Wondering where companies are hiring, and where they are firing? A new study shows which metropolitan areas in the United States have the greatest imbalances — positive and negative – in the number of employers planning to hire employees in Q4 versus the number of employers cutting jobs in Q4. Some areas are thriving: Lincoln, Nebraska, leads the country in having the best ratios for job-seekers. Other places are deeply hurting: Flint, Michigan, has the worst ratio of employers willing to hire in the country. Forbes Magazine examined the numbers: how are things looking for your metro area? The study, Manpower Inc.'s United States Employment Outlook Survey, asked 28,000 employers across 200+ metropolitan statistical areas in the U.S. and its territories how many of them expected to hire in Q4 2009 versus how many expected to trim positions. They dubbed the difference between these two numbers the "net employment outlook." This doesn't measure actual job numbers, of course, but whether individual employers are adding or subtracting employees. Nonetheless, it gives a good snapshot of which regions are booming, and which are going bust. Let’s deal with the bad news first. California’s agricultural regions are hard-hit, with Bakersfield, Stockton, and Salinas taking up three of 10 slots on the list of worst areas. The Las Vegas area is also feeling the pain as construction grinds to a standstill, and vacationers have less discretionary income. Michigan, home of the shattered American auto industry, has two slots on the list: Detroit in fourth position, and Flint in first as the toughest place in America for hiring right now. In Flint, 26% of employers are planning on cutting jobs, and just 9% are hiring, creating a net employment outlook of -17%. Here’s the full list of troubled spots, most of which are suffering from ranges of -8% to -10% in hiring:
The 10 worst cities for hiring in Q4 2009

1. Flint, MI
2. Salinas, CA
3. Dayton, OH
4. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
5. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
6. Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
7. Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC
8. San Juan, Puerto Rico
9. Stockton, CA
10. Bakersfield, CA

Now, on to the good news. One trend I see as positive is that the “good” cities are spread out geographically, and have many different reasons and strengths for growing. Versatility and diversity seem to be important in weathering the economic downturn. Lincoln, Nebraska, tops the "good" list: 21% of employers are planning to hire this quarter, and only 4% are planning on cutting back, meaning that 17% of employers, net, are hiring. What’s the secret to their success? Well, Lincoln seems to be a very diversified place: they have manufacturing jobs, including Kawasaki’s North American assembly plant, along with lots of education, a strong base of insurance companies, and important outposts in pharmaceuticals and biotech. Other strong cities on this list boast net employment outlooks in the range of 10% or 11%. If you're a job-hunter in Lincoln, Lafayette, Anchorage, Sioux Falls, Waco, or anywhere else on this list, you're a lucky job-hunter indeed:
The 10 best cities for hiring in Q4 2009

1. Lincoln, NB
2. Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA
3. Waco, TX
4. Rochester, NY
5. Columbus, GA-AL
6. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX
7. York-Hanover, PA
8. Lafayette, LA
9. Anchorage, AK
10. Sioux Falls, SD

RiseSmart welcomes anecdotal insight from any HR professionals in these 20 affected areas. Please join us in the comments.