Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared by:
No one has been hit harder by the Great Recession than the 8.8 million Americans who have lost their jobs
during the most significant economic downturn in generations.
Our nation’s mayors are focused on doing everything we can to help the jobless, the underemployed, and
those worried about losing their jobs.
This report, prepared by IHS Global Insight as part of the US Conference of Mayors’ U.S. Metro Economy
series, highlights where we are and the challenges that lie ahead.
At the close of 2011, 125 cities and their metro areas had not seen any net job growth. By the end of last
year, the economy as a whole had regained only 30 percent of jobs lost from the Great Recession.
The outlook for 2012 is better. By the end of this year, the report forecasts that almost every one of our 363
metro economies will see job gains and the nation will have gained back 48 percent of its lost jobs. But de-
spite this progress, one thing remains clear: the recovery is slow and it’s uneven. For almost 80 of our metro
areas, it will take more than five years to get back to pre-recession levels of employment.
The report notes that consumer confidence is an important part of our recovery. When Congress fails to
reach necessary agreements on long-term debt reduction, short-term tax cuts and infrastructure spending, the
public grows cynical and disillusioned. This is not good for our economy, our cities, or our local busi-
nesses. Obstruction might be good short-term politics, but it’s bad long-term economics.
Next year cities and their metro areas will generate 90.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product and
85.6 percent of the nation’s jobs. We are the engines of the U.S. economy, and investment in our future is an
investment in the future prosperity of our country.
If Congress will give us the tools, we will put them to use. We will get our constituents back to work and get
America’s economy humming again.
As mayors, we call on Congress to work with the President to advance initiatives that speed our nation’s
recovery and new jobs that come with it. The time for stopgaps and last minute extensions is over. It is time
for leadership.
Sincerely,
Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Mayor of Los Angeles
President
The United States Conference of Mayors
INTRODUCTION – NATIONAL ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The recovery from the Great Recession continued in 2011, though its pace almost
stalled in the summer months, as uncertainty reigned and confidence plummeted
due to sovereign debt crises in the US and Europe. Nevertheless, the US economic
outlook has improved, with real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expected to increase
by 3.4% in the fourth quarter and 1.8% for the year once final figures are tallied.
This growth is a result of improvements in business confidence, consumer spending,
and housing starts.
However, contractionary domestic fiscal policy, slower global growth, and the
Eurozone financial crisis will still mean at least some tightening of credit conditions in
the United States. The housing sector, whose health is key to a robust recovery,
remains sluggish. Demand among young adults for new housing is tied to their
employment prospects; mortgage credit remains tight, though it has loosened a bit
in 2011; and home prices continue to fall under the pressure of foreclosures and
excess supply. Appendix Tables 8 and 9 detail the decline in home prices
experienced by most metro areas in 2011. For the US, house prices are estimated to
have fallen by 4% over the course of the year. This decline in home values further
reduced household wealth by over $500 billion, adding to pressures on consumer
spending. It also further stresses the property tax base of local governments going
forward.
Even with a stronger domestic performance, the recession risk for the U.S. thus
remains uncomfortably high, at 30%. IHS Global Insight predicts a mild recession in
the Eurozone in 2011 - 2012. However, the Eurozone recession is not expected to be
severe enough to tip the United States into recession. It will primarily impact export
demand and corporate earnings of US firms.
While employment growth over the last few months of the year was not as weak as
first feared, it was still sluggish, at just 137,000 jobs per month on average in the
last quarter. The unemployment rate has finally started to edge down, to 8.5% in
December 2011. While encouraging, we should note that some of the reduction came
from a decline in the labor force in November and December. Consumer spending,
meanwhile, has been doing far better than sentiment readings would suggest. IHS
Global Insight expects consumer spending growth of 2.2% for 2011. Suppressed
demand, as consumers have recently delayed replacement purchases, is now helping
spending to improve in areas such as vehicles, while holiday sales should also
increase substantially (up around 5% year on year in nominal dollars, very similar to
2010). However, consumers face too many headwinds to allow a robust spending
recovery after the holiday season. A weak labor market, high debt burdens, housing
prices that have not yet hit bottom, price increases that have outpaced wage growth,
and a lack of confidence in the government’s effectiveness and accountability will
keep spending growth moderate in the coming year. Inflation concerns, though, are
easing. A combination of higher gasoline prices and food prices has raised CPI
1
inflation to 3.1% this year. In addition, in the face of weak demand growth and some
pullback in commodity prices, core inflation is beginning to slow.
Real GDP is predicted to increase a soft 2.0% in 2012. As a result, IHS Global Insight
expects job growth to stay weak and the unemployment rate to remain above 8%
over the course of the year. IHS expects a modest improvement in housing starts
during 2012 (730,000 units, compared with 610,000 in 2011), concentrated in the
multifamily segment, since pent-up demand is already helping the rental market.
With less upward pressure from oil and food, we expect CPI inflation to fall back to
1.5% in 2012.
In addition, the current sequester debate highlights how far apart Democrats and
Republicans are in their vision for government, and how drastic current levels of
gridlock remain in the U.S. federal government. Gridlock prevents government action
to adapt to the current economic situation. It has also resulted in a crisis of
confidence by the American people in their leadership. Negative perceptions of
Congress dampen consumer confidence and sentiments, which have already been
declining in recent years. IHS expects that decline to continue in the near term. The
result will be less spending and longer delays in purchasing, putting more drag on
economic growth and contributing to the sluggishness of the recovery.
2
The median real income for US households in 2010 was $49,455. This is 7.1% lower
than median real household income in 1999, which was $53,252 (in 2010 dollars).
This decline has been even steeper for those in lower income groups, leading to
increased income inequality and deteriorating financial stability for many Americans.
From 1999 to 2010, income values for the bottom 10% of American earners declined
by 12.1%.
Figure 1 demonstrates the sharp deterioration in median income in the past decade.
At the same time the share of income earned by the top 20% of households
continued to increase. Since 1970 the share of the top quintile has increased from
43.3% to over half, 50.2% in 2010.
55,000 52%
50,000 49%
45,000 46%
40,000 43%
35,000 40%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Median real income
Share of income in highest quintile
The trend of the past decade of declining median income and increasing income
inequality has continued during the recovery from the Great Recession. Median
income declined 2.3% from 2009 to 2010. Those in the bottom two-fifths of the
income distribution also had a smaller share of aggregate income in 2010 than 2009.
