The purpose of this article is to provide an alternate perspective to the state of living wage research found in Reburn, Moyer, Knebel, and Bowler (2018). These authors (cl)aimed to “hope to inspire research into the motivational impact associated with Living wage” (2018, p. 1). However, that research is already well under way, in applied psychology (Smith, 2015), across SIOP (Scott, 2017), in SIOP publications (e.g., Gloss, Carr, Reichman, & Abdul-Nasiru, 2016), and by SIOP at the United Nations (e.g., SIOP, 2016; UNDP, 2014). Our purpose in this collegial rebuttal is not simply to repeat the information already available in these publications and SIOP initiatives that span work and well-being, including occupational health psychology. Rather, in the spirit of constructive dialogue, we review and propose revisions to Reburn et al.’s (2018) conceptualization, contextualization, and methodology. Closer inspection of extant research on living wages and well-being exposes a range of new ways to contribute nationally within the US, and also internationally toward the humanitarian goal of “Decent Work for All” (https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/sdg-2030/goal-8/lang--en/index.htm).