Best States for Purchasing Managers: New York and California Top a High-Paying Field

For purchasing managers, LaborCove’s data shows a national median annual salary of $148,080 and national employment of 84,320, with projected national occupational employment growth of 3.1%. Against that backdrop, the top 10 states in LaborCove’s rankings demonstrate different mixes of salary levels, employment counts, and Geography Scores. Some states in the top 10, such as New York and California, combine relatively high Geography Scores with some of the larger employment counts in this group. Others, like New Jersey and Colorado, appear because of strong salaries despite smaller supplied employment counts. The rankings also illustrate that the highest median salaries in this list do not automatically produce the highest LaborCove Geography Scores or the top state rank. Massachusetts, Colorado, and New Jersey all have median salaries above the national median, but they occupy different positions in the top 10, reinforcing that the Geography Score reflects more than just pay. Overall, the top states offer multiple ways to stand out: some lean toward higher salaries, others toward higher employment counts within this set, and some toward consistently strong Geography Scores. Purchasing managers comparing states can use these contrasts alongside their own preferences for income level, market size, and other personal considerations.

At the national level, purchasing managers have a median annual salary of $148,080 and employment of 84,320 positions. LaborCove’s data also supplies a projected national occupational employment growth rate of 3.1% for this role. These national figures give a reference point for comparing the top-ranked states. Some states in the top 10 have median salaries above this national benchmark, while others sit below it, and employment counts in the top states represent only a portion of the 84,320 national total. The Geography Score adds an additional layer beyond pay and headcount, summarizing how each state performs in the LaborCove scoring system relative to its peers in this ranking set.

New York holds the #1 state rank with a LaborCove Geography Score of 73.50, just ahead of California at #2 with a score of 72.77. Both scores are higher than those of the remaining eight states in this top-10 list. New Jersey ranks #3 with a Geography Score of 65.75, followed by Texas at #4 with 63.00 and Massachusetts at #5 with 61.04. All five of these states have Geography Scores above 60, while the rest of the top 10 fall below that threshold. Virginia (#6) has a Geography Score of 59.83, higher than Colorado’s 56.95 at #7, Maryland’s 54.61 at #8, Washington’s 53.86 at #9, and Illinois’s 53.18 at #10. The spread from New York at 73.50 down to Illinois at 53.18 illustrates that even within the top 10, LaborCove’s Geography Scores can differ substantially.

Several of the top-ranked states post median annual salaries above the national benchmark of $148,080. New York at $166,300, California at $159,830, New Jersey at $174,520, Massachusetts at $170,750, Virginia at $166,230, Colorado at $171,250, Maryland at $161,470, and Washington at $162,730 all have higher median salaries than the national figure. By contrast, Texas at $134,670 and Illinois at $153,370 provide a different salary picture. Texas’s median salary is lower than the national median, while Illinois’s is higher than the national median but lower than that of several other states in this top-10 list, including New York and California. The highest median salaries in this group belong to New Jersey at $174,520, Colorado at $171,250, and Massachusetts at $170,750. However, their Geography Scores and resulting ranks (#3, #7, and #5, respectively) show that high salary alone does not determine a state’s overall position in LaborCove’s rankings.

Within this top-10 set, Texas has the largest employment count for purchasing managers at 9,640, making it the biggest employment market among these states. California follows with 7,470, and New York has 6,930. Illinois has 4,160 purchasing manager positions in the supplied data, a higher employment count than New Jersey’s 3,430 and Virginia’s 3,540. Maryland shows 2,380 positions, ahead of Massachusetts at 2,160. Colorado and Washington have the smallest employment counts in this top-10 list, at 1,320 and 1,770 respectively. These figures help illustrate how market size varies across the states that appear in LaborCove’s top rankings, even when all are among the leading performers by Geography Score.

The relationship between salary, employment, and Geography Score differs across the top states. Texas, for example, has the largest employment count in this group at 9,640 but a median salary of $134,670 that is below the national median and a Geography Score of 63.00, placing it at rank #4. New Jersey illustrates another pattern: It has a median salary of $174,520, which is higher than New York’s $166,300, but a smaller employment count of 3,430 compared with New York’s 6,930 and a lower Geography Score of 65.75 versus New York’s 73.50. Colorado highlights that a strong salary does not automatically correspond to a top-ranked Geography Score. Its median salary of $171,250 exceeds California’s $159,830, yet Colorado’s Geography Score of 56.95 and rank of #7 trail California’s score of 72.77 and #2 rank. These examples underscore that LaborCove’s state rankings summarize multiple factors rather than mirroring any single metric.

LaborCove’s state rankings for purchasing managers provide a structured way to compare key quantitative attributes across leading locations. The Geography Score and rank, alongside median salary and employment data, highlight where states differ on measurable labor-market characteristics. Because the 3.1% projected growth rate is national, it should be treated as background context rather than as a forecast for any specific state. Geographic projected growth rates are not supplied here, so no state-level trend should be inferred from the national figure alone. Purchasing managers deciding where to focus can use these rankings to understand how the top states compare numerically, then layer on their own criteria—such as preferred industries, commute preferences, or non-work considerations—which are outside the scope of this data set.

LaborCove builds these rankings from authoritative U.S. labor‑market data combined with our proprietary Geography Score methodology. For this article, national occupation figures (median annual salary, employment, and projected national employment growth) refer to purchasing managers (SOC 11-3061) and are benchmarked against state-level results. The underlying Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations for salaries and employment are referenced to May 2025. The 2026 report year identifies the publication and aggregation cycle, not the original OEWS observation date. Each state’s LaborCove Geography Score is a composite result that produces the ranking shown here. The individual components and their weights are not disclosed in this article, so the score should be interpreted as a summary indicator rather than a direct proxy for any single metric such as salary or employment. Projected employment growth of 3.1% is a national projection for the purchasing manager occupation. It does not represent or imply any state- or metro-level growth rate. Geographic projected growth rates are not supplied for this analysis. Because the Geography Score aggregates several factors, users should consider these rankings as one input among many. Personal circumstances, employer and industry preferences, and non-labor factors fall outside the scope of this data-driven comparison and are not reflected in the scores.