In 2010, the bottom 20% of households received 3.3% of the income, down from
3.4% in 2009, 3.6% in 2000, and 4.1% in 1970. These income trends are worrisome
for the health and growth of the economy. As lower-income households spend a
greater portion of their incomes as consumption, the constraint in their spending
power retards consumer demand, adding to the sluggish performance of the national
economy.
Income decline and increasing inequality is an important issue for metro areas, as
the trend in median income decline has not been experienced evenly. From 2009 to
2010, metro area households experienced a 2.2% decline in median household
income while households in rural areas did not experience a statistically significant
decline. Those living in cities saw a 3.4% decline in income while those outside cities
saw income decline by 2.4%. Appendix table 1 details metro median incomes from
2007 to 2010. In 2010 median household income ranged from $31,700 in
Brownsville, TX, to $84,500 in Washington, DC. In that year median income declined
in 216 metros.
3
An additional stress on household finances going forward is the rapid accumulation of
student loan indebtedness. With persistently high unemployment and diminished job
and career prospects for recent college graduates, these loan balances further erode
welfare and spending. The Federal Reserve estimates that student loan balances in
the second quarter of 2011 amounted to $845 billion.
PEAK
2010 to 2011
2012 to 2013
2014 to 2015
2016 to 2017
Past 2017
4
This is the most protracted period of underemployment in US economic history since
the Great Depression and World War II. All subsequent recessions in the 20th century
saw payroll jobs quickly regain previous peak levels with a strong first year of
economic recovery. In 2001, however, a shallow recession was followed by a
'jobless' recovery. Job losses did continue after the economy began to grow, but all
losses were recouped within two years of employment growth, four years after the
downturn began. The recovery from the most recent recession is now passing both of
those benchmarks, with two years of job gains, and four years since the start of the
downturn, yet less than 30% of lost jobs have been recovered by the end of 2011.
In 2011, US metros saw a wide range of employment growth. For example Victoria,
TX and Hot Springs, AZ expanded by greater than 6.0%, while Missoula, MT and
Dalton, GA both contracted by more than 4.5%. Thirty-five metros registered job
growth higher than 3.0%, and 122 (33%) metros posted growth above the national
average of 1.3% in 2011. Meanwhile, 241 (67%) US metros fell below the 1.3%
growth mark, including 125 metros that did not see positive gains at all.
In contrast to the 125 metro areas that shrunk in 2011, all but three of the nation’s
metros will experience positive employment growth during 2012 (see appendix table
2). Led by Myrtle Beach, SC with a 3.0% payroll expansion, 181 (50%) of the metro
areas will at least match average of 1.3% growth in 2012. The remaining 179 metros
will all show positive growth between 0.1% and 1.3% (see figure 3).
5
Job growth in 2012 will come predominantly through several important sectors:
education and health services, trade, transportation, and utilities, and professional
and business services (see figure 4). The trade, transportation, and utilities sector
contracted during the recession, but will maintain the positive growth of 2011 and
post 563,000 new jobs, growing a respectable 2.3% over the next year. Education
and health services, which was relatively unaffected by the mass layoffs seen in
other industries during the recession, will grow at a rate of 2.4% over 2012 and add
478,000 jobs. Another important sector, which will make up for much of the losses
seen in sectors such as government and construction, is the high-paying professional
and business services sector. This sector will add almost 400,000 jobs and grow at a
rate of 2.3% over the year. Metro areas that have a high concentration in these
industries will benefit the most from this employment growth. While these sectors
will show the most significant growth, virtually all areas are projected to add jobs in
2012. In fact, the government sector, due to practical fiscal belt-tightening, and
construction, natural resources, and mining, due to a continued housing slump, will
be the only industries to shrink.
Another boost for South Atlantic metros will come from the Columbia and Panama
free-trade pacts recently signed, which will spur growth in South Florida with
increased levels of trade from Latin America. Indeed, both the Miami and Tampa-St.
Petersburg areas of Florida will both expand payrolls by 1.7% (see Appendix Table
2), thanks in large part to the trade and transportation sector picking up steam in
2012 (2.9% and 2,5%, respectively). Nearby Atlanta, Georgia will also benefit; it has
among the highest concentrations of workers in wholesale trade and transportation
services in the country. That sector will grow 2.8% in Atlanta over the next year, and
will produce nearly half of all the jobs in what is the seventh largest metro in the US.
An efficient and well-designed transportation infrastructure has also created a
6
growing and stable trade sector in the Charlotte and other North and South Carolina
metros.
Sharp contractions in government payrolls, however, will have both direct and
indirect negative impacts in Maryland, Virginia, and DC--areas that during the Great
Recession benefited by an expansion of federal jobs. Despite these losses, Baltimore
and the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria metros will experience overall positive
employment growth in 2012 of 1.1% each due to major additions to the education,
health, professional and business services sectors.
In the Middle Atlantic and New England regions, education and health services and
professional business services will be the main drivers in employment growth for
New York, Philadelphia, and Boston as they grow total employment by 1.7%, 1.5%,
and 1.1% respectively. The healthcare sector continues to be a bright spot in the
region; New York and Pennsylvania have the third and fourth highest concentrations
of healthcare jobs, respectively, in the nation. Equally important to New England is
the educational services sector, as the greater Boston metro is home to several
prominent universities that act as major employers for the area. Not only do these
universities provide jobs, they also create a highly educated workforce to meet the
demand for rapidly expanding professional and business services in New England.
In the Pittsburgh metro and surrounding area, the natural resources and mining
sector grew 5.8% in 2011 as a result of Marcellus Shale prospects. Drilling and
extraction from this shale has the potential to bring significant new and sustainable
growth in natural resource and mining employment for not only Pittsburgh, but
smaller regional metros such as Youngstown, Ohio; Binghamton, New York; and
Wheeling, West Virginia.
From the automotive assembly lines in Michigan, to metal mining and fabrication in
Ohio, manufacturing is the dominant industry in the East North Central region.
Although this sector has been on the decline for over a decade in the nation’s Rust
Belt, durable manufacturing employment payrolls grew 4.1% in 2011 and will
expand by another 3.2% in 2012. The momentum provided by this uptick in
manufacturing has spread to other sectors. For example, often overlooked in the
Detroit-Warren-Livonia metro are its large services sectors. Following 2011’s addition
of almost 7,000 net new jobs and 2.2% growth in professional and business services,
the overall services sectors, including education, health, and hospitality will add
8,000 jobs in 2012. Education and health services will play a major role in sustaining
employment growth in the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Cleveland metros. In 2011, this
sector experienced growth of 1.7% in Cleveland, and in 2012 the sector will see
more robust growth of 2.4%, which will translate into over 4,000 jobs. Minneapolis-
St. Paul will build on 2.7% growth in 2011, expanding healthcare services payrolls by
2.8% in 2012 and adding 7,500 jobs.
