What does the phrase "working poor" mean? The first point is that you are working; you have a regular job—you aren't working catch as catch can; you are employed. But despite working, you are poor. What does it mean to be poor? It turns out that "poor” means different things depending on what standard you apply.
Some definitions seem rooted in the old institution of the poorhouse, which was a home for paupers. Thus, dictionary.com defines “poor” as having little or no money or other means of support. To me, that’s the definition of being destitute, not poor.
Other definitions have a broader, less pejorative, perspective. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as lacking sufficient money to have a decent living standard. This, to me, is more in keeping with a modern sensibility: being poor is not being able to make ends meet consistently while maintaining a reasonable standard of living.
It is this second definition that encompasses the working poor and thus will be the definition used in this article. In our current system, many people work and are still poor, dependent upon charity or public support in order to make ends meet. “Working poor” should be an oxymoron, but it’s not currently.
The other twist is the difference between "living in poverty" and being "poor." Many dictionaries use the words as equivalents. But to many people, including myself, and the Oxford English Dictionary, "poverty" connotes a more drastic state than being poor.
Much has been written about the working poor. Democrats argue that in a country as prosperous as the United States, people working full-time should be receiving what’s termed a “living wage.” This is how they define a "reasonable standard of living."
What is a living wage? It’s defined as having enough money to meet a family’s basic needs at a decent standard of living, but absent what many Americans consider necessities of life. A “living wage” thus does not include money for eating out, entertainment, any kind of insurance, or saving for a rainy day. It is a step up from the poverty threshold, in that it takes into account the true cost of the necessities of life … food, child care, medical care, housing, and transportation … yet is still bare bones. Anyone earning below a living wage as defined, I would thus classify as poor.
The Federal poverty threshold, on the other hand, is based on findings from 1960s research that families spend 1/3 of their income on food. So in setting the threshold, the government calculated the cost of food and multiplied it by 3. That is still the basis of the calculation. It’s just adjusted for inflation.
But that method of calculation makes the Federal standard outdated and woefully inadequate. Food now accounts for only 1/7 of an average family’s expenses, as the cost of housing, child care, transportation, and health care have grown disproportionately. So people who exceed the Federal poverty threshold are still poor, even though not living in poverty. That is why many assistance programs have eligibility levels at several multiples of the Federal poverty threshold.
Why is the government standard so miserly? There are probably several reasons. One is the perspective that many still hold that being poor means being close to destitution; note the use of the word "poverty." Another is that as the leading democracy and strongest economy in the world, the government wants the number of people living in poverty to be as small as possible—for PR purposes. Yet another is that given our “safety net,” the more people who are classified as poor, the higher the expenses are to the government and the taxpayer.
A different reason is that people do not like being called “poor” or being considered poor; in our culture, it is still a pejorative word implying a whole panoply of failings. This can be seen in Webster’s definition of poverty: “Lacking a socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.” If you are poor, you are beyond the social pale.
As a result, there’s little pressure to expand the Federal definition of poverty to include more people.
Let’s look at actual dollar figures. The 2026 Federal poverty threshold for a family of four is $33,000. If the sole support for a family earned what many Democrats most recently argue should be the minimum wage—$25 an hour—that would amount to a gross of $50,000 a year or an approximate net take home of $41,700. Somewhat above the poverty threshold.
But according to MIT’s Living Wage Calculator, a living wage for a family of four would be around $86,000—about $40 an hour—more than twice the Federal poverty threshold. So if you are supporting a small family, the minimum wage in most states —even if $15 ($30,000/year)—is a poverty wage even if 2 adults are working.
Now that we've defined what "poor" means, how many people make up the working poor, unable to make ends meet on a consistent basis? In 2022, using a guideline of 200% of the poverty threshold, which would be somewhat less than but closer to the living wage as explained above, 8% of all workers (13% of Black, 15% of Latino) earned less than 200% of the poverty threshold. That would mean that around 12 million workers were working poor. Which in turn means that the number of Americans who are in families of the working poor is—using the living wage threshold—roughly 20-30 million men, women, and children.
Thus, roughly 7 – 10% of Americans with at least one worker in the household were either living in poverty as defined by the government or were in families whose incomes were below the living wage threshold. NOTE: This does not include the families of adults—roughly 7 million people—who did not have jobs and were living below the official poverty level.
That is a terrible statistic for a country as prosperous as the United States. Being poor not only has a terrible impact on those who are poor but is also a major drag on the health and well-being of our economy and democracy. It's also a disgrace and a failure of our system. A country should be judged not by how its wealthiest citizens fare, but by how its poorest do.
The term “working poor” should become an anachronism. And those who cannot work should receive government support sufficient to keep them out of poverty. Both our economy and democracy would be on a firmer footing.
The question is, how to end the status of working poor without causing significant inflation, which would be counter-productive? That will require a significant change in the mindset of both corporations and government. Corporations will need to forego some of the huge profits they have made in order to pay their workers a living wage without raising prices (see my article, "Towards a Reformed Capitalism"). Government will need to divert some of its corporate welfare to people's welfare. And taxes will need to be raised on the very wealthy, who have so much excess wealth that they will not be impacted in any practical way.
No one in the U.S. should live in conditions without enough food to eat, a secure roof over their heads, and proper health care. One can’t pursue one’s right “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” without those basics. If business and government working together aren’t providing that foundation, then we are not living up to the aspirations of the Declaration of Independence.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
