​​How AMI Differs from a Living Wage—and Why AMI Drives Policy

​​How AMI Differs from a Living Wage—and Why AMI Drives Policy​

​This three-part series explains how communities, employers, and policymakers can use clear, data-driven tools to discuss affordability and design better programs in Washington.

Each article will break down the core idea in plain language, show how it is calculated, and provide real-world examples of how it guides decisions on housing, wages, and local investment. Today’s focus is on the use of AMI and living wage calculations to drive policies. By the end, you will know what the metric means, why it varies by place and family size, and how it can help leaders match resources to need so families and businesses can thrive

The Area Median Income (AMI) is a benchmark built from what households actually earn in a region and ranked from lowest to highest. The median is the midpoint. Living wages are different. It is a cost-based estimate of what a full-time worker needs to cover basic needs in a place based on local prices for housing, food, childcare, health care, transportation, and taxes. In short, AMI measures income levels in a community, while living wage measures the cost to get by.

As the two metrics answer different questions, they are used in different ways. A living wage helps leaders and employers discuss affordability and the gap between paychecks and basic costs. AMI helps governments decide who qualifies for help, how much help is needed, and where to target the limited dollars. AMI is reported by household size and geography; therefore, a family of four in a high-cost county will have a higher AMI threshold than a single adult in a rural county.

Housing policies rely on AMI every day. The U.S. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets local income limits such as 30, 50, and 80 percent of AMI to define extremely low, very low, and low income, respectively. These limits set eligibility for vouchers and public housing, and they cap maximum rents and incomes in programs such as low-income housing tax credit and the HOME investment partnership program. Cities also peg inclusionary zoning rules, density bonuses, and fee waivers to AMI bands, creating a common and predictable framework for public benefits and private projects.

AMI also shapes the amount of help a voucher can buy. Housing authorities use AMI and local rent data to set payment standards; therefore, families are not locked out of neighborhoods with good schools, transit, and jobs. Without AMI-based standards, the value of a subsidy can fall behind market rents, reducing a family’s real choice of where to live.

Beyond housing, AMI guides community investments and fair lending. Federal block grants target “low and moderate income” areas defined with AMI. Banks are reviewed under the Community Reinvestment Act on how well they serve borrowers and neighborhoods under AMI thresholds. State and local programs use AMI to design anti-displacement tools, home repair aids, property tax relief, and first-time buyer support. Some mortgages and down-payment products cap eligibility at 80 or 100 percent of AMI to help first-time buyers and key workers in costly metros.

AMI is also a monitoring tool. Agencies track how many new homes are affordable at each AMI level, whether wages are keeping pace with local rents, and which groups are being served. If most new units are priced for households above 120 percent of AMI, leaders can adjust incentives to reach the 60 to 80 percent AMI range. Thus, the AMI is a practical scoreboard for progress.
​
Bottom line. Use a living wage to ask whether a full-time worker can cover the basic needs of a place. Use AMI to set fair eligibility lines, cap rents, prices in housing programs, steer grants and lending, and measure results. Together, they provide a fuller picture of affordability and access; however, AMI is the standard tool for designing and delivering public policy.

​References

1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “FY Income Limits and Methodology.”
2. HUD. “Housing Choice Voucher Program: Guidebook and Payment Standards.”
3. Internal Revenue Service. “Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (IRC Section 42) Program Guidance.”
4. HUD. “HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Income and Rent Limits.”
5. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. “Community Reinvestment Act: Interagency Questions and Answers.”
6. Federal Housing Finance Agency; Fannie Mae. “HomeReady Mortgage: Income Eligibility Using Area Median Income.”
7. MIT Living Wage Calculator. “Methodology and FAQ.”

(All sources are official program pages or guidance documents that explain AMI definitions, income limits, and program uses.)
This article was written with contributions from AI to organize the information and improve its readability.
​