Other East North Central states, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, are more
economically diverse. The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet metro will add the most jobs
(58,500) of any metro in the region. Not only does Chicago have a large and diverse
7
financial sector, where over 30 Fortune 500 companies are headquartered, but it also
continues to be home to a main transportation hub and a strong services industry. It
is this diversity that has insulated the area from the economic woes of a traditionally
manufacturing dependent region.
From the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast to the Barnett Shale in northern Texas,
natural resources and mining is projected to grow strongly. But energy-rich states
such as Texas and Oklahoma in the West South Central region will also expand in
other areas. For example the Dallas-Fort Worth metro has become the Southwest’s
largest wholesale trade center, and one of the region’s major retail hubs. The trade
and transportation sectors will contribute over 17,000 new jobs in 2012, helping total
payrolls rise at a rate of 1.9%. In Houston, trade and transportation will grow 2.9%
and add 15,000 jobs as the Port of Houston gains a larger share of trade from fast-
growing emerging markets--a benefit in part from the expansion of the Panama
Canal.
The West South Central region will also see robust growth in the services industries.
In 2012, professional business services will add 12,800 jobs in the Dallas-Fort Worth
metro growing at 2.8%, 10,500 jobs in the Houston metro growing 2.8%, and 1,900
jobs in Oklahoma City metro at 2.4% growth. These three metro economies will also
be augmented by 23,400 new education and health services workers.
Throughout the Mountain and West North Central regions, prosperity due to the
recent boom in on-shore oil and gas production will have both positive direct and
indirect effects for the regions and the metros contained within. The Denver metro,
for instance, is slated to post 1.6% total employment growth in 2012. Thanks to its
central location, Denver is a major transportation and distribution hub, and the
metro’s improved economic growth is a result of its largest sector: trade,
transportation, and utilities. This sector will add 6,300 jobs and grow at a rate of
2.7%. The Phoenix metro, supported by a growing retiree population and a subdued
local housing market will also expand the trade and transportation sector by 13,600
jobs, growing 3.8% in 2012.
The Pacific region continues to be an attractive hot spot for skilled labor such as
scientists, engineers, and software programmers, which drives employment growth
in the professional and business services sector that supports them. In 2012, Los
Angeles will see growth in most of its major employment sectors adding 57,500 jobs
and growing 1.1%. Leading the way will be services: education health, professional
and business and leisure and hospitality – all of which will post payroll increases of
over 13,000 new jobs on the year. Similarly in the Seattle metro, the professional
and business services will round out 2011 by adding 16,000 on the year–an
impressive 7.2% rate of growth from the third largest sector in the area. This
expansion will continue in 2012 with 7,000 new jobs and 3.0% growth. Seattle will
also boast significant growth from transportation and trade in which 7,400 new jobs
in 2012 (2.4%) will be added on top of the 5,800 in 2011 (1.9%).
8
On the heels of 1.3% growth and 1.6 million new jobs added to US payrolls in 2011,
the US is poised to make significant strides in 2012, beginning the climb out of the
hole dug during the Great Recession. Although important sectors such as
manufacturing may never return to previous levels of employment, and construction
and government continue to be weak, other sectors will pick up the slack. From New
York to Los Angeles, the 1.3% growth and 1.7 million additional jobs forecast for
2012 will largely come in the resilient education and health services sector, and the
trade, transportation, and burgeoning professional and business sectors.
9
Metro areas are the US export leaders. Similar to their share of employment and
output, they account for 88% of the nation's exports. The largest metros are also our
top exporters (see figure 5), with the 20 biggest metro economies comprising 50%
of the total US share. Comprehensive historical export data for metros is limited, but
just over the last few years foreign trade has grown tremendously in metros. From
2005-2008, export merchandise value increased in 300 metros, expanded by over
50% in 168 metros, and doubled in 70.
Outside of the size of the export market, the relationship of export merchandise
value to gross metro product (GMP) provides further perspective on the relative
importance of international trade (appendix table 6)1. For many small metros, the
impact on their local economy is enormous. Out of the top 15 metro export/GMP
ratios, only three are among the 100 largest metro areas (see figure 6).
International trade encourages specialization and economies of scale, which is more
pronounced in smaller metros, which tend to focus on one or two types of export
products. For example, Peoria, Illinois and Davenport, Iowa, the headquarters of
Caterpillar and John Deere, respectively, rely on machinery for the bulk of their
exports. A number of other metros specialize in the shipment of a single type of
export product, including Detroit and Kokomo, Indiana, both in transportation
equipment; Victoria, Texas and Kingsport, Tennessee, in chemicals; Burlington,
Vermont in computers/electronics; Sioux City, Iowa in food; and Racine, Wisconsin in
machinery.
While much has been made about the jobs lost from overseas competition, strong
foreign markets also serve as a key consumer of US-made goods. It is true that
many of the low-skill labor-intensive manufacturing jobs have been offshored, but
there are many metros that produce capital-intensive durable goods for largely
foreign markets. In the 15 metros in figure 6, there are 12 where the concentration
of manufacturing jobs tops 10%, and 8 have manufacturing employment
concentrations ranking in the top 100. These manufacturing sectors would suffer if
their export markets were not as large.
Canada, Mexico, and China are the largest US export destinations and contribute
19.5%, 12.8%, and 7.2% of total merchandise value, respectively. Clearly, location
matters — the two US border countries account for a third of our total exports. The
size of the market is also important, which is why China overtook Japan in 2007 to
become the third largest export destination.
1
It is important to put the export data in context with GMP, which is a value-added figure and estimated
with more precision than export merchandise value. The export data series excludes service exports and is
collected through origin-of-movement, zip code-based data. The origin-of-movement calculation is not a
perfect representation of the local benefits created by trade activity because only final sales value is
counted (omitting intermediate goods that could come outside the export area), and in cases where goods
are consolidated, the merchandise value is assigned to the location of the consolidation point. This means
that export values in metro areas that serve as primary warehousing points can be overstated, which is
apparent in a few metros that specialize in warehousing/distribution. While this series is thus prone to
some statistical noise, it offers a glimpse into the importance of international trade (see appendix table 6).
