Painting Is 65% Labour, the Highest of Any Trade on This Site
This is a cost-structure analysis using our model and federal wage data.
Where the money goes
Our model puts painting at 65% labour. That is the highest share on the site: higher than roofing at 45%, flooring at 50% and kitchens at 55%.
The reason is simple. Paint is a small line item. Preparation, masking, cutting in and two coats of rolling are not.
The arithmetic on a 2,000 sq ft interior
| Component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed costs | $300 | $300 |
| Materials | $2,100 | $4,550 |
| Labour | $3,900 | $8,450 |
| Total | $6,300 | $13,300 |
The material line is small enough that upgrading to a premium paint changes the total by a few percent. Doubling the prep time changes it by more than the paint choice ever will.
Why this makes state comparison misleading
Painters are paid near the bottom of the trade table, so a state with cheap labour makes painting look very cheap. But the same state may have high material prices we cannot see.
This is the one trade where we would most want state-level material data, and the one where we most clearly do not have it.
What to actually negotiate
Ask for the prep scope in writing: filling, sanding, masking, primer. That is where the labour goes, and it is where a cheap quote is cheap.
Then ask how many coats. Two is standard. A quote that does not say is a quote that will argue with you later.
Frequently asked
Is 65% labour realistic?
It is our modelling assumption for interior repaint with normal prep. A job with heavy repair would run higher, a new-build spray-out lower.
Does premium paint last longer?
Generally yes, but the data on how much longer is thin. The labour share is the bigger lever on cost either way.
Updated October 2026