064

94.6

420

011

4.88

697

.84

166

-4.6

2%20

091

.54

135

98.6

610

50.

4519

21

194

1,90

385

0.5

165

182

Wilm

ingt

on, D

E-M

D-N

J M

D97

.69

142

99.6

910

294

.64

162

98.5

915

5-1

.65%

106

88.7

315

296

.99

141

0.78

131

414

670

285

3.3

166

178

Mem

phis

, TN

-MS

-AR

MS

A97

.83

139

99.2

412

895

.59

149

98.4

215

9-3

.01%

180

102.

3662

106.

637

0.62

162

317

11,

305

857.

5

16

713

7La

kela

nd, F

L M

SA

101.

7472

98.9

313

910

1.33

7097

.64

172

-2.8

0%17

486

.37

160

98.1

211

20.

4019

51

194

583

858.

0

16

818

4M

erce

d, C

A M

SA

96.6

416

099

.30

126

99.6

095

101.

4544

-2.7

0%17

087

.53

156

91.9

319

00.

3619

92

185

245

860.

0

16

918

3D

ayto

n, O

H M

SA

90.8

919

298

.75

145

85.4

019

497

.11

174

-1.6

6%10

789

.81

143

99.9

378

1.18

6212

1883

586

3.6

170

189

Kal

amaz

oo-P

orta

ge,M

IMS

A95

.46

174

100.

0388

88.0

919

010

1.10

54-2

.72%

171

71.9

519

296

.56

150

0.97

904

146

327

865.

917

018

9K

alam

azoo

Por

tage

, MI M

SA

95.4

617

410

0.03

8888

.09

190

101.

1054

2.72

%17

171

.95

192

96.5

615

00.

9790

414

632

786

5.9

17

116

7A

kron

, OH

MS

A96

.98

154

98.5

415

294

.76

160

99.9

012

0-3

.40%

189

111.

2327

99.4

193

0.71

146

511

670

086

6.5

172

122

San

ta A

na-A

nahe

im-Ir

vine

, CA

MD

94.5

417

896

.74

186

97.8

712

197

.68

170

-2.1

0%12

989

.17

148

93.9

417

81.

5336

172

3,02

786

6.6

173

192

Atla

ntic

City

, NJ

MS

A92

.79

188

98.1

216

792

.64

179

99.2

714

5-0

.43%

3289

.45

146

100.

6066

0.49

185

511

627

286

7.4

174

162

Del

tona

-Day

tona

Bea

ch-O

rmon

d B

each

, FL

MS

A95

.57

172

98.0

316

999

.68

9396

.25

188

-2.7

2%17

294

.97

115

103.

0529

0.80

124

780

496

868.

4

17

518

7P

rovi

denc

e-N

ew B

edfo

rd-F

all R

iver

, RI-M

A M

SA

94.3

517

999

.49

117

92.8

917

899

.59

130

-2.8

6%17

590

.73

140

98.8

998

0.99

868

641,

601

872.

8

17

615

4G

reen

sbor

o-H

igh

Poi

nt, N

C M

SA

96.8

415

797

.84

172

94.7

016

199

.03

149

-2.5

1%16

598

.94

8796

.15

156

0.89

105

1128

715

889.

9

17

717

7B

irmin

gham

-Hoo

ver,

AL

MS

A97

.57

145

98.3

116

298

.38

113

99.6

112

9-3

.29%

185

79.0

018

410

1.52

510.

8611

63

171

1,13

189

2.1

178

145

Oak

land

-Fre

mon

t-Hay

war

d, C

A M

D94

.81

177

98.0

316

995

.48

151

98.3

116

0-3

.63%

194

90.2

914

195

.24

164

1.77

2317

22,

533

911.

6

17

919

4G

rand

Rap

ids-

Wyo

min

g, M

I MS

A94

.07

180

98.3

515

988

.50

188

98.2

716

1-1

.51%

9596

.60

103

99.8

182

0.68

152

414

677

891

8.7

180

158

Oxn

ard-

Thou

sand

Oak

s-V

entu

ra, C

A M

SA

96.4

816

298

.66

149

94.8

915

894

.73

193

-2.6

3%16

777

.73

186

93.4

018

21.

6628

148

803

924.

8

18

118

8S

outh

Ben

d-M

isha

wak

a, IN

-MI M

SA

92.0

019

097

.67

175

90.8

218

510

0.05

111

-2.2

5%14

580

.49

178

101.

5152

0.81

121

610

031

892

5.1

182

175

Wes

t Pal

m B

each

-Boc

a R

aton

-Boy

nton

Bea

ch, F

L M

D96

.16

167

97.1

718

396

.67

138

93.9

419

6-2

.39%

154

94.7

711

710

1.45

550.

8012

45

116

1,28

093

6.5

183

186

Cle

vela

nd-E

lyria

-Men

tor,

OH

MS

A93

.74

184

98.8

014

489

.63

186

98.1

316

2-1

.44%

8993

.21

124

95.5

916

10.

7513

54

146

2,09

193

9.6

184

200

Flin

t, M

I MS

A85

.81

197

98.1

316

673

.10

200

93.1

119

7-2

.14%

135

111.

0328

102.

6036

0.94

974

146

424

940.

8

18

516

0S

anta

Cru

z-W

atso

nville

, CA

MS

A95

.57

172

99.4

612

191

.54

183

96.6

418

7-2

.13%

133

69.1

719

593

.23

183

1.01

837

8025

695

6.3

186

166

Sto

ckto

n, C

A M

SA

96.9

815

498

.48

154

97.0

913

299

.42

139

-2.4

0%15

679

.23

183

95.2

316

60.

4419

33

171

675

978.

2

18

718

0C

ape

Cor

al-F

ort M

yers

, FL

MS

A97

.88

137

96.3

618

910

3.99

5191

.76

198

-3.5

5%19

067

.71

198

96.9

914

10.

4818

94

146

587

987.

7

18

816

5S

anta

Ros

a-P

etal

uma,

CA

MS

A93

.73

186

96.8

418

593

.69

173

98.5

715

6-3

.78%

195

79.7

518

193

.49

181

1.27

5412

1847

299

7.5

189

155

Nap

les-

Mar

co Is

land

, FL

MS

A93

.87

182

95.4

319

497

.47

125

90.1

720

0-3

.39%

188

97.6

094

100.

9462

0.54

177

511

631

999

8.8

190

174

Roc

kfor

d, IL

MS

A93

.83

183

95.0

819

893

.00

177

98.5

715

6-2

.25%

146

101.

9963

94.8

616

90.

7513

54

146

354

1,00

1.3

19

117

6B

rade

nton

-Sar

asot

a-V

enic

e, F

L M

SA

92.5

318

996

.63

188

96.9

513

491

.22

199

-2.4

6%16

210

3.35

5794

.04

177

0.66

157

610

068

81,

002.

2

192

193

Youn

gsto

wn-

War

ren-

Boa

rdm

an, O

H-P

A M

SA

90.5

219

497

.54

177

84.1

019

695

.50

190

-0.6

4%43

84.3

116

794

.33

175

0.53

179

511

656

31,

002.

7

193

159

Mod

esto

, CA

MS

A95

.31

176

98.0

616

895

.78

147

99.7

512

7-1

.89%

122

68.5

719

785

.18

197

0.49

185

218

551

01,

005.

4

194

190

Can

ton-

Mas

sillo

n, O

H M

SA

91.9

119

198

.26

164

88.0

219

199

.38

140

-2.9

3%17

714

0.89

697

.44

130

0.36

199

119

440

81,

011.

1

195

198

Tole

do, O

H M

SA

90.5

719

397

.67

175

86.4

319

396

.93

178

-1.7

6%11

396

.02

108

99.9

477

0.51

183

218

567

21,

011.

9

196

143

Ren

o-S

park

s, N

V M

SA

93.7

418

494

.67

199

97.7

912

395

.32

192

-3.0

5%18

185

.56

162

95.3

716

30.

5916

85

116

419

1,06

1.2

19

718

5H

icko

ry-L

enoi

r-Mor

gant

on, N

C M

SA

88.2

119

695

.29

195

87.8

219

296

.68

186

-2.4

6%16

310

7.23

3986

.30

196

0.63

161

511

636

51,

065.

5

198

197

War

ren-

Troy

-Far

min

gton

Hills

, MI M

D85

.68

198

95.2

019

681

.61

198

96.8

418

2-3

.80%

196

80.7

117

796

.31

154

1.15

665

116

2,47

81,

100.

1

199

196

Hol

land

-Gra

nd H

aven

, MI M

SA

88.2

719

595

.54

193

84.6

719

596

.83

183

-2.5

5%16

679

.28

182

94.1

417

60.

6715

34

146

262

1,13

0.2

20

019

9D

etro

it-Li

voni

a-D

earb

orn,

MI M

D84

.86

200

96.2

619

181

.00

199

96.8

118

4-3

.59%

192

71.1

819

394

.65

172

0.87

114

317

11,

926

1,15

7.6

* "V

alue

s" a

re b

ench

mar

ked

agai

nst t

he n

atio

nal a

vera

ge, w

hich

is s

et to

100

.**

Inde

x sc

ores

are

ben

chm

arke

d ag

ains

t the

top

perfo

rmer

, whi

ch is

set

to 1

00. L

ower

inde

x sc

ores

indi

cate

stro

nger

per

form

ance

.†

Ken

new

ick-

Ric

hlan

d-P

asco

, WA

MS

A m

oved

to th

e la

rge

citie

s lis

t. It

rank

ed 6

th in

the

best

-per

form

ing

smal

l citi

es in

200

9.S

ourc

es:

U.S

. Cen

sus

Bur

eau,

U.S

. Bur

eau

of L

abor

Sta

tistic

s, M

oody

's E

cono

my.

com

, Milk

en In

stitu

te.