10
Figure 6: Top Export-to-GMP Ratios
2010Q2, %
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 59.9
Peoria, IL 51.6
Longview, WA 35.5
El Paso, TX 35.0
Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 33.5
Kokomo, IN 33.5
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 31.1
Victoria, TX 30.5
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 29.0
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 27.9
Janesville, WI 27.4
Savannah, GA 26.9
Racine, WI 26.2
Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI 25.7
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 22.2
With the exception of Seattle, all of the top exporters located in the northern portion
of the US send the largest share of their goods to Canada (see figure 7). The top
exporters in the south are not as homogenized. Mexico is the leading destination for
Houston and Los Angeles, but Canada is Dallas' top destination, while Miami ships
most of its exports to Latin America. About half of these top exporters have a diverse
set of trade destinations, such as Miami, Boston, and New York, while others like
Detroit rely on their top few trading partners for most of their exports.
11
Metropolitan Ports: Exports and Imports
It is important to take a broad view of foreign trade by also looking at imports. The
US runs a trade deficit, meaning that the value of goods entering the country
exceeds the value of those leaving. In an increasingly globalized economy, American
consumers rely on more and more imported goods each year. In 2010, the dollar
value of imports totaled $1.91 trillion, or about 13.1% of US GDP. Meanwhile,
American companies exported $1.28 trillion, or about 8.8% of GDP. To handle the
total $3.19 trillion of shipments entering and leaving the country, massive
infrastructure is required to ensure that goods move quickly and efficiently. US ports
are at the center of these operations, and the largest ports reside in the nation's key
metro areas.
To focus on port activity we looked at the US customs districts, which are clusters of
air, vessel, and freight facilities that work as foreign trade zones and ports of entry.
In terms of the merchandise value of imports and exports, New York City leads the
nation, just ahead of Los Angeles. The Houston custom district is the leader in the
south and third largest in the nation, while Detroit ranks fourth. The top 15 customs
districts handle 75% of the total merchandise value entering and leaving the nation.
Most customs districts import more than they export. Out of the 15 biggest, only 4
are net exporters. Even in custom districts primarily involved in importing, however,
jobs are created. The movement of goods into the country requires labor involved in
logistics, transportation, and warehousing. Businesses also cluster near ports,
12
offering them convenient access to shipping routes. Many of the nation's largest
cities sprung up around ports, and they will continue to be vital economic drivers in
the nation's metropolitan areas.
Looking ahead, export growth will continue to dominate import growth, supported by
robust emerging economies and a competitive dollar. Export values will increase
13.5% in 2011 while imports grow by 12.9%, this on the heels of double-digit
growth last year. Indeed, in the two years following the 2009 collapse, foreign trade
has grown vigorously. IHS Global Insight expects trade to soften in 2012, with
export values increasing only 4.2% while import values rise 3.2% as softening
growth abroad, including the economic turbulence in the Eurozone, curb trade
activity. Over the longer-term, export growth will be strong, averaging 7.9%
annually over the next five years, outpacing imports, which will advance by 5.2%.
This will chip away at the US trade deficit and open up more opportunities for local
firms to sell goods globally.
CONCLUSION
The US economy is recovering slowly, but surely, from the Great Recession. This
growth is being led by metro areas, once again the engines of US economic growth.
In 2011, metros led US growth, gaining 2.2% to boost national growth to 1.8%.
Metros now contribute 90.4% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. Metros now
account for 85.6% of jobs in the nation.
This report has documented the crucial role metro areas play in enabling the nation
reap the benefits of international trade. Demand for US exports will be a vital driver
of economic growth in the coming decades. Exports will be more important than ever
in this decade of retrenching consumers and governments, both burdened by
massive debt. Policy makers need to be aware that the maintenance and
development of metro economies' continued ability to generate the economic activity
derived from exports is essential for the nation to prosper.
13
Appendix Tables
Table 4: Metro Area Jobs Regained Since the Great Recession, End of 2012 31
Table 9: Median Existing Home Prices by Metro Area (Ranked by Population, Dollars, $) 66
1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 8,333.5 8,470.6 1.7 137.2
2 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 4,273.8 4,332.2 1.4 58.5
3 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 5,162.5 5,220.0 1.1 57.5
4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 2,940.3 2,996.5 1.9 56.1
5 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 2,614.6 2,657.6 1.7 43.0
6 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 2,701.3 2,740.6 1.5 39.3
7 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 2,212.6 2,250.6 1.7 38.0
8 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 1,713.8 1,750.9 2.2 37.0
9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 2,246.5 2,282.5 1.6 36.0
10 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 2,983.1 3,016.9 1.1 33.8
11 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 1,896.3 1,922.2 1.4 25.9
12 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 2,442.8 2,468.6 1.1 25.8
13 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 1,672.6 1,698.2 1.5 25.6
14 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 1,720.8 1,746.4 1.5 25.6
15 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 1,120.1 1,143.0 2.0 22.8
16 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 1,015.3 1,037.5 2.2 22.2
17 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 1,142.3 1,161.6 1.7 19.3
18 Denver-Aurora, CO 1,202.0 1,221.1 1.6 19.1
19 Columbus, OH 909.6 928.4 2.1 18.8
20 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 866.0 884.6 2.2 18.6
21 Austin-Round Rock, TX 784.2 802.7 2.4 18.5
22 Kansas City, MO-KS 965.5 983.0 1.8 17.5
