DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Wage Hikes Minimum Impact

Wage hike's minimum impact
Some are saying planned U.S. boost offers little help
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Ellen Simon
Associated Press

Two months into her minimum wage job at Target Corp., Tara Dennis realized she and her three children would be better off if she was unemployed and on food stamps. So she quit.

"As a single mom, minimum wage isn't going to get me ahead. It's not even going to get me caught up," said Dennis, who lives in Missoula, Mont.

A proposed hike that would bring the federal minimum wage to $7.25 would give workers like Dennis their first raise since the federal minimum increased to $5.15 in 1997.

But some low-income workers and their advocates say the wage increase won't affect many people. Since the last hike, wages for most of the lowest-paid workers have risen above the federal minimum.

"We should be aware that this is an extremely moderate proposal," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist of the Economic Policy Institute.

The minimum wage hike, which Democrats have put at the top of their agenda when the next Congress convenes in January, would affect 1.9 million workers who make minimum wage, and workers who get tips.

It would raise wages for 6.5 million workers or 4 percent of the work force -- janitors, waitstaff, security guards, cashiers and store clerks -- according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage of $5.15 is at its lowest level since 1955. By 2009, a $7.25 minimum wage would have the spending power of $6.75 today, Bernstein calculated using Congressional Budget Office projections.

A wage increase to $7.25 would help, but "it wouldn't put anybody in the clear," said Cara Prince, 41, of Louisville, Ky., who has been working for a temporary agency for two years, doing factory, warehouse and restaurant work at $6 an hour.

The proposed increase "is not a solution to poverty," said Matt Fellowes, a scholar at the Brookings Institute. "This is, for the most part, a symbolic effort," he said.

wenty-eight states and the District of Columbia will have 2007 minimum wages above the federal level. The highest minimum wage in the nation is Washington state's $7.63 an hour, which is set to increase to $7.94 on Jan. 1.

A minimum wage worker in that state working full time would make $16,515 a year before taxes. The federal poverty threshold for a family of three is $16,600.

The real-life math of the minimum wage is even more complex.

Dennis, who is 23 and has three children, said she lost her food stamps when she went to work. Her family lives in subsidized housing, and when her income increased, her rent did too. Also, she got a bill for previous months at the higher rate. Then there were the day-care costs.

"It got to the point where if I wasn't working there, I could be with my kids and pay my bills," said Dennis.

Montana was among states that passed minimum wage increases in the November election, along with Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Nevada.

Herman "Mack" McCowan, 61, of Cleveland, was active in the Ohio office of Let Justice Roll, an organization that advocated a higher minimum wage. In Ohio, the minimum wage will increase from $5.15 to $6.85 on Jan. 1 and will be indexed to inflation. "At $5.15 an hour, you can't really extend yourself, you only exist," he said. McCowan worked for four years as a day laborer, making $5.15 an hour, before landing a $6 an-hour job at a community center.

With the roughly $80 a week from the proposed federal wage hike, "You're able to afford a telephone, able to pay your light bill on time, able to pay your rent," he said.

Stagnating wages for unskilled workers coupled with increased housing costs have put more working people at risk of being homeless. About 28 percent of homeless adults in Louisville, Ky., homeless shelters are working, according to the Louisville Coalition for the Homeless.

One-quarter of hourly workers who make minimum wage are teenagers, but about half are older than 25, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

At the current minimum wage, households need more than three full-time workers to rent a two-bedroom apartment in New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, Colorado and Nevada, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

A jump to $7.25 would make a two-bedroom apartment affordable to families with two minimum-wage earners in all but 19 states, said Danilo Pelletiere, research director at the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

web page

She's 23, works for minimum wage, and has 3 kids. Something tells me she was probably strapped for cash after her first kid. What does she do? Goes out and has 2 more kids without the means to support them. Brilliant. But it's the governments job to fix this? Granted, there are people legitmately struggling on their own that can use a wage increase. But in a situation like this, it is all about personal accountability. Don't have 3 kids if you can't support them.



Again, personal accountability. If you have a family where the mom and dad are both working minimum wage jobs, they probably shouldn't of had kids in the first place. Instead of expecting the government to fix everything for us, people need to get off the butt and work on fixing it themselves.

