It's interesting to me that the top two cities (OKC and Austin) are both capital cities, and therefore rife with government jobs. A few posts I have read (on the politics forum? can't remember) deride how Oklahomans get more from the federal gov't than they give ($1.35 in and $1.00 out? can't remember) but want smaller gov't. While I know I'm not quoting anybody accurately, the gist I took away from those posts is that OK economy would suck if not for the federal gov't installations, so shut up and get back to sucking on the gov't teat. Sure, my takeaway is slightly incendiary, but that's how I read some of those posts. This list rating the largest 102 metros in the U.S. doesn't seem to care about anything but private sector jobs and other private sector stastics in ranking OK number 1 two months in a row. How can that info be reconciled? Is it the cushion of gov't jobs that makes it possible for the top two cities to thrive so? or have we really solved the puzzle that others haven't?