23 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 1,756.1 1,773.0 1.0 16.9
24 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 1,243.0 1,259.8 1.4 16.9
25 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 979.2 995.9 1.7 16.7
26 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 1,001.1 1,017.7 1.7 16.6
27 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 808.1 824.4 2.0 16.3
28 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN 749.8 764.0 1.9 14.2
29 San Antonio, TX 849.1 863.3 1.7 14.2
30 Baltimore-Towson, MD 1,279.6 1,293.1 1.1 13.6
31 Pittsburgh, PA 1,148.1 1,161.4 1.2 13.3
32 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 807.7 820.5 1.6 12.8
33 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 880.6 893.0 1.4 12.4
34 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 995.1 1,007.0 1.2 11.9
35 Salt Lake City, UT 621.9 633.8 1.9 11.8
36 Raleigh-Cary, NC 505.6 517.4 2.3 11.8
37 Jacksonville, FL 586.4 598.0 2.0 11.7
38 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 803.6 814.6 1.4 11.0
39 St. Louis, MO-IL 1,302.0 1,312.7 0.8 10.7
40 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 590.9 600.3 1.6 9.4
41 Rochester, NY 515.5 523.4 1.5 7.9
Employment % of State
Alaska
Anchorage, AK 174.2 52.2
Fairbanks, AK 39.8 11.9
Sum of Metro Areas 214.0 64.1
Alabama
Anniston-Oxford, AL 48.6 2.6
Auburn-Opelika, AL 54.7 2.9
Birmingham-Hoover, AL 491.2 25.9
Columbus, GA-AL 13.0 0.7
Decatur, AL 54.0 2.8
Dothan, AL 56.7 3.0
Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL 56.2 3.0
Gadsden, AL 35.2 1.9
Huntsville, AL 209.5 11.1
Mobile, AL 176.7 9.3
Montgomery, AL 166.0 8.8
Tuscaloosa, AL 93.5 4.9
Sum of Metro Areas 1,455.3 76.8
Arkansas
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR 199.0 16.8
Fort Smith, AR-OK 94.8 8.0
Hot Springs, AR 40.1 3.4
Jonesboro, AR 48.7 4.1
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR 340.0 28.7
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 16.4 1.4
Pine Bluff, AR 36.4 3.1
Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR 13.7 1.2
Sum of Metro Areas 789.1 66.7
Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ 62.7 2.6
Lake Havasu, AZ 46.2 1.9
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 1,734.7 71.2
Prescott, AZ 53.0 2.2
Tucson, AZ 357.6 14.7
Yuma, AZ 48.7 2.0
Sum of Metro Areas 2,302.8 94.5
California
Bakersfield, CA 229.6 1.6
Chico, CA 70.7 0.5
El Centro, CA 44.7 0.3
Fresno, CA 280.5 2.0
Hanford-Corcoran, CA 36.5 0.3
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 5,194.9 36.6
Madera, CA 32.0 0.2
Merced, CA 57.1 0.4
Modesto, CA 148.0 1.0
Employment % of State
Napa, CA 60.1 0.4
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 277.8 2.0
Redding, CA 60.1 0.4
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 1,133.3 8.0
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA 160.4 1.1
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 809.6 5.7
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 90.1 0.6
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 1,252.6 8.8
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 888.1 6.2
Salinas, CA 121.8 0.9
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA 97.1 0.7
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 170.1 1.2
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 1,911.5 13.5
Stockton, CA 190.5 1.3
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 118.0 0.8
Visalia-Porterville, CA 107.7 0.8
Yuba City, CA 37.3 0.3
Sum of Metro Areas 13,580.0 95.6
Colorado
Boulder, CO 163.7 7.2
Colorado Springs, CO 248.1 10.9
Denver-Aurora, CO 1,213.6 53.3
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 137.3 6.0
Greeley, CO 79.0 3.5
Grand Junction, CO 59.0 2.6
Pueblo, CO 59.6 2.6
Sum of Metro Areas 1,960.2 86.0
Connecticut
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 419.2 25.7
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 618.5 37.9
New Haven-Milford, CT 363.8 22.3
Norwich-New London, CT 127.4 7.8
Sum of Metro Areas 1,528.9 93.7
District of Columbia
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 715.9 100.0
Sum of Metro Areas
Delaware
Dover, DE 63.7 15.3
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 275.3 66.1
Sum of Metro Areas 339.0 81.4
Florida
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 200.6 2.7
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 159.5 2.2
Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL 80.6 1.1
Gainesville, FL 126.3 1.7
Jacksonville, FL 593.3 8.1
Employment % of State
Lakeland, FL 193.8 2.6
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 2,235.5 30.4
Naples-Marco Island, FL 110.6 1.5
Ocala, FL 91.8 1.2
Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 1,028.8 14.0
Palm Coast, FL 18.5 0.3
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 190.0 2.6
Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL 72.5 1.0
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 158.4 2.2
Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL 120.9 1.6
Punta Gorda, FL 41.5 0.6
Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL 242.8 3.3
Tallahassee, FL 168.4 2.3
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 1,153.8 15.7
Vero Beach, FL 43.6 0.6
Sum of Metro Areas 7,031.0 95.6
Georgia
Albany, GA 61.4 1.6
Athens-Clarke County, GA 80.9 2.1
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 2,267.0 59.1
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 144.8 3.8
Brunswick, GA 40.3 1.1
Chattanooga, TN-GA 30.7 0.8
Columbus, GA-AL 106.0 2.8
Dalton, GA 64.3 1.7
Gainesville, GA 72.0 1.9
Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA 19.3 0.5
Macon, GA 96.4 2.5
Rome, GA 37.8 1.0
Savannah, GA 149.2 3.9
Valdosta, GA 51.4 1.3
Warner Robins, GA 59.5 1.5
Sum of Metro Areas 3,280.9 85.5
Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 445.5 74.5
Sum of Metro Areas
Iowa
Ames, IA 46.6 3.1
Cedar Rapids, IA 139.2 9.3
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 89.9 6.0
Des Moines, IA 322.5 21.5
Dubuque, IA 57.2 3.8
Iowa City, IA 89.1 5.9
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 49.2 3.3
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 51.9 3.5
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 90.6 6.0
Employment % of State
Sum of Metro Areas 936.1 62.4
Idaho
Boise City-Nampa, ID 258.9 42.1
Coeur d'Alene, ID 53.1 8.6
Idaho Falls, ID 48.9 8.0
Lewiston, ID-WA 19.8 3.2
Logan, UT-ID 3.3 0.5
Pocatello, ID 36.0 5.9
Sum of Metro Areas 420.0 68.3
Illinois
Bloomington-Normal, IL 90.7 1.6
Champaign-Urbana, IL 105.2 1.8
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (MSA) 4,044.0 70.9