Do you have any idea how many divorces and dead beat dads there wre in this country? But heck,we can't make them pony up the bucks because the government would have to get involved to do that,right?

I guess it's always the mom who's at fault? You have no idea of this situation one way or the other,but seem quick to judge huh?
<img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif" alt="" />

Quit griping and work. Two months, - maybe if you had an education and a little drive you'd make more than 5:15 an hour. Min wage jobs are for high school and college kids - leave min wage alone. Go into the MANAGEMENT training program at McDonalds - then you are at least trying to do something, instead she just wants a free ride. Raising minimum wage just means that stores will raise their prices to offset their profit loss due to the rise in cost for the company. I hate people like this.

If women wouldn't marry deadbeats and have kids with them, this wouldn't happen. Why is the blame always on the dad? It's on BOTH. BOTH are equally STUPID

You'll still be okay at Wal-Mart Soup.

All their stuff is made in China. I think their minimum wage is fairly stable there.

<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

or go into the trades.... free training, learn as you earn and you make BIG money as a journeyman.

He has perfect idea of the situation. Don't have 3 kids by the time your 23. The government should NOT be a crutch for the ignorant. That's what she is - ignorant and unwilling to be responsable - those kids and her are NOT my responsability. What are the odds she has a TV, DVD player cable, internet acces and smokes? I'd be willing to bet all of the above are correct - all EASY ways to save money - get rid of all of them.

Oh yeah,no college grads are deadbeat dads.

<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

You may be fooling yourself because that's what you "want to believe",well have at it Bud. Thankfully the vast majority of people understand that bad things can happen to good people and actually have some compassion for someone other than themselves.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

And no American should work for $5.15 an hour. Thank God the majority of Ohioans recognised that during our last election.

It's an arguement you've already lost here in Ohio. cooler heads prevailed.

<img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

If he was a dead beat dad, I doubt he was making much either. Which goes back to my orginal point, she/they were probably strapped for cash after the first kid. There were probably signs that he was deadbeat before having 3 kids.

Where did I say anything about college grads? Going to college does NOT make you automatticly smart. I have no compassion for an absolute moron who had 3 kids when she couldn't afford herself - she's stupid and lazy. Why should I pay for her? If th story was that she was raped 3 times and that's how all the kids happened and it was 3 different random people - than by all means help her with everything - but she made the choice, why should I pay the responsability? That's why this country is going the wrong way. Too much compassion for idiots and zero compassion for hard workers.

Ohio is tied for 8th HIGHEST unemployment rate in the US. What did Ohioans exactly win?

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/index.html

Well,at least you are thinking in terms of probability and doubt instead of stating it as fact. There may be hope for you yet.

<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

How about adding to the discussion at hand instead of resulting to personal attacks?

So because unemployment is high,you freeze wages? Thank you president Nixon.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Try reading the article. It affects what 4% of workers? Yeah,like that's goiung to be a huge impact.
<img src="/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif" alt="" />

Personal attacks?

What is the issue? That everyone who has hard times is a deadbeat? That everyone who has a rough spot in their life should make $5.15 an hour?

That's the major issue in this entire debate! Everyone jumps to conclusion and points the finger at everyone who is less successfull than themselves. They're more worried that a Quareter Pounder may go up by twenty cents than people living below the poverty level.

They feel every woman who has been abandoned by her husband is somehow undeserving of being able to pay her rent to house her children. That's the entire debate. If you don't grasp that by reading these posts,you obviously don't see the problem. There's nothing personal about that,just the facts.

2 things, pit.

1. The gov't. IS involved in child support.

2. See how effective the gov't. is?

And yet you want the gov't. to get MORE involved in things?

The only fact is that you believe we should be responsable to pay for other people who have no sense of responsability. People like you are why welfare still exists - welfare was only supposed to be temporary. People like you are also the reason people in this country think everyone owes them and why they have respect for no one. People like you need a class on tough love.

Whenever you're ready to begin classes,let me know.
I'd be glad to take one.