Page 52: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

47

Com

plet

e Re

sult

s: 2

010

Best

-Per

form

ing

Smal

l Cit

ies

201

0 B

est P

erfo

rmin

g M

etro

sS

mal

l 179

Citi

es L

ist

2010

2009

Popu

latio

n20

09O

vera

llra

nkra

nkM

etro

polit

an a

rea

200

9 V

alue

*R

ank

200

9 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k(th

ousa

nds)

inde

x**

110

Farg

o, N

D-M

N M

SA

110.

7214

103.

6511

110.

3416

105.

1414

0.17

%36

111.

8031

102.

7542

0.88

415

5620

010

0.0

27

Bis

mar

ck, N

D M

SA

112.

0110

105.

852

107.

3431

103.

5427

1.47

%14

105.

9551

101.

2059

0.73

676

4210

610

9.9

3n.

a.Ja

ckso

nvill

e, N

C M

SA

116.

972

105.

553

132.

324

109.

985

3.58

%3

126.

2514

98.4

396

0.41

156

214

417

312

5.7

414

Col

lege

Sta

tion-

Bry

an, T

X M

SA

111.

7511

106.

381

108.

1526

104.

2519

2.30

%8

92.9

495

101.

6654

0.73

673

114

212

130.

5

5

n.a.

Hin

esvi

lle-F

ort S

tew

art,

GA

MS

A11

5.67

410

5.11

412

1.01

910

9.58

63.

72%

291

.96

9991

.33

156

0.58

109

556

7413

3.1

627

Mor

gant

own,

WV

MS

A11

3.01

910

5.02

611

0.19

2010

5.33

132.

07%

1010

3.18

6010

0.43

690.

5212

73

114

120

137.

8

7

4Ty

ler,

TX M

SA

105.

2039

101.

3868

106.

9633

104.

0420

0.00

%43

130.

5911

104.

2631

1.04

217

2420

514

0.4

89

Las

Cru

ces,

NM

MS

A10

9.14

2010

2.25

3311

0.28

1810

3.92

21-0

.29%

5976

.86

147

101.

1461

1.17

118

1420

615

2.0

922

Iow

a C

ity, I

A M

SA

106.

8631

103.

1717

103.

0354

103.

4230

0.11

%40

125.

7015

99.5

680

1.00

264

7715

215

4.1

10n.

a.La

wto

n, O

K M

SA

108.

3325

105.

045

105.

0245

103.

3131

2.30

%7

117.

6323

101.

9652

0.55

120

214

411

316

0.4

1116

Che

yenn

e, W

Y M

SA

108.

7223

102.

1937

106.

4835

102.

9238

-0.4

6%67

106.

5550

105.

0829

0.64

886

4289

173.

2

12

25Ith

aca,

NY

MS

A10

4.57

4510

3.99

996

.71

9810

4.67

150.

94%

2390

.34

106

96.3

611

81.

218

112

102

174.

6

13

12S

ioux

Fal

ls, S

D M

SA

109.

2219

102.

5528

105.

8839

102.

6943

-0.2

2%54

116.

7425

98.6

393

0.75

604

7723

817

6.5

1418

Wac

o, T

X M

SA

101.

6780

103.

1717

99.4

178

101.

7864

1.04

%20

157.

145

100.

0374

1.05

208

1423

317

9.6

152

Long

view

, TX

MS

A10

8.78

2210

0.17

107

119.

5010

106.

569

-0.8

4%80

114.

6028

100.

2470

0.84

496

4220

718

3.5

1657

Blo

omin

gton

, IN

MS

A10

2.98

6410

4.17

895

.54

111

102.

0556

0.85

%25

95.4

285

102.

3347

1.80

39

818

619

1.0

1732

Sta

te C

olle

ge, P

A M

SA

103.

5058

103.

0719

101.

0067

102.

3249

1.50

%13

88.1

111

193

.37

141

1.16

1210

514

619

3.6

188

War

ner R

obin

s, G

A M

SA

115.

135

104.

577

104.

9548

99.5

612

90.

00%

4398

.37

7410

5.22

270.

8645

477

136

195.

4

19

n.a.

Loga

n, U

T-ID

MS

A10

6.85

3310

0.94

8210

7.22

3210

4.43

17-0

.58%

7210

6.91

4892

.91

148

1.09

199

812

819

7.7

2026

Cha

rlotte

svill

e, V

A M

SA

108.

0726

101.

5659

106.

5434

100.

1610

9-0

.70%

7610

5.03

5710

6.59

181.

1514

814

197

202.

5

21

39S

t. Jo

seph

, MO

-KS

MS

A10

9.89

1710

2.21

3610

2.57

5710

1.72

653.

09%

584

.55

125

98.0

310

00.

6683

477

127

211.

6

22

51C

olum

bia,

MO

MS

A10

5.59

3510

2.84

2310

0.58

6910

1.09

860.

77%

2610

5.26

5499

.25

850.

7659

477

166

214.

1

23

21A

bile

ne, T

X M

SA

104.

9442

101.

3868

104.

9946

103.

5129

-1.2

1%94

111.

0037

100.

9265

0.71

717

2416

021

4.8

24n.

a.H

anfo

rd-C

orco

ran,

CA

MS

A11

1.72

1210

1.84

5010

5.88

3910

3.89

23-0

.27%

5711

1.42

3587

.85

171

0.53

125

477

149

218.

7

25

42G

rand

For

ks, N

D-M

N M

SA

104.

3148

102.

7824

98.9

684

101.

9759

0.95

%22

111.

4534

102.

6943

0.58

109

311

497

220.

0

26

11P

asca

goul

a, M

S M

SA

108.

0027

101.

4365

115.

9511

112.

122

-3.7

6%16

795

.93

8210

1.45

580.

8351

477

156

230.

9

27

n.a.

Wen

atch

ee, W

A M

SA

106.

8631

100.

6591

104.

2952

102.

4648

0.00

%43

109.

2542

105.

1428

0.59

105

311

411

023

2.9

2823

Gle

ns F

alls

, NY

MS

A10

1.10

8910

3.18

1696

.78

9710

1.45

751.

11%

1891

.36

100

96.1

911

91.

455

814

129

235.

5

29

47H

attie

sbur

g, M

S M

SA

107.

5128

102.

0641

104.

3551

99.7

712

40.

68%

2812

5.10

1610

0.57

680.

4414

84

7714

324

2.5

3024

Bill

ings

, MT

MS

A10

8.58

2410

2.24

3410

8.77

2510

0.89

95-2

.75%

148

101.

4465

105.

2526

0.70

735

5615

524

8.1

3119

Hou

ma-

Bay

ou C

ane-

Thib

odau

x, L

A M

SA

113.

278

100.

7190

131.

785

106.

4211

-2.3

2%13

311

3.45

2910

8.96

130.

3516

91

171

203

248.

9

32

60A

then

s-C

lark

e C

ount

y, G

A M

SA

105.

5336

99.4

912

210

1.19

6410

3.25

32-0

.25%

5511

7.28

2412

0.48

50.

6488

214

419

225

0.0

3338

Jopl

in, M

O M

SA

104.

1451

101.

8549

99.5

775

102.

3150

-1.3

9%10

192

.98

9412

8.19

40.

6010

16

4217

425

4.1

34n.

a.Fa

irban

ks, A

K M

SA

102.

7066

103.

4812

106.

1937

102.

5247

1.06

%19

90.2

310

799

.16

880.

3716

40

176

9925

4.6

3569

Mis

soul

a, M

T M

SA

103.

1663

101.

7056

100.

5371

101.

0588

2.15

%9

98.0

775

98.7

092

0.67

804

7710

925

5.3

3634

Aub

urn-

Ope

lika,

AL

MS

A10

5.16

4010

0.41

9710

7.46

3010

0.66

980.

19%

3417

6.66

410

6.37

200.

4215

02

144

136

260.

5

37

29R

apid

City

, SD

MS

A10

4.30

4910

2.76

2599

.29

8010

2.85

390.

17%

3783

.46

129

99.5

281

0.49

135

311

412

526

1.0

3813

Bel

lingh

am, W

A M

SA

104.

4547

98.9

013

611

0.50

1510

2.99

36-3

.58%

164

108.

8444

102.

9340

0.92

379

820

026

3.4

391

Mid

land

, TX

MS

A11

7.88

198

.90

136

150.

991

114.

291

-3.5

6%16

285

.32

119

93.1

814

30.

8547

642

132

271.

0

40

85H

arris

onbu

rg, V

A M

SA

101.

5283

101.

8351

99.5

277

101.

3277

0.65

%29

94.5

687

94.3

613

10.

8449

556

120

272.

2

41

41G

reen

ville

, NC

MS

A10

9.37

1810

0.60

9410

4.97

4710

1.58

71-0

.13%

4992

.84

9690

.72

161

0.93

353

114

180

274.

0

42

17Te

xark

ana,

TX

-Tex

arka

na, A

R M

SA

103.

6056

101.

7355

105.

8839

102.

1553

-0.8

8%82

111.

6033

99.2

486

0.37

164

311

413

727

4.9

43n.

a.S

an A

ngel

o, T

X M

SA

101.

4884

102.

0142

96.3

710

310

4.43

17-0

.45%

6590

.11

108

91.5

015

51.

209

477

110

276.

1

44

36B

loom

ingt

on-N

orm

al, I

L M

SA

100.

8791

101.

9844

93.2

514

010

2.95

37-0

.78%

7799

.38

7110

6.93

150.

9335

477

168

277.

8

45

33P

uebl

o, C

O M

SA

105.

0941

101.

9844

100.

3172

103.

0534

-1.3

9%10

096

.73

8093

.35

142

0.62

984

7715

727

8.3

4683

Yaki

ma,

WA

MS

A10

2.85

6510

2.09

3910

1.05

6610

4.44

162.

60%

664

.97

167

99.7

279

0.26

177

017

623

927

9.0

47n.

a.E

l Cen

tro, C

A M

SA

111.

3913

101.

3072

105.

3243

103.