Danville, IL 28.6 0.5
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 93.5 1.6
Decatur, IL 52.9 0.9
Kankakee-Bradley, IL 45.4 0.8
Peoria, IL 186.7 3.3
Rockford, IL 145.7 2.6
Springfield, IL 112.0 2.0
St. Louis, MO-IL 241.9 4.2
Sum of Metro Areas 5,146.7 90.2
Indiana
Anderson, IN 39.3 1.4
Bloomington, IN 81.0 2.9
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (MSA) 262.7 9.3
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 21.0 0.7
Columbus, IN 44.0 1.6
Elkhart-Goshen, IN 104.7 3.7
Evansville, IN-KY 153.8 5.5
Fort Wayne, IN 211.2 7.5
Indianapolis, IN 877.1 31.1
Kokomo, IN 41.3 1.5
Lafayette, IN 94.7 3.4
Louisville, KY-IN 96.9 3.4
Michigan City-La Porte, IN 42.0 1.5
Muncie, IN 48.8 1.7
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 125.7 4.5
Terre Haute, IN 70.5 2.5
Sum of Metro Areas 2,314.5 82.1
Kansas
Kansas City, MO-KS 435.5 32.5
Lawrence, KS 52.0 3.9
St. Joseph, MO-KS 2.4 0.2
Topeka, KS 107.3 8.0
Wichita, KS 287.6 21.4
Employment % of State
Sum of Metro Areas 884.8 66.0
Kentucky
Bowling Green, KY 59.5 3.3
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 184.3 10.2
Clarksville, TN-KY 35.4 2.0
Elizabethtown, KY 46.8 2.6
Evansville, IN-KY 23.2 1.3
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 37.3 2.1
Lexington-Fayette, KY 252.2 13.9
Louisville, KY-IN 515.3 28.4
Owensboro, KY 50.8 2.8
Sum of Metro Areas 1,204.8 66.5
Louisiana
Alexandria, LA 65.0 3.4
Baton Rouge, LA 361.8 18.8
Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA 96.6 5.0
Lake Charles, LA 91.7 4.8
Lafayette, LA 153.3 8.0
Monroe, LA 76.2 4.0
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 533.6 27.7
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 181.3 9.4
Sum of Metro Areas 1,559.5 80.9
Massachusetts
Barnstable Town, MA 89.4 2.7
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (MSA) 2,263.6 69.5
Pittsfield, MA 65.0 2.0
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 211.7 6.5
Springfield, MA 287.8 8.8
Worcester, MA 325.6 10.0
Sum of Metro Areas 3,243.1 99.6
Maryland
Baltimore-Towson, MD 1,287.4 50.6
Cumberland, MD-WV 32.6 1.3
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 64.3 2.5
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 28.9 1.1
Salisbury, MD 52.5 2.1
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 941.7 37.1
Sum of Metro Areas 2,407.5 94.7
Maine
Bangor, ME 72.8 12.1
Lewiston-Auburn, ME 50.6 8.4
Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME 261.1 43.5
Sum of Metro Areas 384.5 64.1
Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 198.7 5.0
Battle Creek, MI 55.6 1.4
Employment % of State
Bay City, MI 37.9 1.0
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 1,765.4 44.5
Flint, MI 131.3 3.3
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 375.3 9.5
Holland-Grand Haven, MI 108.9 2.7
Jackson, MI 54.3 1.4
Kalamazoo-Portage, MI 139.5 3.5
Lansing-East Lansing, MI 221.0 5.6
Monroe, MI 37.7 1.0
Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI 58.9 1.5
Niles-Benton Harbor, MI 61.1 1.5
Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI 86.2 2.2
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 8.9 0.2
Sum of Metro Areas 3,340.8 84.3
Minnesota
Duluth, MN-WI 112.6 4.1
Fargo, ND-MN 18.7 0.7
Grand Forks, ND-MN 13.0 0.5
La Crosse, WI-MN 5.3 0.2
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 1,696.4 62.5
Rochester, MN 105.2 3.9
St. Cloud, MN 98.8 3.6
Sum of Metro Areas 2,050.0 75.6
Missouri
Columbia, MO 93.8 3.5
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO 7.0 0.3
Jefferson City, MO 78.2 2.9
Joplin, MO 79.6 3.0
Kansas City, MO-KS 540.9 20.2
Springfield, MO 195.6 7.3
St. Joseph, MO-KS 53.2 2.0
St. Louis, MO-IL 1,066.2 39.9
Sum of Metro Areas 2,114.5 79.1
Mississippi
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS 107.9 9.8
Hattiesburg, MS 59.9 5.4
Jackson, MS 253.3 22.9
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 71.4 6.5
Pascagoula, MS 57.7 5.2
Sum of Metro Areas 550.0 49.8
Montana
Billings, MT 80.3 18.3
Great Falls, MT 35.7 8.1
Missoula, MT 52.0 11.8
Sum of Metro Areas 167.9 38.3
North Carolina
Employment % of State
Asheville, NC 168.6 4.3
Burlington, NC 56.0 1.4
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 742.2 18.9
Durham, NC 284.1 7.2
Fayetteville, NC 130.5 3.3
Goldsboro, NC 41.9 1.1
Greensboro-High Point, NC 345.7 8.8
Greenville, NC 75.6 1.9
Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC 141.9 3.6
Jacksonville, NC 47.3 1.2
Raleigh-Cary, NC 512.7 13.1
Rocky Mount, NC 59.5 1.5
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 5.8 0.1
Wilmington, NC 136.0 3.5
Winston-Salem, NC 211.1 5.4
Sum of Metro Areas 2,958.9 75.5
North Dakota
Bismarck, ND 64.9 16.1
Fargo, ND-MN 106.8 26.6
Grand Forks, ND-MN 42.8 10.6
Sum of Metro Areas 214.4 53.3
Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 177.0 18.3
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 417.5 43.2
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 14.0 1.5
Sum of Metro Areas 608.6 62.9
New Hampshire
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (MSA) 193.9 30.5
Manchester-Nashua, NH 198.5 31.2
Sum of Metro Areas 392.3 61.8
New Jersey
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 35.8 0.9
Atlantic City, NJ 134.8 3.4
New York-Nrthrn NewJersey-Lng Islnd, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) 2,815.1 72.0
Ocean City, NJ 41.5 1.1
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 535.0 13.7
Trenton-Ewing, NJ 236.4 6.0
Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ 58.0 1.5
Sum of Metro Areas 3,856.6 98.7
New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 372.3 45.9
Farmington, NM 49.4 6.1
Las Cruces, NM 69.4 8.6
Santa Fe, NM 61.4 7.6
Sum of Metro Areas 552.5 68.1
Nevada
Employment % of State
Carson City, NV 28.3 2.5
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 815.3 72.2
Reno-Sparks, NV 187.3 16.6
Sum of Metro Areas 1,030.8 91.3
New York
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 438.2 5.0
Binghamton, NY 109.9 1.3
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 547.1 6.3
Elmira, NY 40.0 0.5
Glens Falls, NY 54.6 0.6
Ithaca, NY 64.9 0.7
Kingston, NY 60.5 0.7
New York-Nrthrn New Jersey-Lng Islnd, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) 5,584.7 63.9
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 250.5 2.9
Rochester, NY 519.9 5.9
Syracuse, NY 318.9 3.6
Utica-Rome, NY 132.0 1.5
Sum of Metro Areas 8,121.2 92.9
Ohio
Akron, OH 329.2 6.4
Canton-Massillon, OH 162.2 3.1
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 806.4 15.6
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 1,002.5 19.4
Columbus, OH 921.1 17.8
