US cities by civilian labor force
New York, NY had the highest civilian labor force of 1599 cities in 2014, at 4.2 million. Florence, AZ had the lowest, at 3,626. The median was 23,349. Source: the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Top 40 cities, 2014
Full ranking
| Rank | Cities | 2014 | Change on 2013 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New York, NY | 4,196,850 | +1.2% |
| 2 | Los Angeles, CA | 2,003,678 | +0.6% |
| 3 | Chicago, IL | 1,378,290 | -0.6% |
| 4 | Houston, TX | 1,130,502 | +1.1% |
| 5 | Phoenix, AZ | 727,403 | +1.5% |
| 6 | Philadelphia, PA | 694,880 | -0.4% |
| 7 | San Diego, CA | 690,969 | +0.3% |
| 8 | San Antonio, TX | 667,368 | +1.4% |
| 9 | Dallas, TX | 629,513 | +1.7% |
| 10 | San Jose, CA | 528,301 | +1.8% |
| 11 | San Francisco, CA | 527,880 | +2.6% |
| 12 | Austin, TX | 525,799 | +2.9% |
| 13 | Columbus, OH | 441,082 | +1.8% |
| 14 | Jacksonville, FL | 430,569 | +0.5% |
| 15 | Charlotte, NC | 429,834 | +1.8% |
| 16 | Indianapolis, IN | 423,973 | +0.7% |
| 17 | Seattle, WA | 409,729 | +3% |
| 18 | Fort Worth, TX | 388,928 | +1.7% |
| 19 | Denver, CO | 368,190 | +1.6% |
| 20 | Boston, MA | 360,088 | +2.4% |
| 21 | Portland, OR | 345,013 | +2.1% |
| 22 | Oklahoma City, OK | 302,664 | +0.5% |
| 23 | Baltimore, MD | 295,703 | -0.8% |
| 24 | Memphis, TN | 289,472 | -1.8% |
| 25 | Las Vegas, NV | 288,747 | +0.7% |
| 26 | El Paso, TX | 286,492 | -0.6% |
| 27 | Milwaukee, WI | 284,405 | -0.8% |
| 28 | Albuquerque, NM | 271,755 | +0.1% |
| 29 | Detroit, MI | 250,963 | -3.3% |
| 30 | Kansas City, MO | 249,829 | +1.7% |
| 31 | Tucson, AZ | 245,894 | -0.2% |
| 32 | Long Beach, CA | 238,104 | +0.2% |
| 33 | Fresno, CA | 234,885 | +0.2% |
| 34 | Omaha, NE | 232,738 | +1.9% |
| 35 | Virginia Beach, VA | 232,444 | +0.6% |
| 36 | Atlanta, GA | 231,472 | +0.6% |
| 37 | Minneapolis, MN | 230,940 | +1.7% |
| 38 | Raleigh, NC | 229,945 | +1.4% |
| 39 | Sacramento, CA | 224,920 | -0.3% |
| 40 | Mesa, AZ | 216,207 | +1.5% |
| 41 | Colorado Springs, CO | 215,471 | 0% |
| 42 | Oakland, CA | 207,179 | +0.3% |
| 43 | Miami, FL | 206,588 | +3.3% |
| 44 | Arlington, TX | 201,265 | +0.3% |
| 45 | Tulsa, OK | 193,041 | -0.6% |
| 46 | Wichita, KS | 188,659 | +0.1% |
| 47 | Tampa, FL | 183,729 | +0.9% |
| 48 | Aurora, CO | 179,680 | +1.4% |
| 49 | Bakersfield, CA | 179,446 | +0.3% |
| 50 | New Orleans, LA | 178,082 | +2.7% |
| 51 | Anaheim, CA | 168,021 | -0.3% |
| 52 | Lexington, KY | 167,511 | -0.8% |
| 53 | Cleveland, OH | 162,398 | -0.2% |
| 54 | St. Louis, MO | 159,313 | +0.2% |
| 55 | Pittsburgh, PA | 158,388 | -0.4% |
| 56 | Anchorage, AK | 157,412 | 0% |
| 57 | Santa Ana, CA | 157,095 | -0.6% |