<img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

Or give one.whichever the case may be.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

You are going to the other extreme pitt. You assume that every person in such a position is because there was deadbeat dad that packed up and left. Thats not always the case either. If a girl has 3 kids with a guy before having a slightest clue he is a deadbeat, thats her own fault. Personal accountability. Make sure the guys not a debate before sleeping with him.

There are jobs out there that pay more than minimum wage. People should go out and get those jobs instead of expecting the government to fix their problems.

Yes, everyones situation is different. There are people who are in need of help. Those are the people that should get such assistance. Not everyone who is simply too lazy to work.

This debate is just a part of the bigger picture. People expect the government to take care of all their problems. They want wages increases, they want free health care, they want to fill up their gas guzzling SUV's for free, they want this, they want that. They want the government to take control of their lives so they can't be held responsible for their own mistakes. As for me, I'm against giving the government more power than it already has.

I can't wait until we're just like France so that even the homeless get 7 weeks of paid vacation.

I'm not saying you're wrong that "some people" have not tried or have made foolish decisions that have lead to their own problems. I understand your position and fully understand where you're coming from.

But take me for an example. I will never be forced to work for minimum wage. But I've had a career for over twenty years that after my surgery,I'll never be able to do gain. Whatever I do get into,I won't be making near the money that I was for quite some time in all likelihood.

Fortunately,my job involved many skills that will serve to get me into another profession such as sales,management or at least a liveable wage in another field. And I'm single,so it won't be hard for me to make ends meet. But I fully understand through my experiences that people do have rough spots. That sometimes,people who may not have my skill set need the chance to at least make enough to pay their rent untill they can find something better.

And I don't wish to be at the other end of the spectrum that advocates a system that refuses to make it possible for people in a similar circumstances to drown and not even be able to put a roof over their head.

The basic fact is that nobody is asking for a hand out here. All they're asking for is that a livable wage be available to all Americans who WILL WORK. As the article states,this wage is right at the poverty level for a family of three if passed. I don't see where someone living on the brink of the poverty level as being a "hand out".

I just get confused how people think I suppose. If someone won't work,they believe welfare is wrong,and I agree. But those same people,wish to make it possible for businesses to get rich off the backs of workers while those workers live below the poverty level.

I'm sure I'll be okay and this does not pertain to me personaly. But I've seen enough to know that many in our country do deserve to make a livable wage untill they can get back on their feet.

All this amounts to is people who have hard times but are still willing to work,instead of walfare stay AT the poverty level.

Do you think Americans who work 40 hours a week hould be expected to support this countries work force and live below the poverty level?

Seriously now,not get rich,get a hand out or anything else. Just the poverty level. That's really the issue here. You do know that the more someone makes,the less government asistance they get,correct? If someone makes $5.15 an hour,they just get more food stamps and benifits by other government programs.Why should our tax dollars go to support people who are making their companys money,instead of expecting those companys to pay a liveable wage so our tax dollars aren't supporting them?

So it boils down to two choices,you pick................

1. Keep minimum wage lower and have them recieve more government hand outs?

2. Raise the minimum wage and lower their government hand outs that they recieve?

I promote them making more and getting less handouts. So I vote for #2. Those are the two choices that exist. Which do you support?

I'll just be happy if people who work 40 hours a week can reach the poverty level. Big difference the PPE.
<img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

You want to see personal responsibility---this summer go down to the Cleveland metropark zoo on "free monday," the one day a week that Cuyahoga county residents get in free--you will see the scourge of the earth.

Here you will find mothers who have 6-7 kids just so they get a bigger welfare check, you'll see the kids all dressed in rags, some without shoes--but thre's mom, done up in gucci, coach, high heels, and all her designer wardrobe. You will see an ugly display of a total lack of responsibility. Parents that don't give two cents about what their kids look like or act like. Its ridiculous. As a veteran of working gift shops there, I will tell you, it is by far the most hellish job you can have.

I've caught kids stealing stuff, mothers using there kids to steal stuff, its utterly ridiculous.