Dayton, OH 373.7 7.2
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 13.4 0.3
Lima, OH 53.2 1.0
Mansfield, OH 52.2 1.0
Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH 25.5 0.5
Sandusky, OH 39.4 0.8
Springfield, OH 49.9 1.0
Toledo, OH 304.4 5.9
Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH 24.7 0.5
Wheeling, WV-OH 24.7 0.5
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 177.9 3.4
Sum of Metro Areas 4,360.6 84.5
Oklahoma
Fort Smith, AR-OK 22.3 1.4
Lawton, OK 43.1 2.7
Oklahoma City, OK 576.9 36.5
Tulsa, OK 420.9 26.6
Sum of Metro Areas 1,063.3 67.3
Oregon
Bend, OR 61.5 3.7
Corvallis, OR 38.4 2.3
Eugene-Springfield, OR 140.8 8.6
Employment % of State
Medford, OR 76.9 4.7
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 859.1 52.3
Salem, OR 141.3 8.6
Sum of Metro Areas 1,317.9 80.3
Pennsylvania
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 300.8 5.2
Altoona, PA 60.8 1.1
Erie, PA 129.6 2.3
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 321.2 5.6
Johnstown, PA 61.5 1.1
Lancaster, PA 228.8 4.0
Lebanon, PA 51.3 0.9
NewYork-Nrthrn New Jersey-Lng Islnd, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) 11.0 0.2
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 1,886.1 32.8
Pittsburgh, PA 1,156.4 20.1
Reading, PA 171.4 3.0
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA 255.0 4.4
State College, PA 75.2 1.3
Williamsport, PA 52.5 0.9
York-Hanover, PA 179.3 3.1
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 50.5 0.9
Sum of Metro Areas 4,991.2 86.9
Rhode Island
Providence-New Bedford-FallRiver, RI-MA 463.7 100.0
Sum of Metro Areas
South Carolina
Anderson, SC 61.1 3.3
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 64.9 3.5
Charleston-North Charleston, SC 291.0 15.8
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 75.4 4.1
Columbia, SC 350.7 19.0
Florence, SC 83.1 4.5
Greenville, SC 301.8 16.4
Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC 121.1 6.6
Spartanburg, SC 119.6 6.5
Sumter, SC 37.0 2.0
Sum of Metro Areas 1,505.6 81.6
South Dakota
Rapid City, SD 61.4 14.9
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 8.6 2.1
Sioux Falls, SD 135.4 33.0
Sum of Metro Areas 205.4 50.0
Tennessee
Chattanooga, TN-GA 203.8 7.6
Clarksville, TN-KY 49.2 1.8
Cleveland, TN 39.0 1.5
Employment % of State
Jackson, TN 57.9 2.2
Johnson City, TN 77.5 2.9
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 80.9 3.0
Knoxville, TN 331.1 12.4
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 508.5 19.0
Morristown, TN 45.0 1.7
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN 758.5 28.3
Sum of Metro Areas 2,151.5 80.4
Texas
Abilene, TX 61.8 0.6
Amarillo, TX 112.9 1.1
Austin-Round Rock, TX 795.0 7.4
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 160.7 1.5
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 128.6 1.2
College Station-Bryan, TX 97.6 0.9
Corpus Christi, TX 185.5 1.7
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 2,972.6 27.7
El Paso, TX 285.9 2.7
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 2,638.2 24.6
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 129.4 1.2
Laredo, TX 92.6 0.9
Longview, TX 98.1 0.9
Lubbock, TX 133.0 1.2
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 229.6 2.1
Midland, TX 70.8 0.7
Odessa, TX 63.6 0.6
San Angelo, TX 45.5 0.4
San Antonio, TX 857.2 8.0
Sherman-Denison, TX 43.0 0.4
Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR 43.4 0.4
Tyler, TX 95.7 0.9
Victoria, TX 51.5 0.5
Waco, TX 108.1 1.0
Wichita Falls, TX 57.4 0.5
Sum of Metro Areas 9,557.7 89.2
Utah
Logan, UT-ID 52.6 4.3
Ogden-Clearfield, UT 202.3 16.3
Provo-Orem, UT 186.6 15.1
Salt Lake City, UT 629.0 50.8
St. George, UT 47.2 3.8
Sum of Metro Areas 1,117.8 90.3
Virginia
Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA 68.8 1.9
Charlottesville, VA 101.8 2.8
Danville, VA 39.9 1.1
Employment % of State
Harrisonburg, VA 63.0 1.7
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 38.0 1.0
Lynchburg, VA 106.4 2.9
Richmond, VA 598.0 16.3
Roanoke, VA 156.2 4.3
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 723.2 19.7
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 1,330.2 36.2
Winchester, VA-WV 52.8 1.4
Sum of Metro Areas 3,278.1 89.3
Vermont
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 120.1 39.4
Sum of Metro Areas
Washington
Bellingham, WA 78.5 2.8
Bremerton-Silverdale, WA 80.9 2.8
Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA 97.9 3.4
Lewiston, ID-WA 5.5 0.2
Longview, WA 35.1 1.2
Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA 44.9 1.6
Olympia, WA 98.4 3.5
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 130.4 4.6
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 1,687.7 59.3
Spokane, WA 204.9 7.2
Wenatchee, WA 39.8 1.4
Yakima, WA 74.5 2.6
Sum of Metro Areas 2,578.4 90.6
Wisconsin
Appleton, WI 116.6 4.2
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (MSA) 56.8 2.0
Duluth, MN-WI 112.6 4.1
Eau Claire, WI 81.7 2.9
Fond du Lac, WI 45.6 1.6
Green Bay, WI 166.2 6.0
Janesville, WI 61.3 2.2
La Crosse, WI-MN 69.8 2.5
Madison, WI 352.0 12.6
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 832.8 29.8
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 40.3 1.4
Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 94.8 3.4
Racine, WI 74.5 2.7
Sheboygan, WI 59.4 2.1
Wausau, WI 67.6 2.4
Sum of Metro Areas 2,232.0 80.0
West Virginia
Charleston, WV 151.9 20.0
Cumberland, MD-WV 8.6 1.1
Employment % of State
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 31.5 4.1
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 64.3 8.5
Morgantown, WV 66.2 8.7
Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH 44.8 5.9
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 14.8 2.0
Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH 20.9 2.7
Wheeling, WV-OH 43.9 5.8
Winchester, VA-WV 4.1 0.5
Sum of Metro Areas 451.1 59.5
Wyoming
Casper, WY 40.5 13.8
Cheyenne, WY 44.4 15.2
Sum of Metro Areas 85.0 29.0
1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 55,565 66,229 80,852 95,244 69,990 39,855
2 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 41,748 53,281 62,815 80,015 65,821 37,455
3 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 43,814 48,718 54,433 59,986 51,528 29,733
4 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 40,360 43,273 49,165 44,515 28,405 21,741
5 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 20,383 23,491 26,197 33,412 31,175 16,880
6 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 30,676 46,309 53,893 46,911 36,942 16,697
7 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 26,172 29,219 30,635 35,555 28,197 15,973