| 58 | St. Paul, MN | 152,842 | +0.7% |
| 59 | Lincoln, NE | 151,868 | -0.3% |
| 60 | Corpus Christi, TX | 151,811 | +0.2% |
| 61 | Plano, TX | 150,915 | +1.5% |
| 62 | Orlando, FL | 150,535 | +2.5% |
| 63 | Madison, WI | 149,469 | +1.2% |
| 64 | Riverside, CA | 144,703 | +1% |
| 65 | Cincinnati, OH | 142,481 | -0% |
| 66 | Jersey City, NJ | 141,588 | +0.6% |
| 67 | Henderson, NV | 140,823 | +1.8% |
| 68 | Greensboro, NC | 138,783 | -1.1% |
| 69 | Chandler, AZ | 136,658 | +2.3% |
| 70 | St. Petersburg, FL | 133,672 | +0.9% |
| 71 | Durham, NC | 130,554 | +1.8% |
| 72 | Toledo, OH | 128,972 | -0.8% |
| 73 | Stockton, CA | 127,220 | -0.5% |
| 74 | Irvine, CA | 125,907 | +4.7% |
| 75 | Gilbert, AZ | 124,074 | +4.3% |
| 76 | Lubbock, TX | 123,446 | +0.6% |
| 77 | Scottsdale, AZ | 122,282 | +1.6% |
| 78 | Irving, TX | 122,219 | +1.5% |
| 79 | Fort Wayne, IN | 121,297 | +0.6% |
| 80 | Newark, NJ | 120,613 | -1.4% |
| 81 | Chula Vista, CA | 119,497 | -0.4% |
| 82 | Reno, NV | 118,850 | +0.5% |
| 83 | Garland, TX | 118,256 | +0.2% |
| 84 | Chesapeake, VA | 117,597 | +1.1% |
| 85 | Boise City, ID | 115,133 | -0.1% |
| 86 | Baton Rouge, LA | 114,871 | +1.6% |
| 87 | Fremont, CA | 113,785 | +0.8% |
| 88 | Richmond, VA | 112,657 | +2% |
| 89 | Buffalo, NY | 112,469 | -3.3% |
| 90 | Norfolk, VA | 112,319 | -0.4% |
| 91 | Winston-Salem, NC | 111,522 | -0.4% |
| 92 | Des Moines, IA | 111,222 | +0.9% |
| 93 | Glendale, AZ | 110,261 | +1.1% |
| 94 | Hialeah, FL | 108,761 | -0% |
| 95 | Huntington Beach, CA | 106,664 | +1.1% |
| 96 | Laredo, TX | 105,584 | +1% |
| 97 | Salt Lake City, UT | 105,242 | +0.5% |
| 98 | North Las Vegas, NV | 104,323 | +0.6% |
| 99 | Overland Park, KS | 104,209 | +2.7% |
| 100 | Aurora, IL | 102,190 | -0.4% |
| 101 | Glendale, CA | 100,600 | +1.7% |
| 102 | Oxnard, CA | 100,355 | -0.4% |
| 103 | Amarillo, TX | 99,985 | -0.5% |
| 104 | Grand Rapids, MI | 99,593 | +2% |
| 105 | Spokane, WA | 99,205 | -0.8% |
| 106 | Tallahassee, FL | 97,911 | +1.3% |
| 107 | Tempe, AZ | 97,227 | +2.7% |
| 108 | Sioux Falls, SD | 96,253 | +2.4% |
| 109 | Tacoma, WA | 95,310 | -0.6% |
| 110 | Little Rock, AR | 95,302 | -1.3% |
| 111 | Santa Clarita, CA | 95,003 | +0.8% |
| 112 | Modesto, CA | 94,835 | +0.9% |
| 113 | Yonkers, NY | 94,384 | -1.4% |
| 114 | Alexandria, VA | 93,849 | +0.1% |
| 115 | Birmingham, AL | 93,349 | -1.3% |
| 116 | Fontana, CA | 92,761 | +0.8% |
| 117 | Fort Lauderdale, FL | 92,752 | +1.9% |
| 118 | Grand Prairie, TX | 92,750 | +0.9% |
| 119 | Montgomery, AL | 92,596 | -1.5% |
| 120 | Knoxville, TN | 92,483 | -1.2% |
| 121 | Rochester, NY | 92,319 | -3.1% |
| 122 | Akron, OH | 91,402 | +0.4% |