Again Cleveland Zoo, free mondays. Check out how well handouts work.

j/c

One other thing caught my eye from the article: The first lady mentioned decided after 2 months that she was better off not working. 2 MONTHS!!!! So, apparently she put in the effort needed for her job for ALL OF 2 MONTHS, then decided that "it just wasn't worth it....' Did she expect to start off at the top? Or get a raise after 2 weeks?

What she doesn't see/didn't see, was the future. Stay and work, do a good job, and in a few more months get a raise. Continue on, and get another raise, and so forth. What she chose was guaranteed poverty for as long as she thinks like she is.

After all of 2 months, she decided it was easier to be unemployed and let others take care of her and her kids. Had she looked into the crystal ball of the future, she would've seen 2 things. Make the choice she did, and be broke and dependent her whole life, or suck it up, continue to work and do a good job, and watch the raises and responsibilities come her way. She could've watched her pay increase, and her self esteem sky rocket.

Trust me, I don't think there are ANY adults that are making min. if they have worked at a job for 6 months, and have done a good job. Plus, most people that start at min. are doing jobs that don't require much more than showing up and doing as they are told. And if they can do that, the pay increases with time.

Raise the min. wage, watch the next tier - they people making $7 or $8 an hour, demand raises. Watch the number of min. wage jobs decrease - thereby eliminating many from the workforce. Watch prices increase. Raise min. and watch the "poverty level" go up - the level at which one is considered "impoverished". See where we are in 5 years. Nothing will have changed. The poor will still be poor.

Now, on the other hand, make so that those that CAN work MUST work. Take away the incentive to not work. Those that can work, should. Start off at a min. wage job? Continue to do it until you get a raise, or something better comes along.

Damn, in high school I had a minumum wage job. By the end of the first summer, I had a raise. By the end of the next summer (same job) I had another raise. After I graduated, I had a job offer at from the same company for $4 an hour more than when I started. I went to college.

In college, I worked. Started off back at min. 4 months later got a raise. (oh, by the way, I showed up and worked - If I was in the middle of something when the break buzzer went off, I finished what I was doing - you know, little things like that - taking responsibility)

Within 1 yr, the standards for what I was doing much of the time increased 50% - the standards for the other workers, that is. I did twice what the "full time" employees did, in the same amount of time. Another raise. The company flat out told the others "look, we know you can do more per hour than you are, cause this guy IS, and his quality is just as good as nyones."

Next thing you know, as a college student, I was one of the 3 people in the business (roughly 30 employees) that was trusted to run a $500,000 machine - you know, set it up, run it, clean it. One of the three was the owner. (oh, that machine brought in roughly 15% of the income for the business).

It was a woodworking shop. 6 guys were "custom furniture builders" - I couldn't do that for my life. However, the rest of us were production people. Making wooden arms for theatre seating, ever sit in a conversion van, or a motorhome? We made the wooden arm rests that were covered with upholstery. Ever see the wood trim in conversion van or r.v. (dash trim that is). We supplied that for many companies. ( I went to college in Goshen Indiana - Goshen, Elkhart, Middlebury - the world leader in the r.v. industry, conversion vans, etc.)

What's my point? How does 2 months on the job translate into "I can't make it - I quit?"

Here I was, a college student, getting raises, being offered full time jobs. Get up, go to work, do a good job. The rest will take care of itself if you're smart about it.

As long as you can feed your kids and pay the rent in the mean time,that's fine. But if you can't pay your bills and may end up homeless in the mean time?

Back to my one of two choices again aren't we? You have to be able to eat and have a roof over your head and especially for your children. Had a livable wage been in place to pay those bills,she might have had the luxury of sticking it out. From what I read,she didn't have the option of "waiting untill she moved up the food chain".

So pay her more or "give her more"?

That's precisely why I'm all for completely getting rid of welfare. If you can't afford a kid and you have one, he/she goes into a foster home. To start somewhere, if you are on welfare and you have cable TV, you get pulled from welfare - if you are on it and smoke - you get pulled from it. If you are on welfare all you should be allowed to own is food, clothes a bed, and be able to pay rent - anything above and beyond and you should be pulled from it.

What would you say if I applied those rules elsewhere...like, if someone has an outstanding loan, should they be restricted from luxury items, such as cigarettes, cable, football tickets, etc.?