8225

-3.2

7%15

710

5.71

5310

3.92

350.

3816

33

114

167

280.

1

48

n.a.

Gre

at F

alls

, MT

MS

A10

7.13

3010

3.99

910

1.75

6210

2.29

51-3

.09%

152

117.

9122

98.4

995

0.42

150

311

482

281.

2

49

70P

anam

a C

ity-L

ynn

Hav

en, F

L M

SA

103.

2161

100.

2810

210

2.60

5697

.96

158

0.55

%30

115.

0727

102.

1649

1.02

234

7716

528

1.9

505

Ode

ssa,

TX

MS

A11

5.68

397

.78

153

144.

172

110.

624

-4.4

7%17

314

1.40

610

6.68

170.

4115

62

144

135

282.

4

51

52La

ke C

harle

s, L

A M

SA

103.

5657

100.

2110

410

8.82

2410

6.17

12-2

.70%

146

89.7

411

010

2.82

410.

6488

477

194

285.

0

52

111

Alto

ona,

PA

MS

A97

.98

123

102.

3431

93.3

713

699

.78

122

1.16

%16

99.4

770

106.

5719

0.91

387

2412

628

6.7

53n.

a.E

lizab

etht

own,

KY

MS

A99

.74

100

99.2

812

898

.09

9210

1.33

761.

37%

1512

9.09

1310

1.49

560.

7464

477

113

293.

8

54

53C

ham

paig

n-U

rban

a, IL

MS

A98

.99

113

101.

2674

95.0

511

910

3.01

35-1

.17%

9311

5.29

2610

0.05

730.

8841

724

226

293.

8

55

44D

ubuq

ue, I

A M

SA

103.

3059

101.

7554

100.

0074

101.

6168

-0.5

5%69

97.5

578

90.0

016

60.

6976

477

9329

7.1

5631

Ale

xand

ria, L

A M

SA

107.

3129

101.

5162

109.

4821

102.

6744

-1.5

3%11

082

.28

133

103.

7137

0.32

175

017

615

429

9.1

573

Gra

nd J

unct

ion,

CO

MS

A11

3.34

798

.04

151

129.

556

110.

773

-5.4

2%17

993

.46

9210

1.46

570.

6298

311

414

629

9.4

5865

Osh

kosh

-Nee

nah,

WI M

SA

101.

1288

100.

9879

94.1

512

910

1.14

840.

11%

4111

0.45

4010

4.19

320.

7073

477

163

302.

9

59

n.a.

Kan

kake

e-B

radl

ey, I

L M

SA

102.

3271

101.

6057

93.6

313

410

0.90

920.

23%

3381

.11

136

96.8

311

40.

9431

814

113

304.

1

60

84W

ater

loo-

Ced

ar F

alls

, IA

MS

A10

2.22

7210

2.38

2910

1.97

6010

2.76

41-0

.90%

8390

.50

104

97.7

910

40.

4215

02

144

165

304.

6

61

58V

aldo

sta,

GA

MS

A10

2.54

6999

.73

116

102.

2258

103.

5826

-2.3

8%13

611

3.11

3010

1.84

530.

5312

55

5613

630

5.6

62n.

a.C

umbe

rland

, MD

-WV

MS

A99

.90

9710

2.95

2295

.70

110

102.

1553

-2.5

4%14

193

.42

9311

1.65

80.

6976

556

100

307.

1

63

20La

redo

, TX

MS

A11

3.47

610

0.92

8310

8.09

2810

1.23

80-0

.68%

7590

.05

109

97.0

711

20.

2617

72

144

241

308.

5

64

n.a.

Bin

gham

ton,

NY

MS

A99

.20

111

101.

2575

95.5

011

310

1.83

61-1

.16%

9210

1.75

6296

.60

116

2.04

211

224

530

9.2

65n.

a.A

mes

, IA

MS

A10

1.98

7510

2.66

2799

.53

7610

2.57

46-1

.69%

116

100.

2169

93.7

213

80.

6488

311

487

309.

6

66

48Tu

scal

oosa

, AL

MS

A10

4.85

4399

.24

129

106.

1937

100.

9092

-0.9

5%88

110.

8938

101.

1062

0.48

137

477

211

310.

7

67

67B

owlin

g G

reen

, KY

MS

A10

3.89

5398

.75

140

104.

9249

101.

9957

-0.8

5%81

124.

6217

105.

4624

0.42

150

214

412

131

1.5

6877

John

stow

n, P

A M

SA

101.

3985

101.

4564

96.6

799

101.

4874

-1.4

9%10

890

.39

105

100.

7466

1.01

256

4214

431

2.5

69n.

a.V

icto

ria, T

X M

SA

104.

0752

98.9

713

510

6.46

3610

2.77

40-2

.23%

132

91.9

898

95.4

012

40.

8547

642

115

313.

2

70

n.a.

Leba

non,

PA

MS

A10

3.82

5510

1.27

7310

0.55

7010

1.15

83-1

.23%

9585

.85

117

94.8

512

80.

6683

724

131

314.

0

71

92B

urlin

gton

-Sou

th B

urlin

gton

, VT

MS

A99

.47

105

102.

0939

96.6

210

010

1.80

63-1

.64%

111

82.8

013

196

.91

113

1.52

47

2420

831

5.3

7266

Spr

ingf

ield

, IL

MS

A10

0.51

9310

2.75

2693

.29

139

102.

2352

-1.2

6%96

83.8

212

898

.09

991.

1017

556

208

316.

4

73

72Fo

rt W

alto

n B

each

-Cre

stvi

ew-D

estin

, FL

MS

A97

.33

128

101.

8848

98.9

485

97.2

916

4-0

.25%

5610

5.06

5510

0.02

751.

366

814

178

316.

7

74

95W

heel

ing,

WV

-OH

MS

A99

.62

102

102.

3730

96.0

810

510

3.88

240.

15%

3892

.17

9796

.63

115

0.48

137

117

114

531

7.7

75n.

a.C

aspe

r, W

Y M

SA

108.

7921

99.6

911

813

3.84

310

6.84

7-4

.05%

170

101.

6064

97.1

411

10.

3417

22

144

7532

0.8

76n.

a.E

lmira

, NY

MS

A98

.71

116

99.7

711

398

.14

9010

3.91

221.

02%

2169

.30

162

94.3

613

10.

7756

556

8832

1.0

7763

Bre

mer

ton-

Silv

erda

le, W

A M

SA

101.

7278

101.

5659

99.0

183

101.

1981

-0.3

6%62

55.1

517

710

3.67

380.

6976

311

424

132

1.6

78n.

a.Id

aho

Falls

, ID

MS

A10

6.10

3499

.16

130

108.

0529

99.2

613

8-1

.43%

103

55.7

917

610

2.59

440.

9431

814

126

322.

4

79

n.a.

Jone

sbor

o, A

R M

SA

101.

8277

103.

1914

99.4

079

102.

5945

-1.4

4%10

578

.32

142

93.4

413

90.

4614

34

7712

032

4.2

8079

Ann

isto

n-O

xfor

d, A

L M

SA

98.7

711

598

.79

139

105.

1044

100.

9391

-0.8

0%78

101.

7363

103.

5739

0.96

294

7711

432

5.1

8180

Kin

gsto

n, N

Y M

SA

95.3

614

410

1.82

5299

.13

8210

0.63

100

-0.1

6%50

68.5

616

310

0.22

710.

8645

724

181

329.

8

82

74A

pple

ton,

WI M

SA

99.5

810

310

0.54

9695

.17

116

99.4

513

1-1

.13%

9112

0.37

1910

6.88

160.

9629

724

222

331.

1

83

40Yu

ma,

AZ

MS

A10

4.47

4697

.69

155

110.

3117

100.

4610

4-4

.51%

174

204.

852

117.

646

0.64

884

7719

733

1.7

84n.

a.G

olds

boro

, NC

MS

A10

3.20

6210

1.92

4795

.32

114

99.5

912

8-3

.36%

160

208.

071

110.

9110

0.58

109

724

114

332.

1

85

46R

oche

ster

, MN

MS

A10

1.61

8210

2.16

3895

.20

115

100.

1710

8-0

.38%

6473

.31

156

97.2

710

90.

8054

642

186

334.

2

86

55S

t. C

loud

, MN

MS

A10

2.67

6810

0.76

8998

.14

9010

0.53

101

0.10

%42

67.4

516

597

.60

105

0.59

105

724

189

335.

3

87

106

Flag

staf

f, A

Z M

SA

104.

6344

99.7

711

310

9.27

2299

.33

136

-1.4

4%10

497

.80

7611

0.93

90.

4614

33

114

130

335.

7

88

90Je

ffers

on C

ity, M

O M

SA

100.

4594

102.

2434

94.4

512

410

1.83

610.

13%

3984

.75

122

94.8

512

80.

6683

214

414

733

5.7

89n.

a.M

ader

a, C

A M

SA

101.

8476

100.

9581

110.

2818

101.

5970

-0.3

0%60

73.9

915

382

.51

176

0.60

101

214

414

933

6.4

9082

Sio

ux C

ity, I

A-N

E-S

D M

SA

104.

1950

101.

4365

94.8

612

010

3.52

28-1

.34%

9887

.26

112

98.2

397

0.47

141

311

414

433

7.1

9189

Flor

ence

-Mus

cle

Sho

als,

AL

MS

A10

3.85

5410

1.54

6198

.86

8799

.38

133

-0.9

0%84

132.

2410

117.

327

0.40

160

117

114

433

7.4

92n.

a.Fo

nd d

u La

c, W

I MS

A93

.93

155

97.5

715

994

.78

121

101.

8960

0.00

%43

119.

6521

101.

1660

0.99

2712

110

033

7.6

9315

Coe

ur d

'Ale

ne, I

D M

SA

110.

0016

98.2

514

711

5.51

1398

.85

144

-0.9

2%86

84.1

812

697

.87

102

0.65

864

7713

934

2.1

9410

0V

inel

and-

Mill

ville

-Brid

geto

n, N

J M

SA

96.0

613

610

1.99

4395

.72

108

100.