| 123 | Worcester, MA | 91,203 | +1.4% |
| 124 | Huntsville, AL | 90,965 | -0.7% |
| 125 | Newport News, VA | 90,928 | +0.5% |
| 126 | Rancho Cucamonga, CA | 89,992 | +2.2% |
| 127 | Moreno Valley, CA | 89,540 | +0.8% |
| 128 | Fort Collins, CO | 88,516 | +2% |
| 129 | Providence, RI | 88,412 | +0.4% |
| 130 | Santa Rosa, CA | 87,910 | +2.7% |
| 131 | Shreveport, LA | 87,343 | -0.5% |
| 132 | Mobile, AL | 86,936 | -1.3% |
| 133 | Pembroke Pines, FL | 86,828 | +1.1% |
| 134 | Springfield, MO | 84,886 | +2.1% |
| 135 | Sunnyvale, CA | 82,603 | +2.1% |
| 136 | Cary, NC | 82,307 | +2.6% |
| 137 | Port St. Lucie, FL | 82,233 | +1.4% |
| 138 | San Bernardino, CA | 82,177 | +0.2% |
| 139 | Garden Grove, CA | 82,121 | -0.9% |
| 140 | Peoria, AZ | 81,291 | +2.7% |
| 141 | Oceanside, CA | 81,055 | -0.6% |
| 142 | Cape Coral, FL | 80,983 | +3.4% |
| 143 | Columbus, GA | 80,746 | -2.8% |
| 144 | Ontario, CA | 80,077 | +0.9% |
| 145 | Vancouver, WA | 79,932 | +0.2% |
| 146 | Lakewood, CO | 79,777 | +1% |
| 147 | McKinney, TX | 79,611 | +5.6% |
| 148 | Salinas, CA | 78,874 | +0.8% |
| 149 | Chattanooga, TN | 78,464 | -2.8% |
| 150 | Eugene, OR | 78,360 | +1.3% |
| 151 | Naperville, IL | 77,853 | +0.9% |
| 152 | Corona, CA | 77,351 | +1.7% |
| 153 | Hollywood, FL | 77,204 | +0.7% |
| 154 | Elk Grove, CA | 76,908 | +0.6% |
| 155 | Torrance, CA | 76,772 | +0.7% |
| 156 | Pasadena, CA | 76,666 | +0.5% |
| 157 | Frisco, TX | 76,572 | +6.4% |
| 158 | Hayward, CA | 76,374 | +0.2% |
| 159 | Joliet, IL | 75,939 | -1.2% |
| 160 | Olathe, KS | 75,047 | +1.6% |
| 161 | Brownsville, TX | 75,026 | -0.1% |
| 162 | Salem, OR | 74,334 | +1.1% |
| 163 | Midland, TX | 74,304 | +6.2% |
| 164 | Jackson, MS | 73,800 | -3.3% |
| 165 | Bellevue, WA | 73,711 | +2.5% |
| 166 | Fayetteville, NC | 73,682 | -2.8% |
| 167 | Mesquite, TX | 73,526 | +0.5% |
| 168 | Carrollton, TX | 73,511 | +1.5% |
| 169 | Miramar, FL | 73,137 | +3.7% |
| 170 | Cedar Rapids, IA | 72,379 | +0.8% |
| 171 | Bridgeport, CT | 71,342 | +0.7% |
| 172 | Orange, CA | 70,834 | -0.6% |
| 173 | Coral Springs, FL | 69,966 | +0.5% |
| 174 | Kansas City, KS | 69,516 | +1.1% |
| 175 | Fullerton, CA | 69,430 | -0.3% |
| 176 | Stamford, CT | 69,326 | +2.7% |
| 177 | Simi Valley, CA | 69,320 | -0.8% |
| 178 | Thornton, CO | 69,297 | +1.4% |
| 179 | Macon, GA | 68,948 | -1.3% |
| 180 | Pasadena, TX | 68,579 | -0.4% |
| 181 | Charleston, SC | 68,399 | +1.6% |
| 182 | Escondido, CA | 68,182 | -0.6% |
| 183 | Rockford, IL | 67,685 | -1.1% |
| 184 | Pomona, CA | 67,344 | +0.6% |
| 185 | West Valley City, UT | 67,314 | +1.1% |
| 186 | Thousand Oaks, CA | 67,304 | -1% |
| 187 | Denton, TX | 66,784 | +4.2% |
