The 10 best and worst cities for employment
October 5, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Hiring, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
Three of the worst are in California. The best one probably isn’t where you think.
Manpower, the employment services company, compiled the lists using what’s called the “net employment outlook” (NEO) for listed cities. It’s a figure derived by taking the percentage of employers who say they’re going to be hiring and the percentage of employers who say they’re going to be laying off, and subtracting one from the other.
So, for example, if 20% of employers in a city said they’d be hiring and 11% said they’d be laying off, the NEO would be +9%. If 10% of employers said they’d be hiring and 15% said they’d be laying off, the NEO would be -5%.
Best
- Lincoln, NE, NEO +17%
- Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA, +11%
- Columbus, GA, +10%
- Rochester, NY, +10%
- Waco, TX, +10%
- Lafayette, LA, +9%
- McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX, +9%
- York-Hanover, PA, +9%
- Anchorage, AK, +8%
- Sioux Falls, SD, +8%
Worst
- Flint, MI, -17%
- Detroit, MI, -14%
- Salinas, CA, -15%
- Dayton, OH, -14%
- Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA, -13%
- Las Vegas, NV, -13%
- Myrtle Beach, SC, -13%
- San Juan, PR, -13%
- Bakersfield, CA, -12%
- Stockton, CA, -12%
Tags: Hiring, laying off, Manpower, net employment outlook
October 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
That is a really silly metric to use. Since the stat is based on the percentage rather than actual numbers, a city may show up as very positive when the total number of employers is very low, meaning that there will be few actual jobs available.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Good comment HR Lady! I never thought about that! (Living in Stockton, Ca. I don’t think we come anywhere close to the population of some of those enormous cities!) Salinas, Ca. is very tiny and predominately seasonal workers…
October 13th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Not only a silly metric but very misleading. Even worse than HR Lady eludes to (I’m sure she thought of it but must be nicer than I am.) Ex: Of 100 employers in the city, 20 employers were going to hire 3 new employees each and 3 employers were going to elimnate 300 jobs each! Results +17%, net impact loss of 840 jobs!
October 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
The NEO seems like a ridiculous statistic — meaningless, but it can be construed in so many positive or negative ways. Oh wait, isn’t that true of most statistics?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Actually I think it’s hilarious that every time I see “the best and/or worst city” headline, Stockton, CA is almost always in the “worst” catagory no matter what the catagory is. It can be the “worst city for people with cat allergies” and Stockton will be listed, usually in the number one position. Born in raised in that city, I’m so very proud!
November 17th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I hear ya, TerriG – we have it all here – pollution, allergies, crime, bank repos, unemployment…we are completely diverse!
(What an armpit…)