Someone working over full time (50 hours per week) under the minimum wage would earn only $10,300 per year, which is below the national poverty threshold of $10,407 for a family of two. This translates in the fact that a single mother working overtime could not support herself and her child (Pollin 2).
As if this was not bad enough, we must dig deeper and ask ourselves how poverty is defined. It was calucluated by Mollie Orshanky in the 1960s. Quite simply, she used an "economy food budget caluculation, multiplied it by 3, on the assumption that food expenditures represented about a third of the family budget" (Quigley 37). This low threshold was purposely kept low so that President Johnson could show good numbers in his War on Poverty.
For a family of four, the povery line is set at $18,100 per year. The Economic Policy Institute calculated that it was cost $34,732.28 to live in Balitmore for one year. The Economic Development Council conlcluded that under a basic budget, not couting child care, a single parent working full time with one or two children needs $20,700 to stay out of poverty. Compare that number to the federal $15,020 poverty line for a family of three (Quigley 39).
Three main problem exist in the federal definition of poverty. First, income is counted BEFORE taxes are taken OUT. Second, experts agree that food is only one fifth of the family budget. Therefore, the food budget should be multiplied by 5 instead of 3. Third, when the line was set, it was about half the median income for a family of four (like it is defined in Europe). This has drifted down to 40 percent of the median, meaning we are not defining the poor, we are defining the VERY poor (Quigley 40).
This is to point out the enormity of the problems with minimum wage. Minimum wage is failing to pull people even over the federal poverty line, which is undermeasured in and of itself. If minimum can not even pull people out of federal poverty, it can not pull people out of real poverty.