Living Wage Calculator – What Your Household Really Needs to Earn

Where the money goes

Each segment is one cost category, sized by its share of your monthly total. The default example is housing-heavy, as most household budgets are.

Related tools

How it works

Understanding a living wage

Reading your result, and what each line means

This page answers a single question from numbers you supply: given your household’s monthly costs, what annual income covers them, and what hourly wage earns that income over the hours you actually work? Nothing on the page comes from a published cost table and no figure is claimed for any county or city, so the result reflects your household, not an average. The default example shows the whole chain at once. Monthly costs of $3,000.00, multiplied by 12, need $36,000.00 a year. That annual income, divided by 2,080 working hours, which is 40 hours a week times 52 weeks, gives a required hourly wage of $17.31 per hour. The weekly figure on the panel, $692.31, is the same annual income divided by 52 weeks, and it is worth checking against the hourly figure: $17.31 times 40 hours is $692.40 before rounding, and the small difference is the rounding the page applies to each displayed figure, not a second calculation. Read the annual income first, because it is the figure your costs actually determine; the hourly wage is that annual figure spread over your hours, and it moves whenever the hours change even if the costs do not.

The shares display, “where the money goes,” is the same monthly total broken into its parts, and it is often more useful than the wage itself, because it shows which cost drives the result. In the default example, housing is $1,200.00, which is 40.0% of the $3,000.00 total; food is $600.00, or 20.0%; transport is $300.00, or 10.0%; childcare is $500.00, or 16.7%; healthcare is $250.00, or 8.3%; and other costs are $150.00, or 5.0%. A housing-heavy budget, as the page notes most household budgets are, means that a change in housing moves the required wage more than the same dollar change in any smaller category. If housing rises by $300, as in the probed variant below, the monthly total rises by $300, and every downstream figure rises with it. If instead a small category such as other costs rises by the same $300, the downstream figures rise by exactly the same amount, because the page adds costs without weighting them: a dollar is a dollar, whichever box it sits in. The shares tell you where a dollar change is most likely to come from in real life, not where it counts most in the arithmetic, and keeping those two ideas separate prevents a common misreading, in which a large share is mistaken for a large sensitivity.

The three rows in the table were all produced by this page’s own calculator and are quoted exactly as displayed. The second row shows the cost effect: raising housing from $1,200 to $1,500 adds $300 a month, which is $3,600 a year, taking the annual income from $36,000.00 to $39,600.00, the weekly income from $692.31 to $761.54, and the hourly wage from $17.31 to $19.04. The third row shows the hours effect, and it is the row most people misread: cutting hours from 40 to 20 a week does not change the annual income at all, because the costs have not changed, but it doubles the required hourly wage, from $17.31 to $34.62, because the same $36,000.00 must now be earned in half the hours, 1,040 instead of 2,080. A part-time wage that looks high is not a premium for part-time work; it is the arithmetic of spreading an unchanged annual need over fewer hours. Anyone comparing a part-time offer with a full-time offer should compare annual incomes for the same costs, not hourly wages alone, because the hourly figures are only comparable when the hours are the same.

What counts as a cost, and what the page leaves out

The six boxes on this page are deliberately broad, because households do not spend in neat categories, and the page’s job is to add what you tell it, not to decide for you what counts. Housing should hold the regular monthly cost of keeping a roof over the household, on the basis you actually pay it: rent or mortgage payment, and any regular housing charges that arrive monthly. Food should hold the household’s regular grocery and eating costs, averaged over a month rather than taken from a single unusual week. Transport should hold the regular cost of getting to work, school, and essential trips, whether that is fuel, fares, or vehicle costs spread monthly. Childcare should hold what you actually pay for care while you work, and healthcare should hold regular premiums and routine out-of-pocket costs. Other costs is the box for everything else that recurs monthly and that you want the wage to cover. The discipline is to put a cost in exactly one box, on a monthly basis, and to leave out anything that is not a monthly cost of running the household, because a one-off purchase entered as a monthly cost will inflate the required wage for the whole year.

Three exclusions are stated on the page itself, and each one changes the result enough to matter if it is missed. First, taxes are not added automatically. If you want an after-tax target, that is, a wage that leaves the required amount after tax, add an allowance for tax in Other costs. The page cannot compute that allowance for you, because tax depends on jurisdiction, filing status, and the tax rules in force, and a single allowance typed by you is an estimate, not a tax calculation. Be explicit about what the allowance covers when you quote the result, because a wage quoted as “after tax” without saying how tax was allowed for cannot be compared with a wage quoted before tax. Second, savings are only covered if you include them. A wage that covers costs exactly, with nothing left over, is a wage with no margin for an emergency, a broken appliance, or a missed week of work. If you want the wage to leave room for saving, add a monthly saving figure in Other costs and say so when you quote the result, because a wage with saving built in and a wage without it are answers to different questions. Third, debt payments and one-off costs are only covered if you include them. A regular loan payment is a monthly cost and belongs in the total if you want the wage to cover it; a one-off cost, such as a single repair bill, does not belong as a monthly figure, and entering it as one will overstate the annual need by twelve times the bill.