7597

0.00

%43

106.

6249

99.2

783

0.64

882

144

158

346.

5

95

n.a.

Ow

ensb

oro,

KY

MS

A99

.33

110

100.

7887

96.0

810

510

1.63

67-0

.20%

5397

.60

7710

2.04

510.

4016

03

114

114

354.

4

1-yr

rela

tive

HT

GD

P gr

owth

200

8–20

09H

igh-

Tech

G

DP

LQ 2

009

# of

HT

GD

P LQ

s ov

er 1

200

95-

yr jo

b gr

owth

2004

–200

91-

yr jo

b gr

owth

2008

–200

95-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s gr

owth

200

3–20

081-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s gr

owth

200

7–20

08Jo

b gr

owth

(Apr

09–

Apr 1

0)5-

yr re

lativ

e H

T G

DP

grow

th 2

004–

2009

9686

Bar

nsta

ble

Tow

n, M

A M

SA

95.2

514

510

1.20

7691

.89

146

99.8

412

10.

88%

2484

.61

124

102.

1748

0.94

317

2422

135

6.1

9743

Sal

isbu

ry, M

D M

SA

100.

3195

100.

0910

810

1.88

6110

0.13

111

-2.9

7%14

995

.07

8699

.96

760.

9039

98

120

357.

9

98

101

Par

kers

burg

-Mar

ietta

-Vie

nna,

WV

-OH

MS

A95

.37

143

100.

6292

93.1

314

110

1.49

730.

29%

3210

0.53

6798

.76

910.

7464

477

161

358.

9

99

73W

ichi

ta F

alls

, TX

MS

A96

.96

133

99.8

911

196

.84

9610

2.72

42-2

.69%

145

103.

8358

95.6

812

31.

1612

724

147

361.

9

10

059

Eau

Cla

ire, W

I MS

A10

1.14

8799

.35

126

96.8

894

99.7

112

5-1

.01%

9012

2.34

1894

.00

137

0.90

396

4216

036

4.4

Page 53: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

48

Com

plet

e Re

sult

s: 2

010

Best

-Per

form

ing

Smal

l Cit

ies

201

0 B

est P

erfo

rmin

g M

etro

sS

mal

l 179

Citi

es L

ist

2010

2009

Popu

latio

n20

09O

vera

llra

nkra

nkM

etro

polit

an a

rea

200

9 V

alue

*R

ank

200

9 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

200

8 V

alue

*R

ank

Gro

wth

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k 2

009

Val

ue*

Ran

k(th

ousa

nds)

inde

x**

1-yr

rela

tive

HT

GD

P gr

owth

200

8–20

09H

igh-

Tech

G

DP

LQ 2

009

# of

HT

GD

P LQ

s ov

er 1

200

95-

yr jo

b gr

owth

2004

–200

91-

yr jo

b gr

owth

2008

–200

95-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s gr

owth

200

3–20

081-

yr w

ages

/sal

arie

s gr

owth

200

7–20

08Jo

b gr

owth

(Apr

09–

Apr 1

0)5-

yr re

lativ

e H

T G

DP

grow

th 2

004–

2009

101

93G

ulfp

ort-B

iloxi

, MS

MS

A94

.54

149

101.

5162

96.0

310

710

1.17

82-1

.49%

107

96.0

181

105.

8223

0.56

116

556

239

367.

2

10

237

Tope

ka, K

S M

SA

98.1

412

010

1.95

4694

.26

128

101.

1385

-0.1

8%51

86.9

311

310

2.48

450.

4514

72

144

231

372.

2

10

396

Mon

roe,

LA

MS

A97

.03

130

102.

3132

92.9

114

399

.71

125

-2.3

3%13

410

0.35

6810

9.33

110.

7756

556

174

375.

6

10

4n.

a.O

cean

City

, NJ

MS

A94

.68

148

103.

0520

91.5

114

810

0.09

114

11.8

6%1

84.7

412

310

4.91

300.

3317

42

144

9637

9.0

105

45Jo

hnso

n C

ity, T

N M

SA

99.3

410

999

.55

120

100.

8968

100.

3610

5-1

.80%

118

67.5

116

497

.43

107

1.10

179

819

738

0.2

106

n.a.

Farm

ingt

on, N

M M

SA

105.

3337

98.7

314

212

2.27

810

6.70

8-5

.30%

178

79.8

313

994

.04

136

0.23

179

214

412

438

1.9

107

56G

aine

svill

e, G

A M

SA

105.

2138

96.4

216

910

9.07

2310

1.64

66-2

.49%

140

85.2

212

094

.98

127

0.51

129

311

418

838

7.3

108

n.a.

Rom

e, G

A M

SA

92.7

615

999

.52

121

88.0

616

210

0.15

110

0.00

%43

139.

667

99.2

087

0.77

567

2496

388.

5

10

9n.

a.La

wre

nce,

KS

MS

A98

.06

121

103.

1914

93.9

713

210

0.11

112

1.55

%12

39.6

017

997

.45

106

0.39

162

214

411

639

0.2

110

35S

anta

Fe,

NM

MS

A10

1.25

8699

.02

133

108.

1526

101.

6069

-1.4

7%10

663

.82

170

85.6

117

40.

5711

24

7714

839

0.3

111

n.a.

Col

umbu

s, IN

MS

A10

0.87

9195

.90

172

104.

1853

103.

2433

-1.6

4%11

278

.98

141

100.

1672

0.63

962

144

7639

1.0

112

98A

lban

y, G

A M

SA

97.7

812

710

0.97

8090

.84

150

99.9

111

8-0

.80%

7995

.45

8498

.94

900.

7171

724

165

392.

0

11

361

Pitt

sfie

ld, M

A M

SA

98.4

911

810

1.37

7194

.62

123

99.7

812

2-1

.66%

113

86.7

611

410

2.08

500.

8743

477

129

392.

2

11

449

Bla

cksb

urg-

Chr

istia

nsbu

rg-R

adfo

rd, V

A M

SA

98.5

611

710

1.20

7694

.35

125

97.9

415

9-0

.57%

7093

.84

9110

1.07

630.

7560

477

160

394.

2

11

587

La C

ross

e, W

I-MN

MS

A10

0.97

9010

0.78

8794

.73

122

102.

0655

-1.7

7%11

791

.06

101

99.9

676

0.52

127

214

413

339

5.3

116

28B

end,

OR

MS

A10

3.22

6094

.82

175

115.

7212

96.1

116

7-3

.70%

165

103.

3459

92.5

714

91.

0223

105

159

396.

9

11

730

St.

Geo

rge,

UT

MS

A11

0.51

1596

.04

171

126.

597

95.4

017

1-3

.56%

163

110.

0041

99.7

378

0.64

882

144

137

399.

8

11

862

Lafa

yette

, IN

MS

A10

1.68

7910

0.20

105

96.5

010

210

1.52

72-3

.31%

158

72.1

015

895

.21

126

0.73

677

2419

640

0.3

119

88B

ango

r, M

E M

SA

99.4

510

710

1.57

5895

.17

116

101.

2479

-2.5

5%14

279

.34

140

94.0

713

50.

7560

477

149

402.

8

12

075

Bur

lingt

on, N

C M

SA

95.5

914

197

.66

156

94.0

313

010

0.11

112

-2.1

1%12

513

6.60

910

3.79

360.

9431

724

150

406.

9

12

112

3B

attle

Cre

ek, M

I MS

A91

.32

165

100.

2310

387

.42

164

101.

0190

0.18

%35

105.

9052

147.

781

0.43

149

311

413

640

7.0

122

n.a.

Mou

nt V

erno

n-A

naco

rtes,

WA

MS

A10

2.19

7398

.29

146

104.

8150

101.

9957

-5.1

3%17

790

.95

102

100.

9764

0.42

150

311

412

040

8.5

123

120

Lew

isto

n-A

ubur

n, M

E M

SA

99.4

610

610

0.55

9593

.98

131

101.

0489

-0.3

0%61

111.

7832

88.0

817

00.

3716

43

114

107

410.

7

12

4n.

a.A

nder

son,

IN M

SA

91.8

216

410

3.05

2073

.22

179

94.6

417

40.

73%

2782

.59

132

97.3

510

80.

7955

724

131

411.

8

12

5n.

a.B

runs

wic

k, G

A M

SA

99.5

710

497

.92

152

101.

4563

100.

6698

-2.1

2%12

685

.69

118

99.2

783

0.47

141

642

104

418.

3

12

694

Chi

co, C

A M

SA

99.8

599

99.6

711

910

0.27

7310

0.51

102

-2.3

8%13

777

.55

146

98.2

198

0.60

101

477

221

421.

6

12

754

Med

ford

, OR

MS

A96

.04

137

97.0

916

398

.04

9396

.74

165

-0.9

2%85

108.

8543

95.7

112

20.

9927

98

201

423.

2

12

8n.

a.S

herm

an-D

enis

on, T

X M

SA

98.0

112

210

1.81

5394

.32

126

99.5

612

9-1

.86%

119

73.4

115

592

.45

150

0.87

435

5612

042

7.3

129

76N

apa,

CA

MS

A10

0.00

9697

.60

158

102.

7255

101.

2578

-2.6

1%14

382

.98

130

91.1

915

80.

6586

477

135

429.

8

13

010

2W

illia

msp

ort,

PA

MS

A96

.97

132

100.

7986

91.8

314

710

0.47

103

-0.5

7%71

73.6

415

492

.34

152

0.70

735

5611

743

0.4

131

112

Terre

Hau

te, I

N M

SA

95.6

214

010

1.38

6890

.23

154

100.

0611

7-1

.68%

115

80.0

013

890

.44

164

1.13

168

1417

043

2.6

132

64Fl

oren

ce, S

C M

SA

97.8

912

499

.38

124

93.3

613

798

.17

155

-0.6

0%73

102.

