Today's Labor Force

In 2003 approximately 9.9 million people (6.4% of the total labor force population) lived below the official poverty level, according to data presented by the BLS in A Profile of the Working Poor, 2003 (March 2005). About 7.4 million people in the labor force were classified as "working poor," that is, individuals who spent at least twenty-seven weeks in the labor force but whose income still fell below the official poverty threshold ($18,400 for a family of four living in the contiguous United States, slightly higher in Alaska and Hawaii). The poverty rate TABLE 1.5 Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over, by demographic characteristics, 2004–05among those working or looking for work for at least twenty-seven weeks during 2003 was 5.3%, and among those who were in the labor force fifty to fifty-two weeks it was 4.8%. Three-and-a-half percent of people who worked full-time, year-round were living in poverty in 2003; 10.6% of part-time workers who were in the labor force all year did not earn enough to meet the poverty threshold. (See Table 1.12.)

Gender, Race, and Age

Of the 140 million people aged sixteen and over who were in the labor force at least twenty-seven weeks during 2003, more women (3.9 million) than men (3.5 million) were poor. Because fewer women than men participated in the labor force in 2003 (64.7 million women as compared with 75.3 million men), there was an even greater discrepancy between the percentage of TABLE 1.5 Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over, by demographic characteristics, 2004–05 (CONTINUED) "7. Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population 25 Years and Over by Educational Attainment, Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity," in Employment and Earnings, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2006, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat7.pdf (accessed January 9, 2006)working women living in poverty (6%) and the percentage of working men whose earnings fell below the poverty threshold (4.7%). (See Table 1.13.)

Nearly three-fourths (71.7%) of the 7.4 million working poor in 2003 were white workers, yet African-American and Hispanic workers continued to experience poverty rates that were more than twice the rates of whites. The percentage of white working women (4.9%) in the labor force for more than half of the year and living in poverty was slightly higher than that of white men (4.4%) in the same category. By contrast, 12.5% of black working women earned less than the poverty threshold, a rate significantly higher than the rate for black working men (7.2%). Asian women, as well, experienced a poverty rate higher than that of Asian men (5.1% compared with 4.5%); the rate for Hispanic and Latino working men and women, at 10.9%, was the same during 2003. (See Table 1.13.)

Education and Poverty Rate

Among all the people in the labor force at least twenty-seven weeks during 2003, those with less than a high school diploma had a higher poverty rate (14.1%) than high school graduates (6.2%), according to the BLS in A Profile of the Working Poor, 2003. Workers who had attained at least an associate degree (3.2%) or had graduated from college (1.7%) reported the lowest poverty rates. Poverty rates for black and Hispanic workers were 1.5 to two times higher than for white workers at many corresponding education levels. Poverty rates for Asian workers were also greater than for white workers, although the differences were less than for black or Hispanic workers. (See Table 1.14.)

The poverty rate for black women workers with less than a high school diploma who were in the labor force at least twenty-seven weeks during 2003 was 28%, compared with 16.9% for black men with the same education. Among high school graduates, the poverty rate for black women (15.6%) was more than twice that of black men (7.4%). Among black college graduates, poverty rates decreased and equalized somewhat; black women graduates had a poverty rate of 2.1% in 2003 compared with 1.4% for black male graduates. Poverty rates of white men and women and Hispanic men and women were more similar than those noted among African-Americans, but women in these groups still experienced higher poverty than men did at most education levels. For Asian workers, women fared better than men at the lower education levels, but experienced higher rates of poverty than men as education increased. (See Table 1.14.)

Occupations

During 2003, according to A Profile of the Working Poor, 2003, the lowest probability of being poor was experienced by people working in managerial and professional specialty occupations (average poverty rate for men and women: 2%). In contrast, the average poverty rates for workers in service occupations and farming/fishing/forestry sectors were 10.6% and 14.6%, respectively. In all occupational groups except office and administrative support, women were more likely than men were to be poor. In general, African-Americans and those of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity were more likely to be below the poverty level than whites. Of the 5.8 million Asian-Americans in TABLE 1.6 Employment and unemployment in families by race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, 2003–04the labor force at least twenty-seven weeks during 2003, 2.5 million (43.8%) were employed in management, professional, and related occupations; the poverty rate for these people averaged 1.5% in 2003. Other occupations also had low poverty rates, although the numbers of Asian-Americans employed in these categories was markedly less than the other groups. (See Table 1.15.)

TABLE 1.6 Employment and unemployment in families by race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, 2003–04 (CONTINUED) "Table 1. Employment and Unemployment in Families by Race and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, 2003–04 Annual Averages," in Employment Characteristics of Families in 2004, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 9, 2005, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf (accessed January 9, 2006)

In 2003 men experienced a higher poverty rate in only one occupational group, office and administrative support, with a rate of 4.3% compared with 3.1% for women. In all other occupations, men fared better than women did. The poverty rate for women employed in sales and related occupations (8.4%) was more than two times that of their male counterparts (3.9%). (See Table 1.15.)

Poverty Trends by Family Structure

In 2003, of the 4.2 million families who lived below the poverty level, 3.5 million families had at least one member in the labor market for twenty-seven weeks or more. Of these, 1.9 million families were headed by women. The poverty rate for families (the ratio of poor families with workers to all families with workers) was 6.6%. The poverty rate for families with just one member in the labor force (13.1%) was over seven times more than that of families with two or more members in the workforce (1.8%). Families maintained by women with only one member in the labor force (with a poverty rate of 22.5%) were significantly more likely to be poor than similar families maintained by men (13.5%). Married-couple families with two or more members in the labor force had the lowest poverty rate (1.5%). (See Table 1.16.)

TABLE 1.7 Families by presence and relationship of employed members and family type, 2003–04 "Table 2. Families by Presence and Relationship of Employed Members and Family Type, 2003–04 Annual Averages," in Employment Characteristics of Families in 2004, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 9, 2005, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf (accessed January 9, 2006)