Seasonal and uneven costs need averaging, and the page’s own guidance says to use an average month for each category. Heating costs that peak in winter, childcare that pauses in school holidays, and transport that varies with the season should each be averaged over the year and entered as a monthly average, rather than entered at their peak or their trough. If one cost jumps for a few months, the page’s guidance is to run the calculator again with the higher figure, to see the wage that would cover the higher period, and then to decide whether that higher wage is a target or a warning. The two runs answer different questions: the average-month run gives the wage that covers a typical year, and the peak-month run gives the wage that would be needed if the peak lasted all year, which is a stricter test. Quoting the peak run as if it were the typical run overstates the need, and quoting the average run without mentioning a coming peak understates it. Run both, label both, and use the average for planning and the peak for stress-testing, not the other way round.

Full-time, part-time, and irregular hours

The hours figure is the second input that changes the headline most, and it is also the one most often entered carelessly. The standard full-time year on this page is 2,080 hours, which is 40 hours a week times 52 weeks, and it is the divisor that turns the annual income into the default hourly wage. If you work a different pattern, enter your real hours per week, and the page multiplies by 52 to get your working hours per year. A 20-hour week gives 1,040 hours a year, and the probed result shows the consequence: the same $36,000.00 annual need requires $34.62 an hour at 20 hours, against $17.31 at 40 hours. The annual need did not change, the costs did not change, and the worker did not become more expensive; the same income was simply spread over fewer hours. That is why an hourly wage, on its own, is a poor way to compare two jobs with different hours, and why the page shows the annual income alongside it: the annual figure is the comparable one, and the hourly figure is only meaningful once the hours are stated with it.

Irregular hours need the same averaging discipline as irregular costs. If hours vary week to week, average them over a representative period and enter the average, and if hours vary seasonally, run the calculator at the average and at the low-hours figure, as with costs, to see both the typical wage and the wage that a thin period would require. Two earners complicate the picture further, and the page does not model a household with two incomes directly: it computes the wage that covers the household’s costs from a single set of hours. For a two-earner household, the honest use of the page is to run it once for the household total, and then to ask how the required annual income splits across the earners’ actual hours, rather than to treat the headline hourly wage as if one person must earn it all. The page is a household arithmetic tool, not a job offer and not a wage recommendation, and the split of a household need across earners is a household decision that the arithmetic informs but does not make.

What a living wage means, and what it does not promise

A living wage, as this page defines it in its own first answer, is the hourly wage needed to cover the basic costs of a household, such as housing, food, transport, childcare, and healthcare, without relying on outside help. That definition is deliberately modest. It describes covering costs, not comfort, not saving for every goal, and not a particular standard of living beyond the basics the household itself enters. Two households with the same wage can therefore have very different living-wage figures, because their costs differ, and two households with the same costs can have different hourly figures, because their hours differ. The page’s result is personal in that sense: it is a wage for your costs and your hours, and it should not be quoted as a wage for anyone else, for any place, or for any household whose costs you have not entered.

The page follows the same budget approach as the MIT Living Wage methodology, which builds a wage from household costs, and it is important to state precisely what that sentence does and does not claim. It claims a shared method: start from costs, annualise them, and divide by hours. It does not claim any MIT county figure, it does not use a published cost table, and it does not reproduce any official local figure. If you need an official local figure, the page’s own guidance is to check the source that publishes it and to compare it with your own costs here. That comparison is often the most useful thing the page enables: run your own costs, see your own required wage, and then set it beside the published figure for your area, and ask why they differ. A difference usually means your household’s costs differ from the assumptions behind the published figure, in housing, in childcare, or in hours, and naming that difference is more informative than either figure on its own. What the comparison must never become is a substitution: your household figure is not the official figure, and the official figure is not your household figure, and quoting one as the other misleads whoever reads it.

There is also a limit that belongs in any honest discussion of living wages. A wage that covers this month’s costs does not, on its own, cover the risks that sit around those costs: a job loss, an illness, a rent rise, or a childcare place closing. The page’s arithmetic is a snapshot of recurring costs against recurring hours, and it assumes both stay roughly as entered. Real households face changes in both, and a wage that exactly covers costs leaves no buffer when either side moves. That is not a flaw in the arithmetic; it is a property of any budget built from averages. The practical response is to treat the required wage as a floor, not as a target with nothing above it, and to re-run the calculator whenever costs or hours change materially, rather than treating a figure computed once as valid indefinitely. A living-wage figure has a date on it, even if the page does not print one: it is the figure for the costs and hours you entered, at the time you entered them.

Using the result well: negotiation, budgeting, and comparison

The result is most useful as a private benchmark before a conversation, not as a claim made during one. Before a pay discussion, run your own costs, note the annual income and the hourly wage at your real hours, and note separately what changes if tax, saving, or a debt payment is included, so that you can say which version of the figure you are quoting. A benchmark quoted without its inclusions invites a rebuttal that is really about a different figure: an employer who hears an after-tax need answered with a before-tax comparison is not disagreeing about your costs, but about what the number includes. State the inclusions, state the hours, and state that the figure comes from your own costs, and the conversation stays about the costs themselves, which is where it belongs.