5661

101.

6055

0.51

129

556

201

434.

7

13

311

9S

prin

gfie

ld, O

H M

SA

94.4

215

099

.96

110

86.6

716

610

0.81

96-0

.99%

8920

3.22

313

9.00

20.

3516

92

144

140

438.

3

13

4n.

a.C

orva

llis,

OR

MS

A98

.86

114

100.

9084

94.3

112

799

.22

139

-3.4

6%16

177

.99

144

93.0

814

52.

491

112

8343

9.0

135

97D

over

, DE

MS

A10

2.19

7310

0.40

9899

.16

8198

.57

148

-0.9

5%87

53.5

917

872

.71

177

0.67

802

144

158

441.

5

13

6n.

a.G

adsd

en, A

L M

SA

93.6

215

797

.65

157

92.9

314

210

0.28

106

-1.6

8%11

413

9.09

810

9.04

120.

5711

24

7710

444

4.6

137

n.a.

Cle

vela

nd, T

N M

SA

95.2

514

510

0.61

9389

.96

157

98.1

215

6-0

.51%

6863

.86

169

94.1

213

41.

287

814

113

444.

6

13

871

Dec

atur

, IL

MS

A98

.44

119

100.

1810

698

.18

8910

0.08

115

-4.4

6%17

210

5.06

5510

2.36

460.

5412

22

144

108

446.

5

13

9n.

a.Le

wis

ton,

ID-W

A M

SA

97.8

312

510

0.31

100

93.5

413

510

0.08

115

-1.5

3%10

974

.55

151

106.

2122

0.56

116

311

461

447.

0

14

0n.

a.H

ot S

prin

gs, A

R M

SA

102.

3670

101.

4365

95.0

611

899

.35

135

-3.1

9%15

577

.95

145

98.5

794

0.48

137

311

498

448.

3

14

1n.

a.D

anvi

lle, I

L M

SA

93.3

515

810

0.30

101

89.2

015

910

0.90

92-1

.35%

9997

.34

7990

.62

162

0.69

765

5680

452.

8

14

250

Pre

scot

t, A

Z M

SA

101.

6780

95.7

917

311

1.75

1496

.01

169

-1.9

3%12

183

.98

127

89.3

516

70.

5013

25

5621

645

4.0

143

99D

ecat

ur, A

L M

SA

96.1

913

596

.84

165

96.3

710

399

.89

119

-2.0

1%12

394

.02

9010

5.38

250.

4913

54

7715

146

0.3

144

105

Mun

cie,

IN M

SA

92.5

716

098

.99

134

80.5

617

498

.31

151

-0.2

0%52

99.1

172

99.3

582

0.73

675

5611

546

0.9

145

68W

inch

este

r, V

A-W

V M

SA

99.4

310

899

.49

122

101.

1765

98.2

515

2-2

.40%

138

75.4

914

892

.43

151

0.63

965

5612

446

1.2

146

n.a.

Pun

ta G

orda

, FL

MS

A10

2.68

6798

.09

150

102.

0259

94.4

017

5-3

.94%

169

119.

9320

106.

2521

0.35

169

017

615

746

2.7

147

n.a.

Poc

atel

lo, I

D M

SA

99.8

998

101.

1378

98.4

988

99.3

813

3-2

.16%

127

58.2

017

590

.02

165

0.57

112

214

490

467.

4

14

878

Roc

ky M

ount

, NC

MS

A95

.58

142

98.1

914

990

.21

155

97.9

116

0-1

.31%

9710

7.20

4782

.66

175

1.19

1010

514

746

7.9

149

n.a.

Mic

higa

n C

ity-L

a P

orte

, IN

MS

A94

.29

152

99.3

112

790

.47

152

99.4

213

2-0

.45%

6680

.72

137

97.2

710

90.

6488

556

111

469.

0

15

010

3M

ansf

ield

, OH

MS

A89

.55

174

97.2

716

281

.15

173

98.2

015

31.

13%

1711

0.59

3995

.33

125

1.15

143

114

124

469.

8

15

110

4Ja

ckso

n, T

N M

SA

97.0

213

198

.22

148

93.3

113

899

.87

120

-2.0

7%12

474

.08

152

107.

0914

0.54

122

642

114

470.

3

15

281

Mac

on, G

A M

SA

95.7

913

999

.37

125

88.9

516

010

1.08

87-1

.97%

122

86.5

911

688

.19

168

0.81

534

7723

247

8.1

153

114

Lim

a, O

H M

SA

90.8

016

810

0.05

109

84.6

017

196

.06

168

-0.3

8%63

98.6

573

100.

7466

0.54

122

477

104

482.

8

15

410

9S

hebo

ygan

, WI M

SA

96.2

713

497

.42

161

93.7

513

399

.11

140

-2.1

7%12

810

8.62

4696

.37

117

0.57

112

642

115

486.

5

15

5n.

a.Yu

ba C

ity, C

A M

SA

99.0

011

299

.08

131

98.9

086

99.2

913

7-3

.13%

153

90.9

110

391

.04

160

0.59

105

311

416

648

9.3

156

n.a.

Pin

e B

luff,

AR

MS

A93

.94

154

103.

2513

89.9

715

699

.10

141

-2.3

7%13

581

.87

134

96.0

012

00.

3417

23

114

101

494.

3

15

712

2S

agin

aw-S

agin

aw T

owns

hip

Nor

th, M

I MS

A89

.91

171

100.

3599

74.6

117

894

.17

176

0.48

%31

73.1

315

794

.52

130

0.74

644

7720

049

4.6

158

n.a.

Seb

astia

n-V

ero

Bea

ch, F

L M

SA

99.7

010

196

.74

167

105.

4542

97.3

916

3-3

.79%

168

100.

8566

90.5

716

30.

5512

03

114

135

496.

5

15

9n.

a.D

anvi

lle, V

A M

SA

90.6

017

010

0.85

8582

.14

172

98.6

214

7-2

.75%

147

75.3

414

999

.16

880.

8351

814

106

496.

5

16

010

8D

otha

n, A

L M

SA

97.2

512

998

.88

138

96.5

310

197

.46

162

-2.2

1%13

178

.21

143

97.8

610

30.

5013

24

7714

350

5.6

161

n.a.

Bay

City

, MI M

SA

91.2

516

699

.72

117

85.1

816

999

.62

127

-1.9

1%12

085

.07

121

93.1

614

40.

7560

556

107

506.

4

16

2n.

a.W

eirto

n-S

teub

envi

lle, W

V-O

H M

SA

94.9

214

798

.37

145

92.1

814

510

6.46

10-4

.69%

176

94.0

589

87.7

517

20.

4115

62

144

121

514.

0

16

311

7A

nder

son,

SC

MS

A93

.74

156

96.7

616

691

.27

149

100.

2710

7-3

.18%

154

111.

3536

103.

9534

0.28

176

117

118

553

5.4

164

n.a.

Long

view

, WA

MS

A97

.81

126

99.0

413

295

.72

108

98.2

015

3-1

.40%

102

63.3

017

259

.88

179

0.42

150

214

410

253

6.6

165

n.a.

Car

son

City

, NV

MS

A94

.32

151

97.7

815

396

.85

9598

.09

157

-2.9

9%15

086

.74

115

91.2

115

70.

5112

94

7755

537.

8

16

611

5Ja

nesv

ille,

WI M

SA

90.6

616

994

.44

176

86.0

416

795

.37

172

-2.4

2%13

910

8.81

4510

4.02

330.

5611

65

5616

054

0.0

167

107

Rac

ine,

WI M

SA

94.1

115

398

.46

144

90.7

715

198

.71

145

-3.0

3%15

195

.66

8392

.27

154

0.46

143

642

201

543.

6

16

811

0N

iles-

Ben

ton

Har

bor,

MI M

SA

92.4

316

196

.62

168

90.3

215

398

.86

143

-2.6

5%14

494

.51

8895

.81

121

0.48

137

642

160

548.

2

16

9n.

a.S

andu

sky,

OH

MS

A92

.34

163

99.8

311

279

.74

176

97.7

316

1-0

.28%

5861

.93

174

92.9

614

70.

3616

73

114

7755

2.4

170

n.a.

Kok

omo,

IN M

SA

80.5

417

891

.95

178

75.0

117

787

.58

179

2.01

%11

63.2

517

393

.43

140

0.67

803

114

9955

5.7

171

116

Elk

hart-

Gos

hen,

IN M

SA

76.6

617

985

.87

179

85.3

316

888

.74

178

3.34

%4

70.1

716

188

.11

169

0.50

132

477

201

556.

2

17

211

8D

alto

n, G

A M

SA

86.7

917

694

.12

177

85.0

617

092

.56

177

-0.6

0%74

66.7

416

686

.02

173

1.03

225

5613

455

9.3

173

n.a.

Mon

roe,

MI M

SA

86.2

817

796

.09

170

80.1

717

594

.92

173

-4.4

0%17

112

9.59

1213

3.27

30.

5611

63

114

153

563.

1

17

411

3R

eddi

ng, C

A M

SA

92.4

216

298

.60

143

92.3

814

495

.60

170

-2.2

0%12

964

.95

168

92.3

415

20.

6010

13

114

181

577.

9

17

5n.

a.M

orris

tow

n, T

N M

SA

90.8

616

794

.85

174

88.5

216

198

.42

149

-3.7

1%16

671

.58

159

94.1

313

30.

6298

724

138

583.

0

17

691

Wau

sau,

WI M

SA

95.9

213

897

.44

160

95.5

311

298

.64

146

-2.2

1%13

063

.65

171

61.7

517

80.

3616

71

171

132

585.

6

17

712

4Ja

ckso

n, M

I MS

A89

.56

173

98.7

514

087

.44

163

98.3

815

0-3

.26%

156

81.3

513

597

.97

101

0.41

156

214

416

059

7.5

178

n.a.

