The Jambar
What really is the debate surrounding livable wages? Is it that part-time employees working retail jobs should not expect it, or should employees in general not expect to live comfortably? Why so?
To begin, according to Cornell University’s Center for Applied Research and Work, through its School of Industry and Labor, a living wage, by definition, is specific to full-time workers.
“[It] is an hourly pay that would allow a full-time employee to meet their basic needs without needing more public or private financial assistance,” the article stated.
Full-time employees on average work 40 hours per week which would equate to 2,080 hours per year. In Ohio, a part-time employee is contracted to work between 20-30 hours per week.
That said, is there a difference between a living wage and a “livable wage?” A Google search of either term would offer the same results. Nonetheless, a difference may exist in the connotative and denotative meanings of the terms, which is pertinent to understanding the arguments for and against a livable wage.
In truth, the only difference identified at the time of writing this, is a livable wage encompasses both full-time and part-time employees. Arguments against an all-encompassing living wage included people lacking the motivation to strive for a better career and the far-fetched position of employees to expect a wage that allows them to support themselves.
Though there is some sense in the argument, with the cost-of-living continuously increasing, why should employees not expect to be paid a decent wage, regardless of full- or part-time employment status?
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator, a single adult, without children, residing in Trumbull County should be making $18.88 per hour. For Mahoning County, the calculation is $18.83. Again, the living wage here is calculated for full-time employees.
The state’s minimum wage is now $11.00 per hour. That is an approximate $8.00 difference in the estimated minimum an employee should be making to adequately support themselves. There are many full-time employees in Trumbull County making below MIT’s estimate, yet are still expected to properly support themselves.
It is difficult to understand arguments against a livable wage when there are people working full-time jobs living paycheck-to-paycheck.
In a November 2025 article, CNN cited research from the Bank of America Institute that highlighted 24% of American households are living paycheck-to-paycheck. A large portion of that number spends a majority of their pay on basic necessities.
Though this debate overlaps with conversations about wage gaps and median household income, it is important to recenter the focus on the necessity of a livable wage.
Retail stores are opening as quickly as they are closing, and although the starting hourly wage is sometimes decently above the state’s minimum, it is still lacking in some areas.
At times, the “gig economy” is highlighted to underscore the current economic situation. One cannot simply and comfortably support themselves or their households with one source of income.
Is that where the livable wage debate is heading? Encouraging people, some who already have, to explore other streams of income because one will not meet their needs?
Though there are various benefits to taking up gigs, why has that seemingly become the way of this economy? Why can one job or career not fulfill the whole of an employee’s financial needs?