| 188 | Lafayette, LA | 65,789 | +1.7% |
| 189 | Columbia, MO | 65,758 | +0.5% |
| 190 | Hampton, VA | 65,741 | -0.1% |
| 191 | Concord, CA | 64,968 | +0.1% |
| 192 | Elizabeth, NJ | 64,860 | -0.7% |
| 192 | Sterling Heights, MI | 64,860 | -0.3% |
| 194 | Santa Clara, CA | 64,843 | +2% |
| 195 | New Haven, CT | 64,712 | +0.4% |
| 196 | Savannah, GA | 64,516 | -0.5% |
| 197 | Costa Mesa, CA | 64,436 | -0.1% |
| 198 | Palmdale, CA | 64,379 | -0.3% |
| 199 | Topeka, KS | 64,327 | -0.4% |
| 200 | Murfreesboro, TN | 64,157 | +2% |
| 201 | Gainesville, FL | 64,060 | -0.2% |
| 202 | Cambridge, MA | 64,024 | +3.4% |
| 203 | Springfield, MA | 63,949 | +0.9% |
| 204 | Fargo, ND | 63,743 | +0.9% |
| 205 | Lancaster, CA | 63,626 | +0.3% |
| 206 | Paterson, NJ | 63,615 | -1.7% |
| 207 | Roseville, CA | 63,116 | +0.1% |
| 208 | Odessa, TX | 62,907 | +5.2% |
| 209 | Ann Arbor, MI | 62,528 | +1.9% |
| 210 | Kent, WA | 62,443 | +1.3% |
| 211 | McAllen, TX | 62,412 | +0.3% |
| 212 | Warren, MI | 62,371 | -1% |
| 213 | Manchester, NH | 62,064 | +0.7% |
| 214 | Westminster, CO | 62,028 | 0% |
| 215 | Arvada, CO | 61,843 | +1.1% |
| 216 | Daly City, CA | 61,795 | +1.8% |
| 217 | Rochester, MN | 61,297 | -0.3% |
| 218 | San Mateo, CA | 60,353 | +2.6% |
| 219 | Lewisville, TX | 60,325 | +2% |
| 220 | Provo, UT | 60,314 | +0.3% |
| 221 | Boulder, CO | 60,110 | +1.6% |
| 222 | Berkeley, CA | 60,062 | +0.9% |
| 223 | Visalia, CA | 60,009 | -0.7% |
| 224 | Syracuse, NY | 59,820 | -3.4% |
| 225 | Norman, OK | 59,431 | -1.2% |
| 226 | Centennial, CO | 59,301 | +0.7% |
| 227 | Round Rock, TX | 59,210 | +2.6% |
| 228 | Evansville, IN | 58,947 | +0.7% |
| 229 | Sandy Springs, GA | 58,709 | +1.4% |
| 230 | West Jordan, UT | 58,500 | +1.5% |
| 231 | Dayton, OH | 58,400 | -2% |
| 232 | Springfield, IL | 58,328 | +0.5% |
| 233 | Columbia, SC | 58,143 | -0.3% |
| 234 | Independence, MO | 58,061 | +1.7% |
| 235 | Lansing, MI | 57,993 | -0% |
| 236 | Clarksville, TN | 57,862 | -0.3% |
| 237 | Vallejo, CA | 57,540 | -0.8% |
| 238 | Burbank, CA | 57,422 | +0.5% |
| 239 | Richardson, TX | 57,210 | +3.9% |
| 240 | Elgin, IL | 57,097 | +0.2% |
| 241 | San Buenaventura (Ventura), CA | 56,899 | -0.9% |
| 242 | Waco, TX | 56,882 | +0.7% |
| 243 | Wilmington, NC | 56,807 | +0.8% |
| 244 | Downey, CA | 56,567 | +0.5% |
| 245 | Pearland, TX | 56,385 | +2.9% |
| 246 | Billings, MT | 55,894 | -0.9% |
| 247 | Santa Monica, CA | 55,433 | +0.3% |
| 248 | Peoria, IL | 55,278 | -2.1% |
| 249 | Clearwater, FL | 54,908 | +0.3% |
| 250 | Abilene, TX | 54,744 | -0.4% |
Other periods
About this ranking
Employed plus unemployed residents, annual average.