Sum

ter,

SC

MS

A89

.55

174

99.7

711

389

.75

158

96.6

016

6-4

.67%

175

70.6

016

092

.97

146

0.46

143

311

410

460

7.5

179

121

Mus

kego

n-N

orto

n S

hore

s, M

I MS

A89

.65

172

97.0

416

486

.78

165

99.0

714

2-3

.32%

159

75.3

015

091

.14

159

0.59

105

214

417

461

5.2

n.a.

indi

cate

s th

at th

e m

etro

was

not

rank

ed th

e pr

evio

us y

ear d

ue to

lack

of d

ata.

* "Va

lues

" are

ben

chm

arke

d ag

ains

t the

nat

iona

l ave

rage

, whi

ch is

set

to 1

00.

** In

dex

scor

es a

re b

ench

mar

ked

agai

nst t

he to

p pe

rform

er, w

hich

is s

et to

100

. Low

er in

dex

scor

es in

dica

te s

trong

er p

erfo

rman

ce.

Sour

ces:

U.S

. Cen

sus

Bure

au, U

.S. B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics,

Moo

dy's

Eco

nom

y.co

m, M

ilken

Inst

itute

.

Page 54: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

49

Appendix

Appendix

Methodology: Determinants of economic growth and weight justification

The strength of local business clusters and the constant quest for innovation can explain much of the variation across regional economic growth patterns.88 Metropolitan areas that regularly invest in human capital and provide the necessary infrastructure are better positioned for long- term growth.

Examining a region’s innovation pipeline (i.e. ability to attract R&D funding, access to capital, entrepreneurial prowess, concentration of human capital, and workforce quality, etc.) can provide useful tools for projecting a metro’s ability to compete in the 21st century. A rich innovation pipeline plays a pivotal role in a region’s industrial development, commercialization, competitiveness, and ability to sustain long-term growth.89 However, while analyzing these attributes is certainly one way to determine whether a metro is providing the necessary ingredients and infrastructure for long-term growth, it doesn’t measure how successfully a metro has been at converting these assets into viable economic output.

Energy and real estate costs, taxes, and other regulatory burdens also play a key role in determining where businesses will seek to expand. While lower costs can be a competitive advantage, high-cost cities tend to offer benefits such as higher concentrations of human capital, greater access to markets, and more established infrastructure that caters to international commerce.90 Nevertheless, if all other factors are equal, a company will generally choose to locate where business costs are lower and employees enjoy higher living standards. Several other factors can influence variations in regional economic growth. For instance, levels of educational attainment and the effects of “brain drain” tend to correlate with labor quality or lack thereof, which can ultimately impact the direction of future growth.91

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

Outcome-based measures such as job growth can successfully measure how well metros capitalize on their existing assets. It is also a key determinant of community vitality. Other outcome-based measures include growth in wages and salaries and output. Wage and salary growth measures the quality of the jobs being created and sustained. Theoretically, a prospering region will raise wages and rents as its businesses tap into more human capital and available space.

Growth in technology output is another important element in determining the economic vibrancy of cities. In previous work conducted at the Milken Institute, multiple regression models were utilized to confirm the robustness of high-tech industries in determining the relative economic growth of metros.92 The findings highlight technology’s contribution to metros’ long-term economic vitality. In addition, our research has shown that metros dedicated to growing their technology base and human capital are better positioned to overcome short-term shifts in the economy.

Page 55: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

50

Best-Performing Cities 2010

We have incorporated other measures to reflect the concentration and diversity of technology industries within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients (LQs, which measure the concentration of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the national average) are included to indicate a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.93 We also measure the number of specific high-tech industries (out of a possible 22) whose concentrations in an MSA are higher than the national average.

The current weight structure reflects the importance of job and wage growth in a metro’s overall economic performance, while recognizing the contribution of high-tech activity in a metropolitan region. To what extent do these components explain variations in regional economic growth patterns? In this section we attempt to further validify the statistical significance of our existing weights by a creating a model that explains key components of regional economic growth.

Using a pooled time series regression model, we incorporate variables indexed back to 1990 to ensure that we account for more recent and previous business cycles. In total, 379 observations comprised of metropolitan statistical areas and divisions are accounted for. The dependent variable consists of metro real GDP growth (indexed from 1990 to 2008). Our explanatory variables, as one might expect, resemble the inputs used to compile our Best-Performing Cities index. They are composed of employment growth (from 1990 to 2008), wage growth (indexed from 1990 to 2008), high-tech GDP growth (indexed from 1990 to 2008), high-tech GDP location quotient (1990), and the number of LQs greater than one (1990).

Model specificationGDP growth= f (Job growth, wage per employee growth, high-tech GDP growth, high-tech GDP LQ, high-tech diversity) Model [1]

Not only is indexing the series back to 1990 critical in assessing a metro’s long-term economic performance, but it also reflects a metro’s ability to overcome business cycles. In many instances, metros will see high growth one year (stemming from a particular industry) and none the next. This phenomenon may leave metros vulnerable to cyclical corrections—another reason to use a pooled time series regression model based on series indexed to 1990.

Furthermore, this growth-based regression analysis will allow us to determine whether it is better to have several measures of high-tech diversity versus a few (at least statistically speaking). Similarly, testing against high-tech GDP LQ will help determine whether possessing a higher concentration of high-tech activity relative to the national average accelerated growth in output.

Regression Results

A log-linear transformation of our model (as specified in Model 1) concludes that four of the five explanatory variables are statistically significant at the 1 percent level of significance. Of the four statistically significant variables, the sizes of the actual coefficients vary considerably. For instance, a 1 percent increase in job growth between 1990 and 2008 increases a metro’s GDP by about 0.86 percent on average. Meanwhile, a 1 percent increase in per-employee wage growth

Page 56: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

51

Appendix

between 1990 and 2008 boosted a metro’s GDP by about 0.44 percent on average. In this model, with real GDP as the dependent variable, high-tech output growth and high-tech GDP LQ, with coefficients of 0.11 and 0.06, respectively, had a lesser effect on overall GDP growth.

Variables CoefficientsStandard

error t stat P value2008 job index(1990=100) 0.861 0.023 36.708 0.0002008 real wages per emp index(1990=100) 0.438 0.038 11.680 0.0002008 high-tech real GDP growth index (1990=100) 0.107 0.012 8.984 0.0001990 high-tech GDP LQ 0.064 0.011 5.716 0.0001990 high-tech diversity(# of high-tech industries w/LQ>1) 0.008 0.011 0.727 0.468Intercept -0.768 0.083 -9.235 0.000

Model 1: Dependent variable: 2008 real GDP index (1990 =100)Descriptive statistics

In fact, the lower coefficient of high-tech real GDP growth suggests that, while statistically significant, it is actually representative of the differential gain on real GDP growth (holding all other factors constant). In other words, a reasonable portion of the impacts of technological growth on real GDP is already being captured by job growth. A recursive approach suggests that, on average, a 1 percent increase in high-tech real GDP would increase job growth by 0.23 percent (see Model 2). This supports the premise that growth in high-tech GDP creates a number of additional jobs in non-high-tech industries.94

Variables CoefficientsStandard

error t Stat P value2008 high-tech real GDP growth index (1990=100) 0.230 0.022 10.366 0.0001990 high-tech GDP LQ 0.104 0.022 4.658 0.0001990 high-tech diversity(# of high-tech industries w/LQ>1) -0.097 0.023 -4.262 0.000Intercept 1.649 0.055 29.976 0.000

Model 2: Dependent variable: 2008 job index (1990 =100)Descriptive statistics

Page 57: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

52

Best-Performing Cities 2010

Similarly, the lower co-efficient of high-tech GDP LQ in Model 1 reflects the differential gain in real GDP growth. As the results from Model 3 indicate below, a 1 percent increase in high-tech GDP LQ leads to an increase of 0.13 percent in wages per employee on average. In theory, a metro that produces a relatively higher concentration of high-tech output (or real GDP) would typically demand higher wages.

Variables Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P value1990 high-tech real GDP LQ 0.131 0.010 13.102 0.0002008 high-tech real GDP growth index (1990=100) 0.090 0.014 6.449 0.000Intercept 1.884 0.033 56.422 0.000

Model 3: Dependent variable: 2008 wages per employee index (1990 =100)Descriptive statistics

High-tech diversity (in Model 1) is the only explanatory variable not statistically significant at those levels. Part of this stems from the fact that most of this high-tech activity is already captured through high-tech GDP LQ.95 Nevertheless, it would be difficult to rule out that high-tech diversity (the number of high-tech industries with LQs greater than one in 1990) did not significantly influence (or correlate with) future economic performance.

This lends support to the existing weight structure assigned when compiling our Best Performing Cities index (see table below). Holding all other factors constant, growth in jobs and wages tends to correlate to growth in a metro’s GDP. The larger weights (of 14.3 percent) associated with jobs and wage growth reflect the higher regression coefficients the model generates.

Component WeightJob growth (I=2004) 0.143Job growth (I=2008) 0.143Wage and salary growth (I=2003) 0.143Wage and salary growth (I=2007) 0.143Short-term job growth (Apr09-Apr10) 0.143Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2004) 0.071Relative high-tech GDP growth (I=2008) 0.071High-tech GDP location quotient 0.071Number of high-tech industries with GDP LQ>1 0.071Note: I refers to the beginning year of index.Source: Milken Institute.

Page 58: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

53

Appendix

Knowledge-based economies tend to form where high-tech activity is growing, creating more incentives for businesses and entrepreneurs.96 Our first model exhibits the importance of job and wage growth in metros’ economic vitality, while accounting for the differential gain stemming from our high-tech components. As portrayed through our recursive approach in models 2 and 3, portions of high-tech activity and growth are already accounted for through job and wage growth. In attempting to capture such elements, four high-tech components are incorporated into the index. Based on the composition and results stemming from our regression analysis, it would seem reasonable to assign at least half the weight (or 7.1 percent) of job and wage growth categories to our high-tech components.

