Top Metros for ‘All Other’ Managers: DC and New York Lead, Bay Area Pays the Most

Across the top 10 metros, LaborCove’s data shows a clear mix of high salaries, large employment counts, and strong Geography Scores—but not in identical combinations. San Jose and San Francisco report the highest median pay, Washington, DC has the largest employment count and the top overall score, and New York combines high pay with the second‑largest employment base. Several metros, including Boston and Denver, pair smaller employment counts with higher salaries than the national median, while Atlanta and Dallas sit below the national pay benchmark despite landing in the top 10 by overall score.

At the national level, managers, all other, report a median annual salary of $141,900 and employment of 622,190. National employment for this occupation is projected to grow by 4.5%, which frames the overall U.S. demand trend but does not specify how any individual metro will evolve. Within this national picture, the 10 top‑ranked metros in LaborCove’s data all have Geography Scores above 50, led by Washington‑Arlington‑Alexandria at 73.76. Their salaries span a range from Atlanta’s $130,340—below the national median—to San Jose‑Sunnyvale‑Santa Clara’s $217,280. This spread illustrates how metro‑level outcomes for this occupation can differ from the national benchmark in both directions.

Washington‑Arlington‑Alexandria ranks #1 among metros with a Geography Score of 73.76, a median salary of $170,980, and the largest reported employment count in the top 10 at 42,010. Its median pay is above the national median of $141,900, and its employment total exceeds that of every other listed metro. New York‑Newark‑Jersey City ranks #2 with a Geography Score of 73.03. It reports a median salary of $169,800 and employment of 34,400, both below Washington’s values but still above the national median salary. Compared with Los Angeles‑Long Beach‑Anaheim, New York has a higher median salary than Los Angeles’s $168,160 and a larger employment count than Los Angeles’s 31,210. Together, Washington and New York stand out in this ranking as the only metros with employment counts above 34,000 while also posting Geography Scores above 73 and median salaries above the national benchmark.

San Francisco‑Oakland‑Fremont and San Jose‑Sunnyvale‑Santa Clara lead the top 10 on pay but do not occupy the #1 overall rank. San Francisco reports a median salary of $210,080 and a Geography Score of 70.53 at rank #3, while San Jose reports the highest median salary in the top 10 at $217,280, with a Geography Score of 68.54 at rank #4. Both Bay Area metros have median salaries far above the national median of $141,900, yet their employment counts—21,550 for San Francisco and 13,740 for San Jose—are smaller than Washington’s 42,010 and New York’s 34,400. Their Geography Scores also trail Washington’s 73.76 and New York’s 73.03 despite higher pay. This pattern underscores that in LaborCove’s methodology, the highest salary does not automatically produce the highest Geography Score. For managers weighing salary against the scale of the local employment market, the Bay Area metros present a different profile from Washington or New York.

Los Angeles‑Long Beach‑Anaheim ranks #5 with a Geography Score of 67.18, a median salary of $168,160, and employment of 31,210. Its salary is above the national median of $141,900, and its employment count is smaller than Washington’s 42,010 and New York’s 34,400 but larger than San Francisco’s 21,550. Chicago‑Naperville‑Elgin ranks #6 with a Geography Score of 56.83. Its median salary of $145,370 is slightly above the national median and lower than Los Angeles’s $168,160. Chicago’s employment count of 26,170 is below Los Angeles’s 31,210 but above Boston‑Cambridge‑Newton’s 9,120. Compared with the highest‑paying Bay Area metros and the largest‑employment hubs of Washington and New York, Los Angeles and Chicago occupy a middle ground in this ranking: both post salaries above the national median with employment counts that are substantial but not the largest in the top 10.

The remaining four metros in the top 10 show varied combinations of pay and employment at lower Geography Scores than the top‑ranked group. Boston‑Cambridge‑Newton ranks #7 with a Geography Score of 54.42, a median salary of $184,250, and employment of 9,120. Boston’s median pay is higher than Los Angeles’s $168,160 and far above the national median, but its employment count is lower than Chicago’s 26,170 and Denver‑Aurora‑Centennial’s 9,250. Atlanta‑Sandy Springs‑Roswell ranks #8 with a Geography Score of 52.62. It reports a median salary of $130,340 and employment of 24,490. Atlanta’s median salary is below both the national median of $141,900 and Dallas‑Fort Worth‑Arlington’s $139,810, while its employment count is higher than Dallas’s 19,890. Denver‑Aurora‑Centennial and Dallas‑Fort Worth‑Arlington close out the top 10 with very similar Geography Scores—51.59 for Denver at rank #9 and 51.57 for Dallas at rank #10. Denver’s median salary of $175,980 is above the national median and higher than Chicago’s $145,370, while its employment count of 9,250 is lower than Atlanta’s 24,490 and Chicago’s 26,170. Dallas’s median salary of $139,810 sits below the national median and below Chicago’s $145,370 despite Dallas having a smaller Geography Score and rank position just under Denver.

LaborCove’s metro analysis for managers, all other (11-9199), uses authoritative U.S. labor‑market data and its own Geography Score methodology. All median annual salary and employment figures for metros and the national benchmark reflect Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations for May 2025. The report year 2026 identifies the product cycle for this ranking, not the OEWS observation year. The national projected employment growth rate of 4.5% is a separate U.S.‑wide occupational projection for managers, all other. It provides national context only and is not used as a state‑ or metro‑specific forecast in this article. LaborCove’s Geography Score combines salary, employment, and other internal factors into a single value to support geographic comparisons. The exact weighting of underlying components is not disclosed here, so this article does not attribute a metro’s rank to any single metric. Rankings should be weighed alongside personal priorities such as industry, role fit, and non‑labor‑market considerations, which are outside the scope of the supplied data.