More on how it is measured
- People aged 16 and over by place of residence, from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Active-duty military personnel and people living in institutions are excluded.
United States cities only for now. Counts people where they live, not jobs: for wage and salary jobs by state use oews_employment. BLS estimates cities by splitting county estimates with Census Bureau employment and population data and unemployment insurance claims, so city figures are less precise than state ones. BLS publishes cities of 25,000 or more, and smaller cities in New England.
Every value in the ranking comes from the same publisher and the same period, so the cities are compared on one definition. 107 cities with data in other periods have no value for 2014 and are left out rather than filled from another source. Equal values share a rank.
How to cite
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average. https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14. Retrieved 2026-10-12.Citation styles
APA 7
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026). Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average (US cities by civilian labor force, 2014) [Data set]. Retrieved October 12, 2026, from https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14
MLA 9
Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average, US cities by civilian labor force, 2014. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 30 Sept. 2026, https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14. Invokely, https://invokely.ai/rankings/civilian-labor-force/us-cities?period=2014. Accessed 12 Oct. 2026.
Chicago (author-date)
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2026. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average. US cities by civilian labor force, 2014. Dataset. Accessed October 12, 2026. https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14. Also distributed by Invokely, https://invokely.ai/rankings/civilian-labor-force/us-cities?period=2014.
Harvard
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2026) Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average, US cities by civilian labor force, 2014 [Dataset]. Available at: https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14, via Invokely: https://invokely.ai/rankings/civilian-labor-force/us-cities?period=2014 (Accessed: 12 October 2026).
BibTeX
@misc{bureau_us_cities_by_civilian_2014,
author = {{U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics}},
title = {{Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average: US cities by civilian labor force, 2014}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {Data set},
url = {https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14},
urldate = {2026-10-12},
note = {Accessed via Invokely, https://invokely.ai/rankings/civilian-labor-force/us-cities?period=2014. Publisher attribution: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average. https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14. Retrieved 2026-10-12.},
}
RIS
TY - DATA
AU - U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
TI - Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average: US cities by civilian labor force, 2014
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/30
PB - U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
DB - Invokely
UR - https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14
L2 - https://invokely.ai/rankings/civilian-labor-force/us-cities?period=2014
Y2 - 2026/10/12
N1 - Accessed via Invokely, https://invokely.ai/rankings/civilian-labor-force/us-cities?period=2014.
N1 - Publisher attribution: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average. https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/la/la.data.0.CurrentU10-14. Retrieved 2026-10-12.
ER -
Use this data in your AI agent
Invokely serves this figure to AI assistants through MCP and to code through a REST API, with the source and citation attached. Ask your assistant:
Rank US cities by civilian labor force using official data, and cite the source.
rank_places {"indicator":"civilian_labor_force","level":"municipality","within":"United States","limit":10}
GET https://invokely.ai/api/v1/rank?indicator=civilian_labor_force&level=municipality&within=United%20States&limit=10Questions
Which city has the highest civilian labor force?
New York, NY, with 4.2 million in 2014, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Which city has the lowest civilian labor force?
Florence, AZ, with 3,626 in 2014.
Where does this ranking come from?
Every value comes from one source and one period, so the places are comparable: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, cities and towns, not seasonally adjusted: labor force (measure 06), annual average. Retrieved 2026-10-12. 107 cities have no value for 2014 and are not ranked.