Pit, I see what you are saying, I just disagree.

"pay her more, or give her more".......Either way, it's giving.

What happened to personal responsibility? Why is she, at 23 and having 3 kids, working a min. wage job?

I promise it's true - get a job - a min. wage job - show up and do as you are told, and you will get raises. Now, maybe not in 2 months, but they will come. I don't know her situation, and you probably don't, either.

But it saddens and scares me that we make it, as a country, more enticing to NOT work than we do TO work. And I'm not talking about paying a minimum wage. I'm talking it's sad that people make decisions based on "what's easier", and we, as a country, support that. Sure, it's a lot easier to be unemployed, to have others paying your way - albeit a paltry "way" (very poor). Sure that's easy.

What happened to "what's best for me"? I'll tell you: what's best for me became "what's easiest for me". She couldn't see 6 months from now, or 6 years. She saw "today". By choosing to take "today" over the future, she has guaranteed herself a "poor" future.

Had she looked ahead, she would've seen this: poor today. Poor next week. Poor next month. Next year? She's moving up, although she's still poor. The year after? She's on her feet, the bills are being paid. She's still poor. (working at target, by 2 years into the job, assuming she is doing a good job, bam, she's up to $9 to $12 an hour. She's on her way.

That's what I'm getting at. We make it too easy for people to say "I can't do it", and then they get taken care of, on us. Not taken care of in the sense of "I'm on easy street", taken care of in the sense "well, I don't HAVE to work".

Why do people look to the gov't. to take care of them today, and why do they expect to be taken care of for so long?

Why can't people see that, if they don't have the skills or ability to move up the "food chain" so to speak, then they shouldn't move up? Why do we need to raise minimum wage? Why can't people see that a minimum wage job is, honestly, for those with limited skills or abilities, and it is a starting point that can lead to a liveable wage, provideded they do the work, are responsible, etc?

Seriously, there is not a company around that does not value their employees. However, when the employees demand more for doing the same thing, that's when things get shaken up. When employees demand/want more cause they just can't make it, that's when problems arise.

What happened to the "this is where I am, that is where I want to be, this is what I need to do to get there" spirit? I know what happened to it.......the "it's easier this way" mentality happened. It's easier, alright. But you're still poor, and forever will be, yet you keep hanging on because you think some day, somehow, you will be allowed to "make it".

That's the problem. Too many think "I can't do it", instead of "I can, and it will take time, but sooner than you know, I'll be there".

Not rich, mind you. Doesn't matter how much you make, you always want more. By enabling people to free load, we have created an "entitlement" country. And that's a bad thing.

an outstanding loan is on the company that gave them the loan. Welfare is paid for by the CITIZENS people like me. Last month, my paycheck had $4,000 in taxes taken out of it. That's disgusting and part of it's due to lazy people on welfare - not due to people who get a loan from a bank. The government has every right to dictate where money they steal from me to give to lazy people goes. I should get paid to handle their money, I'd whip them clean into shape. People on welfare are there because they don't make enough to live (eat, clothed roof over the head) why in the world should they be allowed to have any luxury when it comes out of my pocket???? That's disgusting, me paying for someone elses cable and cigarettes - it's a sick joke.

AMEN!!!!!

So you're for smaller government but want to hire people to "inspect and interrogate" welfare recipiants? And how much will it cost and how much newer,bigger government will it take to implement this? So bigger,more intrusive government is fine to spend money on? You'll spend more enforcing your ideas than you'll save on welfare. That's a great idea!
<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

It would be far cheaper to just raise the minimum wage. Are they allowed more than one pair of shoes a year? How about hamburger? If they can afford meat,take their welfare away? And God forbid they have a TV.

You just keep making that gap wider between the haves and have nots. You think it will be better? It will be chaos.

Don't waste your breath, Pit. Arguing with soup is like banging your head against the wall....It only feels good when you stop. Unless it's soup's head that you're banging against that wall. <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

No arch,making sure that Americans make a livable wage isn't "giving" them anything. What it does,is insure that big business and corperate America doesn't infringe on the common man.For a few to lace their pockets by depriving others of a living. We don't need a class of "sub-humans" which is what seems to be promoted here.

