Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CareerBuilder has several labor market indices that it uses to put together its Labor Market 150 index, but I wanted to focus on their Quality Employment Rankings, which they define as the pre-recession, post-recession and projected (through 2020) job growth in each metropolitan area's major fields of employment, combined with the share of new jobs created in each metropolitan area since 2010 that pay a "living wage," which varies based on the cost of living. I whittled the list down to the 51 MSAs with at least 1,000,000 population per the 2010 Census, and these are the Quality Employment Rankings:
Overall
1. Houston
2. Seattle
3. Salt Lake City
4. Raleigh
5. San Jose
6. San Francisco/Oakland
7. Nashville
8. Louisville
9. Portland
10. Denver
11. Austin
12. Pittsburgh
13. Oklahoma City
14. Charlotte
15. Las Vegas
16. Detroit
17. Dallas/Fort Worth
18. Tampa
19. Phoenix
20. San Antonio
21. St. Louis
22. Birmingham
23. Atlanta
24. Kansas City
25. Orlando
26. Sacramento
27. Minneapolis/St. Paul
28. Boston
29. Baltimore
30. Cincinnati
31. Indianapolis
32. Columbus
33. Philadelphia
34. Cleveland
35. Miami
36. Jacksonville
37. Los Angeles
38. San Diego
39. Riverside/San Bernardino
40. Providence
41. Buffalo
42. Memphis
43. Washington DC
44. Hartford
45. Rochester
46. Chicago
47. Milwaukee
48. New York
49. Richmond
50. Virginia Beach/Norfolk
51. New Orleans
Northeast
12. Pittsburgh
28. Boston
29. Baltimore
33. Philadelphia
40. Providence
41. Buffalo
43. Washington DC
44. Hartford
45. Rochester
48. New York
South
1. Houston
4. Raleigh
7. Nashville
8. Louisville
11. Austin
13. Oklahoma City
14. Charlotte
17. Dallas/Fort Worth
18. Tampa
20. San Antonio
22. Birmingham
23. Atlanta
25. Orlando
35. Miami
36. Jacksonville
42. Memphis
49. Richmond
50. Virginia Beach/Norfolk
51. New Orleans
Midwest
16. Detroit
21. St. Louis
24. Kansas City
27. Minneapolis/St. Paul
30. Cincinnati
31. Indianapolis
32. Columbus
34. Cleveland
46. Chicago
47. Milwaukee
West
2. Seattle
3. Salt Lake City
5. San Jose
6. San Francisco/Oakland
9. Portland
10. Denver
15. Las Vegas
19. Phoenix
26. Sacramento
37. Los Angeles
38. San Diego
39. Riverside/San Bernardino
(NOTE: MSAs in the top half are shaded in BLUE. MSAs in the bottom half are shaded in RED. The median MSA is shaded in GRAY.)
This appears to be one reason why the South and West are growing faster than the Northeast and Midwest: more bang for people's bucks. The South and West have 31 MSAs with at least 1,000,000 population, and 21 of them rank in the top half, versus only nine in the bottom half. (One of them is the median MSA.) On the other hand, the Northeast and Midwest have 20 MSAs with at least 1,000,000 population, and only four of them rank in the top half, versus 16 in the bottom half.
No surprise where both of my cities rank: Raleigh in the top group and Miami 2/3 of the way down the list. Thanks for compiling this information. It's always interesting to see this sort of breakdown.
Surprised that Boston, DFW and NOLA are not ranked higher. Seem that every year the 1st two are always up there along with the Bay area, Houston and Seattle. For NOLA, i thought it had been doing much better recently than before the recession.
CareerBuilder has several labor market indices that it uses to put together its Labor Market 150 index, but I wanted to focus on their Quality Employment Rankings, which they define as the pre-recession, post-recession and projected (through 2020) job growth in each metropolitan area's major fields of employment, combined with the share of new jobs created in each metropolitan area since 2010 that pay a "living wage," which varies based on the cost of living. I whittled the list down to the 51 MSAs with at least 1,000,000 population per the 2010 Census, and these are the Quality Employment Rankings:
Overall
1. Houston
2. Seattle
3. Salt Lake City
4. Raleigh
5. San Jose
6. San Francisco/Oakland
7. Nashville
8. Louisville
9. Portland
10. Denver
11. Austin
12. Pittsburgh
13. Oklahoma City
14. Charlotte
15. Las Vegas
16. Detroit
17. Dallas/Fort Worth
18. Tampa
19. Phoenix
20. San Antonio
21. St. Louis
22. Birmingham
23. Atlanta
24. Kansas City
25. Orlando
26. Sacramento
27. Minneapolis/St. Paul
28. Boston
29. Baltimore
30. Cincinnati
31. Indianapolis
32. Columbus
33. Philadelphia
34. Cleveland
35. Miami
36. Jacksonville
37. Los Angeles
38. San Diego
39. Riverside/San Bernardino
40. Providence
41. Buffalo
42. Memphis
43. Washington DC
44. Hartford
45. Rochester
46. Chicago
47. Milwaukee
48. New York
49. Richmond
50. Virginia Beach/Norfolk
51. New Orleans
Northeast
12. Pittsburgh
28. Boston
29. Baltimore
33. Philadelphia
40. Providence
41. Buffalo
43. Washington DC
44. Hartford
45. Rochester
48. New York
South
1. Houston
4. Raleigh
7. Nashville
8. Louisville
11. Austin
13. Oklahoma City
14. Charlotte
17. Dallas/Fort Worth
18. Tampa
20. San Antonio
22. Birmingham
23. Atlanta
25. Orlando
35. Miami
36. Jacksonville
42. Memphis
49. Richmond
50. Virginia Beach/Norfolk
51. New Orleans
Midwest
16. Detroit
21. St. Louis
24. Kansas City
27. Minneapolis/St. Paul
30. Cincinnati
31. Indianapolis
32. Columbus
34. Cleveland
46. Chicago
47. Milwaukee
West
2. Seattle
3. Salt Lake City
5. San Jose
6. San Francisco/Oakland
9. Portland
10. Denver
15. Las Vegas
19. Phoenix
26. Sacramento
37. Los Angeles
38. San Diego
39. Riverside/San Bernardino
(NOTE: MSAs in the top half are shaded in BLUE. MSAs in the bottom half are shaded in RED. The median MSA is shaded in GRAY.)
