I always enjoy the lists that Forbes produces, except for the ones that exclude me, such as Top Models and World’s Richest. But I digress - let’s check out Forbes’ Best Cities for Jobs report.
As you might expect, Forbes’ research was a domestic exercise and out of 100 metropolitan markets, 25 were deemed “best.” I have no qualms with their top choice, Raleigh, North Carolina. The key to Raleigh’s pole position is its proximity to Research Triangle Park, a 7,000 acre sprawl of offices, pines and parking lots, packed with R&D, high-tech and biotech global career opportunities. Raleigh-Cary deserves raves for its scenic beauty, affordable housing, and fine universities such as Duke, NC State and UNC.
Let’s not quibble too much about Forbes’ list, because it wasn’t intended to be global in its scope (or use). But if you’re evaluating your next career move would you give an “equal” weighting to these five categories: “Unemployment rate, job growth, income growth, median household income, and cost of living”? Sounds reasonable (if you have the data), but the formula yields curious choices such as Jacksonville, Florida, at No. 3 or Oklahoma City at No. 21 (true, it has multinational oil firms). Maybe it’s my big-city bias, but unless your priorities are low-cost housing, Oklahoma Sooner football or petrochemicals, why would you choose to live in Oklahoma City over New York City at No. 75, Pittsburgh at No. 76, Chicago at No. 82, Boston at No. 83, and last, but definitely not least, San Francisco/Silicon Valley at No. 86?
As they say, your results will vary. How would you choose the world’s best cities for global work? Let us know if it’s a project we should pursue.
Biggest Employers
Branding You
Career Advice
Coaching
CV/Résumés
Education
Employment
Globalization
Hot Skills
Immigration
Job Boards
Job Testing
Mentors
MNC
Perfect Job
Recruiters
Relocations
Research
Salary
Social Media
Workplace
Hi Rusty,
You ask a good question, and you rightly note that statistics do not necessarily tell us what’s a better place to live and work. Unemployment rates and job growth are less relevant if the jobs are at McDonald’s or Target. Also, while demography suggests that in many parts of the world, people seem to prefer urban areas, happiness studies suggest that urban populations are not necessarily happier (and I’m not sure why Oklahoma City is a worse place to live than New York or LA, though there is that stereotype, and it seems to stem from a sense of a homogenous populace. So perhaps diversty of populace is a useful measure). Anyway, average commute time and number of civic events (including football games but also concerts, plays and let’s throw in museum visitors), and perhaps number of college grads might be good measures to consider.
As you point out many of the new jobs generated in this economy are low paying and in the services sector. I’m not defending that performance, but I don’t have a doom and gloom view of its implications for America. I don’t blame other countries for America’s performance nor do I believe that America’s response to global competition should be to erect trade or services barriers and restrictions. As for happiness - clearly some people prefer monochromatic enclaves. Not my thing - or maybe I just can’t line-dance?
To the list, I would add the quality of schools for children, whether the place is “cosmopolitan” or not, and the general open-mindedness of a community. Year-round weather is another important consideration. And, if you want to be more picky, you could consider whether the location is a concrete jungle, a suburban spread or college chaos.