Finally, in our regression analysis we examine where the model consistently under-predicted or over-predicted actual metropolitan GDP growth. As expected, the model seemed to under-predict a number of high-growth areas, especially among the smaller cities. This broad list includes metros such as Odessa, Midland, and Longview, Texas; Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina; and Lafayette, Louisiana. Conversely, it over-predicted places like Santa Fe, New Mexico, Anchorage, Alaska, and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara and San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City in California.

The computed R-squared suggests that the explanatory variables (in Model 1) explain approximately 88 percent of the growth dynamics with respect to metropolitan GDP. The Durbin-Watson statistic in our application of slightly above 2.0 also confirms that there are no signs of first-order autocorrelation, either positive or negative. That is, the error terms don’t appear to be correlated, and the model appears to have been correctly specified. Incidentally, given the pooled nature of the regression, random re-ordering of the observations confirmed no signs of auto-correlation among error terms. Furthermore, our Durbin-Watson statistic rules out any reason to interpret that the ordering of the metros has any influence.

Measure ValueMultiple R squared 0.94R squared 0.88Adjusted R squared 0.87Standard error 0.03Observations 379Durbin-Watson 2.03

Model 1: Regression summary

Page 59: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice
Page 60: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

55

Endnotes

Endnotes

1. Alec MacGillis, “Stimulus is boon for D.C. area contractors,” The Washington Post, December 3, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120204185.html (accessed September 13, 2010).

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

3. Office of Management and Budget, OMB Bulletin No. 09-01, p. 3, November 20, 2008. Our index, however, ranks 379 MSAs for which employment and wage data are available on a consistent basis. We exclude those metropolitan areas that are composed of metropolitan divisions.

4. The latest 12-month job performance calculates the percentage change from the same month in the previous year (e.g., the percentage change in jobs from April 2009 to April 2010). The percentage change is a measure of recent momentum, capturing which metropolitan areas have improved their performance in recent months. The annual growth rate measures the percentage change from calendar year 2008 to 2009. While annual growth rate does not indicate whether high growth was achieved or diminished in the first or latter half of the year, the 12-month growth rate captures that aspect. Employment, wages, and gross metro product data are compiled from various government agencies, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and the Census Bureau. More detailed coverage on individual sectors is derived from Moody’s Economy.com.

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

6. Ross DeVol, “From Recession to Recovery: Analyzing America’s Return to Growth,” Milken Institute, July 2010, p 9.

7. Dennis Cauchon, “Rising pay, benefits drive growth in military towns,” USA Today, August 16, 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-08-16-military-towns_N.htm (accessed August 17, 2010).

8 Matthew LeBlanc, “New president leads Texas A&M University Central Texas into a promising future,” WorldNow and KYTX, July 13, 2010. http://www.centraltexasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12802719 (accessed September 24, 2010).

9. Lori Hawkins, “Yes, we have jobs (but not high pay),” Austin American-Statesman, August 8, 2010. http://www.allbusiness.com/labor-employment/human-resources-personnel-management/14908557-1.html (accessed September 27, 2010).

10. Shonda Novak, “Sources: Apple adds to Austin-area office space for Intrinsity chip unit,” Austin American-Statesman, August 5, 2010. http://www.statesman.com/business/real-estate/sources-apple-adds-to-austin-area-office-space-842253.html?cxtype=rss_ece_frontpage (accessed September 27, 2010).

11. Kenneth Kesner, “Will federal in-sourcing of jobs cut what some see as overdependence on contractors?” Huntsville Times, July 25, 2010. http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/07/post_367.html (accessed September 21, 2010).

12. Kenneth Kesner, “Groundbreaking celebrates beginning of work on huge Redstone Gateway office park,” Huntsville Times, August 24, 2010. http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/08/post_398.html (accessed September 27, 2010).

13. Joel Achenbach, “Obama budget proposal scraps NASA‘s back-to-the-moon program,” Washington Post, February 2, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102145.html?hpid=topnews (accessed September 22, 2010).

14. Bill Harwood, “NASA unveils sweeping new programs,” CNN Tech, April 9, 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/04/09/cnet.nasa.new.programs/index.html (accessed September 22,2010).

Page 61: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

56

Best-Performing Cities 2010

15. McAllen Chamber of Commerce, “McAllen Overview.” http://www.mcallen.org/Business-Community/McAllen-Overview (accessed August 23, 2010).

16. McAllen Economic Development Corp., “Top Ten Employers.” http://www.mcallenedc.org/top_ten_employers.php?sub=tte (accessed August 24, 2010).

17. Department of Energy, “Hanford’s Present Mission,” January 27, 2010. http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/HanfordsPresentMission (accessed September 13, 2010).

18. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Kennewick, April 2010.

19. Alec MacGillis, “Stimulus is boon for D.C. area contractors.”

20. Sarah Murray, “In Recession, D.C. Gets a Lift from Its Biggest Employer,” Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704534904575131770806611604.html (accessed September 13, 2010).

21. Governor Bob McDonnell, press release, “Governor McDonnell Announces Northrop Grumman Chooses Virginia for Corporate Headquarters,” April 26, 2010. http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=146 (accessed August 23, 2010).

22. “Booz Allen Hamilton Ranks in Top 5 by Revenue on Inc. 5000 List,” citybizlist Washington D.C., August, 24, 2010. http://dc.citybizlist.com/yourcitybiznews/detail.aspx?id=90842 (accessed September 21, 2010).

23. Booz Allen Hamilton, press release, “Booz Allen Hamilton Continues to Expand and Strengthen its Civil Aviation Practice to Help Achieve NextGen Objectives,” Booz Allen Hamilton, August 17, 2009. http://www.boozallen.com/news/42482954 (accessed August 23, 2009).

24. Jaikumar Vijayan, “N.C. State turns to smart data analytics to find research partners,” ComputerWorld, August 12, 2010. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180623/N.C._State_turns_to_smart_data_analytics_to_find_research_partners (accessed September 13, 2010).

25. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Anchorage, 2010.

26. Pat Forgey, “Alaska Leads the Nation in Job Creation,” Juneau Empire, July 23, 2010. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/072310/sta_681613928.shtml (accessed September 22, 2010)

27. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Anchorage, 2010.

28. Julian Aguilar, “Cross-border trade up: Texas’ ports of prosperity,” Texas Tribune, July 22, 2010. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-mexico-border-news/texas-mexico-border/texas-trade-ports-rebounding-from-the-recession (accessed September 13, 2010).

29. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis El Paso, 2010.

30. Julian Aguilar, “Cross-border trade up: Texas’ ports of prosperity.”

31. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Houston, 2010.

32. Business Wire, “New Combined Heat and Power Plant Debuts at Texas Medical Center,” August 25, 2010. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825005920/en (accessed September 10, 2010).

33. Greater Houston Partnership, Economic Development: Biotechnology / Life Science, http://www.houston.org/economic-development/industry-sectors/biotechnology-lifescience/index.aspx (accessed September 13, 2010).

34. Mark Clayton, “Offshore drilling moratorium: good for the Gulf, bad for the economy?” Christian Science Monitor, July 27, 2010. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0727/Offshore-drilling-moratorium-good-for-the-Gulf-bad-for-the-economy (accessed September 13, 2010).

35. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis, Trenton, 2010.

36. Harlingen Economic Development Corporation, press release, “Advanced Call Center Technologies adding 150 new jobs in Harlingen.” http://harlingenedc.com/news/1007457 (accessed June 21, 2010).

37. Earth Times, press release, “Gulf HydroCarbon Pioneers Brownsville as Home of the First Biodiesel Terminal in the South Texas Area,” December 21, 2010. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/press/gulf-hydrocarbon-pioneers-brownsville-as,1098679.html (accessed June 22, 2010).

Page 62: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

57

Endnotes

38. “Medtronic opens San Antonio diabetes facility,” San Antonio Business Journal, November 17, 2009. http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2009/11/16/daily10.html (accessed June, 22 2010).

39. Rick Smith, “Talecris execs ‘fully expect’ Clayton expansion to proceed,” Local Tech Wire, June 7, 2010. http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/opinion/blogpost/7735299/ (accessed September 21, 2010).

40. Amarillo Economic Development Corporation, “Major Employers.” http://amarilloedc.com/node/64 (accessed September 13, 2010).

41. Jim McBride, “Defense bill to aid Bell, Pantex,” Amarillo Globe News, May, 22, 2010. http://www.amarillo.com/stories/052210/new_news3.shtml (accessed June 22, 2010).

42. Victor Godinez, “Dallas-Fort Worth area becoming one of the hottest hubs for 4G,” Dallas Morning News, September 19, 2009.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-4g_19bus.ART0.State.Edition1.3cf21d8.html (accessed June 22, 2009).

43. Fayetteville-Cumberland County Chamber of Commerce, “Defense.” http://www.fayettevillencchamber.org/econdefense.php (accessed June 23, 2010).

44. Christine Dugas, “Fort Bragg helps Fayetteville, N.C., real estate stay orderly,” USA Today, May 17,2010. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/closetohome/2010-05-17-real-estate-fayetteville_N.htm (accessed September 14, 2010).

45. North Carolina Military Business Center, “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Facilities Sustainment Restoration, and Modernization Projects - North Carolina. https://www.ncmbc.us/docs/ARRA2009Projects-NC-BaseandSupplementalProjects.pdf (accessed June 23, 2010).

46. John Gillie, “Report: Boeing good for $6.1 billion boost to S. Carolina economy,” Tacoma News Tribune, May 25, 2010. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/05/25/1199771/boeing-good-for-61-billion-boost.html (accessed September 14, 2010).

47. “Clemson to build $98M wind turbine test facility in North Charleston,” Charleston Regional Business Journal, November 23 ,2009. http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/31828-clemson-to-build-98m-wind-turbine-test-facility-in-north-charleston (accessed June 24, 2010).