This appears to be one reason why the South and West are growing faster than the Northeast and Midwest: more bang for people's bucks. The South and West have 31 MSAs with at least 1,000,000 population, and 21 of them rank in the top half, versus only nine in the bottom half. (One of them is the median MSA.) On the other hand, the Northeast and Midwest have 20 MSAs with at least 1,000,000 population, and only four of them rank in the top half, versus 16 in the bottom half.
I would say that If Detroit is ranked first in the Midwest, then this must mean that Grand Rapids, MI is the true number one of 1,000,000 plus Metro. The Grand Rapids area is a relative new comer to the Millionaires club in terms of population, thus, it probably is not updated in many databases by its new metro definition and population. I think it has the strongest economy in the state of MI, however.
Excepting SF and Seattle, I will take all the cities on the bottom of the list over the cities on the top of the list. There also appears to be no rhyme or reason to the list, with declining areas like ranked well and booming areas ranked poorly.
Pittsburgh, for example, has the worst population loss of any metro in the U.S., and pretty mediocre wages and limited white collar job market, yet is ranked first in the Northeast. NYC, which probably has more high wage jobs than any metro on the planet, and has very robust high wage jobs growth, is ranked last in the Northeast. Huh?
Or in the Midwest, Detroit is ranked #1 for employment. Why, exactly? Detroit is a mess.
In the West, LA is nearly ranked dead last, but Salt Lake is ranked near the top. I think it's fairly clear there are more high paying jobs in LA than in Salt Lake.
Excepting SF and Seattle, I will take all the cities on the bottom of the list over the cities on the top of the list. There also appears to be no rhyme or reason to the list, with declining areas like ranked well and booming areas ranked poorly.
Pittsburgh, for example, has the worst population loss of any metro in the U.S., and pretty mediocre wages and limited white collar job market, yet is ranked first in the Northeast. NYC, which probably has more high wage jobs than any metro on the planet, and has very robust high wage jobs growth, is ranked last in the Northeast. Huh?
Or in the Midwest, Detroit is ranked #1 for employment. Why, exactly? Detroit is a mess.
In the West, LA is nearly ranked dead last, but Salt Lake is ranked near the top. I think it's fairly clear there are more high paying jobs in LA than in Salt Lake.
You've been away from it for too long. It's MSA has been in constant rebound since the auto restructure. It also dipped the lowest as it was in a recession for 10 years while the rest of the country was in a strong economy from 2000-2007. The only way Metro Detroit could really go was up.
Excepting SF and Seattle, I will take all the cities on the bottom of the list over the cities on the top of the list. There also appears to be no rhyme or reason to the list, with declining areas like ranked well and booming areas ranked poorly.
Pittsburgh, for example, has the worst population loss of any metro in the U.S., and pretty mediocre wages and limited white collar job market, yet is ranked first in the Northeast. NYC, which probably has more high wage jobs than any metro on the planet, and has very robust high wage jobs growth, is ranked last in the Northeast. Huh?
Or in the Midwest, Detroit is ranked #1 for employment. Why, exactly? Detroit is a mess.
In the West, LA is nearly ranked dead last, but Salt Lake is ranked near the top. I think it's fairly clear there are more high paying jobs in LA than in Salt Lake.
You seem to be missing the fact that the rankings are based on share of jobs (percentages --not gross numbers of jobs) and are also weighted based on cost of living.
You seem to be missing the fact that the rankings are based on share of jobs (percentages --not gross numbers of jobs) and are also weighted based on cost of living.
Then it's a stupid metric, because cost of living is strictly based on desirability.
The survey is basically saying an area is more desirable because people find it less desirable, which makes no sense.
Just because other people find Detroit undesirable, so the real estate is dirt cheap, why would it make Detroit more desirable for me? Why would I want a home with plummeting property values? Just so I could brag that I bought my house cheap?
Then it's a stupid metric, because cost of living is strictly based on desirability.
The survey is basically saying an area is more desirable because people find it less desirable, which makes no sense.
Just because other people find Detroit undesirable, so the real estate is dirt cheap, why would it make Detroit more desirable for me? Why would I want a home with plummeting property values? Just so I could brag that I bought my house cheap?
You're reading wrong again. It's Quality Employment Rankings. Not desirability of metro areas rankings. employment is one piece of desirablility but certainly not all. You seem to be really personally upset about this ranking for some reason.
Just because other people find Detroit undesirable, so the real estate is dirt cheap, why would it make Detroit more desirable for me? Why would I want a home with plummeting property values? Just so I could brag that I bought my house cheap?
You're only looking at this from a personal perspective.
Desirability is only tangentially related to cost-of-living. Yes, clearly the higher-cost metros have higher demand, but "desirability" is a very subjective, hard-to-measure term. Just because an area has high-demand, that does not necessarily mean that people "desire" to live there. Many people simply move to a given area just to obtain employment, not necessarily because it's their dream city. Other high cost-of-living factors are also related to strict zoning or geographic restrictions, which are HUGE factors in high housing costs.
This a perfectly fine and very important metric, because it's looking at the types of jobs being created in each city based on their ability to provide a living wage for the local area, which is something that many people foolishly overlook.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
