Whereas organizations are legally obligated to provide their employees with a minimum wage, recent literature has introduced the concept of a living wage (e.g., see Werner & Lim, 2016). Rather than being a threshold that employees are entitled to by law, living wage refers to the minimum income necessary for an employee to be able to meet the minimum standards of subsisting in their specific community or region (Glasmeier & MIT, 2018). Thus, it is a relative, market-based value that combines the wages of workers with costs of basic needs in a specific geographical region (Glasmeier & MIT, 2018; Werner & Lim, 2016). Although much of the research on living wage falls outside of the realm of I-O psychology, it is time that the concept be considered. It is well understood that the design of compensation systems and distribution of pay contribute to employees' motivation to work (Jurgensen, 1978; Pinder, 2008). These, however, are often influenced by legal requirements that fail to consider the region or community-specific cost of living and typical expenses. Thus, the lowest paid employees may struggle or fail to obtain the income necessary to fulfill their basic needs. The inability to meet basic needs can contribute to a lower quality of life and poorer well-being that, in turn, can influence the performance of low-wage workers. Research in this area, however, is limited. This article seeks to expand on living wage research and inspire professionals and academics in the fields of I-O psychology and occupational health psychology (OHP) to explore the question of, “Why is living wage not the minimum wage?” More importantly, we hope to inspire research into the motivational impact associated with living wage.