48. David Dishneau, “Military opens brain injury center in Md.,” The Associated Press, June 24, 2010.

49. Baker Hughes North American Rotary Rig Counts. http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_counts/rc_index.cfm.

50. Susan Simpson, “Will Rogers World Airport debuts completed terminal,” The Oklahoman, July 27, 2010. http://newsok.com/will-rogers-world-airport-debuts-completed-terminal/article/3479846 (accessed September 14, 2010).

51. Todd Wallack, “Another drug giant bringing jobs to Mass.,” Boston Globe, July, 8, 2010. http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/07/08/another_drug_giant_bringing_jobs_to_mass/ (accessed September 14, 2010).

52. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Fort Worth, March 2010.

53. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm.

54. Bradley T. Ewing, “The Economic Impacts of Texas Tech University on Lubbock County: Today and in the Year 2020,” Texas Tech University Rawls College of Business, July 2008. http://www.depts.ttu.edu/students/docs/EIS-brochure-2.pdf (accessed September 14, 2010).

55. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Lubbock, March 2010.

56. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Provo, April 2010.

57. Conor Dougherty, “Cities Grow as Housing Bust Slows Movement to Suburbs,” Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704853404575322751088506996.html (accessed September 15, 2010).

58. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis New York, May 2010

Page 63: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

58

Best-Performing Cities 2010

59. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Business Outlook Survey, July 2010. http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/business-outlook-survey/2010/bos0710.pdf (accessed September 15, 2010).

60. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Atlanta, March 2010

61. Leslie Berkman, “Foreclosure rate declines,” Press-Enterprise, August 18, 2010. http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_D_foreclosures12.2b8b61d.html (accessed August 19, 2010).

62. State of California Employment Development Department. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/la$pds.pdf (accessed September 16, 2010).

63. Bismarck-Mandan Development Association, “Energy Resources.” http://www.bmda.org/energy/ (accessed September 16, 2010).

64. North Dakota Department of Commerce, “Financing and Tax Incentives for North Dakota Businesses.” http://www.business.nd.gov/ShowPDF.asp?ID=1563012 (accessed September 16, 2010)

65. Andrew E. Kramer, “Russia, Crippled by Drought, Bans Grain Exports,” New York Times, August 5, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.html (accessed September 16, 2010).

66. Bismarck-Mandan Development Association, “Northern Plains Commerce Centre.” http://www.bmda.org/npcc/index.asp (accessed September 16, 2010).

67. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Bismarck, June 2010.

68. Christine Dugas, “Military Bases Help Home Market in Jacksonville, N.C.,” USA Today, November 17, 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/closetohome/2009-11-17-closetohome17_ST_N.htm (accessed September 16, 2010).

69. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, “About the Base.” http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/about/ (accessed September 16, 2010).

70. Marine Corps, “MCAS Economic Impact Statement 2009.” http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcasnewriver/Documents/2009-EI-Statement.pdf (accessed September 16, 2010).

71. Real Estate Center, Texas A&M University, “2010 Texas Metro Market Overview.” http://recenter.tamu.edu/mreports/ (accessed September 16, 2010).

72. “Bush Museum Ranks 7th Among Presidential Museum Attendance,” KBTX-TV and the National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/81938922.html (accessed September 16, 2010).

73. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Hinesville, March 2010

74. Fort Stewart Growth Management Partnership, “Fort Stewart/HAAF Regional Growth Plan.” http://www.growfortstewart.com/index.aspx (accessed September 16, 2010).

75. Evan Glass, “Town Fears Army Decision Could Cost It Millions,” CNN, March 1, 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/01/fort.stewart.promises/index.html (accessed September 16, 2010).

76. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Morgantown, March 2010.

77. Tyler Economic Development Council, “Location.” http://www.tedc.org/profile/pro_location.php (accessed September 16, 2010).

78. Tyler Economic Development Council, “Workforce.” http://www.tedc.org/profile/pro_workforce.php (accessed September 16, 2010).

79. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Tyler, March 2010.

80. New Mexico State University, “Business Plan for the Southwest Regional Spaceport.” http://www.spaceportamerica.com/images/pdf/NMSU_Report.pdf (accessed September 16, 2010).

81. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Las Cruces, April 2010.

82. Iowa City Area Development Group Employment Survey (2009). http://www.locationone.com/lois/logon.do?username=ia-icadc&appsection=metros&metro_id=7072&page=3.

Page 64: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

59

Endnotes

83. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Iowa City, February 2010.

84. Lawton Fort Sill Chamber of Commerce, http://www.lawtonfortsillchamber.com/index.php?pr=Community_Overview (accessed September 16, 2010).

85. “Is Lawton-Fort Sill Ready for BRAC,” U.S. Army, November 29, 2007. http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/11/29/6358-is-lawton-fort-sill-ready-for-brac/ (accessed September 30, 2010).

86. Steve Robertson, “Air Defense School Ready for Training,” Lawton Constitution, May 23, 2010. http://www.swoknews.com/main.asp?SectionID=11&SubSectionID=98&ArticleID=26264 (accessed September 16, 2010).

87. Moody’s Economy.com, Metro Précis Lawton, March 2010.

88. Michael Porter, “The Economic Performance of Regions,” Regional Studies, 1360-0591, Volume 37, Issue 6, 2003, pp. 545 -546.

89. Ross C. DeVol, Perry Wong, Junghoon Ki, Armen Bedroussian, and Rob Koepp, “America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters: San Diego’s Position and Economic Contributions,” Milken Institute, June 2004.

90. William D. Anderson and Kenneth M. Lusht, “Metropolitan area cost competitiveness, growth and real estate performance,” Real Estate Issues. April 1995. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3681/is_199504/ai_n8732281/ (accessed July 26, 2010).

91. Paul D. Gottlieb and Michael Fogarty, “Educational Attainment and Metropolitan Growth,” Economic Development Quarterly, November 2003, Volume 17, No. 4, pp. 325-336.

92. Ross C. DeVol, “America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas,” pp. 48-54, Milken Institute, July 1999.

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

94. DeVol, “America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas,” pp. 48-54.

95. Using a recursive approach, a separate regression shows that high-tech diversity and high-tech concentration (as measured by high-tech GDP LQ) are significantly correlated. A 1 percent change in high-tech diversity, on average, produces a 0.75 percent change in high-tech GDP LQ.

96. Ross C. DeVol and Joel Kotkin, “Knowledge-Value Cities in the Digital Age,” Milken Institute, February 2001, pp.18-19.

Page 65: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

60

Best-Performing Cities 2010

About the Authors

Ross C. DeVol is executive director of economic research and as well as executive director of the Centers for Regional Economics, Health Economics and California at the Milken Institute. He oversees the Institute’s research efforts on the dynamics of comparative national and regional growth performance. Since joining the Institute, DeVol has put his group in the national limelight with groundbreaking research on technology and its impact on regional and national economies. An expert on the new intangible economy and how regions can prepare themselves to compete in it, DeVol examines the effects of technology, research and development activities, international trade, human capital and labor-force skills training, entrepreneurship, early-stage financing, and quality-of-place issues on the geographic distribution of economic activity. He is ranked among the “Super Stars” of Think Tank Scholars by International Economy magazine.

Armen Bedroussian is a research economist with the Institute’s Economic Research group. His research focuses on econometrics, statistical methods, and other modeling techniques. Before joining the Institute, he was an economics teaching assistant in micro- and macroeconomics at the University of California, Riverside. Bedroussian has co-authored numerous studies, including “The Impact of 9/11 on U.S. Metropolitan Economies,” “Manufacturing Matters: California’s Performance and Prospects,” “Manufacturing 2.0: A More Prosperous California,” “America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters: Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to U.S. and State Economies,” “The Greater Philadelphia Life Sciences Cluster,” and others. He co-authors the annual “Best-Performing Cities” index. Bedroussian received a bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics and a master’s degree in economics from UC Riverside.

Kevin Klowden is a managing economist at the Milken Institute, where he serves as director of the California Center. He specializes in the study of demographic and spatial factors (the distribution of resources, business locations, and movement of labor) and how these are influenced by public policy and in turn affect regional economies. Klowden was the lead author of “The Writers’ Strike of 2007–2008: The Economic Impact of Digital Distribution,” which analyzed the changing dynamics of the entertainment industry and measured the economic impact of the writers’ work stoppage on the California economy. In addition to co-authoring reports such as “California’s Highway Infrastructure: Traffic’s Looming Cost” and “North America’s High-Tech Economy,” he coordinated the Institute’s two-year Los Angeles Economy Project, seeking public-policy and private-sector solutions to challenges the region faces amid a growing unskilled labor pool. Klowden previously worked in the field of interactive electronic entertainment development and as an adjunct professor of geography at Santa Monica College. He served on the editorial board of Millennium, the international affairs journal of the London School of Economics, where he earned a master’s degree in the politics of world economy. He earned a bachelor’s degree in historical geography, as well as a master’s in economic geography, from the University of Chicago.

Candice Flor Hynek is a senior research analyst with the Institute’s Economic Research group, where she has contributed to such reports as “Jobs for America: Investments and Policies for Growth and Competitiveness” and “Manufacturing 2.0: A More Prosperous California.” She was formerly associate economist of the LAEDC Kyser Center for Economic Research, where she worked for more than eight years, and specialized in the structure of leading industries in Southern California. She managed the Kyser Center’s major economic reports and served as editor of the e-EDGE economic newsletter. The co-author of numerous reports, including “The Business of Sports in Los Angeles County” and “The Creative Economy of the Los Angeles Region,” she has contributed U.S. economic outlook articles to several industry newsletters. Flor Hynek is an active member of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) and was the 2008–2009 president of the Los Angeles Chapter of NABE. She received her bachelor’s degree in business economics from California State University, Long Beach.

Page 66: Best-Performing Cities 2010 - Milken Institute...Best-Performing Cities 2010 Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained Ross C. DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden, and Candice

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

© 2010 Milken InstituteCert no. XXX-XXX-XXXX