Do you know why unions and civil unrest over working conditions started in the first place? That's really what you are promoting here. You're promoting keeping working Americans below the poverty level

You can slice it any way you want to. But people aren't going to work 40 hours a week if they can't put a roof over their heads for their efforts. I wouldn't,would you?

So you feel working 40 hours a week,anywhere,as an adult,you shouldn't be able to provide yourself with rent and food? How about getting to work?

If I can't live if I do work,why work? You can use any excuse to keep people who work for a living to live below the poverty level if you like. But permitting business to work your citizens without paying them enough to live will cause social and labor unrest. It will cause unions to once again rule the day.

That's the entire problem. We need a happy medium. And keeping people who work for a living below the poverty level,will cause this nation far more grief than it will to benifit it. Ytou need only look at history and the labor movement to figure that out.

If you think promoting riots,civil disobediance and national workers strikes is productive,have at it. Because that's what it will boil down to if a working person can't get a livable wage. And it wouldn't be the first time.

And you are obviously a communist. There's this neat thing called a phone - use it to call and crossreference those with cable to those on welfare. Obvioulsy you are a communist as you believe the money I make should go to pay for other people luxuries so they can live like I do. Let me tell you something:

I got laid off last year. Soon as I did I cut cable (I get ZERO reception without it), cut all luxuries and only purchased necessities - I rarely drank pop, but I completely stopped buying it - I drank only tap water. The only "luxury" I kept was internet so I could get resumes out there. Two weeks after layoff I had 4 job offers because I work. Took one and have been there for 2 years now. There are many things you can do to save money. Yes, they should sell their TV if they are that hard up for cash. TV is not a right, cable is not a right, cigarettes are not a right a car is not a right. Public bussing is a right, food is a right, shelter is a right. By the way, I did NOT file for unemployment when I got laid off, I would have rather shot myself than to not feel like a man - instead my energy went into gettin a job. People like you amaze me, you love being a crutch - more power to you. I don't. The government should make welfare tax optional. Those who want to help can those who don't - don't.

The latter feels better when you stop. <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

He's lost without the posts.
Our government realises you can only hold people down so far before civil unrest happens. They realise that the party is pretty much over.Most people understand that people who work every day should be able to provide at least a halfway decent life for their family.

Not that some sub-culture of impovrished worker should exist.

It's common decency to your fellow man. We aren't talking about welfare. We're talking about people working. See,some feel if you're on welfare,you're scum. But then people like soup feel even if you work for a living,if you don't have a great skills or schooling,you should be treated like scum too.

That unless you live up to "his standards and his values" you don't deserve to have anything. Thank God most people in our country have just a tad more heart and compassion. But then,the voters of Ohio beat down his thought process in the last election by raising the minimum wage here in Ohio WITH a built in raise to allow for inflation.

Like I said,he already lost. So now it's just venom,hatred and disdain for his fellow man rearing its ugly head. You'll have that from time to time in the Bible Belt. Some preach it...........and some read it.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If permiting people who work 40 hours a week to make a decent living makes me a "socialist" so be it.

I keep forgetting you are the facist that wants big brother to investigate us and keep data bases on us. To intrude in our lives and take away our freedoms. And I'm the communist?

LMFAO

<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Maybe you need to look up the difference in socialism and communism. You might be surprised. Oh,and look up facist while you're at it.

<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Poverty level:

The first number is people in household - first salary is 48 states, second and third are Alaska and Hawaii.

Minimum wage jobs are meant to support 1 person. $5.15 an hour = $10,712 per year full time - that's above poverty level. We can't be discriminatory though - minimum wage should be $15.60 an hour - this way a family of 8 can be supported by it.


2005 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons in
Family Unit 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $ 9,570 $11,950 $11,010
2 12,830 16,030 14,760
3 16,090 20,110 18,510
4 19,350 24,190 22,260
5 22,610 28,270 26,010
6 25,870 32,350 29,760
7 29,130 36,430 33,510
8 32,390 40,510 37,260
For each additional
person, add 3,260 4,080 3,750

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml

If you are going to speak about poverty level, than learn something about it first.