Recent research from Dayforce, developed with the Living Wage Institute, states the percentage of full-time workers earning a living wage fell from 55.8% in 2021 to 50.7% in 2025. The report also states its intent to inform the national conversation and spur action so more workers receive a just and living wage that supports them and their families. With that in mind, let’s explore what a living wage is and whether it can or should be part of your compensation philosophy through the adoption of a formal wage floor.
Living Wage
A living wage is an economic estimate of what a worker needs to earn to meet basic expenses such as housing, food, transportation, health care and child care, without public assistance. Organizations like the Living Wage Institute and tools such as the MIT Living Wage Calculator model these costs using local data, which is why living wage benchmarks vary widely by geography and household composition.
Advocates for a living wage would say that full-time work should provide a baseline level of economic security, independent of role or skill. By anchoring pay to local living costs, advocates argue employers can reduce reliance on public assistance, improve workforce stability and make visible the gap between market wages and the real cost of participating in the workforce.
Critics of a living wage argue that the concept imports household economics into job pricing. They contend that many roles are intentionally entry level, transitional or supplemental and that applying a household-based adequacy standard to all jobs misrepresents labor market design, constrains flexibility and shifts pay decisions toward cost-of-living factors employers do not control.
Wage Floor
Establishing a wage floor within your compensation program is often the way organizations incorporate living wage considerations into their pay philosophy. A wage floor is a management decision that sets pay range minimums at a defined level based on market data, labor market dynamics and fiscal constraints. In practice, it serves as a practical alternative to adopting a living wage standard outright.
Exploring the Living Wage Data
Analyzing living-wage data requires making deliberate choices about household composition and expense assumptions. For example, how many adults are assumed to be working? How many children are included? Which expenses are considered essential versus discretionary?
Setting these parameters is the first step in establishing a formal and repeatable process for using living wage data as an input, not a mandate, in pay decisions.
Labor Market Dynamics
Many lower-wage roles compete in a broad, cross-occupation labor market. The qualifications required, including reliability, physical presence, and basic technical or interpersonal skills, are transferable across industries. Workers can move relatively easily between roles such as food service, warehousing, retail, hospitality and light manufacturing.
Wage floors are frequently established to reduce this friction, keep roles competitive across a wider labor market and stabilize staffing. The objective is not to guarantee economic self-sufficiency but to help the organization attract and retain workers when alternatives are readily available.
Fiscal Constraints
Finally, wage floors reflect economic reality. Unlike living wage benchmarks, which move with external cost drivers, wage floors are set with an explicit understanding of affordability and trade-offs.
Raising the minimum rate of pay has real downstream effects, including:
- Compression across pay bands
- Increased benefit and payroll tax costs
- Pressure on pricing, staffing levels, or hours
Wage floors are typically modeled as sustainable targets rather than absolute thresholds. Organizations may adopt a level that captures most of the intended benefit while remaining affordable, with the option to adjust over time. This approach reflects a pragmatic balance between labor market pressure and fiscal reality, anchored in expected improvements in retention, productivity and engagement.
This does not negate the insight of living-wage data, but it places the data within a broader set of constraints that leaders must manage.
Bringing it Together
The Dayforce research highlights a clear trend: Fewer full-time workers are earning a living wage, and the gap is widening in specific markets and populations. That reality deserves attention.
For many organizations, however, the response is not to anchor pay directly to living wage thresholds but to adopt or refine wage floors, using living wage data as an input, labor market competition as a guide and fiscal sustainability as a boundary.
That approach may lack the clarity of a single benchmark, but it reflects how compensation decisions are actually made by balancing fairness, competitiveness, and economic viability.
Review Your Pay Approach With CBIZ
If you have questions or want to review your current pay approach, CBIZ can help you assess your wage floor strategy and compensation structure.
Frequently Asked Questions
A living wage is an external benchmark that estimates what a worker needs to cover basic expenses in a specific location and household situation. A wage floor, by contrast, is an internal pay decision that sets the minimum rate an organization is willing to pay based on market conditions, labor availability and what the business can sustain. In other words, a living wage is a reference point; a wage floor is the practical compensation policy an employer implements.
Yes, but usually as an input rather than the only answer. Living wage data can help employers understand where pay may be misaligned with local economic reality, especially in entry-level and high-turnover roles. However, pay decisions also need to reflect competitive market rates, role requirements, internal equity and affordability. A sound approach is to review living wage benchmarks alongside labor market data and use both to inform a sustainable wage floor.
Some level of disruption is likely, so the goal is not to eliminate it, but to anticipate and manage it. Compression is most likely to occur in lower pay grades, particularly among roles closest to the new minimum. In some cases, it can be assessed even more narrowly by focusing on the specific job families most affected by the higher wage floor. A practical approach is to target adjustments where they are most needed rather than resetting the entire pay structure. Employers can evaluate compression risk, identify priority roles, and apply selective, phased remediation strategies. This allows the organization to improve entry-level competitiveness while preserving internal equity and maintaining overall cost control.
© Copyright CBIZ, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of the material contained herein without the express written consent of the firms is prohibited by law. This publication is distributed with the understanding that CBIZ is not rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice. The reader is advised to contact a tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. CBIZ assumes no liability whatsoever in connection with the use of this information and assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect the information contained herein. Material contained in this publication is informational and promotional in nature and not intended to be specific financial, tax or consulting advice. Readers are advised to seek professional consultation regarding circumstances affecting their organization.
“CBIZ” is the brand name under which CBIZ CPAs P.C. and CBIZ, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including CBIZ Advisors, LLC, provide professional services. CBIZ CPAs P.C. and CBIZ, Inc. (and its subsidiaries) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations, and professional standards. CBIZ CPAs P.C. is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients. CBIZ, Inc. and its subsidiary entities provide tax, advisory, and consulting services to their clients. CBIZ, Inc. and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms and, therefore, cannot provide attest services.