For budgeting, the shares display is often the better starting point than the wage. A household that sees housing at 40.0% of its total, as in the default example, learns where a saving or a rise would matter most, and a household that sees childcare at 16.7% learns how sensitive its required wage is to a change in care arrangements. Use the calculator as a sensitivity tool: change one cost at a time, watch the annual income and the wage move, and note which single change moves the wage most. That exercise, run with your own bills rather than the defaults, turns a single headline into an understanding of your household’s exposure, and it is the difference between knowing a number and knowing what drives it. Re-run the exercise when a bill changes, when hours change, or when the household changes, because a living-wage figure computed for a household that no longer exists is a historical curiosity, not a plan.

A checklist before you quote or act on the figure

Work through this checklist before the figure leaves the page, because each item catches a different silent error. First, confirm that every cost box holds your own figure, on a monthly basis, and that no default figure survives unexamined: the defaults are a worked example, not your household, and a single surviving default, especially a large one such as housing, will move the result more than any other error. Second, confirm that each cost sits in exactly one box, and that no cost is counted twice under two names, such as a transport cost entered under both transport and other costs. Third, confirm the hours: your real hours per week, averaged if they vary, and stated alongside any hourly figure you quote. Fourth, confirm the tax position: whether the figure is before tax, or includes an allowance for tax in Other costs, and what that allowance was. Fifth, confirm saving and debt: whether either is included, and if so, at what monthly figure. Sixth, confirm the date: the costs and hours are current, not from a previous household arrangement. A figure that passes all six checks is a figure you can defend, and a figure that fails any one of them should be re-run before it is quoted.

Two final cautions complete the checklist. The first is about comparison: never compare a living-wage figure computed here with a wage offer, a minimum wage, or a published local figure without first aligning what each figure includes. A wage offer is usually quoted before tax, for stated hours, and may include benefits that are not cash; a published local figure rests on assumed costs for an assumed household; and your figure rests on your costs and your hours. Align the inclusions, the hours, and the household before comparing, or the comparison will mislead in whichever direction flatters the conclusion you already wanted. The second caution is about precision: the page shows cents, because it divides exactly, but a figure computed from averaged, estimated, or rounded monthly costs is not accurate to the cent, and quoting it to the cent implies a precision the inputs do not support. Quote the wage rounded sensibly, state that it is an estimate from your own entered costs, and keep the exact displayed figure for your own checking, not for the conversation.

Scope note

Scope note, stated plainly: this calculator gives an estimate from the costs you enter. It is not financial advice, not a wage offer, and not a claim about any official local living wage figure. No local figure, county figure, or MIT figure is quoted anywhere in the new sections above, because this page does not publish one: the method follows the same budget approach as the MIT Living Wage methodology, as the page itself states, but every number above is either your own input, the page’s own worked example, or a probed variant of that example, produced by this page’s own calculator and quoted exactly as displayed. Taxes, savings, debt payments, and one-off costs are only covered if you include them in your inputs, as the page’s own disclaimer states. If you need an official local figure, check the source that publishes it and compare it with your own costs here.

How a living wage is calculated: the MIT method

The best-known living wage figures come from the MIT Living Wage Calculator, and its method is transparent: price a basic-needs budget for a household in a specific county, add it into an annual total, and divide by 2,080 hours — 40 hours a week for 52 weeks — to get the hourly wage that would cover the budget at full-time work. In symbols: living wage = annual basic-needs budget ÷ 2,080.

The budget covers housing, food, childcare where the household has children, healthcare, transport, and the taxes owed on the income, with nothing else. It does not include savings, debt repayment, restaurant meals, holidays, or any emergency cushion. The result is specific to the county and to the household: a single adult, a single parent with one child, and a two-parent household with two children all get different figures in the same county, because their costs differ. The calculator on this page works the same way from the costs you enter, rather than from a county average, which is why its figure is the one to use for a personal decision.

The same salary in two places: why cost of living changes the figure

A salary means different things in different places, because the living wage moves with local costs. By the MIT Living Wage Calculator’s 2025 figures, a single adult with no children needs $18.89 an hour in Ashe County, North Carolina, and $25.80 an hour in King County, Washington — a gap of nearly $7 an hour for the same household, driven mostly by housing costs. The median US county sits between them at about $22.70 an hour, or about $47,216 a year at full-time hours.

Children widen the gap further, because childcare is usually the largest single cost for a household with young children. In Ashe County, a single parent with one child needs $31.66 an hour, against $18.89 for a single adult with no children. In King County, a single adult with one child needs $47.79 an hour. The United Kingdom shows the same pattern with different names: the Real Living Wage, calculated by the Living Wage Foundation from the cost of living, is £13.45 an hour across the UK and £14.80 an hour in London, as announced on 22 October 2025 — London’s higher figure is, again, mostly housing.

Frequently asked questions

More calculators