8 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 25,843 28,171 28,210 27,049 21,406 12,129
9 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 12,720 16,147 18,882 21,683 19,067 11,600
10 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 20,541 22,462 22,079 22,504 19,882 10,741
11 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 18,090 20,267 21,031 22,955 18,973 10,592
12 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 15,938 17,602 21,628 25,212 20,097 10,428
13 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 14,707 18,358 20,081 20,470 16,040 10,370
14 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 11,202 14,581 15,784 19,477 15,482 9,177
15 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 11,192 12,708 15,359 17,534 15,489 8,364
16 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 13,193 13,618 14,342 15,856 13,419 7,943
17 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 11,063 11,394 12,551 14,433 13,406 7,243
18 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 4,858 6,717 8,449 12,665 10,145 6,392
19 Pittsburgh, PA 6,899 8,277 9,750 11,309 8,343 6,006
20 St. Louis, MO-IL 7,217 9,612 10,481 11,601 9,027 5,559
21 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 7,087 8,263 8,751 9,726 8,013 5,173
22 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 6,058 7,511 9,205 9,879 9,226 5,161
23 Salt Lake City, UT 3,913 5,048 5,563 7,799 7,783 5,066
24 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 6,281 7,084 8,138 9,109 8,443 4,804
25 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 7,301 7,340 7,979 8,590 8,031 4,743
26 El Paso, TX 9,655 10,106 9,608 9,391 7,748 4,686
27 Peoria, IL 8,070 9,625 11,222 14,230 7,846 4,638
28 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 8,473 10,955 12,818 12,624 7,948 4,506
29 Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 2,378 5,448 9,115 9,654 7,912 4,327
30 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 8,097 6,647 7,481 10,077 8,451 4,325
31 Austin-Round Rock, TX 7,687 8,205 8,429 7,406 5,964 3,985
32 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 6,088 6,992 7,075 7,885 7,542 3,912
33 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 6,019 6,849 7,303 7,544 6,505 3,562
34 Kansas City, MO-KS 4,915 5,682 6,706 7,800 5,889 3,521
35 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 4,424 4,739 5,711 7,154 6,464 3,291
36 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 3,724 4,745 5,512 5,662 5,316 3,137
37 San Antonio, TX 2,347 3,094 3,568 5,049 4,390 3,102
38 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 3,774 4,192 4,971 6,241 5,356 3,070
39 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 2,668 3,285 3,738 5,382 5,392 2,963
40 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN 5,021 5,389 5,106 5,260 4,407 2,828
41 Laredo, TX 3,597 4,443 4,704 5,088 4,375 2,716
42 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 4,121 4,183 4,269 5,036 4,133 2,568
43 Rochester, NY 4,374 4,603 5,070 5,353 4,874 2,551
44 Denver-Aurora, CO 2,918 3,844 4,196 4,634 4,310 2,528
45 Baltimore-Towson, MD 4,975 4,822 5,170 5,595 4,809 2,509
1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 401,293 381,391 -5.0 -19,902
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 380,632 361,243 -5.1 -19,389
3 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 193,325 176,255 -8.8 -17,070
4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 123,422 122,616 -0.7 -806
5 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 126,129 121,627 -3.6 -4,503
6 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 216,955 204,411 -5.8 -12,544
7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 330,556 324,585 -1.8 -5,971
8 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 157,517 147,980 -6.1 -9,537
9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 128,819 123,920 -3.8 -4,899
10 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 314,219 304,316 -3.2 -9,903
11 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 428,865 404,392 -5.7 -24,474
12 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 176,486 156,398 -11.4 -20,088
13 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 94,691 95,756 1.1 1,064
14 Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 123,523 113,600 -8.0 -9,923
15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 294,099 272,050 -7.5 -22,048
16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 167,315 159,861 -4.5 -7,454
17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 345,739 320,449 -7.3 -25,290
18 St. Louis, MO-IL 122,977 122,275 -0.6 -702
19 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 111,601 105,737 -5.3 -5,864
20 Baltimore-Towson, MD 235,192 226,176 -3.8 -9,016
21 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO 226,820 223,372 -1.5 -3,448
22 Pittsburgh, PA 115,776 119,751 3.4 3,975
23 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 236,820 226,847 -4.2 -9,973
24 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 110,361 109,825 -0.5 -536
25 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 196,029 170,886 -12.8 -25,142
26 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 122,272 113,532 -7.1 -8,739
27 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 124,834 123,094 -1.4 -1,740
28 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 120,148 114,903 -4.4 -5,245
29 Kansas City, MO-KS 119,752 119,496 -0.2 -257
30 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 118,239 100,770 -14.8 -17,468
31 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 494,595 477,890 -3.4 -16,705
32 Columbus, OH 131,667 130,190 -1.1 -1,477
33 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 148,036 138,398 -6.5 -9,639
34 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 127,867 124,810 -2.4 -3,057
35 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX 172,246 172,298 0.0 52
36 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 197,859 189,143 -4.4 -8,716
37 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN 157,317 156,058 -0.8 -1,259
38 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 232,457 213,805 -8.0 -18,652
39 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 172,524 161,975 -6.1 -10,548
40 Jacksonville, FL 126,509 120,761 -4.5 -5,748
41 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 96,584 95,450 -1.2 -1,134
42 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 126,521 122,968 -2.8 -3,553
43 Oklahoma City, OK 104,742 100,901 -3.7 -3,841
44 Richmond, VA 168,392 161,795 -3.9 -6,598