The Difference Between ‘Cost of Living’ and ‘Cost of Labor’

One of the most common compensation questions HR professionals get from employees also is one of the hardest to answer: “If the cost of living has gone up so much, why hasn’t my pay gone up the same amount?” It’s a completely fair question.

Employees don’t experience compensation through salary surveys, regression models, geographic differentials, market percentiles or color-coded spreadsheets. They experience it:

At the grocery store.
At the gas pump.
When the rent is due.
When the insurance renewal arrives.
When daycare costs skyrocket.

From that perspective, the math seems simple: “My life costs more, so I should make more.” But employers generally make compensation decisions using a different measure: the cost of labor. And while cost of living and cost of labor sound similar, they’re actually two very different things.

Access a bonus Workspan Daily Plus+ article on this subject:

Mind the Gap: Bridging 4 Critical Market Data Blind Spots

Two Similar Terms, Two Different Trails

Cost of living measures what it costs someone to live in a particular place — housing, food, transportation, healthcare, taxes, utilities and all the other little expenses that make paychecks disappear. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) probably is the measure people know best, as this is what makes the news. When inflation rises 4%, it’s natural for an employee to think, “Okay, everything costs 4% more. Where’s my 4%?”

Cost of labor is different. Instead of asking what it costs to live somewhere, it asks what an employer needs to pay to attract and retain people with certain skills in a particular labor market.

Put another way, cost of living asks, “What does it cost to live here?” while cost of labor asks, “What does it cost to hire someone here?” They influence each other and occasionally wander down the same trail, but they aren’t carrying the same backpack.

Imagine two people doing essentially the same job — one lives in San Francisco and the other in Des Moines, Iowa. Their housing costs, grocery costs, taxes and gas expenses may be wildly different, but their salaries won’t necessarily differ by the same percentage. That’s because employers aren’t buying groceries, paying someone’s mortgage or trying to calculate exactly what it costs each employee to maintain their lifestyle. They’re buying talent. They’re asking:

How many qualified people are available?
How many other companies are competing for them?
How difficult is the job to fill?
What are competitors paying?
How quickly are wages moving?

That blend of supply, demand, skills, geography and competition creates the cost of labor.

‘Where’ Can Be Complex

Organizations often use geographic pay differentials to recognize that labor costs vary from one place to another. Imagine a job with a national market midpoint of $100,000. Maybe the labor market says that same job pays 15% more in one city, 5% more somewhere else and 10% less in another location. Those differences aren’t designed to perfectly offset rent, groceries, taxes, gas, etc. They reflect what employers actually pay for similar talent in those markets.

That’s why a city where housing costs 40% more doesn’t necessarily pay 40% more for the same job. That disconnect often is what makes this conversation so difficult. The employee is looking at one very real economic picture while the employer is looking at another equally real set of market data.

For years, geographic compensation was relatively straightforward. Employee works in Boston? Use Boston market data. Employee works in Dallas? Use Dallas market data. Then remote work scattered everybody across the map. Now someone might work for a Boston company while sitting in Vermont, Florida, Colorado or in a camper beside a lake.

So, where exactly is their labor market? Some companies:

Pay based on the employee’s location.
Use the company’s headquarters.
Have national pay ranges.
Group locations into geographic zones.

There isn’t one magical answer. What matters is having a philosophy, applying it consistently and being able to explain it without requiring employees to decode a PowerPoint presentation.

Transparency Is Changing the Conversation

Pay transparency has made this distinction even more important. Employees can:

See salary ranges in job postings;
Compare jobs across cities;
Compare remote opportunities;
Talk with coworkers about compensation; and,
Gather more market information in 15 minutes than employees could have collected in months a generation ago.

So, saying “that’s what the market pays” isn’t enough anymore. Employees increasingly are asking:

“What market?”
“Why that market?”
“How did you determine it?”
“Why is someone doing the same job somewhere else paid differently?”

Those are good questions. A strong compensation program shouldn’t depend on employees not understanding how it works.

There’s also an element that’s often forgotten: The employee’s cost-of-living experience is real. If someone’s rent increased 15%, telling them the market rate for their job increased 3% might be technically correct, but it likely won’t make them feel any better. You can acknowledge both realities. Compensation decisions can be based primarily on the cost of labor and you can recognize inflation affects employees personally.

This isn’t about winning an economic argument. It’s about helping people understand how pay decisions are made. Sometimes compensation professionals get so focused on being technically correct that they forget the human sitting on the other side of the spreadsheet. A little empathy goes a long way. You can explain the economics without dismissing someone’s reality.

Does a Perfect Answer Exist?

Many people naturally assume geographic differentials are based on cost of living. Most aren’t. They’re based on cost of labor — what organizations need to pay to compete for talent in a particular market.

Take San Francisco and Des Moines. Yes, housing is dramatically more expensive in San Francisco. But organizations generally don’t pay software engineers more simply because their rent is higher. They pay more because they’re competing with a huge number of organizations for the same highly sought-after talent. It’s the competition for people — not necessarily the price of a two-bedroom apartment — that drives the pay differential.

Now flip the script. There are communities across the country where housing prices have skyrocketed over the last decade while wages have remained relatively stable. If cost of living automatically drove compensation, wages should have climbed right alongside those home prices. But, they often don’t. Why? The local labor market didn’t change nearly as fast as the real estate market.

Remote work made the whole conversation even more interesting. If someone moves from Manhattan to Montana, or from Phoenix to Seattle, should their salary change? Compensation folks can have a pretty lively discussion around these questions. Some organizations say yes. Some say no. Some have national salary structures regardless of where employees live. Others use geographic differentials, regional labor markets or geographic zones to adjust compensation.

There isn’t one universally perfect answer, and that’s part of what makes geographic compensation so interesting. Organizations have different talent strategies, compensation philosophies and competitive markets. But what’s fascinating is that almost none of those decisions begin by pulling up Zillow and seeing what a house costs in that area. They start with the talent market:

“What does this job pay here?”
“Who are we competing against?”
“What do we need to pay to attract and keep the people we need?”

Same Trail, Different Map

So, where do you go from here? Keep in mind:

Cost of living asks, “What does it cost to live here?”
Cost of labor asks, “What does it cost to hire and retain talent here?”

They’re related. They influence each other. Sometimes they even walk side by side for a while. But as noted earlier, they’re not the same trail.

For compensation professionals, understanding the difference is the easy part. The bigger responsibility is explaining it in a way employees can understand.

Yes, compensation involves spreadsheets, market data, percentiles and pay ranges. But, there are humans on the other side of those numbers. Sometimes the best thing you can do is put down the spreadsheet, step away from the market percentile debate and help people understand the trail you’re walking together.

Editor’s Note: Additional Content

For more information and resources related to this article, see the pages below, which offer quick access to all WorldatWork content on these topics: